On the Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition, Let’s Not Repeat History
by Rich MunyProhibition, touted as “The Noble Experiment” in its time, criminalized the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of alcohol. While the law did many things, there was one thing it could not accomplish. It could not stop Americans from drinking. As our country approaches the 76th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, it’s time to look back and see how it impacts policymaking today.
Some wish for America to try a new prohibition – with Internet poker the target of misguided efforts. Laws like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) have made Americans less free in their own homes, but have not stopped Americans from playing poker. Like Prohibition, however, the policies of this prohibition are fundamentally flawed and pose a threat to safety.
Prohibition advocates of the early twentieth century sought to eliminate what they believed to be a negative attribute of society. However, regardless of one’s view on alcohol consumption or Internet poker, it is undeniable that Americans will seek out ways to continue proscribed activities. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. As a nation founded on liberty, it’s in our DNA.
Prohibition demonstrated the detrimental effects bans can have. Hazardous forms of alcohol were ingested, jails became overrun, and dangerous entities like organized crime became involved in transactions. The rigid UIGEA requirements could foster a similar environment in the realm of gaming. In addition, this prohibition would do nothing to protect those who are most vulnerable – underage participants and those with excessive gaming habits. Today’s Internet poker players are a diverse, ever-expanding body from all walks of life. Overindulgence is an unfortunate reality for a small subset of the gaming world, yet this tendency can be seen in areas all across society. To single out Internet poker is an affront to consumer interest and ignores sensible solutions that can be met through technology and oversight.
Earlier this week, Wired Safety, a leading non-profit organization dedicated to Internet safety, released a study by Professor Malcolm K. Sparrow of Harvard University showing that licensing and regulating online poker is the most effective way to protect underage participants and those with excessive gaming habits. Without the ability to license and regulate, there is simply no way for government to enforce laws and provide active oversight over an industry that will exist, with or without their approval.
If a lesson can be learned from the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 and the subsequent years of effective regulation, it is that there is ample room for compromise. The United States owes it to its citizens not to provide a system that does more harm than good by forcing industries underground. The country also owes it to itself to capitalize on this opportunity for billions of dollars in revenue, especially in the current economic climate.
Bills recently introduced into both the House (H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act) and the Senate (S. 1597, the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act) echo the public voice in enacting responsible licensing of Internet poker that promotes transparency, accountability and protection above all else. History must not repeat itself, and there is no time more advantageous for new precedents to be set than the present.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
100 Comments
In other news, the prohibition of Marijuana, a drug which is safer and less addictive than either alcohol or tobacco, continues apace.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DRIP USA and AZ grassroots, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigGovt: On the Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition, Let’s Not Repeat History: Pro.. http://bit.ly/7iUPHH #BigTweet [...]
Yes. Why so many conservatives can't see that the War on Drugs has been just bad as Prohibition is just mind-boggling.
Don't liberals control congress and the WH now? What are they waiting on?
I wonder how much influence the Lobbyist had in passing this law?
You can't say "C@sino" without going into moderation?
Congress obviously has better things to do with its time than to attempt to ban Internet gambling. If they really want to do it they should be forced to deal with all of the important issues first and then circle back to this.
Franky, I'm tired of the government telling us what we can and can't do. To make matters worse, they exempt themselves from many of the rules they place on the peasants.
test
poker
[...] So, smoke ‘em if you’ve got them, order it while you can. As states move inexorably toward legalization of “medicinal marijuana” (you can even get a degree in pot cultivation), Congress and the cigarette smoking President shut down tobacco. [...]
Or burn crops or let orange groves rot rather than give charitably feed the needy. And by "needy," I don't mean people who are professionally on the dole.
“The object of the 18th Amendment is to protect society from selfish individualism.”
– Bishop James Cannon, Jr., World League Against Alcoholism, 1930
Yes, "selfish individualism," the concept that freedom for the individual, even from a "Christian" Bishop, was just plain wrong. So, we take a product that is abused only by the minority and enjoyed by the majority without abuse, and create laws to punish all.
