Prohibition redux?

TalkBack 6 of 14:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

At the risk of...

...being denounced as a "neo-prohibitionist" or worse, let me note that the so-called right to consume alcohol has a large number of social costs associated with it, the least of which is boorish behavior, but also including reduced traffic safety, increased crime and domestic violence, higher divorce rates, etc. While many drinkers are responsible, many are not and will not be, no matter how much they are entreated to do so (or punished for their irresponsible behavior).

Given that this is the case, and given that state and local governments have to spend large amounts of money to mitigate these costs, why shouldn't states be permitted to tax sales of alcohol at whatever rate will produce the most revenue and to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent evasion of their liquor laws (to include prohibitions against mail-order distribution of alcohol)?

I am not in favor of restoring prohibition (the costs far outweigh the benefits), but I do strongly believe that the authority of the states to closely regulate, or even ban the manufacture, sale, or consumption of alcohol, should be upheld in full.

Posted by: John L. Ries   Posted on: 11/09/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now