Prohibition

[Number Eleven - GPEMC!]

I would like to see prohibition laws return, but I would like to see them
enforced properly. In the USA there were too many police protected speak
easies during the last round. Sure organized crime increased, and there

was

some violent crime, but a lot of it was gangsters killing each other - not

a

great social loss. There is a much greater social loss now when alcohol is
legal, including many deaths and disablements from increased traffic
accidents.

The social loss in prohibition days was greater. Innocent people who drink
in moderation get poisoned when the fascists decide to ban what they don't
understand. Only in prohibition days could you get your whiskey laced with
lead.

The social cost is tremendous. Alcohol causes far more trauma
than marijuana, which is illegal, and more than all the illegal drugs
combined.

Drivers are tested for alcohol, but not for other drugs. We don't know
because prohibition has driven the drug problem underground where it can
cause the most harm by escaping measurement.

It is a major curse to humanity. The Lord of the Age has banned
its use and the sooner the majority accepts Baha'u'llah's revelation the
better off the world will be.

Cigarettes cause more death and disability than alcohol ever will, and the
Lord of the Age erred grievously to ban the lesser evil and neglect the
greater evil. The greatest evil is abusiveness. The problem is the abusive
people and not the religions, substances and other objects of abuse by which
some justify the persecution of others.

Maybe we cannot legislate morality, but we could improve it by passing
enforceable prohibition laws. Maybe the spiritual standards of society

are

too low to have them enforceable at this time, but we have to start
somewhere. Bring back prohibition!

Spirituality has nothing to do with consumption of alcohol. Alcohol is
neither good nor evil - it is the abuse of alcohol and the subsequent use of
alcoholism as an excuse to abuse others that is reprehensible.

How would you like it if religion was banned just because abusive people
also use religion as an excuse to abuse the rights of others?

It is this kind of question that defines spirituality, and spirituality has
nothing to do with the kind of blindly imitated bigotry that is refuted by
every glass of wine consumed in moderation. Alcohol abuse is the exception
and not the rule of alcohol consumption, and those who abuse alcohol are
just as abusive when they are sober.

One more question, if you take away alcohol, how do you do so without
harming those whose diets include red wine and/or amaro in the correct
amounts?



____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com

[Number Eleven - GPEMC!]

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Only in prohibition days could you get your whiskey laced with
lead.

Reprehensible but it had nothing to do with prohibition laws.

Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws, because
manufacturing and quality control had no regulatory oversight, and due to
this a lot of people used plumbing components made from or modified with
lead due tot he ease of working with this material. The lead then found its
way into the alcohol. This frequency of negligence just doesn't happen in
the absence of prohibition laws. This is how prohibition laws cause much
more frequent poisonings. My late brother had many enemies because he made
it his business on ocasion, to frequent night clubs with a small bottle of
industrial solvent. Then he would obtain whatever was being sold there and
when he had everyone's attention, he would perform a recrystallisation to
show everyone the degree of contamination inherent in illicitly manufactured
substances. It would seem that people who take illicit drugs are in more
danger of being poisoned by by-products because prohibition deprives illicit
drug manufacturers of any civilly actionable liability - and it is this that
ensures the quality control processes of legitimate food companies.

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Cigarettes cause more death and disability than alcohol ever will, and

the

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Lord of the Age erred grievously to ban the lesser evil and neglect the
greater evil.

The Lord of the Age does not err. Smokers are more likely to kill

themselves

than others. Although smoking is not against Divine Law, I would like to
see prohibition laws for smoking too. My understanding is that smoking was
against the law for Babi's. Smoking was so prevalent in Persia that
non-smokers were persecuted as being Babi's or Baha'is and Baha'u'llah
allowed smoking to protect those non-believers.

Then he is not the Lord of the Age. Abrogating a ban on a greater evil while
proscribing a lesser evil is a grievous error, whether or not proscription
is appropriate in either case. The person responsible cannot possibly be
"Lord of the Age" any more than a man who claims 2 is greater than 3 can be
a mathematician.

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Spirituality has nothing to do with consumption of alcohol.