"I'm sure glad we don't do that sort of thing anymore," he said, forced to type by the light of a CFL.
Not without, say, putting the "a" in italics (casino). Guess that is an Intense Debate anti-spam measure. Likewise you can't use "Cialis," although that keeps us from using "socialist" as well.
Similarly you cannot use "poker" at Big Hollywood, as they are avoiding spam from fireplace accessory merchants.
A more interesting piece regarding your main project, but, to play the devil's advocate and encourage good logical thinking, have to point out that there is a major difference between restricting a product and restricting an activity.
First off, there's a good case to be made that Constitutionally, the Federal Government should have little to no regulation powers over products (with the explicit exception of Copyright and Patent Laws); however, many of the specific powers granted to the Federal Government concern activities. It is also much more the place for Government to regulate activities, as regulating activities is one of the primary function of government (most Laws govern or regulate activities after all). Because of this distinction between Prohibition, which regulated a product, and the current legislation you're against, which is against an activity, you loose some of the oomph of your argument. That said, many of your points are salient, but I think you made your entire post to specific.
You see, this would have been an excellent opportunity to post a much broader article on the Liberal desire to regulate activities and products, and draw some stark differences between what true Conservatives believe and what leftists want. From tobacco, to fats, to medicines, to forcing people into "charitable" contribution to those less fortunate, they do try to enforce and regulate our daily lives much more than even the most aggressive of Social Conservatives. You could further use this to turn their favorite accusation against Conservatives and Republicans back around on them, that of hypocrisy. After all, in certain areas they rail for the government to not regulate or legislate morality, yet turn around and enforce their morality on others.
Well, when it costs more to harvest than the crop is worth and there will be a loss no matter what…
Of course they could open the fields and let people "pick their own," help the poor that way. Which would be good until the first one trips on some uneven ground and decides to sue for "unsafe conditions," or some such.
Liberals can do anything they want now with control of WH and congress. Get on with it!
War on Drugs = Prohibition ( Those that can't recall history are doomed to repeat it)
Hell, you liberals won't let me smoke a tobacco cigarette…why should I let you smoke your weed! Or, better yet…why don't we both agree to smoke whatever the hell we want?
Continued – Prohibition has many forms these days. Zero-tolerance policies in schools comes to mind. Political Correctness is another form. Religious intolerance and capitulation to remove the intolerance is another (PS -I am not in favor of one religion dominating over another – I do beleive we should be respectful without caving in to someone being offended by the act practicing and celebrating a religion). Its time for our government to get a grip and realize our country was meant to be one where individual freedoms are sancrosect over and superior to any collective greater good a government might define and enforce.
Amendment 28: Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States….and yet they pay no attention!!!
I'd like to know why the first part of my post was put under review by the second piece was posted immdiately.
Prohibition was a major success. Divorce dropped, domestic abuse dropped, school attendance increased just to name a few. the law needed to be tweaked not ended. In hind site we are glad for all the drunk driving deaths, domestic violence and child abuse associated with boozing.
In the end this article uses global warming hoax like tactics. Claim prohibition failed while relying on feeling, myth and everyone knows. To what end does the author use these transparent tactices. Oh internet gambling and another chance for the supposed right to impress the left by saying that they hate morality just as mush as they do. Good luck the left has made a market out of bashing Christians so the right has alot of catching up to impress the non value voters they seek
No worries Christians got the word that Republicans want us gone. Check voter identification and you will see you won. Value voters are to the Republicans what the Blacks are to the Dems. good luck with your race to the gutter.
