OFF: smoking etc.

[M Holmes]

Dave Berry writes:


> >> Indeed, and the Prohibitionists often tell us that their excesses
> >> are excused by the need to Prooootect the Chilruuun, missing the
> >> point that in Prohibition these substances are functionally
> >> uncontrolled and their distribution handed to criminals rather than
> >> controlled and their distribution handled by retailers who have a
> >> profitable licence to lose if they sell to children.

> If there's a market in selling to children, then criminals will do it
> whether the drug is prohibited to adults or not.  Or so it seems to
> me.

Perhaps, but mass sales to adults provide a lot of cover and dilute the
police effort. That could change a lot with the ending of prohibition.

> >Absolutely, goddamned right! It's always the parents who expect the
> >government to help them raise their kids.  If parents are providing
> >such a sterling example, then, theoretically, the children will be
> >repulsed by the very mention of the word 'drugs' or alcohol etc.

> I'm often surprised at how little american-style libertarians know
> about children.  Did you learn everything you know from your parents?
> Or did you possibly absorb influences from other sources too?

Books?

FoFP