>Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional

they wanted to be on the right side of history

i shit you not this is the first time that phrase was used

>>1815863
Literally women pushing their new political weight around arguing that crime and domestic abuse would go down if alcohol was taken out of the picture.

I find it hilarious the same year they get the right to vote they push the most anti male policy possible.

>>1815899
I wouldn't mind living in a non-alcoholic society, but I also realize that's pretty unrealistic to be done.

>>1815899
>most anti male policy possible.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. It's not like just men drank, and it's not like they tried to push for a penis ban.

It's not as though prohibition is without rationale: alcohol is a dangerous, addictive drug behind quite a lot of violent crime and hospitalizations. While I don't want to see it banned, I personally wish it got the attention it deserves as a dangerous drug.

>>1815863
because you know who got the vote, and you know they can't stand the idea of men off somewhere having fun without them (there used to be laws against letting women into bars because drunk women = loose women).

>>1815946
Men were by a vast majority the main drinkers of alcohol and by a wide margin.

The time around WWI just barely started seeing female flapper sluts boozing and smoking with men. Before that bars were a men's establishment.

>>1815997
Ok, and my statement stands. It's a ridiculous exaggeration what you claimed. Women drank too (albeit not as much) and there are vastly more "anti-male" policies they could have pushed. The rationale behind prohibition wasn't to fuck over men, it was to reduce violent crime and deaths from alcohol related causes.

File: Happy European.jpg (72KB, 640x539px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x539px

>>1815863

Because people are fucking stupid and try to just "get rid of" the bad thing without understanding why the bad thing is here and why people allow it to be here. I know every other poster is a broken record about how annoying minorities and women are, but women did contribute significantly to prohibition passing and I believe it's because their generation was so under-educated compared to women now. They did poison the political system and led the development of shit policies that plagued us.

Reminder that organized crime would be significantly reduced if not gone altogether if we weren't dipshits that tried to ban substance abuse.

>>1816006
>The rationale behind prohibition wasn't to fuck over men, it was to reduce violent crime and deaths from alcohol related causes.

Not him but that's not true though. The rationale behind banning alcohol was because it was seen as sinful by Christians.

>>1815863
Alcohol is probably the most damaging drug to our society. It is incredibly harmful.
>Drunk driving
>Domestic abuse
>Rape
>Addiction
>Liver destruction

If every alcoholic turned into a chronic stoner the world would be a much better place.

File: The_Drunkard's_Progress_-_Color.jpg (276KB, 1400x1016px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1400x1016px

>>1816020
It's both dingaling, just look at the propaganda women and prohibitionists pushed. It includes the religious aspect as well as the arguments that alcohol is the cause of domestic abuse, wasting of family income and death.

protestant puritan shits who hate fun

>>1815863
Right side of history

>>1815863
It was Progressive legislation in Anglo countries to ban alcohol out of the belief it would reduce domestic violence and criminality.

When this proved to be false then the amendment was overturned.

>>1816024
"No"

>>1815899
This.

>>1816050
>When this proved to be false then the amendment was overturned.

Wut

>>1816050
It was repealed largely because it was unpopular.

>>1816056
>>1816059
It's both. You saw a large rise in violent crime due to the Mafia being the main bootleggers during the prohibition era. Coupled with the fact that people drank anyway meant that the legislation was deemed unproductive and done away with during the hard years of the depression era.

>>1816036
>step 9
lel

File: 7998520846_97a690b62e_b.jpg (351KB, 1024x812px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1024x812px

>>1815863
Ask the gracious ladies
>pre-SJW

>>1816078
Kek literally looks like the Monty Python crew in drag.

>>1816065
>You saw a large rise in violent crime due to the Mafia being the main bootleggers during the prohibition era. Coupled with the fact that people drank anyway meant that the legislation was deemed unproductive and done away with during the hard years of the depression era.

Too bad governments are too retarded to admit this is also true with every other drug that's currently illegal as well.

>>1816065
But crime, alcohol abuse, and familial abuse fell significantly during the 20's?