We have come to the cross roads where the minority now rules…??!! How and why did that happen??!! I was around in the beginning of the 'hippie' days..a lot (most ) of the anger was due to the war at the time…they, today have some fair ideas about certain freedoms, but insist on taking it over the top, by allowing everyone to 'do what they want'..if THEY agree…there is no way we, as a society, can survive with this mindset…we have to have security at our borders, we cannot allow anyone and everyone to come into our country and try to change things to suit them, we DO NOT have to be tolerant of religious fanaticism from any group, nor do we HAVE to be politically correct all of the time!! I am sick of hearing about one or two people being off 'offended' by something that has been in the culture of the United States since it's inception, and having laws changed because of their whim…
PART 1:
Internet "gaming" (why can't we say "gambling" anymore?) is the least of our problems.
The War on Drugs is an immense problem today. With an annual budget of over a billion dollars to work with the DEA is failing absolutely to eliminate the "drug problem" in America. But just what is the real drug problem anyway?
It is the illegality of drugs and not the drugs themselves that are perpetuating the lion's share of the social blight caused by drugs. Organized criminal groups within America reap stupendous sums for circumventing anti-drug laws to provide a desired product to their customers, and use their wealth to control the nation's urban neighborhoods like personal fiefdoms through a kind of organized terrorism that would have made Al Capone wince. Latin American nations are ravaged economically, socially and politically by drug cartels whose savage methods of protecting and expanding their business leave mountains of corpses in their wake.
PART 2:
International, national, state and local enforcement agencies are corrupted not only by illegal drug money but by the billions of tax dollars per year made available to them for enforcement, making them a taxpayer-funded criminal class and creating a situation in which the effective elimination of the drug trade, even if it were possible (which it obviously is not), would be contrary to their self-interest. The enforcement and confiscation powers given to these agencies are exercised in a corrupt, ruthless and arbitrary way to the damage of citizens' rights, all in the name of cleaning up the drug problem. The drug users themselves are forced to become criminals to obtain their goods; those who can control their recreational usage pose no problem other than supporting criminal gangs with their money, while the addicted who cannot control their usage are driven into violent crime and property crime to pay the costs of supporting their habits, costs which are artificially inflated by illegality.
PART 3:
Lives are ruined and families shattered when otherwise law-abiding and productive people whose only offense against society was the "crime" of using drugs in the privacy of their homes are transformed into felons. A huge market that could be controlled and mitigated through regulation and provide tax revenues to the state remains the exclusive property of dangerous and antisocial predators who, unlike a licensed businessman who would not break the law for fear of losing his license, provide drugs freely and aggressively to our nation's children, the putative reason for "cleaning up the drug problem" in the first place.
Many conservatives, count me in, DO see the War on Drugs as bad, and as useless, as Prohibition was.
Currently I know of just four words on the "blocked word list" that automatically trips "must be approved by site administration," sometimes an auto-delete. Big Hollywood and breitbart.com have longer lists. It's an Intense Debate feature, bypass by putting a single letter in italics, for example. We're adults here, and there are the "Report" buttons anyway, people will let you know if you go to far.
casino
cialis – blocks socialist, specialist
the f-word – triggers "deleted by the administration" message
penis
Been over a month since I test-posted (Submit then Delete) each element of each list, which is a pain.
The first piece should pop up in a bit, sometimes can take a few hours, if there was nothing deliberately offensive in it.
xactlyExactly, keep government defending our liberty and freedoms, not infingement and social engineering!
test
gambling
Thanks for reading my article.
So….really??? You want to ban alcohol? I wish you'd have more faith in your fellow man to properly use his freedom in a responsible manner. In other words, if you wish to reduce alcohol consumption, you have to persuade your fellow man to make that decision for himself. After all, without that, all we have is big government.
I'm not the "supposed" right. I'm a true-blue, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment Goldwater/Reagan conservative. In other words, I'm the REAL right….the people who believe in liberty.
If you believe in big government cures for social problems, how can you disparage those on the left who do the same? It leaves you in quite the conundrum when it comes to principles. I, OTOH, can make principled arguments that I oppose big government regardless of its purpose or its supporters.
Surely you can see that losing the Internet poker fight will pretty much doom any short-term hopes you may have for loosening up on the War on Drugs.
