general
Discord ID: 634367565304561675
1,011,369 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 149/10114
| Next
@Nerthulas There are privately owned towns and communities, and mutual arrangements that are also permitted. They're voluntary.
This is not what is being described
It is.
This hypothetical is unimportant
There isn't zero reason why a town can't self-govern.
we were talking about dry towns and counties in the US and Canada
No, what is being described is government owned municipalities effectively prohibiting substances
only a town
not a city
I'm going to bed, this kid is too retarded
when I said 'dry county'
Towns absolutely can be contractual, and prohibit alcohol.
nighty nighty folks
or 'dry town' I meant really existing ones
@Nerthulas Bro we're talking about towns not counties
weaboo undefeated
```
There's a time and place for anime. The time is now. The place is here.
-Gamestop Dorito```
you don't know what you're talking about
I'm saying a town can be privately owned and function the same.
at all
Lmao
Just saying no over and over again and changing the subject is not winning
that isn't even the conversation
They exist literally, voluntary mutual arrangements that prohibit alcohol.
you decided to have a completely separate conversation
when he said 'dry towns'
he meant really existing ones in his country
its a term
Yes
what it describes is a town with a prohibition on the books against alcohol
Yes
You're referring to counties, not towns
Big difference
Towns can be voluntary and mutual.
here you can read about it
no, they can't
they really can't
'dry town' doesn't mean what you think it means
Any contractual obligation made of its members are voluntary in-term.
it doesn't mean a town where there isn't any alcohol
listen
it doesn't mean what you think it means
it does not mean a town where there isn't any alcohol
it means a town with a prohibition on the books of the municipal code against alcohol
They don't permit the sale of alcohol, yes.
Dosen't matter.
Such an arrangement can be voluntary and contractual.
Why couldn't it be?
that is a law, formed by a democratically elected city or town council, backed by state force
You enter sombody's tenant property and agree to a set of terms so long as you're there.
'could be, couldn't be'
talking about what is
not what could be
But there are towns are ran mutually.
they ***are not*** voluntary
You can't say otherwise.
they aren't called dry towns, dude
a dry town is one with laws against alcohol
They can be dry towns
Okay
So,
maybe you don't know becuase you're european
The initial premise was "prohibition is ineffective."
In Germany, from 1933 to 1939, prohibition on the consumption and sale of tobacco saw the majority of the country's tobacco advertisers, distributors and manufacturers close down, daily consumption of tobacco among the adult population reduce by 25% and among minors almost entirely.
In Canada, from 1920 to 1925, prohibition on the consumption and sale of alcohol saw three quarters of all alcohol breweries close down and decreases by 66% each in cross-border alcohol smuggling, public intoxication and related criminal offences.
To the present day, hundreds of municipal governments maintain prohibitions on the use, manufacture and sale of alcohol within their boundaries and have reduced the consumption of it by 100%.
how the term is used
Then the goal post was shifted to "it could be voluntary."
Which is very irrelevant
if its mutual, it is by definition not a dry town
Okay fine
okay
That's extremely pedantic
yes, you were being extremely pedantic
It's funny how, you know, making a substance *illegal* makes it, well, less used by the population!
A mutual arrangement that prohibits the sale of alcohol isn't a dry town because the government isn't involved?
correct
it is not listed as such on any govt. records
it is not in any law codes
and the ones that Beady was referring to
were actual dry towns
aka, not hypothetical voluntary dry towns
@Leaf War on Drugs has wasted billions, used to justify invasions of foreign counties, destruction of property and illegal coups. Yet, hasn't halted the sale of transport of drugs into the United States.
Furthermore, America's foreign policy often involved supporting orgs that move drugs into the states, such as the Sicilian mob and the Contras.
I'll do more research soon but its late and I'm tired.
it's all a red herring
they take your money anyway
whether they enforce drug laws or not
* * * politicians
once again, you pretend that someone supports American policy
criminals*
its particularly funny considering that you're talking to beady
I mean, I can respect that beady opposes current forms of prohibition, like the use of private prisons, and prison for dealers in general.
@Weaboo Kempeitai do not forget "fast and furious" under Eric Holder
gave military grade weapons to cartel member
But how can you support prohibition without supporting an aggressive foreign policy? @Nerthulas
What is being compared is actual prohibition policies to the U.S. funding of cartels
because those aren't the same thing
Or you are using the financial support of drug traffickers to prove prohibition is ineffective
It's not prohibition, the U.S. government is funding cartels not suppressing them
I mean, the governments they fund and support take the extreme measures you advocate. @Leaf
'how can you support X without supporting Y?'
1,011,369 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 149/10114
| Next