I agree, but spirituality has a lot to do with those whose duty is

supposed

to be enforcing the laws. Read what I wrote again, with this in mind, and
you will understand my meaning.

Yes, but laws themselves only create problems if they serve only a minority
of the community. For example, the only people who benefit from drug
prohibition laws are the drug dealers who can then use the laws as an excuse
to charge anything they like, and manipulate the police by trading somebody
else's conviction for their own. My ex-wife's car was written off by a drug
addict, who was given immunity from civil action because he named a drug
dealer. That meant we bore the expense of the drug-addict's illegal
behaviour and were not allowed to seek compensation. If there was no
prohibition, the accident wouldn't have happened and if it did, we would
have been compensated. The fact is that redundant laws create injustice,
because laws don't change the people who create the problems. If anything,
laws make the problems worse if those problems are not addressed by other
means.

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
One more question, if you take away alcohol, how do you do so without
harming those whose diets include red wine and/or amaro in the correct
amounts?

There is no problem if the diets are medically prescribed.

There is if we lack a 100% complete understanding of diet with respect to
genetic differences in physiology. Like I said, it is inadvisable to
advocate laws when you don't understand what you are trying to change.
Sometimes, I have half a glass of red wine with a meal to help my
digestion - what do you propose you can replace the wine with? It might
interest you to know that my doctor doesn't know the answer to this question
and neither does Baha'u'llah. This alone suggests that prohibition of
alcohol in absence of answers to such questions is both ignorant and,
negligent.



____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com

[Enty Ell]

"Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws". False - it was
caused by persons drinking alcohol!

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Only in prohibition days could you get your whiskey laced with
lead.

Reprehensible but it had nothing to do with prohibition laws.

Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws, because
manufacturing and quality control had no regulatory oversight, and due to
this a lot of people used plumbing components made from or modified with

[Finnegan's Wake]

Post by Enty Ell
"Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws". False - it was
caused by persons drinking alcohol!

In the days that lead piping was used to carry potable water, lead poisoning
could and did occur in persons who did not imbibe alcohol. 'twas for that
reason that the use of lead piping was discontinued and copper, though
latterly plastic, tubing was used instead. Accidental lead poisoning is now
rare- in both drinkers and non-drinkers. The regulated standards in modern
breweries and distilleries and other establishments where the "pure" is
created require the use of the highest quality plumbing fixtures such that
contamination is avoided. As the old song put it, the best moonlighters: -

"Get you a copper kettle
Get you a copper coil
Fill it with new made cornmash
And never more you'll toil"

Do not let your anti-alcohol fervour distort your perception of fact!

Post by Enty Ell

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Only in prohibition days could you get your whiskey laced with
lead.

Reprehensible but it had nothing to do with prohibition laws.

Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws, because
manufacturing and quality control had no regulatory oversight, and due to
this a lot of people used plumbing components made from or modified with

[Number Eleven - GPEMC!]

Post by Enty Ell
"Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws". False - it was
caused by persons drinking alcohol!

No, the consumer did not create the conditions by which lead could find its
way into the process. These conditions were created by prohibition and so
alcoholic lead poisnoning is not caused by consumption as this is only
symptomatic of demand - the cause is the prohibition that effectively
encourages the use of lead in the manufacturing process in the first place.



____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com

[Enty Ell]

I think we need to face up to the fact that imbibing alcohol has a
pleasurable effect and this causes addiction. The relinquishing of
inhibitions and loosening of the tongue, the temporary forgetting of guilt
complexes, all contribute to an unreal atmosphere. Facing up to the reality
of being sober is often not easy and requires courage, determination and
perseverance - all necessary virtues.

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!

Post by Enty Ell
"Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws". False - it was
caused by persons drinking alcohol!

No, the consumer did not create the conditions by which lead could find its
way into the process. These conditions were created by prohibition and so
alcoholic lead poisnoning is not caused by consumption as this is only
symptomatic of demand - the cause is the prohibition that effectively
encourages the use of lead in the manufacturing process in the first place.
____________________________________________________________
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!

[compx2]

Hi Enty Ell,

Post by Enty Ell
Facing up to the reality
of being sober is often not easy and requires courage, determination and
perseverance - all necessary virtues.

