haha i was hoping a few people would try to act like smarty-pants buzz kills. it makes threads more fun.

"if the federal government says its illegal they MUST be right. Don't you like the FDA??? The government is like fucking saving our lives, maaaaahhnnn. "
-agent, woodfoot, etc.

hehe thats a cute attempt to gain the moral high ground, friend. But you're all off base.

Look, I'm not saying that the FDA and similar organizations don't serve useful purposes. Pharmaceuticals are probably the best example of where the FDA might generate significant benefits (protecting us from modern-day snake oil salesman for example). But Popcorn wasn't selling fucking medicine kids. He was selling a smooth tasting, unregulated, 180 proof toxin. And he never told you different.

If you think moonshine is "too risky", that's your choice. But, Popcorn wasn't forcing you to drink it or lying to you about how it was made. He has books and videos showing that this tonic was made in a ramshackle alchemy kit in his backyard. If that doesn't seem "safe" to you, don't fucking drink it. Let the rest of us make our own judgment and tell the nanny state to go to hell.

Believe it or not, some of us actually think we have the right to risk poisoning ourselves for a good time. If we only had the freedom to make healthy choices, we wouldn't have freedom at all.

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM. Reason : ``]

3/17/2009 11:58:22 PM

Granny says ya'll need a swig of the medicine!

3/18/2009 12:07:15 AM

Quote :

"FDA..."the market" would work all that out."

The FDA makes its decisions on a political basis. If a FDA-approved drug harms someone, the embarassment factor is pretty high for these beauracrats. IF thousands of people die waiting for a drug to be approved, that probably won't be splashed on the front page. So the FDA is very very slow to approve anything.

How about requiring unapproved drugs to be marketed with a label that warns that the drug hasn't yet been approved by the FDA?

3/18/2009 12:20:59 AM

lol

you guys are hilarious

3/18/2009 1:53:55 AM

^ from line by line responses to one-line condensation. I guess my work here is done. I'll leave you with the epitaph on Sutton's headstone:

Quote :

"Popcorn Says Fuck You."

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM. Reason : ]

3/18/2009 2:49:00 AM

lol

my comments are on a website

his comments are on his tombstone

looks like i've got the upper hand right now

3/18/2009 3:06:22 AM

but fine, lets do this

Quote :

"How about requiring unapproved drugs to be marketed with a label that warns that the drug hasn't yet been approved by the FDA?"

they do this everyday, they're called "supplements"

if you think you can market a supplement, you go for it - if not, you don't
if you put a product to market that is getting a bad rap, you shut that shit down (think ephedrine supplements)
but you do not get to call it a drug

Quote :

"If you think moonshine is "too risky", that's your choice. But, Popcorn wasn't forcing you to drink it or lying to you about how it was made."

if you think black tar heroin is "too risky", thats your choice too. But, the drug dealers aren't forcing you to shoot it up or lying to you about how it was made.

i know thats an extreme, but at the end of the day, some of these "toxins" are deemed legal, some are not, and at the end of the fucking day, popcorn was making something illegal

and again, its not like there isn't a legal way to sell similar products
and there are several legal moonshine beverages sold today
and one of the things that make them "legal" is that there is a recourse available if the product fucking kills you

Quote :

"hehe thats a cute attempt to gain the moral high ground, friend"

why the fuck do i need a moral high ground?
laws on my side here, hoss

don't like the law? get it changed or, and this worked well for popcorn, get some guns

good to see moonshining is another area where normally upstanding citizens get so damn flexible

i wish the social mores of fucking 15 year olds was as flexible lol

3/18/2009 3:19:35 AM

and that's where you are wrong. he WASN'T making something illegal. get your panties out of your ass

3/18/2009 7:41:39 AM

if the law says that alcoholic beverages must be produced and sold in a regulated fashion, then yes, he was making an illegal product, and he would have told you the same thing.

3/18/2009 7:53:59 AM

making an illegal product, maybe. As in, product = something to be sold. Illegal substance, though, no.

3/18/2009 8:02:59 AM

Woodfoot It is a matter of fact that he was doing something illegal. I never disputed that (in my initial post I even referred to it as a crime).

