A few thoughts I would like to put out there. Part of what I write here is copied from a comment I made on a YouTube video that demonstrates the distillation of potassium, a very reactive metal.
This was in response to someone mentioning that in Germany it is illegal for a private citizen to posses Nitric acid. I don’t like such restrictions because they are unfair, over broad, disproportionate and not fit for the purpose they claim to serve. The idea is that if precursor chemicals for drug synthesis or extraction are restricted the drug problem will be eased, ideally it should be eliminated but that does not happen, it just moves the drug trade more and more underground and into the hands of organised crime that is sometimes linked to government organisations. The other stated goal is that terrorists can no longer produce improvised explosives and cause terror. This is a farcical goal for the bulk of terror is perpetrated by governments with the assistance of the mainstream media in distributing the propaganda. The past 3+ years are a clear example that this is not speculation but well documented. Governments are the biggest terrorist problem yet their goal seems to be eliminating the opposition so they are the only ones able to terrorise.
My YouTube comment:
A common reason for people to contemplate prescription and banned pharmaceuticals is when they want to self medicate due to failure of the medical system to address their PTSD, pain, depression, fear and all those other things that the system provides. Alcohol has so many negative side effects that it is not an innocent alternative. I believe everyone should have the right to make AND prescribe for themselves ANY compound if it does not endanger others, training on safe procedure should be available also therapy to understand the potential addiction, child welfare, marital and social costs consumption may cause and agree to accept in advance double penalties for predictable negative outcomes. Punish the crime and not the speculation. In contrast I do not support sale of drugs without someone taking responsibility and I think the medical industry has dropped the ball on many occasions.
The second class of chemicals that I feel have been targeted mostly unfairly are those that enable the citizen rabble to rise up against corrupt and totalitarian governments. I long for the day that governments have as a primary goal the general wellbeing of every citizen and not industry lobby groups. This near total failure in the social contract drives people to desperation because they no longer (if the ever did) have a voice. Even in multiparty states the financial interests usually cross all party lines and any change is always to the detriment of the common citizen and for the benefit of the billionaire class. There is a strong correlation between disarming a population or a segment of the population and a subsequent genocide, strong enough for an honest politician to PROMOTE a well armed militia but usually any means of opposition is rather removed and means to exert force are only held by the police.
I think most people accept that prohibition of alcohol is not practical or productive in a free society. It is a rule imposed on OTHERS without their consent. I have no issue for a society or congregation making such a rule for voluntary members. I do not mind if they sanction transgressors when they have accepted such a contract. I however do not believe that simply because an injected, imbibes, ingested, inhaled or absorbed material can cause harm it can automatically be prohibited from self-administration. Instead we should spend the money wasted on the war on drugs on the education for self-reliance.
I hear and read that alcohol taxes are fair, useful or even preventative of alcohol abuse. They are simply a luxury tax that mostly hurts those that need the access to the self medication. I ask people to explain to me how is it possible that high taxes on alcohol can reduce and even higher taxes might prevent alcohol abuse yet no mention is ever made of the fact that there exist well to do sober people, in theory they should all be alcoholics because they have easy access to alcohol. I seek the answer to the same question regarding the populations of countries where home brew is legal (many) and personal distillation of moon-shine or traditional drinks is legal such as New Zealand, some East European countries and some states in the USA. Why are there any sober people left in these countries even though access to alcohol is not restricted. After some thought a diehard person with abolitionist tendencies will try to say not everyone is susceptible to the evil and still fail to realise they have now sanctioned a tax or prohibition on something that serves no purpose for most of the population and could benefit them.
I believe that Teaching delinquent alcoholics how to manufacture stills and sell them could easily give them a life goal that they can get behind. Eliminating alcohol sales and legalising personal production would do a lot more to reduce the abuse. People drink because it is easy not because it is cheap.
Same deal for drugs, teach people to make them, 25 years if you deal, life if you sell to or enable a child to get. Place the penalty where it MATTERS and not where it is profitable.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.