Prohibition - Nothing Has Changed

Taken from various websites with my comments.

WEBSITE: In the late seventeenth century, the Reverend Increase Mather, probably the most influential Puritan minister of his time, said that alcohol was "a good creature of God" and that man should partake of the gift without abusing it. His son, being a little more concerned about drinking, encouraged people to set a good example by not getting drunk. (which is still drug abuse, so they were really saying the same thing).

However, starting in the late 1700s, some people started being concerned about the amount of alcohol that people were drinking.

FREEBORN: So, some people became concerned about ethanol drug abuse, so what did they do about it? Did they teach respect for their drug of choice, or did they just unleash No Tolerance on America's/Australia's/U.K's/Europe's etc. favourite drug of choice? JUST LIKE THEY DO TODAY. The difference is that so-called anti-drug campaigners are not really anti-drug at all, and No Tolerance Policy unleashed against ethanol in the days of Prohibition has now been removed from the drug ethanol and unleashed upon other drugs (now branded with the buzzword 'illicit').

This proves even in the 17th cent. that ABUSE was known as the problem, not the subject matter. The only thing that targets subject matter and use and choice in this world today, are apartheid discrimination policies that manifest abuse on a regular basis. As abuse was the problem, they did not need prohibition, they just needed drug respect being taught with factual information and education without bias, without prejudice, without racism and without all the other hate-filled forms of abuse that get unleashed, thanks to apartheid drug policies....illicits only, of course.

What is an apartheid drug policy? Simply stated - "Our drugs are all good, your drugs are all bad". "Our drugs are advocated by our Politicans, Prime Ministers, Police, Media, Celebrities, Sporting Personalities etc. while your drugs (albeit being consumed by a percentage of all the above) are condemned, discriminated against and are destined for eradication under an apartheid mandate.

Apartheid discrimination means: 'A policy of social segregation, defined by differential and/or preferential treatment'. Get the picture?

WEBSITE: In Massachusetts, a law was passed in 1838 that prohibited sales of spirits in less than 15-gallon quantities. The law was repealed only two years later. Maine, with the reputation of being the drunkest state in the nation, passed a strict prohibition law in 1851. The law did not help its reputation much. Other states followed without getting good results. The laws were just too difficult and expensive to enforce.

FREEBORN: So why do we continue this insanity...albeit with a different drug? The definition of insanity is 'to do the exact same thing, the exact same way, over and over again while expecting a different result'.

WEBSITE: The majority of the people did not want to stop drinking alcohol.

FREEBORN: (Their drug of choice).

WEBSITE: Many states drastically changed or even repealed the laws soon after passing them. In 1917, the entire political climate changed. There was a massive outbreak of anti-foreign sentiment, particularly anti-German. The Germans had dominated the sale and manufacture of beer. Prohibition speakers often referred to the "un-American saloon". They also argued that grain and other ingredients used in the manufacturing of beer and hard liquor were needed for the war effort.

FREEBORN: There are always excuses for denying someone else their choice. But, no matter how many excuses are wielded, it still does not justify the denial of rights and make reasonable this apartheid conduct.

As for Cannabis, the same happened. There was a massive outbreak of anti-foreign sentiment particularly anti-Mexican and anti-African. The Mexicans had dominated the sale and manufacture of Cannabis. Anti-cannabis speakers often referred to the "un-Americanism/ un-Australianism" when it came to taking particular drugs of choice. Whichever way you look at it, apartheid discrimination policies have been slapped on both ethanol and cannabis for no other reason except for the sake of abuse and political & corporate domination.

WEBSITE: Still there was not much of a change in the common people's hearts. Most still wanted to drink alcohol at all costs.

FREEBORN: Just like Cannabis and other so-called illicits.

WEBSITE: In the days before the National Prohibition Act (the lengthy document explaining what exactly was the prohibition and its limitations) became law, many people could be seen moving alcohol from warehouses and other places to the safety of their homes where drinking alcohol was allowed. Even then, prohibitionists were optimistic. They thought that once the American public would recognize the importance of a liquor-free society, the need for enforcement would rapidly disappear and estimated the cost of enforcing the law at about five million dollars. It was the greatest miscalculation they ever made.

WEBSITE: Enforcement of Prohibition

In the first year of enforcement (1920), Congress appropriated $6,350,000. By 1923, the secretary of treasury was asking for $28,500,000 and a few years later, it was estimated that at least $300,000,000 would be needed.

FREEBORN: As you can see, Prohibition of use and choice is one hell of a money pit, that Government’s and vested interests constantly throw taxpayer’s money into. What a waste of money, of time, of resources. All this could be better spent on teaching drug respect, correct and factual drug information and education, spent on teaching the Criteria of Harm involved when it comes to drugs. This collective is the ultimate Harm Minimisation. For how can we truly minimise harm when it comes to drugs in this country, when we have dismissed, and we do not teach anymore, the Criteria of harm involved with ALL drugs. Their mortality rates, their morbidity rates, their toxicity ratios, their addictiveness ratio and their relationship with real crime ratios.