>>1816097
But that is factually questionable

>>1816105
>But that is factually questionable

No it isn't.

>>1816097
You seriously arguing to regulate legal crack, meth and powdered cocaine?

>>1816111
I'm seriously arguing that the same arguments for repealing Prohibition applies to alcohol as much as it applies to LSD, crack, meth and cocaine, yes indeed.

>>1816078
is this satire

>>1816111

Different anon, but I world argue for that, sure. Drug prohibition doesn't work and funds organized crime. We have a century of data showing that. Instead of a criminal issue, we should treat drug abuse as a public health issue.

>>1815863
Alcohol consumption was becoming an epidemic. Prohibition was a success in that it cut consumption almost in half.

>>1816006
>it was to reduce violent crime and deaths from alcohol related causes.
Which were overwhelmingly committed by and affected men. A lot of advertisements for Prohibitions were appeals to men as either through family or religion. I disagree that it was intentionally anti-male, but it certainly affected them the most negatively.

>>1816123
This is a bit of a slippery slope.

On the side of alcohol being different:
1. Incredibly long history with civilized societies and the US, tying it culturally
2.I can have a single beer and drive just fine. In fact, it takes several to be even over the legal limit.
3.Alcohol is not as "quickly" destructive as those you listed, besides LSD, which is not very addictive.
4. Some of the things you listed are not just illegal, but Medical agencies classify them as "no use" as well. http://medshadow.org/resource/drug-classifications-schedule-ii-iii-iv-v/

Argument for you:
1.Technically, they are all drugs, and out of all those you listed, only LSD is considered non-addictive.
2.Government shouldn't tell you what to do

>>1816162
Alcohol kills 88000 people a year in the United States alone.

You're literally defending all those deaths simply because of "cultural reasons".

Either deal with the fact that there's no reason why any other drug shouldn't be legal when alcohol is, or shut the fuck up.

Christfags, OP. Christfags.

>>1816356
There were christafgs in the rest of the world too, why was it just yanks being bullied by ugly women?

Alcohol is literally main source of degeneracy, but (((proud members of the white race))) cares about issues, only if you can film porn video about them.

>>1816036
>mfw never tasted a drop of alcohol and somehow already on step 7

How?

>>1816351
Fuck off stoner.
88,000 people out of a population of 320 million is nothing.

Stop pretending that alcohol and heroin are somehow equivalent to each other.

>>1816370
Because only in the US was christfaggotry so promoted at women. Also the temperance movement was big in the UK. It was kind of an anglos in general thing, we just got carried away because we were the country with the most christfaggots.

>>1816390
>88,000 people out of a population of 320 million is nothing.

Which is my argument you moron. I don't care if other people can't handle their drink, anymore that I care that other people can't handle their heroin, but what I do care about, is whether or not the state is going to knock down my door with guns drawn simply for having a drug in my possession that they don't want me to have.

>>1816390
Also the actual statistic is 88,000 deaths from 2006-2010 not 88,000 every year.

>>1815863
Alcohol was degeneracy, and prohibition proved it was degeneracy.

The problem was that prohibition failed to stop the degeneracy, and policy design to stop degeneracy ended up making degeneracy even more degenerate.

>>1816398
Yeah and the same say you don't care that some people can't handle their heroin I don't care if the police kick down your door for your inability to handle being a law abiding citizen.

>>1816097
Except suppression works when you prevent people from getting addicted to drugs in the first place. It does little when there is widespread consumption. Suppression is really more of a preventative measure.

Arguing about about "muh freedom" vs "drugs are bad m'kay" is missing the point from both sides. Prohibition of drugs DOES NOT WORK and should be ended for practical reasons, regardless of ideology.

>>1816419
>I don't care if the police kick down your door for your inability to handle being a law abiding citizen.

Good for you. At least you admit that you simultaneously don't care about alcoholics or state overreach of power.

You're truly a model citizen, and almost definitely American.