The fact that a liberty may be exercised irresponsibly is not a basis for denying the liberty to all. People need to be responsible for their own conduct, and society should hold them to that responsibility. If I am not being forced to subsidize someone's gambling, or drinking, I don't see why I should be able to use the force of the State to prevent it. By all means, you are free to advocate abstinence. If your view prevails, the businesses fail. That's fine with me too.
There is a fork forming in the road. With the passing of each new piece of legislation, we trade our liberty for tyranny. The time will soon come that each of us will have to decide to continue down this path , or take the fork and fight to regain what we have lost.
Prohibition? Social engineering? Internet Gaming?
Most things that the government legislates fail miserably. Just wait until Health Care and Cap and Trade pass and go into effect. The government will enslave US all, dictating what insurance carrier you use, and what type light bulb you screw into your lamp.
Just wait until the cottage industries blossom around those government legislated boondoggles, it will make the War on Drugs look like a skirmish………….
I, OTOH, can make principled arguments that I oppose big government regardless of its purpose or its supporters.
So you support the author of the report in creating lots of new regulations for those who wish to gamble online. You wish to create more bureaucracy to "protect" gamblers? You wish to have more intrusion into the lives of people so when go to gamble, they have to sign up with information where they can be tracked by the site and the government?
Bigger, more intrusive government doesn't sound right to me. It may to you, but not to me.
We'd better stand up to ALL threats to liberty, including the poker one.
I preferred keeping government out of this altogether, but the handwriting is on the wall. The GOP actually has a plank in their 2008 party platform advocating a ban!!! Also, Congress voted on simply leaving us alone when they voted on UIGEA, and we lost the House vote 317-93. So, while I wish we'd be left alone, I have to concede that regulation is far preferable to prohibition. In fact, that's the very reason Rep. Ron Paul is cosponsoring this legislation.
Rand Paul (Ron Paul son and KY Senate candidate) agrees with you. My letter to Dr. Rand Paul:
Dear Dr. Paul,
As a Kentuckian, a liberty lover, and a proud supporter of Rep. Ron Paul, I am writing regarding your August 19th interview with Liberty Maven (http://libertymaven.com/2009/08/19/rand-paul-talk... ). Specifically, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your statement of opposition to legislation that licenses and regulates online poker pending in the Congress. After all, regulation is preferable – and more libertarian – than potential prohibition, which is why Rep. Ron Paul is cosponsoring it.
While I would personally love for the federal government and the Commonwealth to leave us alone and let us play, the fact is that Congress has consistently opposed this. The House has continually voted against unregulated, untaxed online poker and gaming by wide margins. This most recently happened in 2006, when we lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. The Department of Justice has even started targeting our funds. At the state level, the Commonwealth is attempting to seize the domain names of 140 online poker and gaming sites.
It seems there is a less than 1% chance for federal and state recognition of unregulated, untaxed online poker, but perhaps a 50% chance of getting licensed and regulated online poker done. I realize some would expect Kentucky's poker players simply to give up on online poker, but I do not believe that would do anything to further the cause of liberty. In fact, a successful prohibition would be seen as a victory of statism over liberty, and would do nothing to preserve Internet freedom.
What's important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support my freedoms. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance — including over 13,000 in Kentucky — can count on your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
In liberty,
Rich Muny
Did you ever think you'd live to see the day, that WE the People, would be attacked from within, by the very politicians who were elected to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of these United States? There is something very, terribly wrong with this picture………
If Obama wants to be a hero and rebuild his political currency among the young and the black communities, he can legalize drugs. Not only will this save over $50 billion a year in enforcement costs, but bring in hundreds of billions in extra revenue. And the college kids won't mind being taxed to death for Obamacare if they are allowed to smoke their bongs.
There are many of us conservatives that understand the destructive nature of the current drug prohibition and war.
And gambling is not the only industry facing an emerging neoprohibitionist movement. Tobacco and even alcohol (again) are increasingly under attack. When people can be arrested simply for being drunk in a bar (as happened at the hands of the fascist Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in 2006 before they were forced to stop by public protest), it's hard to argue that alcohol prohibition is strictly a thing of the past.