Hey virtue isn't necessary if we just make laws. Soon, if the Baha'is
have their way, virtue will be enforced by Baha'i Police. We can
start with alcohol, then move on to daily prayer. Can you imagine
what a wonderful world it will be with Baha'i Law instituted by the
Baha'i Faith? I can!

--Kent

Post by Enty Ell
I think we need to face up to the fact that imbibing alcohol has a
pleasurable effect and this causes addiction. The relinquishing of
inhibitions and loosening of the tongue, the temporary forgetting of guil

t

Post by Enty Ell
complexes, all contribute to an unreal atmosphere. Facing up to the reali

ty

Post by Enty Ell
of  being sober is often not easy and requires courage, determination a

nd

Post by Enty Ell
perseverance - all necessary virtues.

n

Post by Enty Ell

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!

Post by Enty Ell
"Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws". False - it was
caused by persons drinking alcohol!

No, the consumer did not create the conditions by which lead could find its
way into the process. These conditions were created by prohibition and so
alcoholic lead poisnoning is not caused by consumption as this is only
symptomatic of demand - the cause is the prohibition that effectively
encourages the use of lead in the manufacturing process in the first place.
____________________________________________________________
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!

- Hide quoted text -

Post by Enty Ell
- Show quoted text -

[m***@yahoo.com]

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Only in prohibition days could you get your whiskey laced with
lead.

Reprehensible but it had nothing to do with prohibition laws.
Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws, because
manufacturing and quality control had no regulatory oversight, and due to
this a lot of people used plumbing components made from or modified with
lead due tot he ease of working with this material. The lead then found its
way into the alcohol. This frequency of negligence just doesn't happen in
the absence of prohibition laws. This is how prohibition laws cause much

Hey, let's use your line. Don't blame the lead and prohibition laws,
blame the moron who used the lead solder and pipes. Isn't that the
same logic you applied to alcoholism. Here's what you wrote:

"The choice to overstep the bounds of moderation is a choice and is
not dictated by any attribute of alcohol "

Likewise the choice to use ignorantly use lead in your pipes, is a
choice. Both you and Kent would have problem with letting people know
that the lead in those pipes will make you crazy, or that alcohol is a
carcinogen which will raise your risk of cancer.

The internal hypocrisy of this logic you are applying astounds me.

Perhaps the answer is to educate mankind as Baha'u'llah advocated,
and allow civil, intelligent people to make their own choices. And by
education, I don't mean the Budwiser commercials that I see, I mean
the truths about alcohol in every way. People should know that alcohol
is considered a carcinogen. People should know what a carcinogen
means. People just aren't educated on this subject and as testified by
the postings here, the misinformation abounds.

[Finnegan's Wake]

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Perhaps the answer is to educate mankind as Baha'u'llah advocated,
and allow civil, intelligent people to make their own choices. And by
education, I don't mean the Budwiser commercials that I see, I mean
the truths about alcohol in every way. People should know that alcohol
is considered a carcinogen. People should know what a carcinogen
means. People just aren't educated on this subject and as testified by
the postings here, the misinformation abounds.

Statistics do not a carcinogen make! Most of these so-called research
reports are based on statistical analysis ... and that is a very dodgy
premise on which to base any conclusions.

This morning, for example, I hear via the BBC no less, that aspirin is
useless as a prophylactic against heart disease/strokes in diabetics despite
a conventional wisdom that it is the best thing since Noah discovered
ship-building.

Is alcohol a carcinogen or is it an accelerant? If so, how much does one
have to consumebefore the effect becomes apparent? Or, perhaps, is it just
that some people, in statistically significant numbers, have cancers and are
also heavy alcohol users. This effect does not indicate a causal
relationship. You need a lot more research, preferably not statistical,
before establishing that. Salt causes heart disease but salt is essential
to human life. In an area with fetid water supplies is not beer a healthier
drink than water - the alcohol destroys the nasty little bugs. Should we
not therefore establish the general idea that it is the surfeit that is
dangerous and to be avoided?