>>1816422
Prohibition works as a preventative measure. It reduces drug use when you cut off access to it and stigmatize it for people that have never used the drug. It doesn't work with alcohol because people already drink alcohol.

>>1816396
>the Anglo connection
I think it's obvious the real root cause isn't Christianity but the fact that anglos are a race of naturally repressed weirdos like all the other Northern European autists.

>>1816422
>yes lets just put krokodil and heroin dispensary machines on every street corner and tax it, I can't forsee any negative consequences at all tax revenue will go through the roof :^)

>>1816421
>Except suppression works when you prevent people from getting addicted to drugs in the first place

Really? Then why is it so easy to get your hands on drugs today even after 50 years of "The War on Drugs" ?

>>1816435

Fuck off with your feels over reals arguments, please.

File: tmp_19653-maxresdefault-1630348132.jpg (44KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1280x720px

>>1816430
> You're truly a model citizen, and almost definitely American.

You bet your ass!

>>1816441
The only reason it's "so easy" for you to get your hands in drugs is because you travel in sleazy circles and have scumbag friends.

>>1816445
>dismissing the validity of emotional reactions to data
Sorry we can't all be autists like you.

>>1816462
This. The average person have little interest in trying or obtaining drugs harder than MJ. It's nowhere near the level of people that consume alcohol.

>>1816462
No, that's not why. It's because drugs will always be available because people want to use them.

>>1816475
I don't care if the scum of society manage to get their weasel hands on illegal drugs, the point is to prevent it from becoming normalized behavior among decent productive citizens.

>>1816482
It's normalized behavior everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of Americans if not millions are addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol.

Because drinking is haram.

>>1816065
Don't forget that it was one of the leading reasons for the rise of hard liquor, so you didn't need to stock so much.

>>1816488
You aren't even arguing your own point anymore. Certain drugs are normalized, which is why prohibition doesn't work on them. Prohibition works to some extent on drugs that aren't normalized. Prescription drugs aren't even a single drug. Prohibition doesn't denormalize a drug. It can prevent the normalization of a drug. You can't just say prohibition doesn't work on drugs.

>>1816488
>shooting up heroin is normal behavior in western society!
>muh prescription drugs!
Fuck off.

>>1816445
>suggesting increasing ease of access will increase demand is feels over reals
Ever notice shit at eye level in the super market tends to outsell shit at the bottom shelf?

>>1816502
>which is why prohibition doesn't work on them

Depends on what you consider "working", because as an another anon in the thread pointed out, alcohol consumption did go down during the Prohibition era; the question is whether or not alcohol should be illegal in the first place, not whether the illegality of something helps.

>>1816506
The point is, you fucking moron, is that you think it matters what people are addicted to. Like the other guy said: "I don't care if the scum of society manages to weasel hands on illegal drugs"

Which is a retarded sentiment because at any point in time and space, the state can decide that a specific drug can be illegal, and it doesn't make people "scum" simply because they use, regardless of illegality.

>>1816517
>there is no difference between a caffeine addiction and an addiction to amphetamines
Fuck off.

>>1816511
It fell at the beginning and the rose rapidly and was well on it's way to becoming normalized again towards the end of prohibition.

>>1816469
>facts are wrong if I don't like them

How should I properly respect your validity, anon?

>>1816527
Of course there is a difference. I never said it was.

When I am talking about people being addicted to prescription drugs I'm talking about Oxycontin or Valium or Vicodin, which are *literally* opiates that doctors freely prescribe to people legally.

The question is, why does it matter to you, if someone smokes the opium plant, or if someone is addicted by taking pills they got from their doctor? One of them is illegal, the other isn't.

>>1816527
>adderall

>>1816078
Women back then were ugly fucks jesus christ

>>1815863
Proto SJW nosy mothers got butthurt.

>>1815946
Wasn't the reason behind prohibition was that alcohol a cause but it turned out that it was a sympton

>>1816024
Why not both? I don't have an issue with weed but you're saying alcohol is causative with shitty behavior instead of correlative. Shitty wifebeaters and selfish people who'd drink and drive are perhaps are just people who have propensity to binge drink. There are literally billions of people who drink and are functioning, normal people who unwind at the end of the day with some booze.