The real question being discussed is whether moonshining should be illegal. I don't know how you can't see that. So let me help you. If we're in the mood for extreme examples,dig this. It used to be legal to own slaves, does that mean it was morally okay to do it? Does that mean by mocking people that pick and choose which laws to follow, you are also mocking the individuals that ran the Underground Railroad? It certainly sounds like it.

There is just a simple fact you need to face. Kids have been taught to disobey laws they find unjust ever since they started teaching Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in middle school. If you actually do think all laws should be followed regardless of how a person views their moral content, bully for you. But please don't act surprised or incredulous when other people disagree.

Quote :

"if you think black tar heroin is "too risky", thats your choice too. But, the drug dealers aren't forcing you to shoot it up or lying to you about how it was made. i know that's an extreme, but at the end of the day, some of these "toxins" are deemed legal, some are not, and at the end of the fucking day, popcorn was making something illegal"

I recognize you're going for an extreme example, but how is this particular example remotely appropriate? Popcorn is producing a LEGAL substance. It is nothing like heroin. You can actually even buy legal moonshine in ABC stores (what the label says is moonshine anyways, i never bought it to know).

The only reason anyone would think what popcorn is doing is risky is because he is making it without government supervision. And like I said before, some of us are willing to try things not stamped with uncle sam's approval.

Now you may ask why anyone would want to buy/produce this illegal stuff if they can buy/produce it legally. And I can only answer that people would do it because of tradition and because they protest laws that are designed to only protect us from ourselves. Plus, Popcorn's stuff tastes better than anything else i've ver had from a store.

Breaking the law like this will obviously have consequences. But that is part of the protest. The point is hopefully to illustrate to others that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Granted Popcorn's case isn't perfect (weapons charges on top of moonshining), but the fact he got any time for moonshining only reminds that some people will go to extreme lengths to control our everyday lives. I say fuck that.

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 8:17 AM. Reason : ``]

3/18/2009 8:09:48 AM

how is this any different than all of the meth labs around there?

its illegal and it can kill you

pot growers get busted all the fucking time. They just dont have a cute old guy with a beard as a mascot.

3/18/2009 10:24:48 AM

Quote :

"if you think you can market a supplement, you go for it - if not, you don't"

Uh, not quite. So-called "supplements" must first of all disclaim any and all medical benefits.

Furthermore, if it were that easy, why then do you suppose access to experimental drugs has been such a contentious issue that it was recently brought up before the Supreme Court? (The Court ruled "no," btw - even if you have terminal cancer, you still can't get broad access to drugs in Phase III clinical trials.)

If it were so easy to simply slap the label "supplement" on things, pharma companies would be tripping over themselves to exploit this loophole. I wonder why they're not...

And while we're on the topic of crackdowns of products legal to produce but illegal to sell - what about crackdowns on selling raw milk? Connecticut wants to crack down on that, now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/connecticut/15milkct.html?_r=1

So, where does the term "caveat emptor" apply? Must the government always be there to protect us from ourselves and ensure we never voluntarily assume any risks of our own?

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 10:30 AM. Reason : Raw milk]

3/18/2009 10:26:49 AM

Quote :

"If it were so easy to simply slap the label "supplement" on things, pharma companies would be tripping over themselves to exploit this loophole. I wonder why they're not..."

well, to be fair....
Pharma companies are exploiting the "supplement loophole", in large part made possible by the misleadingly-named 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, by creating smaller brands to sell herbs, "alternative remedies," homeopathy, and shit like that. They are labeled and marketed as supplements and do not make medical claims. The "funny" part is, though, that the real pharma companies know this shit is snake-oil and doesn't fix anything, whereas the original alternative medicine makers actually think they're making a difference. The pharma guys just wanted to get into the mix and make some profit as long as all the snake-oil salesmen were.

3/18/2009 10:39:08 AM

So what, patchouli-sniffing hippies are okay when they sell snakeoil, but not big Pharma? I mean, crap is crap, here. It seems like all the pharma industry has done is to perfect the business model of the dirty hippies.