Prohibition didn't work. Gambling bans don't work. Poker bans don't work. Marijuana is slowly coming in out of the cold and is “quasi-legal” in many States including my own, Colorado. Anyone who wants to can get a “prescription” for it for any reason what-so-ever. People, particularly Americans, will do what they want to do regardless of the law. Law as defined by and passed by those whose moral superiority leads them to believe that they have “THE” answer. If we, as a people, agree with a law, we, as a people, obey it. On the other hand, if a law clearly flies in the face of what we, the people, believe, then we can, will and should ignore it, and we do. That fact about America hasn’t changed since the founding fathers tossed the King out on his ear. It’s not the conservatives that force us into their mold any more than it is the liberals. It’s both. The conservatives think they have the answer if we would only listen and the liberals know that they have the answer and by God they will make us listen. Neither side even knows what the question is. I say toss the bums out and start over.
If there's a right to "license and regulate" online poker, then there's a right to ban it, since a license is a selective ban of those who don't have one. Your argument here is the typical Republican utilitarian garbage, and is no better or different than that of folks like Steve above. If I don't have the right to draw a gun, bust up your home poker game, and kidnap you (and I don't think anyone would argue that they had that right), then how can I possibly delegate that right to a politician? Online poker should be legal because it's nobody's business, not because it's better for the government to have it so.
Note that this is independent of and irrelevant to the question of whether gambling is a good idea. I wish my Christian brothers would realize that "the king" is Satan's regent on earth, and Satan will profit from every attempt to make men holy through force of arms.
More Progressive attempts to save us from ourselves. Wish they would just focus on improving their own lives vs. telling the rest of us what we can do.
Here are some of the "successes" of prohibition: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
"Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition."
Here are some of the "successes" of prohibition: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
"Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition."
It would be nice if principled arguments for liberty were sufficient to convince everyone, or even a majority. But they just aren't. It is necessary to appeal both to principles and to consider the positive outcomes associated with liberty. We must be careful not to ignore the former when doing the latter, for sure.
As for regulating poker, if that is the only way to undo a near total ban, then I don't see why we should let the perfect stand in the way of the good (or, perhaps more accurately, the better). Once we have the basic freedom, we can then continue to undo and reduce any burdens placed upon the exercise thereof.
I responded to that a few posts up. Part of that:
I personally prefer keeping government out of this altogether, but the handwriting is on the wall. That just won't happen. The GOP actually has a plank in their 2008 party platform advocating a ban!!! Also, Congress voted on simply leaving us alone when they voted on UIGEA, and we lost the House vote 317-93. So, while I wish we'd be left alone, I have to concede that regulation is far preferable to prohibition. In fact, that's the very reason Rep. Ron Paul is cosponsoring this legislation.
Total Control is the Goal:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1757...
I'm constantly amazed at idiots who think that you can legislate morality. I don't know why, but I am. Every attempt has failed but bless their moronic hearts, they keep trying.
Gents (you and Rich):
The problem is that in this piece, there is no principled argument. So when Rich writes that there is "room for compromise", it's not at all clear what is being compromised away from. If we suddenly get a rash of fathers spending the mortgage money, do we reconsider? I'm not saying utilitarian arguments should never be used; I'd use anything moral in defense of liberty. But they're the sugar that makes the medicine go down. And half a loaf is better than none, as long as we make it clear that the government has no right to the other half of the loaf.
As for the GOP plank, they merit a Ceausescu Christmas as much as the Democrats do. "Throw the bums out" means all the bums, no matter what color their panhandler's cup.
Probably becuase I used Bullsh!t. Thannks!
I don't care if the legalize every drug. Sell it in phamacies and liquor stores tax the crap out of it and it will still be cheaper than the street price. I don't think it should be illegal to shoot up Drano if they want. Just stop the gangs and violence.
