Hacker News Reader

Comment by pstuart | Hacker News Reader

It now has one more vote than my own petition:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-alcohol-sched...

Please note that mine is not a joke, but is designed to be rejected by the administration. The goal is to capture on record why a known dangerous substance is allowed to be sold for recreational consumption.

It's been a hard sell, because people:

  - are too lazy to click on a link
  - don't care
  - love their booze and don't understand my proposal
  - don't believe in the petitioning process

edit: formatting

View on HN

Perhaps you should have a petition which expresses what you actually hope to achieve, which sounds like some sort of reform of prescription laws. Who wouldn't think it's a waste of time to sign a "gotcha" petition?

Anything that talks about the real agenda would then become the focus of the reply. It would be spun on that.

e.g., "This is to point out the fallacies and failures of the War on Drugs"

The moment that wording was part of it then Gil Kerlikowske (our "Drug Czar") would be writing the reply and repeating the same old lies about having to do this and that to keep us safe.

It has to have a minimal opportunities for spin.

Who wouldn't think it's a waste of time to sign a "normal" petition, given the previous response[0]?

[0]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/what-we-have-say-a...

I signed. That's brilliant.

I have not seen a single sane explanation for the US prescription laws. I'm almost certain they're unconstitutional and there is not a provision in the US constitution that makes it possible to pass laws banning the sale, use, or ownership of non-addictive prescription drugs.

Forget alcohol. Why is non-habit-forming blood pressure medication prescription-only? Sure, you can hurt yourself with it if you take it when you're not supposed to and use it when you don't need it.. but how is that the government's concern? Allergy medicine? Diabetes medication? NSAIDs? Pregnancy pills?

Although it's not your point, it would be great if Alcohol didn't exist. There's so many negatives associated with it, I don't know about America but here in England it's a huge problem. Unfortunately alcohol is to the first world what guns are to America, too entrenched in culture to ever be removed.

No, all drugs should be legalized and regulated. Note how well prohibition worked for alcohol in the past.

Regulate for purity, educate for use, and provide medical help for those that need it.

Making drugs illegal doesn't stop people from using them; my brother died of a heroin overdose so this is an issue very close to my heart.

I was (mistakenly) using banned to mean "not allowed and isn't used" (hence the final qualifier, that it would never work). I'll edit my comment to reflect what I actually meant.

Because it worked so well the first time we tried that?

We tried it "not existing"?

The parent edited his comment after I posted. Originally it said "was banned".

reason number 5: those people most likely to actively support your actual objective are those least likely to want to publicly associate themselves with something that will inevitably be perceived as a bona fide campaign for Prohibition, even if they completely understand why you're actually doing it

It's a good idea though... you just might have to get the actual Prohibitionists on side.

I think that maybe if you added a bit more statistics about alcohol-related tragedies (car accidents, murder, etc) it might seem more serious to people. I really like the idea and would have signed if I were an US citizen. I'm trying my best to spread the word though.

Prohibiting alcohol would require an amendment to the constitution.

Under exactly the same logic so would prohibiting cocaine.

Realize that the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal government's constitutional powers much more broadly in the decades since prohibition.

I don't see why. Yes, it was done that way last time; but we currently prohibit substances at the national level, that has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and I don't see any reason at all that should work differently than for alcohol. If I'm missing something, please elucidate.

It is being done at the national level by the DEA. They are judge, jury, and executioner.

... are you saying that the DEA currently enforces alcohol prohibition, or did you missread what I said?

I was referring to other drugs, specifically cannabis.

This petition was in direct response to the DEA's recent refusal to remove it from Schedule I status. This keeps it in the same class of drugs as heroin and cocaine.

And a more severe class than meth. Meth has medical uses, you see.

Yes, that was precisely my point: we are currently doing it for other substances, no reason I see we couldn't include alcohol. Plenty of reason we shouldn't, of course, but I think most people here agree those reasons apply to things we're currently banning, which is the thrust of the whole discussion.

Not necessarily. Read the 21st amendment. It mostly repeals the 18th and clarifies that laws can be made to regulate alcohol use. The petition is to control alcohol under the Controlled Substances Act.

Would it? The 21st amendment only repeals the 18th, it doesn't explicitly legalize alcohol (I'm no constitutional scholar so clarification is welcome.)

It did require an amendment (the 18th, as cited in the petition). It is the only amendment ever repealed.

It was an abject failure.

This is not about "letting people get loaded". That will always happen. This is about taking away what could be considered the primary tool of tyranny by the State. Now the War on Terror is edging it out for first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com