Today, it's because your government chooses to charge a higher "sin tax" on the kind of alcohol that one drinks, so they continue to poison the other kind in order to make that easier for them.
As far as I know, that was true prior to prohibition, as well. Taxing "vice" is not by any means a new phenomenon; I would like to believe the motivations have changed from religious and moral reasons to social stability and economic reasons, but, well, the ABC seems to be on a crusade of the classic sort.
America, fuck yeah.
How do these people make their decisions, reading Harry Potter?
Does the ABC have an Officer Umbrage?
Hey, you can still buy non-denatured ethanol for the lab. You just need a special seal, roughly the equivalent of a tax-exempt seal or a DEA license, to purchase it without tax. We do it all the time.
I remember a HHOS moment during lab orientation where I was told that if I had to drink something, I should drink the 95% ethanol, not the 99% ethanol. The 99% ethanol has to be fractionally distilled on nasty things like benzene in order to get the rest of the water out.
IMHO they don't have jurisdiction on this sort of call, the ATF does.
That being said, I'm not sure if the ATF is more reasonable than the ABC because they're two organizations that I think are run with their heads up their collective asses.
As an observer I'd like the line to be clear and well defined, but I'd also be really pissed if coctails were declared illegal...
People want more government why again?
sometimes "more government" leads to better regulation of basic necessities, like water, energy, and healthcare.
in this case, the ABC needs to be reigned in hardcore, or better yet, dissolved -- but i don't think the problem is a matter of more vs less government.
You would be right, if you weren't wrong.
In most cases government interference has led to lower quality in just about everything. Thats not to say that "infrastructure" run by the government is a bad thing, but have you ever looked at the efficiency rates of things run by the government? Its dismal.
Can you back up your claim that "government interference has led to lowered the quality in just about everything" with hard facts? I'd be interested.
For the record: I love my governmental health care and social and unimployment insurance and pension. Things I will dearly miss when working in the US (or I will have to pay through the nose to get the same results).
Yes, there are efficiency problem if the government runs these - but would you rather have a slightly inefficient solution or none at all?
I could, but for the purposes of discussion, I won't.Well, I could point to the shining examples of Muni, HUD, Fannie/Freddie, Social Security, BATFE, IRS and the FDA. If any of these were civilian organizations, they're be out of business a long time ago...
I'm also assuming by "governmental health care" you mean medicare/medicaid? The program thats going to be slashed by a billion or so dollars shortly?
Also, with the way things are going your pension will be rolled into "the dole" so good luck getting that, along with "social security".
I would rather put my money into a 401k plan where *I* am responsble for mismanaging it rather than the government, so yes, I would rather have no government requirement.
Sorry, I see that I was unclear: I am not in the US at this moment - I was talking about the system in my country (which isn't perfect - inefficiency happens a lot). But no - I didn't refer to medicare/medicaid or the US pension/social security system.
I don't know the specifics of the 401k plan, I will freely admit - I only heard that usually your pension is in danger when a) your employer bankrupts or b) you fall ill.
To enlighten you then, the US doesn't have a pension system for everyone.
The 401k plan is basically a bank account that you put money into for "retirement". Its actually not run by your employer, its run by you - the employee. It can't be taken away, even in bankruptcy, unless you do something stupid.
Pensions are an antiquated way of saying "you're too dumb to save for your twilight years, so we'll do it for you, and make money off of money that we should've given you in the first place and we could also lose it if we're incompetent". So yeah, you're about right there.
Thanks for the explanation.
Still, seeing stuff like people lining up each year for free medical treatment like in a third world country seems unworthy of a developed nation to me.
Maybe it's the news filtering, I don't know, but I got the impression that a rather large portion of americans are not health insured and are basically out of luck if any serious illness occurs (which is the moment they have to dig into their their savings - provided they have any).
Most of it is spin, for every one case where one person is outta luck, there are at least 100-200 that get covered.Sure, there are people who lose everything but that can happen in any situation if you do the wrong thing.
The thing to really look at is - how many Americans like their healthcare coverage; Most do. Should the government really be allowed to screw that up so that some subset get more crappy government healthcare, I don't think so.
Just as a reality check (since I've run into this as a misconception): if it is a serious illness, you will receive treatment in the United State. Always. Nobody having a heart attack or with a deep wound is ever turned away from treatment. The only question is that of who pays the bill after treatment. If your life is in danger, you will be treated. Even for long illnesses, which is where the stories of people slowly draining their savings account come from. Treatment continues after bankruptcy, however.
Also, the destitute and people unable to make an income (severely handicapped, prisoners, etc) also have free or subsidized basic health coverage. This is done through a number of agencies, not all Federal, so coverage varies by region.
As noted below, most people do have health coverage, by the way. Of the remainder, a significant portion are people in the early 20s who have passed the age of being covered by their parents, are healthy and have not yet gotten a job or a job that has benefits. Often in that case, they are technically destitute, and coverage comes in through that door (although it often comes with a heck of a lot of paperwork to show lack of funds and a rider on any new income for the next several years).
Note that I am not advocating for or against anything political, just presenting a snapshot of what is to correct the idea that "a rather large portion of americans are not health insured and are basically out of luck if any serious illness occurs".
Thanks for the explanation!
But I'd still rather trust my health with a money-wasting governmental organisation then some private company.
Mostly because the private company has no interest in my health, but rather it's stockholders shares - which is achieved by paying as little as possible for the treatment of the insured people. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.
I could, but for the purposes of discussion, I won't.
Well there's a line of argument that's really convincing.
I know, I try.
"If any of these were civilian organizations, they're be out of business a long time ago..."
Buh? Have you actually interacted with any civilian(? I assume you actually mean private sector) organizations? In my experience they are every bit as much swamps of inefficiency and stupidity as government organizations. You seem unwilling to come up with any actual facts, so it looks like you're just another net.libertarian blowhard.
I have, in fact; Quite exensively unfortunately.I also deal with several other governmental organizations on a regular basis, and I can tell you pretty definitively that most of them are incredibly more broken than their civilian counterparts.
I've also come up with more facts than you have so it'd be great if you could at least come up with some more creative namecalling to make this even a worthwhile debate.
Stupidity is orthogonal to quantity.
But the power stupidity wields isn't.
I don't see the clip on-line in any obvious place but years ago there was a TV show hosted by Dean Martin whose public persona was that of the constantly buzzed drinker. It was a running joke for him (as younger folks today might not remember).
A guest on one of his shows was a surprise visit by the recently elected governor of California, Ronald Reagan, who got one of his laugh lines by joshing that, sorry Dean, he already had someone in mind to head up the ABC.
My how times have changed.
How much does a ballot initiative cost in CA?
You could call it the Efficient Government Initiative.
I believe they figured out every one cost a few million dollars of the taxpayers money once it was on the ballot. Its probably more cost effective to sue the state...
That figure could well be correct, but what I want to know how much it costs to put the initiative on the ballot — collecting signatures, paying filing fees etc. The ballot system is pretty much set up to avoid any consideration of the state budgetary constraints, short- and/or long-term.