It'd be the same as if we were in a bizzaro world where weed and alcohol were reversed, and you were posting something like
>Weed
>Driving high
>Being a lazy cunt
>eating yourself into obesity
>Lung destruction

>>1816543
>The question is, why does it matter to you, if someone smokes the opium plant, or if someone is addicted by taking pills they got from their doctor? One of them is illegal, the other isn't.
Not him, but you seem to be missing the point. Prohibition, in other words, making it illegal, prevents normalization. If it's legal, and not prohibited, then it can more easily become normalized, such as prescription opiates. The normalization of prescription drug abuse can be blamed on the lack of prohibition. This is far from proving "prohibition doesn't work" and in fact seems to indicate prohibition does work in preventing normalization, as it is the legal, non-prohibited drugs that become normalized.

>>1816557
Why is normalization so important?

>>1816555
I have voted against weed legalization every time it came up to vote because stoners are disgusting faggots, and weed does in fact cause people to drive high, be lazy and get the munchies. Their lungs are safer now though due to vaporizers.

>>1816111

I will. If the concept of buying it over the counter bothers you, consider having it only legal with a prescription then.

The point is to avoid having any drug become profitable to sale on a street corner by any dip shit with a bat, knife, or a gun.

File: 1476293330122.jpg (61KB, 304x522px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 304x522px

>>1816078
check em

Treating it like a disease (which it is) also "prevents normalization" and has the added benefit of actually being effective, which the war on drugs (approaching it as a criminal issue) empirically is not.

>>1816543
>When I am talking about people being addicted to prescription drugs I'm talking about Oxycontin or Valium or Vicodin, which are *literally* opiates that doctors freely prescribe to people legally.

Doctors do not "freely prescribe" opiates to people and those that do typically lose their medical licenses. You can't just walk into a doctor's office and say "hit me up with some of the oxy, yo!" , it's not like your "medical" marijuana dispensaries, you need a valid medical reason to be issued a prescriptionfor a limited dosage, and if a doctor suspects you are taking a drug prescribed for pain-relief recreational he will cut you off.

>>1816560
Because after normalization it means prohibition is much less effective at reducing drug usage.

Think of prohibition like a vaccine. It can help as a preventative measure. But once you get the flu, it doesn't help. Normalization is that threshold where prohibition stops working.

>>1816563

People like you are the problem.

>>1816563
I can agree that people who subscribe to the "stoner lifestyle" are smelly faggots but I think lazy people enjoy weed because it's an easy way to do nothing and still be entertained. Weed doesn't really make them lazy, they were lazy fags to begin with.

Also, I don't think the government has the role of telling you whether or not you can ruin your own life. I don't think the stoner fag mentality is prominent in society enough to cause any kind of collapse either. If some hippy wants to smoke grass in the woods all day, I don't really care. He's not really bothering me in any way. I'm sure there's someone else in the workforce who would pick up his job anyway.

>>1816557

Yes, just as in countries with legalized prostitution, the moment opiates become normalized, droves of people will begin popping them, completely free of reproach from family, friends, or employers.

>>1816572

Nice hypothesis. Any evidence?

>>1816572
So what you're essentially saying is that if heroin wasn't illegal, you yourself would be a heroin addict?

>>1816571
>Doctors do not "freely prescribe" opiates to people
Not that Anon, but doctors handing out drugs rather than actually deal with a problem is a common enough issue.

>>1816462
Pretty much this

>>1816575
>I can agree that people who subscribe to the "stoner lifestyle" are smelly faggots but I think lazy people enjoy weed because it's an easy way to do nothing and still be entertained.
There's this thing called video games, TV and the internet. The difference with stoners is they complain they can't enjoy these things without being high.