3/18/2009 10:42:12 AM

no, of course not - i think it's all bogus.

but you said that pharma is not exploiting a loophole that would allow them to market and sell legitimate medicine as supplements without going through the regulatory rigamarole.

I agree, they are not selling legitimate medicine as supplements. They are, instead, just jumping on the profit bandwagon and selling snakeoil along side the patchouli-reeking hippies, because 1) it's legal because of the 1994 law, and 2) they take the "what's the harm" approach (which we all know is disingenuous http://whatstheharm.net/ )

3/18/2009 10:49:29 AM

damn he went from prison for 18 months to hell for eternity

3/18/2009 10:49:36 AM

Quote :

"but you said that pharma is not exploiting a loophole that would allow them to market and sell legitimate medicine as supplements without going through the regulatory rigamarole."

Because they can't. This is my point. You don't think there would be tremendous demand to short-circuit the human trials process for lifesaving medicines if there was a way? Getting a drug through human trials costs millions of dollars and takes years. My point is simply this - if there was an easy way around this to slap the label "supplement" on an experimental drug, I think Pharma companies would have already done it. Again, given the fact that we all agree of a strong financial motive.

3/18/2009 10:55:00 AM

What if this guy was making moonshine and stocking weapons up in the middle of the city? I somehow doubt people would be so quick to let him off.

18 months is a fairly light sentence anyway.

I do agree though that if you're not harming anyone, he shouldn't have to serve time for this. At worst, he should have to pay a fine.

3/18/2009 11:07:22 AM

^ I actually feel the opposite way. I think that too many people excuse these laws because they only impact "dumb hicks". I think if any sort of home brew operations got shut down in a big city, a lot more people would pay attn.

And I don't think its totally out of the realm of possibilities for something like that to happen. Nostalgia is pretty chic these days. How long until someone starts some sort of modern speakeasy?

I can see it now. Flocks of city slickers protesting because some douche in skinny jeans and thick rim glasses named "MC Peep" got sent to jail for serving bathtub mojitos at a rave.

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ``]

3/18/2009 11:36:03 AM

pretty sure no one cares what happens to a raver...

3/18/2009 11:47:46 AM

Quote :

"You can actually even buy legal moonshine in ABC stores"

this is when i realized you didn't read my post

since it was THE NEXT FUCKING THING I SAID AFTER WHAT YOU QUOTED

you guys are hilarious

3/18/2009 11:48:48 AM

Quote :

"good to see moonshining is another area where normally upstanding citizens get so damn flexible i wish the social mores of fucking 15 year olds was as flexible lol "

Again, and I went through this with you last time, there is a reason that getting it on with 15-year olds is a law that people aren't so "flexible" about.

Here, I'll repost it for you:

We bend (or sometimes routinely ignore) all sorts of other laws, and people either don't care, or don't care that much, depending on the law. In most cases, it's because they're either stupid laws in general, or written in an all-encompassing way but really only applicable in specific circumstances (it's just hard to legislate things like that).

-jaywalking
-parking violations
-window tint
-nuisance party ordinance
-illegal car modifications (exhaust systems, dark window tint, etc)
-underage alcohol and tobacco use (and to a lesser extent, marijuana use across all ages)
-all sorts of outdated laws that are still on the books that most people don't even know about
-sexual laws like sodomy
-fireworks

I could go on, but you get the point. This idea that such a mindset is limited to speed limits is complete BS. Stupid laws are routinely widely ignored when it makes sense to do so.



It seems that everybody here except for you is able to apply the judgement that grown men should be capable of and understand why breaking some of these laws is either OK, or at least warrants being viewed in shades of grey.

Quote :

"they do this everyday, they're called "supplements""

That is not at all what EarthDogg is arguing for. Do you not understand, or are you just being disengenuous?

Quote :

"if you think black tar heroin is "too risky", thats your choice too. But, the drug dealers aren't forcing you to shoot it up or lying to you about how it was made. i know thats an extreme, but at the end of the day, some of these "toxins" are deemed legal, some are not, and at the end of the fucking day, popcorn was making something illegal "

Dude, we've already discussed in this thread how making, possessing, and consuming moonshine are all 100% legal. It's just SELLING it that you can get in trouble for, because (A) the gov't likes to get their take, (B) the gov't likes to regulate it via package stores, etc, and (C) there MAY be regulations on how it's produced. I don't know. I'm sure a moonshiner could easily comply with them if they weren't already.

