[continued from previous message]   
      
   opportunity opens up.  Are you saying that's an opportunity people are not   
   going   
   to pursue and undertake?  That is contrary to the notion that people are going   
   to   
   pursue their economic self-interests.  If the drug dealer pursued it, someone   
   else   
   will too.  Just because some mafioso told you you can't sell olive oil in your   
   neighborhood, doesn't mean you won't start selling it as soon as you think you   
   can   
   get away with it, when you know that you are justified, and you know you are   
   right.  How can this sort of regulation ever work? It never could, and never   
   will.   
     I don't believe that drugs are wrong.  And I know that they are justified by   
   God.   When it comes to commerce: Prohibition is not regulation, prohibition is   
   negligence.   
   The American people deserve to have drugs regulated, tempered, available, and   
   NOT   
   marketed for recreational purposes, even though they have every right to use   
   the   
   drugs in every way they choose, be it personally hazardous, so long as they do   
   not   
   victimize others.  Prohibition is oppression, and wrongful crime, and sin.   
   Prohibition is a violation of your religion too.   
      
   People's interests and desires must be protected.   
   For instance, you have an interest in buying alcohol.   
   Yet do you have an interest in buying alcohol in the checkout lane?   
   No.   
   Then prohibiting that is legal regulation.  That could at most, become a   
   matter of   
   mere convenience, and must be balanced reasonably within the spirit of   
   regulation,   
   not making it impossible to attain a drug anywhere within a 4,000 square mile   
   county.   
      
      
   ===   
   For 15% of alcohol users abuse.  Even people with two DUI's aren't currently   
   required to show proof of purchase of a breathalyzer before being sold alcohol,   
   which makes no sense.  They'll put a breathalyzer on their car ignition before   
   doing that, which is more onerous.  Why isn't everyone required to show proof   
   of   
   purchase of a breathalyzer before being SOLD alcohol.  I mean, most everyone   
   who   
   drinks, drives.   
      
   Also, the age of alcohol sale could be lowered to 18 years.  But require a   
   breathalyzer purchase, and a test, before alcohol may be sold to anybody, and   
   market it for medicinal purposes.  Except maybe leave light beer in the bars.   
      
   Compliance with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, could be made   
   possible by simply leaving purchase of alcohol illegal for 18-20 year olds, but   
   reforming the law to allow sales to them.  This would technically comply for   
   the   
   Federal act.  This was the case in Louisiana from 1987 to 1996.  You know,   
   Bourbon   
   Street, New Orleans.   
   Also, the penalty for purchase by 18-20 year olds could be lessened to being   
   negligible, next to nothing, while technically complying with the Federal act   
   which will otherwise withhold highway funds.   
   Federal laws, withholding funds, subject to conformity, were written to work   
   around the Constitutionally recognized principles of Federalism, and States   
   Rights.  Thus it may be valid to work around them likewise in return.   
   The drinking age could even be lowered to as young as 14, or better yet,   
   eliminated entirely.  You still would have to pass a test to have alcohol sold   
   to   
   you.  The Constitution guarantees equal protection, but the cruel act belittles   
   teenagers, and 20 year olds; and deprives them of their just and equal rights.   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)