... any of the "bans" discussed in your post and the restrictions on the sale of slabbed chips which I have suggested. I went through this once before, but will do so again.

>> Please feel free to compare the amount of money spent on enforcing a
>> drug BAN as compared to drug eductation and then tell me that this
>> supports your theory that a ban is the way to end drugs as opposed to
>> education.

You can probably guess what opinion I hold about the so-called war on drugs. And, in case you can't, I'll restate what I said the last time this discussion came up (despite the fact that my opinion drew some significant criticism) -- the war on drugs is the biggest waste of time and money in this country since alcohol prohibition. With about the same results.

In any event, I don't see anything in Archie's post which indicates that his "theory" is that "a ban is the way to end drugs as opposed to education." [Rather contorted grammatical construction there, Peter, which makes it sound as though the choice is between banning drugs and banning education! <g>]

My proposal (stolen in large part from Jim Episale and supported by Archie) would NOT be a BAN in the same sense that the drug laws "ban" the use of certain drugs. It would prohibit the sale of slabbed chips/tokens in club venues; nowhere else. More like use permit restrictions than outright prohibition.

>> And we can see how effective a ban on sales of tobacco products to
>> minors has been in stamping out the problem. Of course I think it is
>> fair to say the reduction in smoking among all ages is probably better
>> explained by the increase in eduction on the dangers of smoking.

Let's see if I understand your point here. Prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors hasn't been very effective. So, let's go ahead and allow them to buy all the tobacco they want, while telling them they shouldn't. That would work wonders, I'm sure. (That's the functional equivalent of your position on slabbed chips.)

>> So as soon as your done banning slabs, you want to ban hamburgers too? <<

I think it's pretty safe to say that the sale of hamburgers on the convention floor is already prohibited (not by the club, but by the State of Nevada). I'm also reasonably sure that Bruce wouldn't accept any hamburger lots for the club auction. I guess it's possible that someone might want to advertise hamburgers for sale in the club magazine ("slabbed beef"?) -- I'm not sure what the club's reaction to that would be.

>> If ever there was a historical precedence to demonstrate that you can't
>> kill something with a ban, it is this nations failed alcohol prohibition, and
>> still failing drug prohibition.

As I said last time we had this discussion, this is a false analogy. During prohibition, the sale of alcohol was illegal EVERYWHERE. The sale of most illicit drugs is illegal EVERYWHERE. I have not suggested, nor has anyone else, that the sale of slabbed chips be prohibited EVERYWHERE. Obviously, the club would have no authority to do so anyway.

Do you think the club can prohibit the sale of alcohol or drugs on the convention floor (separate and apart from the illegality of such sales)? Or at the club auction? Or through the club magazine? The answer should be obvious. Does the fact that prohibition failed and the war on drugs is failing mean that we should allow the sale of those things in our club venues?

Not in my hobby. Not on my watch. Not without a fight. ----- jim o\-S