More people are killed by the drug lords than in our real wars. Mexico is about to be overthrown by the drug lords. The drugs were made illegal by President Wilson to hurt minorities any way, he was just a racist who didn't have a clue.
These other drugs and patent medicine needs to be legalized too. They have spawned the New Mafia of gangs that pray on society. Legalize it all and put the money to treatment of addition.
I want less government not more.
test
shit
In support of vise. Drinking and gambling should be legal is the consensus argument here. However acorn helping a pimp and ho is wrong. No legalizing prostitution argument in defense of acorn? yes the underage thing is disturbing but that is only because it is illegal. Has not the war on hos been lost. Did we win the war on underage sex?
No problem is too small for the nanny state to solve for us.
How about the genius in banning hemp?
The only prohibition being put forth right now is justice.
just a waste of beer, reminds me of when somehow it was smarter to kill the live stock than sell meat,
Correction, this was not a purely Progressive movement, as a matter of fact, President Woodrow Wilson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto. This was primarily a movement of religious zealotry. Repeal was signed by FDR.
Can we have a prohibition on dear leader and Congress for the next 3 years and a permanent end to the progressive movement and libtards??
Thanks for reading the article and for taking the time to comment on it.
Online poker is a bigger issue than you believe. First of all, it represents an unwanted step in governments taking control of the Internet. Second, the reason we've lost so many of our liberties is that too many people said, "that's the least of our problems" to each individual threat. Unfortunately, as we learned with the so-called War on Drugs, by the time the FBI is kicking down doors, it's too late to decide to do something about it.
We have a good shot at winning this. The Poker Players Alliance has over a million members who are standing up for liberty. There was a Congressional hearing on this on 12/3, and the voices of freedom totally owned the hearing. If we win here, we may get momentum to fight to regain other lost liberties.
Many "true" Conservatives do, that's true. The neo-cons salivate over the power drug laws give them…right along with the control freak neo-liberals.
About booze, the Founders did most of their preliminary Revolution-brewing over a few brews in an 18th century version of the ol' neighborhood tavern. Just one more reason to think of Thom, James & the boys with awe and respect!
About gambling, the government (ie, many state governments) hold a near-monopoly via the state lotteries. Funny thing, that: The various "daily game" versions (3 numbers, pulled from three vats of ten balls each, numbered 1 to 0) pays (usually) $500 for a $1 "Straight" ticket (the three numbers in the order bet). The odds against winning a straight 3-number bet is 999 to 1; the old underworld "numbers" game, which is/was theoretically identical, with the same odds, usually paid $600 for a $1-Straight bet. In other words, the player gets a better shake betting with the mob.
.
Obama and history:
Here is a little know secret that is kept hidden by the progressives.
Marxism, Communism and Socialism all share the same aims as the Bavarian
Illuminati founded in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. Here are the aims Abolition
of government, private property, indertiance, religion, the family unit,
and the establishment of a One World Government. Clinton Roosevelt, a
distance cousin of Teddie Roosevelt and FDR wrote a booklet in 1841 the
Science of Government Founded in Natural Law. Roosevelt freely stole his
ideas from Weishaupt. In 1848 Horace Greely, the founder and publisher of
the NY Tribune and New Yorker Magazine and Clinton Roosevelt funded the
Communist League in London UK. The Communist League paid Karl Marx and
Joseph Engels to write the Communist Manifesto. Marx freely stole from
Roosevelt's booklet.
In 1830 Greely, Roosevelt, and Governor Dewitt Clinton founded the
LoccoFocco party, which became the Equal rights party and then in 1906 the
Socialist party. Both Teddie and FDR followed Clinton Believes as outlined
in his booklet. They were all 33rd Freemasons surprise.
Thank you.
=== popurls.com === popular today…
yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
Prohibition (in any form) is simply the govt's selective social control of some social or political minority – suggesting that the govt is genuinely concerned with our moral / physical health is desperately naive..
Sorry Steve, but i take the standpoint that government stands to protect the freedom and liberty for all. i trust that people have the faith to exercise their freedom well, and punished when not. It is not for government to decide this for us, whether it's cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or sex. No big-government!
