PennvilleBill wrote:
TZcTLpC wrote:
Uh, no.

Try again?
Uhh no to whom?
No to Dave, the poster directly above me who posted an isolated incident as proof of his assertion.
As as word of caution, you need to drop the provocative, condescending attitude; it isn't tolerated on these boards.  We welcome visitors from all walks of life, and are glad if they stick around.  But simple courtesy is expected, and so far IMHO that behavior has been missing in your postings. 
I really can't begin to guess what you're basing this criticism on. I think I've been more than civil to everyone, even those with opinions radically different from my own. If there is something in particular I have done to prompt this comment, let me know.

Dave wrote:
The facts are that legal drugs are sold illegaly so your assertion that making them legal would put a stop to that practice is just rediculous.

It may be true some people continued making and selling their own liquor after prohibition ended, but in my neck of the woods, alcohol is readily available at the neighborhood liquor store. Thus there is no need to do business with violent criminals and accordingly, the sales and distribution of alcohol isn't controlled by the mob. It's all supply and demand. As consumer surplus grows, the cartels' power and influence will decline just as the power of the bootleggers waned post prohibition. They would be put out of business for the same reasons mom and pop's drug stores can't compete with Wal-Mart—lower prices, a flooded market, etc. If corporatists are going to run amok, we might as well put them to use weakening or eliminating a violent sub-culture.