This, alongside with individual responsibility is true harm minimisation, for it is drug understanding. A quote from ‘Spiderman’ states, “People fear what they do not understand”. Politicians and a large portion of Australia must be very fearful people at this present time.

WEBSITE: Liquor was still available for medicinal purposes in pharmacies and was easy to get by forging prescriptions or getting prescriptions from unscrupulous doctors.

FREEBORN: Nothing has changed.

WEBSITE: Results of Prohibition

The structure now called organized crime was born during the Prohibition. People hijacked alcohol that was on its way to government warehouses where it would be sold for medicinal purposes. New criminals were formed such as the bootleggers and rumrunners. Bloody shoot-outs took place between rival gangs. American society was becoming totally corrupt. Bribery became a way of life.

FREEBORN: See what happens when you slap a buzzword like illicit on a subject matter and combine it with an apartheid drug policy? These policies create organised crimes. Our Government hands the power straight to drug dealers, whether buzzword legal or illegal.

WEBSITE: Many people started dying because of poisonous alcohol.

FREEBORN: Just like what is happening nowadays. Drugs of choice are being contaminated and not manufactured correctly, as criminals try to make profit to keep up with the 'Jones’ s /ethanol and caffeine and nicotine recreational drug cartels.

WEBSITE: Liquor was still available for medicinal purposes -

FREEBORN: Yet another example of pure apartheid discrimination policy. The drug ethanol was prohibited recreationally, while allowed medicinally. However, the drug T.H.C. contained in the Cannabis race, has been (through apartheid) denied both recreationally and medicinally to the detriment of all concerned. i.e. Cancer patients, neurological disorder patients, and chronic and acute pain sufferers, as well as those who would like to take an anti-inflammatory without all the unbeneficial side-effects involved when it comes to prescriptions, NSAIDS and OTC's. Then, let's not forget those trying to suppress post-traumatic stress disorder or those suffering from night terrors, day terrors and many other dis-eases and dis-orders.

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/history/prohibition.shtml

FREEBORN: Now, let's talk about the MYTH called 'Drug Free Australia', and the MYTHOLOGICAL BEINGS called anti-drug campaigners.

Go to a website of any anti-drug campaigner, or look at their policies, and the majority of them are not calling for drugs to be banned at all, because if they did they would have to shut down the drug dealers at Woolworths, Coles, Ritchie’s, all pubs, clubs, hotels, bottle-o's and so on and so forth. I would have drug free Australia and others going to Football Stadiums, or visiting the Woodstock Bourbon Family event surfboat racing, etc. and calling for the instant prohibition of the drug ethanol and all its advertising, pushing, dealing and manufacturing. Then they would move on to 'kiddie-speed, the drug you know as caffeine, which is the drug tri-methyl-xanthine of the xanthine chemical group.

But, as you and I know, that will never happen, and as such to continue getting funding for/and against drugs, they must (as a matter of course) wield the same apartheid rhetoric as our Government, and that is, "And we mean illicit drugs only!" We would prefer it if these pro/anti-drug campaigners stopped targeting people's drugs of choice and instead started targeting the ABUSE of them. Every time you deny an abuser one drug of choice, he/she will just switch and manifest their abuse on the new choice and on everything else around them whether animate or inanimate.

Respect one, respect all. Abuse one, abuse all. It's that simple. This is not a naive statement, it is just simple logic.

The website of Drug Free Australia is about as biased as it gets. When it comes to Cannabis it's all bad news, but when it comes to the drug ethanol/ethane hydroxide/ethyl alcohol, even though they know the negative side of it, their first statement is that 'it's a personal choice' and that so-called 'misuse (buzzword for abuse) is the problem when it comes to this (class A drug under the Criteria of Harm) personal recreational drug of choice.

http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Reference/AlcoholInfo.pdf

They say that alcohol use is a personal choice which can cause addiction and lead to violence and criminal behaviour.

But how, we ask? USE means to benefit and once drug consumption manifests as ABUSIVE addiction, violence and other criminal behaviour, it is not use but it is most definitely abuse. Every time I hear about drug users destroying our society makes me wonder about how many Politicians and pro/anti-drug campaigners actually read a dictionary and know what the word USE actually means, what the word ABUSE truly means, what the word RESPECT truly means and for that matter what the word CHOICE truly means. Then after understanding these four words, they can explain why we have a Prime Minister denying rights and choices and the right of risk when he personally stated that, "The role of Government is not to tell the people what risks and choices they can and can't take". Government includes Prime Ministers, Politicians, Police, Councillors, Legislators, Various groups and bodies in power etc.

They (Drug Free Australia) say, “Drug Free Australia is passionate about providing safe and healthy lifestyles“...but there's nothing safer and healthier than the respectful use of subject matter. Respectful use means 'to look again at your actions and/or applications to make doubly sure that what you are doing (regarding your subject matter) is truly beneficial to you and others.

Woolworth's Ethanol Drug cartel constantly tells us to 'Double Up" on ethanol drugs. I would like to state instead, "Double up on the respect of your drug of choice, before you even think of doubling up on your drug of choice"...all buzzwords aside.