I have a good question: Why is it that prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other products, consumable (politically incorrect plants) and non-consumable (Hughes Amendment), some of which are even constitutionally protected, did not require an amendment.
I have a good question: Why is it that prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other products, consumable (politically incorrect plants) and non-consumable (Hughes Amendment), some of which are even constitutionally protected, did not require an amendment.
its called 'lobbying'Not that I have any proof of this....but I tend to believe that the two industries that are spending the most money to buy politicians are probably the pharmaceutical (Sp)? followed closely by the producers of alcoholic beverages...
While those two industries may spend some monies on buying influence, they aren't even close to the top spenders. Wall Street wins that one, hands down. Congress and the president are owned, lock, stock and barrel, by Wall Street.Not that I have any proof of this....but I tend to believe that the two industries that are spending the most money to buy politicians are probably the pharmaceutical (Sp)? followed closely by the producers of alcoholic beverages...
While those two industries may spend some monies on buying influence, they aren't even close to the top spenders. Wall Street wins that one, hands down. Congress and the president are owned, lock, stock and barrel, by Wall Street.
so, i spent $50 at the liquor store, not because i'm a high-priced drunk, but a celebratory constitutionalist. good to know.
I will drink to thatI've had post bender bowel movements worth more than fifty dollars. It isn't what you drink. It is the fellowship. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for beer.