The "purity of product" argument is either irrelevent or only a small piece of the puzzle.

Heroin is an entirely different animal. I understand hyperbole to make a point, which is fine, but in this case, they are 2 different things.

Quote :

"why the fuck do i need a moral high ground? laws on my side here, hoss"

This is something I used to try to explain to my (now) ex about family law (child support, custody rights, visitation, etc). Incidentally, she was just as dense about it as you are. What's right and what's legal are not necessarily the same thing.

Quote :

"It used to be legal to own slaves, does that mean it was morally okay to do it? Does that mean by mocking people that pick and choose which laws to follow, you are also mocking the individuals that ran the Underground Railroad? It certainly sounds like it."

Exactly.

Quote :

"how is this any different than all of the meth labs around there? "

Meth is like heroin, and we've already discussed why that's altogether different. Moonshining is basically tax evasion. It has little in common with running a meth lab.

Quote :

"well, to be fair.... Pharma companies are exploiting the "supplement loophole", in large part made possible by the misleadingly-named 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, by creating smaller brands to sell herbs, "alternative remedies," homeopathy, and shit like that."

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. You can market herbs and stuff as a supplement. Stuff like cancer drugs are not treated the same way, so [user]woodfoot[user]'s argument is null and void. What he's saying is that stuff like cancer drugs should have a provision for use before formal FDA approval.

3/18/2009 11:53:04 AM

Woodfoot i only saw that you said similar products. excuse me for speed reading a TWW post.

But I don't see how me missing that line impacts anything I said. My subsequent points still stand (that just because you can buy alternatives legally doesn't mean there aren't good reasons for buying products not stamped with approval from the nanny state. For example, protesting the very existence of these victimless nanny state laws). Sutton's epitaph also stands.

Quote :

"Popcorn Says Fuck You."

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM. Reason : peace]

3/18/2009 11:54:50 AM

Quote :

"I wonder why they're not..."

because you stand to lose a shit ton of money if your "experimental" drug kills people as a supplement (see ephedra again)

and you stand to gain A METRIC SHITLOAD OF MONEY if your "experimental' drug actually works

are you people so blinded by "the beautiful free market" that you can't see the free market at work?

of course you don't rush to market with an experimental drug

you think nissan would rush to market with experimental brakes in their cars?

you guys are hilarious

Quote :

"pot growers get busted all the fucking time. They just dont have a cute old guy with a beard as a mascot."

Quote :

"good god, guys..... you'd think he died on a cross"

3/18/2009 11:57:41 AM

Quote :

"Stupid laws are routinely widely ignored when it makes sense to do so."

lol

i love that sentence so much

i'm glad we've had that continental congress of smart people back in 2005 to determine exactly which laws are the stupid ones that are worth ignoring!

3/18/2009 12:02:04 PM

Quote :

"of course you don't rush to market with an experimental drug you think nissan would rush to market with experimental brakes in their cars? "

Again, that is a completely ridiculous analogy. Nissan has perfectly good brakes on their cars right now. There's no reason to offer up (and little reason for the consumer to WANT) "experimental brakes".

On the other hand, people are dying from terminal illnesses, with the current crop of medications not working.

Nobody is advocating just being able to go to the store and buy an unapproved cancer drug over the counter. We're saying that doctors should be able to prescribe and bring to bear drugs that are, for example, in the later stages of trials, assuming that's what the patient wants.

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ^ Fine, let's hear your comments on slaveholding and the Fugitive Slave Acts.]

3/18/2009 12:04:51 PM

Woodfoot

You think you need a group of smart people to tell you which laws are smart or stupid?
I think you're missing the point. It's about making moral judgments on your own. Perhaps you should talk to this guy.