If one continues this line of thinking, then we have to regulate murder, rape, theft and all other crime. After all we have never stopped those crimes from happenig and people will do what they want, so no more laws against anything. Complete law-less-ness, that is the order of the day. We should be able to do any drug, rape any person, kill any person, carry any gun, use no seat belts, no laws. People break the laws so we should repeal all laws. Society will be safer. When do we start?
rckmom I totally agree! Have you ever read any of the old Blume County strips? One in particular comes to mind here… Opus at the end commenting on a group of hysterical people, saying the phrase, "Offensensibility"…..
Since the days of Carter when I was just starting to be aware of politics, and I realized Reagan was an honest man trying to save us from the DC politicians.
As honestly as I can recall, I think what really informed me about our anti-freedom anti-people government was Barney Miller. Seriously. Good people trying to do their job, help the citizens, ensnared by bureaucracy with government agents sometimes blocking their way… Maybe conservatism is genetic, because that is how I viewed things. Likewise the "government is the problem" message was also noticed on M*A*S*H. Whether or not the people behind those shows ever consciously meant it to be noticed.
rckmom
Excellent amendment, if only it were in fact a passed amendment.
lawyerphobia is real, even on the battlefield, thanks obama
I really wish the Liberals would prohibit themselves. The United States would be so much better…
You forgot that the REAL RIGHT also wants to TAX these behaviors. The REAL RIGHT wants the government to REGULATE these behaviors so they have some protection from themselves. Big Government should get out of our way so we can do what we want, but should protect us from other people doing what they want.
Take off the tie dye T Shirt and put on a suit and you change the REAL LEFT to the REAL RIGHT
Now now, you KNOW thats just an old piece of outdated paper! *sarcasm off*
Er, the attempts to ban internet gambling are totally different from prohibition, because their biggest supporters are not right-wing conservatives, but big corporations that operate casions all over the US, and don't want offshore online houses cutting into their profits. THESE are the organizations lobbying for these bills, and there is big money behind it.
That is absolutely true. One of our focuses in Afghanistan, though, seems to be the suppression of poppy crops and paying farms to plant something else. Then there's the military "advisers" we have sent to Columbia, Peru, and other South American countries to disrupt the cultivation of coca leaves.
The War on Drugs has become a "real" war in every sense of the word. It's been that way in Columbia in the 70's and 80's and it's that way in border towns in Mexico today. Legalizing everything would take away the money from the criminals that make enough money to be able to outgun the governments of Latin America and perhaps revitalize American farming. Just saying…
But it shouldn't be the place of the government to buy the excessive crop so the price will rise. I'm not going to go into the economic factors and the large excess of farms that caused crop prices to be so low in the '30s. It's really boring.
Fortunately, most people that would actually have the drive to go out and "pick their own" aren't the type to sue. Those people are more likely to sue Walmart for using slippery wax on the bathroom floors or Costco for not warning people not to try and pull a whole pallet of Cheez-Its from the second shelf.
The more time they spend on Internet gaming, White House crashers, and pro sports, the less time they have for doing real damage.
"Hack Them before They Hack You"
Not really. Casin[i]o[/i]s objected because the DoJ would not allow them to participate in the market. They wanted a level playing field. Harrah's and MGM-Mirage are lobbying for licensing and regulation. OTOH, social conservative leaders pushed hard for UIGEA, and Focus on the Family continues to lead the charge for this. Check out FoF's site at http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A0000042... for more on that, and check out my last article on this issue at http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/did-the-gop-r... as well.
Not really. Casin[i]o[/i]s objected because the DoJ would not allow them to participate in the market. They wanted a level playing field. Harrah's and MGM-Mirage are lobbying for licensing and regulation. OTOH, social conservative leaders pushed hard for UIGEA, and Focus on the Family continues to lead the charge for this. Check out FoF's site at http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A0000042... for more on that, and check out my last article on this issue at http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/did-the-gop-r... as well.