>Weed doesn't really make them lazy, they were lazy fags to begin with.
No this is false, and proven by that kid you knew in middle school who was reasonably smart and driven and became a lazy stoner. You can pretend the kid became lazy first and then smoked weed after that all you want, which is false, but even if it was true, it just enabled them to be lazy.

>Also, I don't think the government has the role of telling you whether or not you can ruin your own life.
I don't care if they ruin their lives. I care that stoners unironically think driving under the influence is something that only happens when drunk, they're annoying to be around if you are also not high (similar to being around drunk people when not drunk) and those times you play the viya and there's some retarded stoner guy playing.

>I don't think the stoner fag mentality is prominent in society enough to cause any kind of collapse either.
Collapse isn't the only reason to ban something.

>If some hippy wants to smoke grass in the woods all day, I don't really care.
And he could get away with it even if weed was illegal.

>He's not really bothering me in any way.
But stoners who think weed is normal and not stigmatized and don't go hide in the woods to blaze are bothersome.

>I'm sure there's someone else in the workforce who would pick up his job anyway.
So what?

>>1816578
If heroin consumption became a normal social custom on oar with alcohol consumption, then yes odds are he and the rest of society would become heroin addicts.

>>1816576
>if society doesn't collapse it's not a problem

>>1816578
I'm saying if heroin was legal, significantly more people would use it and suffer crippling addiction.

>>1816601
>I'm saying if heroin was legal, significantly more people would use it and suffer crippling addiction.

Sure, but that social price is something we pay currently by having alcohol legal.

By that logic you should be campaigning for another Prohibition era, and if you do, good for you in being consistent.

>>1816422
Fuck off along with the rest of Europe who set up fucking heroin clinics for addicts to shoot up in a "safe and clean environment"

>>1815946
Also, the level of alcohol consumption has never equaled what it was before prohibitions. In the 19th century, Alcohol consumption peaked at 7.1 gallons of pure alcohol a year, on average, and never got much lower. We now average at about 2.3 Gallons of alcohol a year.

>>1816560
>why is socially accepted heroin use bad?

Fucking hell anon...

>>1816597
That's is completely incorrect on some many levels. Normal people don't get addicted to drugs, only people who self-medicate with them do. The same way normal people aren't addicted to alcohol even though they get drunk pretty regularly. Plenty of people have taken recreational narcotics without being addicted, simply because they don't use them to self-medicate.
>>1816601
>I'm saying if heroin was legal, significantly more people would use it and suffer crippling addiction.
Heroin IS legal, you just got to be prescribed it. And interestingly enough, most people who were prescribed it or received it in the hospital weren't addicted after they stop using it. Narcotics aren't some scary disease where if you come into contact with it you'll contract addiction. Addiction is primarily psychological with a certain genetic factor.

>>1816642
Using words like "normalization" is usually a euphemism for: "I am strong enough psychologically to never do something, but it NEEDS to be illegal for all the OTHER plebs who can't take care of themselves."

>>1816575
Except they're not smoking in the woods you permissive faggot, they're lighting a blunt at home and then deciding they want to go for a drive to feed their fucking munchies and kill someone while high.

>>1816574
>druggies blaming their problems on others
Figures

>>1816578
Not him, but I don't want to live in a society permissive of heroin addicts.

I mean we already see fucking cigarette smokers not giving a fuck and smoking right next to their or other people's kids. You want that but with crack smoke?

>>1816610
>Sure, but that social price is something we pay currently by having alcohol legal.
And we tried to make it illegal but it didn't work very well because it was already normalized.

>By that logic you should be campaigning for another Prohibition era, and if you do, good for you in being consistent.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. Prohibition doesn't work well on normalized drugs. Just because alcohol is bad and normalized is not a good justification for why we should allow other bad drugs to become normalized. It's only justification that an already normalized drug should not be fully prohibited, but can still be restricted.

>>1816672
Smokers are disgusting. Banning smokers has nothing to do with me becoming addicted to tobacco if it wasn't banned. It's because they're filthy degenerates and disgusting to be around and should clean up their act.

