streaming Movies and TV daily, click
here for the web player, or
here for the .m3u.
I am currently writing a short story for school and need to know what the punishments were for breaking the prohibition laws in 1920's america, preferably for the Louisiana area
it depended on how much you were caught with like weed now an days it could ether go from a small fine to jail
More severe than the punishment for killing black people.
...again, just like weed today.
so, after weed is legalized whats going to be the next demon substance?
Same as it is now... Heroin.
Sugar is far worse, physiologically, than marijuana or alcohol.
But no, we won't outlaw it. Our Government honors centuries-old agreements to actually subsidize the private families that produce it instead, and set the price artificially high to benefit them, in one of the more crooked arrangements in legacy US economics. Just one of the myriad ways that U.S. Ag is completely fucked.
don't worry, the increase in gmo frankenfoods will eventually sort things out for you
>Sugar is far worse, physiologically, than marijuana or alcohol.
An overdose of sugar can lead to increased fat storage and perhaps dehydration. An overdose of alcohol can lead to fatal toxicity.
Good point, that was a dumb thing to say. He should have either specified that it affects more people or that he meant long-term health effects. Either way he failed to take into account that your strawberriedness would require clarification.
Yes, I am strawberried for pointing out that he's talking out of his ass. If people consumed alcohol on the scale they consumed refined sugars, pretty much constantly from childhood to adulthood, we would see widespread health impacts far worse than the obesity epidemic.
It's strawberryation, by the way.
Yes, because Diabetes, Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, and all the other diseases that primarily afflict the obese are just so fucking wonderful.
I'm not saying these things are insignificant.
I'm saying that if people in general consumed alcohol like they do refined sugars, the alcohol would fuck them up a lot worse. Pump a growing kid full of refined sugar constantly, you'll get diabetes and heart disease and high blood pressure. Feed that same growing kid as much alcohol as some feed sugar to their kids, and you'll be facing worse than that.
Yes, high amounts of sugar will cause serious problems. Yes, consumption of refined sugars, fats, etc. is a worse social problem at the moment than consumption of alcohol. But saying that its physiological effects are worse than those of alcohol is bullshit.
Not to mention that sugar has high utility, while alcohol does not. Sugar is still food, and provides "energy", while alcohol if ingested only provides some stress relief, at low quantities. Any movement towards prohibition/regulation should consider the potential damage / potential benefit.
Your argument hinges on an "if" clause that does not exist in reality. People do not consume as much alcohol as sugar. We do consume shitloads of sugar, and it corrodes our health proportionately. We all pay hundreds of dollars a month through our health insurance premiums to bandage up first, other peoples symptoms of it, then our own.
Sugar is a far worse problem than alcohol or marijuana, yet we have crazy task forces and blow billions micromanaging them, while we subsidize sugar production and get government grants to reengineer fruit to maximize the fructose (sugar) content without disclosing jack shit. Fucking USA and its priorities.
hmm... i don't recall hearing about sugared-up idiots getting into cars and taking themselves and carloads of other fellow travelers into the hereafter - or sugared-up suicides - or sugared-up robberies - or sugared-up orgies - or sugared-up tales of moral turpitude
and if there somehow was a 'prohibition' in effect, would people be going to speakeasies for some bathtub sucrose?
what the hell are you even talking about dude.
You mean you've never heard of a man getting bombed on Jolly Ranchers and beating his wife in a sugar-fueled stupor?
Then say the SOCIAL effects are worse, not the PHYSIOLOGICAL effects. If you're going to compare physiological effects you have to compare equivalent doses or it's meaningless.
i'm just relieved that there were no skittles involved
well... for all the demonizing of sugar we haven't quite reached the 'reefer madness' stage of paranoia
We could, but then we'd be changing what the conversation is about.
You're a great big goddamn strawberry.
Why must we compare equivalent doses? If people drank equivalent doses to the sugar they consume daily they would be dead. As in you would have to hook up an IV to their vein and force alcohol into their system long after they passed out. Therefore they're not going to consume equivalent doses.
They will consume far larger doses of sugar since there is no immediate consequence for their sweet tooth. Long term both alcohol abuse and overeating will lead to early death.
Cirrhosis requires decades of sustained abuse to reach a life threatening stage, while overeating without regular medical care (a far more common circumstance to be in than it once was) can lead to a person dying in their 20s.
While consuming Tylenol while drinking can cause immediate liver failure, that's more a problem with Tylenol being a toxic substance than a problem with alcohol. Taking too much Tylenol in too short of a time period without any drinking at all can have the same effect.
wondering why it's so funny that dedicated hard-drinking chain-smokers are now more socially 'respectable' than those horrible evil food addicts shoveling platters of greasy cheeseburgers and gallons of carbonated beverages down their holes
food/health morality is such a cruel fickle bitch -- why try to chase her?
We must compare equivalent doses because otherwise you're saying nothing about the actual comparative physiological effects of the substances, you're just asserting that one is a more drastic social problem than the other.
By your reasoning, I could assert that consuming trace amounts of arsenic has no ill effects, but oxygen is a dangerous free radical that leads to gradual and constant cell damage in every human being throughout their life, therefore oxygen is more toxic than arsenic.
That sure is a nice shiny ad-hominem you got there. I bet if you repeat it a few more times it'll become relevant.
can we get a comparison dosage between ad-hominem and heroin? or crack?
Okay, you're a great big goddamn strawberry, a great big goddam strawberry hooooo a great big goddamn straaaaaaawuhberrrrryyyyyyyyyyyeaa!
It's not like saying that at all. It's saying sugar is worse physiologically because while alcohol might be more destructive to a few focused areas in a smaller number of people, sugar not only has more negative effects, and more of the top killers in the country, but is consumed on such a massive scale and over entire lifetimes with little to no option of avoidance, that its effects are far, far amplified.
That said, 1, there are still far worse nutritional problems with the US's industrialized food production, and 2, the mayor of NY banning large sodas is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
But please, do come up with a universal dosage unit for comparison. ...for sugar, a solid, and alcohol, a liquid, and then somehow try to compare their health effects per, for maximum arbitrary bullshitting.
If people consumed refined sugars in reasonable amounts, would it still be "worse physiologically" in your estimation than alcohol?
You do realize that if alcohol is consumed in reasonable amounts it actually has health benefits, right?
Excessive consumption of anything is bad. Even water can kill you if you drink too much of it too quickly and not eat anything. A fucking moron fraternity had to figure that out the hard way.
So if X is invariably more of a physiological threat than Y if you compare a reasonable intake of any Y to an excessive intake of any X, what does a comparison of them even mean?
If you're going to say that the excessive intake of refined sugars is causing widespread health problems, go for it, I'm behind you all the way. But sensationalist bullshit like 'sugar is worse than alcohol' is counterproductive.
>But sensationalist bullshit like 'sugar is worse than alcohol' is counterproductive.
not if your goal is to 'demonize' sugar
To be fair, I'm not the one saying that sugar is worse than alcohol, I'm just the guy saying excessive intake of anything is bad.
Sugar, like salt, is in ridiculous amounts of packaged foods, ingredients, and the like. It's fucking hell trying to piece together a meal that doesn't involve buying fruits, vegetables, and raw meat and making it all from scratch. I'm fine with some amount of cooking (baking chicken, cooking pasta or rice, etc.), but (for example) fuck if I'm gonna spend the hours it takes to go from tomatos to tomato sauce on a worknight.
>>12441that's a good question !!!!