As a civil, intelligent person I've made my decision. I decided to risk
manage alcohol ... accept the minimal risk to life and limb for the pleasure
and other beneficial effects of the uisce beatha (lit. water of life -
anglicised as whiskey). There are generations that testify to its merits as
the water of life. There are statistics that say otherwise. A drunk uses a
lamp-post much as a statistician uses statistics - more for support than
illumination!

[compx2]

Hi Mike,

"Both you and Kent would have problem with letting people know that
the lead in those pipes will make you crazy, or that alcohol is a
carcinogen which will raise your risk of cancer."

Do you find it as offensive as I do when someone tells you what you
think? Perhaps we should start a new thread about the Baha'i
Teachings and Straw Men.

If you are interested in what I think, I am not difficult to find.

--Kent

Post by m***@yahoo.com

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Only in prohibition days could you get your whiskey laced with
lead.

Reprehensible but it had nothing to do with prohibition laws.
Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws, because
manufacturing and quality control had no regulatory oversight, and due t

o

Post by m***@yahoo.com

this a lot of people used plumbing components made from or modified with
lead due tot he ease of working with this material. The lead then found its
way into the alcohol. This frequency of negligence just doesn't happen i

n

Post by m***@yahoo.com

the absence of prohibition laws. This is how prohibition laws cause much

Hey, let's use your line. Don't blame the lead and prohibition laws,
blame the moron who used the lead solder and pipes. Isn't that the
"The choice to overstep the bounds of moderation is a choice and is
not dictated by any attribute of alcohol "
Likewise the choice to use ignorantly use lead in your pipes, is a
choice. Both you and Kent would have problem with letting people know
that the lead in those pipes will make you crazy, or that alcohol is a
carcinogen which will raise your risk of cancer.
The internal hypocrisy of this logic you are applying astounds me.
 Perhaps the answer is to educate mankind as Baha'u'llah advocated,
and allow civil, intelligent people to make their own choices. And by
education, I don't mean the Budwiser commercials that I see, I mean
the truths about alcohol in every way. People should know that alcohol
is considered a carcinogen. People should know what a carcinogen
means. People just aren't educated on this subject and as testified by
the postings here, the misinformation abounds.

[Number Eleven - GPEMC!]

Post by m***@yahoo.com

Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Only in prohibition days could you get your whiskey laced with
lead.

Reprehensible but it had nothing to do with prohibition laws.
Alcoholic lead poisoning was caused by prohibition laws, because
manufacturing and quality control had no regulatory oversight, and due to
this a lot of people used plumbing components made from or modified with
lead due tot he ease of working with this material. The lead then found its
way into the alcohol. This frequency of negligence just doesn't happen in
the absence of prohibition laws. This is how prohibition laws cause much

Hey, let's use your line. Don't blame the lead and prohibition laws,
blame the moron who used the lead solder and pipes. Isn't that the
"The choice to overstep the bounds of moderation is a choice and is
not dictated by any attribute of alcohol "

Prohibition or lack thereof is not a choice but a law - much unlike whether
or not to have a glass of red wine with the meal. Moderation cannot apply
except in absence of such laws. BTW we DO hold the manufacturer responsible
for the safety of the product. No lead is allowed in alcoholic beverages
unless the consumer is informed. You are not even allowed to use lecithin
(found naturally in soy & egg yolk) in food products unless it is documented
on the packaging. This is a good thing. My nearest and dearest friend would
be dead now were it not for such strict laws concerning the honest
documentation of food ingredients, potential food contaminants, and food
quality. If there was any *scientific* evidence that moderate alcohol
consumption appropriate to the attached meal was found to cause cancer,
alcohol manufacturers would find themselves in the position of cigarette
companies - facing class actions and law suits from everyone with related
diseases and history.

Alcohol abuse is an abuse and is no more actionable than if you head-butt a
brick wall and want to sue the builder - even if excessive consumption does
cause cancer. Excessive consumption of cocoa and polyunsaturated oils cause
the stomach to remain open to the oesophagus after eating - this causes
reflux and subsequent chemical burns to the oesophagus which in turn causes
the build-up of oesophageal scar tissue and eventually leads to GI cancer in
a statistically significant percentage of cases. Chocoholics don't get to
sue the manufacturers because excessive chocolate consumption is an abuse of
privilege, not a right and certainly not a legitimate choice of action. If a
real estate investor takes a dive from a skyscraper and survives the plunge,
who do you think is responsible for his injuries?