>>1816656
Nice lack of statistics m8. For one you're blaming pot for people's bad choices, secondly you're making it sound like it's a common danger, and thirdly you're not bitching about alcohol and drunk drivers.
>>1816672
Nice feels m8

>>1816674
But you are arguing that the "normalization" of drugs has something to do with it's legality.

Either you argue that having something illegal stops it from being "normalized", or you have to argue that things can be socially unacceptable regardless of their legal status.

So which is it?

>>1816656

>then deciding they want to go for a drive to feed their fucking munchies and kill someone while high

>implying I don't buy my snacks in advance

>implying you've ever witnessed a car accident caused by the Devil's Lettuce

>>1816601

Even if signficant numbers of people used heroin, there would still be less death, misery, and cost then we pay with our current drug-related violence we have now.

>>1816408

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
>Nearly 88,000(9) people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women(9)) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.(10)

I can't follow further, their source requires an account or some shit

>>1815863
Alcoholism was/is a huge problem. But a blanket ban wasn't the way to solve it.

It did destroy the saloon, though.

File: al-capone_wide-cf24138cd42eecae30a06d0efa9e84edf16bdd6c.jpg (86KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1000x562px

>>1815863 (OP)
Temperance was/is a bipartisan issue, with bipartisan support, and bipartisan detractors.

It was favored by progressives who saw alcohol as a poor man's sickness that lead to crime and abuse against women, and it was favored by conservatives who thought that alcohol was destroying the moral fabric of society.

It was also opposed by progressives who thought that it was a regressive attack on Catholic minorities (particularly alcohol loving Italians, Irish, and Germans) and it was opposed by conservatives who thought of it as unwarranted big government intrusion into their personal lives.

Anyone who blames SJWs or religious nuts exclusively is trying to push a political agenda.

>>1816685
>Either you argue that having something illegal stops it from being "normalized"
It something isn't already normalized, it prevents it from being normalized. It doesn't unnormalize something that has already been normalized.

>you have to argue that things can be socially unacceptable regardless of their legal status.
This is also true. The point is that once something is already normalized, banning it is not an effective means to stopping it or unnormalizing it.

You are really missing the point. The legality of the thing does not determine the morality of a thing unless you are a legalist.

>>1816715
It's not hard to spoke weed if you keep to yourself, and if weed is illegal, you will keep to yourself when you smoke weed. This is a good thing and more than enough reason for weed to be illegal.

>>1816729
No, organized crime would just find some other contraband to traffic.

>>1816643
>Normal people don't get addicted to drugs, only people who self-medicate with them do.
That sounds alot like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me.

>>1817411
Normal might be a careless word. More precisely psychologically unwell people get addicted, because addiction is the result of coping, i.e. self-medicating through certain substances or behaviors. A guy satisfied with his sex life and who has a intimate partner isn't going to be addicted to porn or be a habitual masturbator; porn and jerking off is addictive because it's an attractive replacement for people who lack those things.

>>1817441
The vast majority of people in our society are psychologically unwell.

>>1817517
So, normal isn't normal?

>>1817534
It's normal to be abnormal in a few ways. It's abnormal to be what is conditioner normal, in every possible way.

>>1817517
That's true. That's why so many people are addicted to substances and behaviors, or being medicated with prescription medicine. The point is drugs aren't the disease, they're just the symptom.

>>1816011
Tobacco has a huge black market to get around sales taxes.

>>1816594
>No this is false, and proven by that kid you knew in middle school who was reasonably smart and driven and became a lazy stoner. You can pretend the kid became lazy first and then smoked weed after that all you want, which is false, but even if it was true, it just enabled them to be lazy.

I was intelligent and hard working from elementary to middle school, yet I am now I lazy neet with no ambition. Yet I've never touched weed, alcohol, or any other drug. Some people just become lazy, it's not the fault of marijuana.

>>1817910
>Yet I've never touched weed, alcohol, or any other drug.
We all know that's a lie. I'm a teetotaler, but that doesn't mean I never drank in the past.

