Why did british thots try to enact prohibition on coffee during the enlightenment? Did they fear the anglo-man warriors?

You are jumping steps friendo. First the point is that even if you go full ancaptard there is a gradation, repressing the use of a harmless drug like coffee is worst than repressing the use of a life destroying drug like heroin.
Second, there is litteraly nothing wrong with making it harder for people to destroy their health, as long as it does not degenerate in a costly war on drugs.

>b-but muh freedom

>Taking a heavily psychoactive substance that heightens aggression doesn't heighten aggression
Really made me think

Women are biologically structured to be soft and weak and to depend on a man for the fulfillment of their interests. It's only natural that they'd push for the state to do the same thing for everyone else, helpless dependency is all they've ever known.
>inb4 fedora tipping memes, you know in your heart it's true

>tfw no gf to call me her leviathan
Life is hard

>there is literaly nothing wrong with making it harder for people to destroy their health
Who gets to decide what "destroys" your "health?" In most of the world today, cannabis is prohibited with that bullshit reason as an excuse.
>heightens aggression
It's just a stimulant you idiot. It doesn't force you to harm other people. If you're already a nigger you might harm other people while high on meth, but that's your fault for being a nigger, not the chemical's fault for being a stimulant. Why not try punishing people who commit violent crimes when they actually commit violent crimes?

Do you understand that you are drinking bean soup? How can you be so fucked up ?! Fucking addicts, ready to sell their own mother for the next dose of caffeine in the morning. Fucks, fuck. How are you all disgusting me ... Transnational corporations stuff you with this poison, that you would work to get worn out and die before your old age - you sucked, stood up for a hand and asked for more. Marasmus. There is nothing human you have in your brain. Bean soup to drink, some grass still boiling water for what? For the sake of a fleeting sense of buzz? For the sake of what would be a life of nerves in hysterics? There is juice - apple, orange is the best, there is milk, some milk, but just some fantasy after all. Hundreds of brands of drinks are there - I do not want to be poisoned with mucks, cattle and drug addicts, oppressors and degrades, and most importantly - slaves.

Meth fucks your brain up you daft cunt,repeated use makes you a violent shit of a human. This is basic brain chemistry

>Meth fucks your brain up
Meth increases your risk for stroke. It doesn't rearrange the structure of the brain to force you to go around physically assaulting other people against your will.

Some products are grey aera but some are clearly bad overall and should be outlawed.
>but muh prohibition, muh al capone
Of course the government must take the tradition of the country and its ability to enforce the law properly into account

>Evidence for chronic use of
methamphetamine increasing aggression
in humans via serotonin depletion
comes from a recent study by Sekine et
al. (2006). Chronic methamphetamine
users were found to have both higher
levels of aggression than non-drug using
controls and decreased levels of serotonin
in areas of the brain that are involved
in the regulation of aggression (e.g.
orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate
cortex and temporal cortex).
But fuck science

>some are clearly bad overall and should be outlawed
Why does the state need to be involved? Why don't you trust mentally healthy free adults to make decisions for themselves? Do you want to outlaw everything that's "bad" for you? Try starting with cars, they're literally mutilating and murdering people right now in significant numbers and in many cases could be replaced with bicycles or state managed public transit. Or what about "bad" foods? Maybe there should be one state sanctioned people chow to keep people from giving themselves preventable medical problems due to poor diet.

>when women do it they are temperamental statists

A) Maybe correlation != causation and people who are aggressive are more likely to do reckless things like deciding to become meth users in the first place.
B) Decreased levels of serotonin in certain areas of the brain doesn't rob you of your free will. There's a reason why these people will be held accountable for their actions and incarcerated if they assault other people. If your study actually meant meth users were forced to be more violent they wouldn't be convicted in courts of law for being violent, they would just be referred for medical treatment to get them off the bad chemical that forced them to commit those crimes against their will.