Not really. Corporate gaming interests objected because the DoJ would not allow them to participate in the market. They wanted a level playing field. Harrah's and MGM-Mirage are lobbying for licensing and regulation. OTOH, social conservative leaders pushed hard for UIGEA, and Focus on the Family continues to lead the charge for this. Check out FoF's site at http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/did-the-gop-r... as well.
Not really. Corporate gaming interests objected because the DoJ would not allow them to participate in the market. They wanted a level playing field. Harrah's and MGM-Mirage are lobbying for licensing and regulation. OTOH, social conservative leaders pushed hard for UIGEA, and Focus on the Family continues to lead the charge for this. Check out FoF's site at http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/did-the-gop-r... as well.
Another crazy area,
is all the energy efficiency based bans on Light bulbs, TV sets, diswashers, cars, buildings etc etc
Not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
Thes are simply bans to reduce electricity consumption
So taxation (still wrong) would at least be more logical,
- and like the liquor ban, turning to taxation –
giving government income on the reduced sales while keeping choice.
Also, energy efficient products could have lower sales taxes than today.
Anyway,
There is no energy shortage
(given renewable energy etc with emission limits set as needed)
and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
– limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
– make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it!
Also, Light bulbs etc don't give out any CO2 gas, power stations do, and can be dealt with directly.
About the industrial politics that lie behind light bulb and similar bans:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
.
correction… the energy effficiency based bans are of course to supposedly reduce ENERGY consumption…
= not always electricity
Stopped reading after the first paragraph. Anybody who thinks that prohibition is a thing of the past probably has nothing to say that is worth hearing.
LOL. I'm fully aware that there is plenty of big government.
"…probably has nothing to say that is worth hearing."
You can't hear written words unless you read to yourself out loud. Oh….never mind. No wonder you found reading the article too taxing.
Cheers.
All this from a website promoting liberty?
Murder, rape, and theft are illegal because these acts infringe on the rights of others. That's why they are unlawful. Also, laws have succeeded in stopping many of these acts. Poker, OTOH, does not infringe on anyone's liberty. Also, I didn't say poker should remain lawful because it cannot be stopped. Rather, I wrote that poker ought to remain lawful because the aims of those who seek to prohibit it will not be achieved with prohibition.
They are waiting for the DEA and US Bureau of Prisons employees to tell them that they are tired of being paid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison-industrial_co...
Ok, deal.
[...] Big Government » Blog Archive » On the Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition, Let’s Not Repea…The prohibition argument can be catchy, but the key issue is protecting consumers. It is ironic that the best way to do that, according to the study authored by Prof. Malcolm Sparrow, JFK School of Government at Harvard, is by legalizing and regulating it – not outlawing it entirely and having those laws ignored. [...]
[...] latest missive on BigGovernment.com is a good one that puts online poker restrictions in the context of the 18th Amendment. And while [...]
For those of you that think 'liberal' Europe has it any better, think again… whilst the UK has liberal gambling laws, in many countries (Holland, Portugal, Greece etc) if you want to make a bet you must do it through a single state company, and often the odds offered make it not worth bothering… please come to http://www.right2bet.net and sign our petition to change all that!
well when they killed the cows and buried them i was like…why are the burying them, isnt the meat good, seemed wasteful, like with the beer in photo
Trying to associate internet gambling with the prohibition of a product may be a smart move when you look at the amount of comments generated but it is a totally different concept.People are fighting for their rights against a vicious prohibition which has ruined lives and destroyed families for 100 years.People are in prison right now,more than in any other democracy on the planet.
It's symptomatic of the prevailing belief that states know better than people – and that therefore the state's view should prevail over people's private morality. Can you gamble online responsibly? Plenty of people do – and just because some people tip over into addiction doesn't provide a sufficient intellectual basis for banning or curbing an entire class of activity.
Brilliant website I will bookmark it and come back later.
You must be logged in to post a comment.