>>1817943
Name one successful civilization without w*man. You can't. Every great civilization has had large numbers of w*man, many times more w*men than men.

>>1817960
Only because reproduction was a necessity. Ancient Greeks pretty much had them locked up in pigstys and used them only as baby factories and those guys were the creators of Western Civilzation.

>>1816555
>>1816555
>>eating yourself to obesity

Sorry but if anything, weed makes you skinnier, when i started smoking weed without control i had lost 13 pounds in a year

Alcohol is a ton of fun anyone else who says differently should cut off parts of their flesh

>>1816370
The US is infested with Protestants, with no cultural traditions to moderate them.

US Christianity is some of the worst Christianity in the world today.

>>1816351
>Alcohol kills 88000 people a year in the United States alone.

Fun way to die, better than war

"Alcoholism is a disease" is a meme.

That is all.

Women voted for in a landside while millions of men were expelled from the workplace and political system and into the first world war. Women's advocacy takes advantage of wartime to secure influence from male vacancies.

>>1816372
Alcohol is about the one thing non-whites fetishize about white culture

>>1816010
>filename

He could pass for a Southern European.

>>1818303
>implying southern europeans arent just muslim rape babies

>>1818317
North Africans weren't Muslim when they enriched Mediterranean Europe.

>>1816563
It's safe to say that just like how the average drinker isn't an alcoholic or wino, the average smoker isn't a stoner or pseudo-Rasta. Carl Sagan is an excellent example.

Alcohol is good. Anyone else is a hardcore garage scene XxX Rock on XxX Straight Edge 4 Lyfe XxX Rock on XxX faggot.

Just stop being a pussy and drink like everyone else has done in your family you fucking spineless faggot. The worst part is men think this is desirable and masculine

>>1816594
>No this is false, and proven by that kid you knew in middle school who was reasonably smart and driven and became a lazy stoner.

Wow, so smoking from a young age can cause your developing brain to become slower? Amazing. You know it's the reason why recreational marijuana's age limit is 21 and over right?

>>1816594
If weed is legalized, I'd want fairly strict rules about secondhand smoke.

Half my family tree is diagnosed with some kind of mental illness, I don't need the contact high.

>>1817947
He has a point. The only drugs I've personally been on were prescription medication whenever I would catch a flu as a child and teenager, and I always hated that stuff. Especially cough syrup, I have no idea why leanheads love the taste so much.

Some people just lose motivation and become lazy sacks of shit.

>>1818317
>>1818332
Fun fact: Europeans were darker than they are today until Middle Eastern farmers, especially from the Levant, came in. They had lighter skin than most Europeans who weren't from the North or what is currently Ukraine (the "Aryans", who by the way were still darker than your average European today).

>>1818334
>It's safe to say that just like how the average drinker isn't an alcoholic or wino
Yet they still might be insufferable when drunk anyways, just like you when you blaze. Alcohol is just as bad is not an excuse to legalize other drugs.

This thread is making me want a pint

>>1818418
I hope you mean a pint of water friend.

>>1818421
No I mean alcohol.

Water is for the homeless alcoholics

>>1816024

Everything is harmful in some way, or dose. Drugs are just different in the way they lead to a dependency, they are not dangerous in themselves, they don't drive or rape, humans do.

And I believe alcohol has also a good role in society, it permits individuals to let steam off, to be uninhibited, and to have new insights. Eg; A good chunk of art was done under influence

>>1818424
>distilled waterless alcohol

>>1818462
Hey, they're still selling Everclear, aren't they?

>>1818481
u gonna drink a pint of everclear bud?

>>1817394
>No, organized crime would just find some other contraband to traffic.
Any they would be significantly weaker due to the massive loss of revenue. Most of the bootleggers from the prohibition era saw their organizations crumble as many of their men simply returned to their jobs in the alcohol industry and the higher ups had to scramble for ways to make more money.