Several of the early experiments that
examined the effect of amphetamine
on aggression found that chronic
high dosing with amphetamine could
increase aggressive behaviour (Ehrich &
Krumbhaar 1937; Randrup & Munkrad
1967). More recent research provides
reasonably robust experimental evidence
that chronic methamphetamine exposure
increases aggression. Sokolov and
colleagues undertook a series of research
studies examining the impact of repeated
injections of methamphetamine on
aggressive responding to a threatening
stimulus (e.g. an intruder animal).
Although an acute dose of the drug
had no impact on aggressive behaviour
(consistent with previous research),
repeated injections of the drug increased
fighting behaviour (Sokolov, Schlinder &
Cadet 2004; Sokolov & Cadet 2005)

because when men do it they are white knights failing to court said women

Decreased levels of serotonin in certain areas of the brain doesn't rob you of your free will. There's a reason why these people will be held accountable for their actions and incarcerated if they assault other people. If your study actually meant meth users were forced to be more violent they wouldn't be convicted in courts of law for being violent, they would just be referred for medical treatment to get them off the bad chemical that forced them to commit those crimes against their will.

There are benefits to car that compensate for the pollution and the accidents, or at the very least put the car in a grey area. I don't see any benefit to heroin

>b-but good and bad is subjective, the government can not decide what is better
Sure thing buddy, everything is subjective except the NAP which no human actually respect and is by definition unfalsifiable.

>There are benefits to car
There are benefits to drugs that act as stimulants. But you could use coffee instead of meth, kind of like how you can use bicycles and/or public transit instead of cars.

Several studies have found high levels
of aggressive behaviour among regular
meth/amphetamine users. One such
study, undertaken in Sydney by Hall et
al. (1996), found that almost half of the
amphetamine users surveyed reported
violent behaviour. Hostility was also
found to be more common after the
participant began using amphetamine,
and among injecting users of the drug,
suggesting that violence was related to
amphetamine use. Wright and Klee (2001)
also found that the majority (62%) of
heavy amphetamine users they surveyed
reported problems with aggression,
which the amphetamine users related to
their use of the drug.

>!=
Why so many ancaptards are STEMfags?

Why are some violent meth users found guilty for their violent crimes? It's almost like society recognizes they still have free will and it's their fault if they decide to assault others.

>thots
Hello nigger

>Im'a smoke dis drug I know will fuck me up and predispose me to a life of crime, by my own free will I have made this choice!
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

"Stimulation" is a very small "benefit" for all the damages caused overall buddy.

This is what happens when you put uppity women on the pedestal.

See also American Prohibition

Stimulation isn't a small benefit. You literally can't do anything but lie down and drool on yourself if you aren't awake barring a disorder like sleep walking.

I'm guessing this is a pasta but I'll bite. There's literally not even a little bit of a buzz from one cup of coffee. And just for the record most studies agree that caffeine isn't that bad for you. The biggest problem with caffeine (at least in the US) is that it's addictive and really unhealthy shit like soda is filled with it. The same applies to nicotine is incredibly addictive but nicotine won't kill you, cigarettes will.

Have you ever been around ex meth heads? They are all fucked in the head, and consistently are not "ex".

So why aren't they just convicted for deciding to start smoking meth three years ago instead of being convicted for assault? Again, they're being punished for committing assault, not for being under the influence of a drug that forced them to turn evil with its evil drug magic. Eating a diet heavy in meat and lifting weights could increase your tendencies towards aggressive behavior too, that doesn't mean you're forced to start curb stomping strangers to feed your mindless vampire bloodlust.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029601
>Animal studies show clear evidence for a causal link between testosterone and aggression.

I still don't understand why people prefer coffee to tea and even tea is a pretty shit thing if you think about it properly.

They confused cause and effect.

London was experiencing rapid growth in trade at this time introducing various commodities, like coffee, and a demand for new services, such as would be discussed in coffee houses.

They wrongly attributed these loud noisy places where young men appear to do nothing but shout, exhange banter, guffaw and argue and sip coffee with idleness. In reality they were "networking", as it might be called today.

An example might be Will's Coffee house mentioned by Samuel Pepys in his diaries, though more an official than a merchant he apparently settled transactions and received mail and news there.

