From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:46:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.171543.4895@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>Fred McCall writes, in part, in answer to me
>
>>Besides, isn't this the 'barn door' philosophy that you were espousing
>>in another note?  Suddenly fostering disrespect for the laws by having
>>foolish or unenforcible laws doesn't seem so "wise"?
>
>Here is exactly a case where the "barn door" approach may well have
>been successful.  In the "old days" punishment for getting caught
>smoking was swift and measured.  Also, from time to time Dad would
>wander behind the barn door and catch the boys.  The would get it then
>too.  So it is not as if there were an official policy that made it
>OK behind the door.  The point is that it was not OK, even behind the
>barn door, but the grownups were not going to follow your every step 
>to assure that you complied.

In other words, the only 'crime' is BEING CAUGHT?  How do you think we
got what we have now?  I can't imagine a much worse system.

>
>I am inclined to favor continued prohibition of marihuana, enforced by
>serious but not overly severe penalties for possession for personal
>use.  

I'm curious.  Why, other than that it has been illegal since the end
of Prohibition?  I'm assuming that you knew that it used to be legal,
and was only outlawed because of a campaign by a single man with the
money to fund films like "Reefer Madness".

>
>>Quite right, which is why your views struck me as 'right-wing
>>religionist'.  Generally, they are the group that wants to move that
>>line about what kinds of behaviour are to be regulated or prohibited
>>to an extreme.
>
>Fred, statements like this were very common during the McCarthy era. It
>is called guilt by association.  In this case, it is guilt by association
>of ideas.  If person A entertains an idea that (the Communists/Right Wing
>Religionists - pick one) advocate and which I am against, then A must
>be a (Communist/Right Wing Religionist) and, therefore, his ideas are
>ipso facto subversive and also nonsensical.  End of discussion.  Call in
>the (FBI/Thought Police - pick one).

And wanting to enforce your ideas of purity on everyone else is
exactly what the Nazis use to do.  Now that we've taken the discussion
full cycle through McCarthy and Hitler, perhaps you can try something
different and refreshing.  Logic and reason might be a nice change
for you, after all the rhetorical tricks.

>
>By the way, as far as I know the "Religious Right", however that is
>supposed to be defined, is not agitating for banning booze.  And
>there are more than a few non-Religious-non-Righters who are against
>the legalization of drugs, for enforcement of posession, etc.

No, it's the 'morality' argument that smacks of "Religious Right".
And that's the only reason I've seen you give.

>
>This whole thing started when I suggested raising the drinking age to
>the speed limit.  55 might be a bit much, but how about 25?  The advo-
>cates of lowering the age to eighteen made a big deal about the arbi-
>trariness of 21.  Well, if we can lower it for that reason, then we
>should be able to raise it too.  But no, no, Fred.  Let's leave it
>at 21.  Wouldn't want to violate the constitution.

Personally, I think it belongs at 18, if you feel a drinking age is
necessary at all.  If people are supposed to be adults at 18, why
should they have this one restriction?  If they're old enough to vote,
they ought to be old enough to go to a bar and commiserate about the
resulting mess.  :-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.