>>1817857
The black market for tobacco is tiny compared to the legal market. There's also very little violence involved with cigarette running. It's a very low profit business, so the only people engaging in it are the tiniest and least relevant street gangs and petty criminals.

>>1818502
>The black market for tobacco is tiny compared to the legal market. There's also very little violence involved with cigarette running. It's a very low profit business, so the only people engaging in it are the tiniest and least relevant street gangs and petty criminals.
I read this and I can't breathe

>>1818454
you can make the same argument for weed and it has the added benefit of not being addictive.

>>1818514
Get back to me when you feel like providing an actual argument.

>>1818537
>black market
>tiny
>violence
>etc
I can't breathe.

>>1818554
Cigarettes specifically. You can provide some cited sources if tobacco smuggling is as big as you're pretending it is.

>>1818559
can't breathe

>>1816554
The reason why Prohibition failed was because banning alcohol didn't make people not want to drink alcohol

File: F3cImr6.jpg.png (40KB, 825x635px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 825x635px

>>1816419

>>1818602
Does /pol/ really wear purple in real life? Is this some sort of we wuz roman pride shit?

>>1818602
People who make these mspaint oc strawmen really need to shoot themselves

>>1818218
Alcohol tastes fucking disgusting

>>1815863
memes

>>1818612
Making a coherent rebuttal to your claims? Haha I'm way to lazy for that.

Here's a drawing I can post every time someone disagrees with me online.

>>1818518

I agree, smoking myself sometimes, but weed can be addictive, it's just not as physical as alcohol. Smoke everyday during months, stop abruptly and enjoy your withdraw.

>>1815863
>>1815863
because Methodists, that's why.

>>1816078
good god. I need a drink then.

File: Six Reasons why we remain in the Philippines - American Postcard Photo Prohibition era.jpg (38KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x320px

>>1815863
Fundie Christians & Women.
>mfw my Filipino great-granduncle established his fortune importing overprice liquor to Americans.

>>1818764
exporting*

File: worst president.jpg (5KB, 198x254px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 198x254px

>>1815863
Because Woodrow Wilson was a sack of shit.
>Only won the election by the spoiler effect
>Reelected by promising to keep the US out of WW1, but then enters it anyway
>Enacted women suffrage
>Created the League of Nations, forerunner of the UN
>Created the Federal Reserve
>Implemented income tax
>Promoted decolonization

>>1815937
Join a fucking club and leave the rest of us alone. People who wish to conform entire societies to their will should be labeled like sex offenders so the rest of us could avoid them like the plagued.

>>1816656

If only we had some sort of law that prevents people from driving under influence of certain substances.

[spoiler] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States [/spoiler]

>>1815937

I hear the Mormons are recruiting

>>1815937
Move to Saudi Arabia or go live with the Mormons in Utah.

>>1818358
Leanheads don't love the taste of cough syrup, they usually drown it out with Jolly Ranchers and Sprite

>>1818502
>Any they would be significantly weaker due to the massive loss of revenue

Just like how the mafia was crippled after prohibition ended and gambling was legalized in nevada, right?

strong Christian values

>>1816356
You kidding? The sacrament is literally wine and bread, Jesus turned water into wine, don't drag us into this. We're only against drunkenness.

>>1818569
Are you black?

>>1819522
>Just like how the mafia was crippled after prohibition ended and gambling was legalized in nevada, right?

Is this sarcasm? Because they were.

>>1815937
>I wouldn't mind living in a non-alcoholic society

That's because you are flaming faggot. Go live in some islamic shithole, they love your kind.

>>1816162
>I can have a single beer and drive just fine
You can drive on a line of coke more easily than you can on the legal booze limit

>>1816502
>It can prevent the normalization of a drug
MDMA and coke are pretty fucking normalised

>>1815937
>what even is Saudi Arabia?

>>1815868
This. Prohibition was considered a "progressive" idea at the time

>>1820220
Pot too. At this point, pot is damn near as normalized as alcohol, at least among young people.

>>1815863
>muh chillins
>muh social issues
>muh feels matter more than your rights
women