Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Let Me Ask

I have a commenter who just won't give up.

So let me ask:

Was Al Capone caused by Alcohol? Or Alcohol Prohibition?

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Al Capone had already established himself as a first rate gangster and criminal well before prohibition begain in 1920. So no, prohibition did not create Capone. It was simply the next logical step for him to gain more power.

M. Simon said...

Since you are a wise guy let me ask you, was it wise for the government to put the means for Al to gain more power in his hands?

Is it wise to do the same for the gangsters of our day?

M. Simon said...

I suppose if you like rap music the answer is yes.

M. Simon said...

I suppose if you like rap music the answer is yes.

Anonymous said...

And, since you are an All-Knowing-Bloated-Blogger-Expert-On-Everything let me ask you this:

Would the world be better off with or without drugs? Can you give a simple yes or no answer?

M. Simon said...

I wouldn't give up anti-biotics,
coffee, or anti-depressants, if that is what you mean.

M. Simon said...

Tobacco is an anti-depressant as is pot.

One is legal the other is not.

For the life of me I can't see the difference. Except that pot smokers are currently more severely persecuted than tobacco smokers.

I suppose you need some one to hate. Evidently, when it comes to users of various kinds of non-medical cartel mind altering drugs the field is wide open.

The totalitarian impulse is never far from the surface.

Enjoy.

Anonymous said...

I think I would much rather be on the road with a person drinking coffee than one smoking a joint.

But, of course, there's no difference is there?

Enjoy!

Nick said...

I don't know if I've seen this come up in your other posts, so I'll ask it here.

While I generally agree with you for the most part about the stupidity of the current regime of drug prohibition, I'm curious if you are against any restrictions at all?

I for the life of me can't figure out why alcohol and tabacco are legal while Pot is illegal. Doesn't make much sense to me. I can see why Heroin and Meth are, even if we go about punishing their use in a, say, less than optimal manner. I do wonder if people who support the current drug war really understand what the costs of it are for non-drug using average citizens. Frankly, the criminal proceedure class I took in law school was terrifying. Nearly every case in the book was from the last 30-40 years and almost all of them involved drugs and government overreaching to stop them.

I also love the red herring about using drugs and driving. Man, even if it was legal to smoke as much pot and shoot as much heroin as you wanted, it'd still be illegal to drive a car. I don't think even the most crazed libertarian would go for allowing that.

M. Simon said...

Let me point out that for at least 20 years (maybe longer - I'd have to look it up) heroin was an over the counter medicine available to children even.

I don't think we could go back to that.

Benzedrine used to be available in inhalers. Again over the counter.

What you want is to make the drugs easy enough and cheap enough to get so that the profits to criminals and terrorists was minuscule.

However, there are a lot of iron rice bowls dependent on persecuting drug users.

We could make pot no harder to get than alcohol or cigarettes since it is less dangerous than aspirin. Certainly less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.

In fact before alcohol prohibition pot was often prescribed to alcoholics as far less dangerous alternative.

Again a lot of toes would get stepped on with such a move.

When you look at the reality of the situation, America is as much a narco state as Mexico. We just do it kinder and gentler.

Without a public that is at least 80% against the current regime nothing will happen.

The only way such a change could take place is if the drug warriors overstepped their bounds: i.e. started arresting a lot of the middle and upper classes.

As long as the war is focused on the poor and minorities nothing will happen.

In the black community a lot of government money is funneled into the black churches for "rehab" programs. It doesn't matter if the programs work or not. What is important is that it buys support for prohibition from respected community leaders. Basically the black community is selling out its own children for profit.

With enough money on offer intimidation ala. Mexico is not required.

And so the evil multiplies.

All I can do is scream on my blog.

Given some of the comments seen here and at my other recent posts on the issue you can see how effective that is.

The Drug War is really a symptom of moral and spiritual decay.

Then you have the media. As long as ONDCP has a big media budget there will never be a serious look into the problem.

With all the major players bought off, I see no hope for quite some time - decades at least. We will continue our price supports for criminals and terrorists.

Fear and money will keep the masses in line.

Reliapundit said...

Al Capone had already established himself as a first rate gangster and criminal well before prohibition begain in 1920. So no, prohibition did not create Capone. It was simply the next logical step for him to gain more power.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Reliapundit said...

depressed people need REAL medication, not self-medication w/tobabacco/maryjane/heroine etc.

Unknown said...

Who determines what is "REAL" medication. The big pharma companies, the FDA? They only seemed to be concerned with profit rather than the relief of suffering.

Reliapundit said...

"Who determines what is "REAL" medication. The big pharma companies, the FDA? They only seemed to be concerned with profit rather than the relief of suffering."

this is absurd, wrong, leftist propaganda.

pharmaceutical drugs save millions of lives each day.

anyone who thinks self-medicating with marijuana or heroine or cigarettes or alcohol is a good idea (or as good as pharmaceuticals) is DELUSIONAL.