You're a lot more likely to notice the ones who are fucked in the head than the ones who aren't. You might never even know the ones who aren't going around doing crazy things are meth users themselves since part of not going around doing crazy things involves not advertising to everyone around you that you enjoy using illegal drugs in your spare time.

I was gonna say that I've ever met an ex-methhead, I've met meth heads and relapsed meth addicts.

>hard drugs like meth or heroin are litteraly the only way for humans to stay awake thus it clearly compensate for the life it destroy and that's why it should totally be legal

>cars are literally the only way for humans to be transported and that's why they should totally be legal

fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/
>New preliminary 2016 data shared Wednesday from the National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died in motor vehicles crashes last year, a 6% rise from 2015.
Oh wow, so many horrible unnecessary deaths, ban cars now.
>b-but cars are useful!
Regular drivers can get bicycles or ride the train, let commercial licensed truck drivers continue driving trucks (analogous to medicinal marijuana; keep the thing prohibited in general with controlled exemptions where needed). And actually the car situation is way worse than problems associated with drugs since unlike with drugs the cars themselves are the physical things maiming and murdering other people like innocent pedestrians. No drugs have ever killed a non-drug using bystander unless you believe in the second hand smoke meme.

>psychoactive substance that heightens aggression
sounds like alcohol

That's a good point.
Prohibition-user, are you in favor of prohibiting alcohol? Or do you just want meth prohibited? Because alcohol actually has a much stronger association with aggression than meth does.

It depend on the culture of the country and its ability to enforce the ban properly.

You think we would be better off without cars?

We would definitely be better off without cars. There's a much stronger public well being case to be made for their prohibition than for the prohibition of a given psychoactive substance. 40,000 people died last year in motor vehicle accidents. And there's a much larger number for the people who survived but still got very badly fucked up in a car accident. That's just one year. It happens over and over again and almost all of it is unnecessary. Think of how many people could be riding bicycles instead of driving. Or even just walking. Or talking trains. Or working remotely and having supplies delivered to them (a lot of people are already moving in that direction for the latter part of that sentence with Amazon killing traditional brick and mortar stores). I think there are still some cases where you need trucks for example to handle commercial transportation of supplies since so much depends on that truck driving supply structure today.

>banning coffee

>We would definitely be better off without cars.
So you want to ban cars?

No, I don't want the state to be involved in any prohibition. That's the point. Just because something's bad doesn't mean you need big daddy state to step in and save you from it. Otherwise you end up in a dystopian society where everyone's a permanent child fed on bland vitamin fortified state sanctioned people chow and kept in antibiotic and growth hormone injection chambers 24/7 to ensure we all turn out nice and safe from the evils of nature and personal responsibility. Or you could fuck off with your unnecessary laws and let people make decisions on what goes into their own body.

>it's either my political doctrine or this strawman i just made up

You can have prohibition on some harmful things but not others that are equally harmful or even much more harmful, but there isn't a reasonable justification for doing so since your original justification for prohibition is allegedly harm reduction.

Lolbertarians should be gassed desu.

>I hate freedom.
OK.

You didn't really convinced me that we would be better off if all car were to be banned.
You didn't either told me why we shouldn't ban all cars if it would be better for us to do so

>muh freedom
>muh slippery slope

>You didn't really convinced me that we would be better off if all car were to be banned.
Claiming not to be convinced isn't an argument.
>why we shouldn't ban all cars if it would be better for us to do so
Just because something's bad for you doesn't mean you need a government to force you not to have it. Ice cream is considered pretty nice by a lot of people, does that mean government agents should go around shoving ice cream down your throat?

Your last exemple is pretty lame STEMfag, step up your game.

Also not an argument mcdonalds employee fag.

(You)

Freedom to do good and constructive stuff is good.

Freedom to do bad things and spread disorder and destruction is not.

There is no constant perfect ideology. All ideologies are situational, and depend on the capabilities of a society.

Capitalism is good for a growing society, whilst Communism is good for an end-game society that has most of it's economy backed by automation.

Communism is probably the most misunderstood ideology of all. Mainly why it failed so badly in the hands of the soviets.

>the vaginal jews
why are women such infiltrators?