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Likewise the choice to use ignorantly use lead in your pipes, is a
choice. Both you and Kent would have problem with letting people know
that the lead in those pipes will make you crazy, or that alcohol is a
carcinogen which will raise your risk of cancer.

Lead kills you if used inappropriately - that is why I'd have a problem with
telling people that it only causes psychosis. Lead is used in solder. Using
your logic, we'd have to give up all electronic technology because the lead
it contains is a potentially fatal substance if consumed. Using "my" logic,
food manufacturers can't profitably use lead in contact with food because
they'd have to notify their potential customers - who would then not buy the
product. Now, you are free to eat the solder in your computer, just as
abusive people are free to abuse alcohol. Abusive people choose alcohol
because they feel socially comfortable to blame the alcohol for their own
choices. If lead wasn't so deadly, abusive people would also use lead
"addiction" to evade responsibility for their own actions.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
The internal hypocrisy of this logic you are applying astounds me.

Arguments like this are why belief in god is equated with dishonesty. Let me
elaborate...

You claim that I have a problem with letting people know that alcohol is a
carcinogen or that lead is a poison. I don't. Political assertions and legal
classifications are not science - and they never will be even if the science
agrees. Get your facts right and try not to leave out relevant details such
as the fact that consumption of certain alcoholic beverages as an integral
part of certain cultural diets is scientifically proven as well. You also
conveniently omit the fact that alcohol abuse is the exception, not the
rule. This has profound significance because it proves that the abuse is
behavioural and not chemical. Most importantly, you fail to account for the
very existence of moderate alcohol consumption and conveniently omit the
facts as they pertain to moderation and not to abuse.

You can prove anything by emphasising one fact to the exclusion of others.
Setterfield "proved" that the speed of light was changing (so the fact your
computer is actually working the way you think it is, is just a delusion!)
and Snelling "proved" that radiometric dating was impossible (see
http://fundamentalism.timothycasey.info for details). It is mostly
fundamentalists, fascists, and panic merchants who use factual censorship to
buttress their points. I suggest you look in the mirror before you use
implicitly ad homenim labels like, "hypocrisy". As if this is not enough,
you drag God and the likes of Baha'u'llah into your rather selective
argument - and then you wonder why people view religion with profound
suspicion...

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Perhaps the answer is to educate mankind as Baha'u'llah advocated,
and allow civil, intelligent people to make their own choices. And by
education, I don't mean the Budwiser commercials that I see, I mean
the truths about alcohol in every way. People should know that alcohol
is considered a carcinogen. People should know what a carcinogen
means. People just aren't educated on this subject and as testified by
the postings here, the misinformation abounds.

Yes, stick the warning on the label just like the warnings on cigarette
packets. However, get your facts straight first - when does alcohol
consumption become significantly carcinogenic? Does half a glass of red wine
with the occasional meal pose any statistically significant risk, and how
does this risk compare with the known benefits? Is it the abuse of the
privilege which causes the problem? I don't see any evidence of moderate
drinkers beating people to death, causing accidents, or dying of cancer any
more so than teetotallers. In fact, given the way certain Iranians
teetotallers treat Atheists and Baha'is, I have to wonder if they'd behave
with slightly more human decency if they had the occasional drink.

A rigid generalisation can be refuted with a single anecdote. When you make
a generalisation, you must address all relevant exceptions in order to prove
the validity of your interpretive context. When you refute a generalisation,
all you need is the one single exception. I am not asserting that alcohol is
"Sometimes, I have half a glass of red wine with a meal to help my
digestion - what do you propose you can replace the wine with? It might
interest you to know that my doctor doesn't know the answer to this question
and neither does Baha'u'llah. This alone suggests that prohibition of
alcohol in absence of answers to such questions is both ignorant and,
negligent."

So much for "essential infallibility"!


____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com