Quote :

"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it. "

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 12:09 PM. Reason : ``]

3/18/2009 12:07:35 PM

Quote :

"It's about making moral judgments on your own"

the fuck it is

Quote :

"Fine, let's hear your comments on slaveholding and the Fugitive Slave Acts"

are you serious?

are you asking me to act like this country has never had wrong/improper laws in the past?

or did you just want to compare the darkest part of our nation's history to fucking speed limits and moonshine?

you guys are hilarious

3/18/2009 12:20:41 PM

in fact

people making "moral judgments" was the reason this country even had slaves for so long

you guys are hilarious

3/18/2009 12:22:05 PM

Woodfoot actually that is hilarious. because you effectively ended this conversation. with me anyways.

if you honestly think people don't have the individual power to make moral judgments regarding the laws of their government (or maybe you think people should only have that power when they agree with you) then I don't think we have anything more to discuss in the context of this thread.

This disagreement goes down deep to the very relationship between a man and his government (which is actually just composed of other men). And that conversation is too heavy for me right now (i have a test tomorrow and work today). I'll just leave you with another Thoreau quote that I think sums up my feelings. (hope I get it right):

Quote :

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. Obedience is the foundation of slavery."

Peace out, brother.

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ``]

3/18/2009 12:27:35 PM

^^ the same could be said for:

Quote :

"-jaywalking -parking violations -window tint -nuisance party ordinance -illegal car modifications (exhaust systems, dark window tint, etc) -underage alcohol and tobacco use (and to a lesser extent, marijuana use across all ages) -all sorts of outdated laws that are still on the books that most people don't even know about -sexual laws like sodomy -fireworks"

oh, and not to mention "blue laws", which I didn't include originally, as they're not ignored on as widespead of a level (although they are equally stupid).

(ok, a couple of things on there like car exhaust systems aren't really good analogies, but in general, the point stands).

Quote :

"are you serious? are you asking me to act like this country has never had wrong/improper laws in the past? "

I don't know, you tell me. That's kind of the point I'm getting at.

Also, with your stance of seeing things strictly in black & white, comparing the Fugitive Slave Law to moonshining or speed limits is perfectly legitimate. I mean, ignoring any of them would be breaking the LAW, right?

Or are you now saying that speed limits and moonshining are, if not unjust laws, they're at least fairly trivial, so it makes sense why people get so damn flexible about them compared to, say, child molestation?


(also, for the record, I don't think we should abolish speed limits. They're useful and necessary. We just approach the issue in a very stupid way.)

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : asfd]

3/18/2009 12:33:46 PM

are you guys being hilarious?

3/18/2009 12:43:47 PM

lol

you guys are hilarious

3/18/2009 3:12:38 PM

lol we are, aren't we? good times.

3/18/2009 3:41:47 PM

Quote :

"i'm not saying that moonshine should be illegal, just that its obviously loaded with chemical toxins"

You're crazy as shit if you think all moonshine is loaded with chemicals. Back during the depression when everybody and their brother made shine you could get a hold of some nasty stuff. They used car radiators to distill it that often had anti-freeze in it and caused blindness. These stories have stuck around for years to scare people away from moonshine. Today making shine is all about pride and quality, especially with popcorn. If you know who you are buying it from and who made it, there shouldn't be a problem.

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM. Reason : iiii]

3/18/2009 3:52:09 PM

I generally don't have a problem with Woodfoot's post, but I don't really get what he's arguing in this thread.

3/18/2009 4:35:12 PM

hilariousness

3/18/2009 5:15:24 PM

i think i was arguing with socks because there seems to be alot of silly AMERICAN FUCK YA flag waving going on. regardless of the legality if this thread was about a cut pothead everyone would be calling him a hippie and telling him to gtfo.

dumb

3/18/2009 5:23:07 PM

Quote :

"i think i was arguing with socks because there seems to be alot of silly AMERICAN FUCK YA flag waving going on. regardless of the legality if this thread was about a cut pothead everyone would be calling him a hippie and telling him to gtfo."

Pretty much true.

How nuts was this guy to feel he had to commit suicide over this?

3/18/2009 5:29:25 PM

Popcorn wasn't crazy.


I think a lot of individuals are missing the point in this thread. Moonshine isn't illegal because of revenue, or health reasons. Moonshine is illegal strictly due to an unholy union between the alcohol manufacturers and think-of-the-children puritans.