Unknown said...

The distinction between pharmaceutical drugs and other drugs is artificial. I think any medication should be prescribed under professional supervision. Due to current drug laws most doctors do not have the choice to do so. I find this to be hypocritical.

linearthinker said...

Quote from the wisdom of Reliapundit:

anyone who thinks self-medicating with marijuana or heroine or cigarettes or alcohol is a good idea (or as good as pharmaceuticals) is DELUSIONAL.

I submit it's Reliapundit who's delusional. Smokers, cough medicine customers, the majority of voters in California, Napa Valley vintners, Tennessee bootleggers...all delusional? I hope I never wake up in Reliapundit's world. What color is your moon, RP?

------

Paul seems to paint with a too broad brush:

I think any medication should be prescribed under professional supervision.

Have you checked lately for OTC meds that were previously prescription only? I should fork over a $25 copay and about a $400 annual deductible, plus my 20% share of outpatient costs to have a physician prescribe something I can get over the counter? I kind of enjoyed the system in Guatemala that let you waltz into the pharmacia and pick out your own dose of anti-biotics. They've probably stopped that by now.

Unknown said...

Your right, I should have not said any medication. I was just trying to stress that self medication may not always be the best path to take. There are many drugs that I feel could be taken without supervision. But I do feel that some drugs should require some sort of oversight. With all of the different interactions many drugs can have I think it is important to have professional advise. A system of regulation similar to tobacco and alcohol would most likely be fine for many drugs.

linearthinker said...

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a Federal agency.

-------

We can agree on much of what you propose. But let me give you an anecdote from within my extended family. A lady was hospitalized for something. Her treatment stabilized the initial complaint, but she deteriorated rapidly. Her kidneys were failing. Her husband double checked her medications, and discovered she had been prescribed two competing drugs that in combination affected her kidneys. This was in a first class hospital in a major American city. His background in the pharmaceutical industry perhaps enabled him to assess the problem quicker than the average person, but his wife spent the rest of her life requiring dialysis. If he hadn't done his research, which anyone with access to the PDR could also have done, she'd have likely died under the professional oversight of the physicians who'd prescribed and administered her drugs. Less reliance on professional supervision and regulation, and more personal responsibility saved my aunt's life. Do I condemn the pharmaceutical firms and the doctors? No. They've given the U.S. the best medical care in the world. But the answer is not in piling on more layers of laws, regulatons, reviewers, and gatekeepers.

Unknown said...

So a doctor screwed up, people are not perfect. But the rest of your story proves my point, drug interactions can cause very bad side effects. Most individuals do not have training in drug interactions, so it is quite fortunate that this womans husband worked in the pharmaceutical industry and the problem was caught before it killed her. Perhaps the answer is require anyone buying drugs to consult with a good pharmacist, I just don't know if it's realistic to expect everyone to become experts in drug interactions.

Reliapundit said...

HEY LINEARTHINKER_ YOU ARE AN EFFIN MORON.

and an as**ole for calling me delusional.

people who use any of the substances i listed to treat a serious illness - like depression - i making a big mistake.

most people use those substances responsible and are not addicted.

simon argues that any substance that anybody wants to take to treat their depression should be legal and we should leave them alone.

that's bad law and bad medicine.

depression is a serious illness and self-medicating it with tobacco and alcohol and maryjuana etc are not as good as real medicine.

now fuck off you idiotic piece of sh^t.

linearthinker said...

Paul says:

Perhaps the answer is require anyone buying drugs to consult with a good pharmacist, I just don't know if it's realistic to expect everyone to become experts in drug interactions.

Who get's to write the new requirements?

What's a drug? I used to have a passion for Smith Brothers Wild Cherry Cough Drops. Was I addicted? If I was, my mother ended that addiction.

Who gets to be known as a "good" pharmacist? What do we do with the "not so good" B-team pharmacists?

-------------

Why do we have to require, anything?

Spare me from more nanny state, do-good regulations. Would you be willing to require that one old regulation has to be taken off the books for each new one added? How about just reading the label instructions?

====================

I see Reliapundit has sobered up enough to attempt some commentary, but isn't quite sober enough to make sense. Take two asprins with black coffee, and if your tummy is upset, drink a quart of buttermilk, rp. Come back tomorrow when you're sober.

And, don't shout at me. It's annoying.

Anonymous said...

Yikes...

Dose and route of administration. There is a dose and route of administration for every chemical that is reasonably safe and, for certain chemicals, effective treatment for certain medical conditions.

Let me repeat this for emphasis. There is a dose and route of administration for every chemical that is reasonably safe and, for certain chemicals, effective treatment for certain medical conditions.

There is a dose and route of administration for every chemical that is fatal.

Let me repeat this for emphasis. There is a dose and route of administration for every chemical that is fatal.

This is pharmacology and toxicology 101, day 1.