It's the same reason why home brew beer was illegal until 40 years ago and the same reason why we have such fucked up acohol laws in this country. There is no reason why someone like Popcorn shouldn't be allowed to make his product and no reason why a brewery shouldn't be allowed to sell directly to consumers above the paltry 30,000 units that they are currently legally allowed to do.

3/18/2009 6:56:23 PM

i also agree with all of that.

however making an unholy amount of moonshine illegally is not a good way to change these laws.

ive brewed my own beer before and when doing so you have to know what you can and can not do with that beer. Just like anything else there are silly laws to go along with it.

3/18/2009 7:42:33 PM

He wouldn't have had to off himself if he just paid his taxes.

3/18/2009 7:55:10 PM

Quote :

"there are silly laws to go along with it."

Silly law? But wait... isn't the gov't suppose to protect us from ourselves? The gov't should keep us from doing things that could risk our health. Especially if we hand our health-care over to gov't. Then it will really be in charge of our behaviors. We'll know exactly what we can and can't do so we don't put unecessary burdens on the National Health care system.

We need more laws to protect us against dangerous home brew, cigarettes, fatty foods, militia-men and capitalists.

3/18/2009 7:59:12 PM

Quote :

"i think i was arguing with socks because there seems to be alot of silly AMERICAN FUCK YA flag waving going on. regardless of the legality if this thread was about a cut pothead everyone would be calling him a hippie and telling him to gtfo."

"everyone" would? I hate fucking these type of fucking arguments. You're saying that in your imaginery scenerio you imagine that i wouldn't care or protest the death of some imaginery pothead. How am I supposed to respond to that?

Though its not surprising moron would find this type of argument persuasive.

And I think the differences between moonshine and pot have been pretty well established previously in the thread and in pms. If you still don't can't see my point, Dent, I don't think my repeating it again will help. So I appreciate your participation in this thread, but I don't think it is working out. Let's both try seeing other threads and in a few months we'll see where things are.

3/18/2009 8:08:38 PM

Quote :

"Also, with your stance of seeing things strictly in black & white"

i'm sorry, please explain to me how thinking you shouldn't be allowed to drive 130 mph on any public roads and people shouldn't be allowed to sell moonshine makes me see things "strictly in black & white"

this is a fun thread

3/18/2009 8:11:25 PM

Quote :

"And I think the differences between moonshine and pot "

i can legally buy more pot than moonshine where i live

HOW BOUT THAT FOR FREEDOM!

3/18/2009 8:12:56 PM

Quote :

"regardless of the legality if this thread was about a cut pothead everyone would be calling him a hippie and telling him to gtfo. "

Who? I wouldn't, and I doubt the other people taking anything roughly approximating my position would.

Quote :

"Moonshine isn't illegal because of revenue, or health reasons. Moonshine is illegal strictly due to an unholy union between the alcohol manufacturers and think-of-the-children puritans."

I would say those things are also factors, especially the latter, but let's not kid ourselves...the gov't wants to get their cut.

Quote :

"i'm sorry, please explain to me how thinking you shouldn't be allowed to drive 130 mph on any public roads and people shouldn't be allowed to sell moonshine makes me see things "strictly in black & white" "

I'm not saying the speed limit should be 130 mph anywhere in America, so in that sense, no, I shouldn't be allowed to. On the other hand, I am perfectly capable of picking and choosing the situations that I do that in, and while I know I'd get in trouble if I got caught, that doesn't mean that I'm not going to do it or believe that I'm hurting anything. I don't know how many more times I need to spell this out.

Furthermore, I think that you should either respond to the rest of my arguments or just quietly bow out.

3/18/2009 9:54:25 PM

eh I pretty much agree with socks.

however this thread is just silly. Killing yourself is dumb

3/18/2009 10:40:43 PM

^ I'm glad we're friends again. I agree w/you. Killing yourself isn't the answer to any problem. But I have heard that Popcorn wasn't in the best of health anyways, so I think he saw his options as either dying at home now or dying in prison in a few months. And i can't say as I agree with his decision but i do think i understand it and respect his wishes.

3/18/2009 10:47:08 PM