…if it is a time-bound prohibition, maybe in the order of a few weeks, so society can rethink about their consumption habits.
Indefinite prohibition, of the kind that was amended in the US constitution, denies the human desire to consume alcohol and pretend it can be legislated away. A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article on the capital-P Prohibition showed lasting effects in alcohol consumption (I guess, good in the sense that there’s changes in domestic abuse patterns, for example?) and organized crime (bad, with Al Capone and people like him)
My tinfoil hat theory is that bars were gathering places and occasionally the government hates those.
Letting women have basic rights probably helped out with the domestic situation more than prohibition.
I don’t know about time-limited bans, but the way cigarettes have been handled seems to have been pretty effective. Don’t ban but instead discourage use in a variety of ways, prohibit advertising, replace with anti-smoking propaganda campaigns, gradually limit permitted public consumption as usage comes down (which it has).
I could see alcohol getting the same sort of treatment in theory, it also has well documented harms to justify doing so. One thing I’d like to see is more social spaces/events for adults that don’t implicitly revolve around alcohol consumption. You can’t really prevent people who want to drink from doing it, but you could make it less convenient and more convenient for people who don’t drink. For instance maybe establishments that serve alcohol shouldn’t be allowed to have dedicated parking, since the expectation that someone is going to drive somewhere, drink little enough that they’re still entirely good to drive, and then have to either drive back home or face a huge hassle, sets people up for bad decisions.
Wouldn’t really mind heavily restricting alcohol advertising. Like only allow it in areas that sell it if you consider posters to be advertising.
Include gambling while you are at it.
Except smoking usage has increased in recent years.
Bans don’t stop people.
Look at what happened during prohibition.
Where are you getting that from? All the sources I’m seeing show dramatic long term decline, at least in the US, where the policies I’m talking about are in effect https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco-trends-brief/overall-smoking-trends
I agree that prohibition was a bad idea, and any measures that go far enough to create a black market for alcohol should be avoided, but there are other things that could be tried.
The relationship between alcohol and violent crime is so tight, the police are prevented from keeping statistics on how many violent crimes are committed by drunk people. Thanks to a significant alcohol lobby.
It’s like saying eugenics isn’t inherently bad.
Maybe not but it always leads immediately to bad things.
Eugenics is inherently bad because the premise was that you could “weed” out bad apples in the genetic pool. Many researchers tried to test this theory back in the day. One used fruit flies because they reproduce so quickly you could run tests on removing a trait from the population faster than something like dogs (which take years to breed and grow.)
This researcher found a genetic trait in one fruit fly, white eyes instead of black. He tried to breed this genetic trait out of the population and was unable to do so. He told the other eugenists that he no longer believed their theory was possible because if he couldn’t breed out a trait like white eyes in something as simple as a fruit fly then he’d never be able to breed out something like “dumb” from something as complex as a human being.
You people need to read more history or at least watch some documentaries. Theres a whole PBS doc on eugenics that covers everything I just explained.
Dude. You’re running around with the whole “you people” thing, thinking you’re bagging on other people. It completely undermines any attempt you make because it shows lack of good faith, and someone just trying to dunk on people. It’s not cool at all. You could make the exact same comments without being an absolute dick and be just fine.
I’ve read plenty of history. So one guy said a thing a once so therefore it’s impossible forever. Cool story bro.
I’ll just forget all human history of domesticated animals and genetically modified crops.
You didn’t even name the scientist.
Scientist is Thomas Hunt Morgan. He finally stopped his fly experiment in 1915.
So eye color is attached to the sex of the fly and he couldn’t break that.
That’s one trait for a fly that is attached to the sex of the fly so he had trouble breeding it out.
That a long way from a eugenicsist proving egunics is impossible.
That’s not even close lol
So you’re pro eugenics?
Maybe he is anti blatant bullshit? The study you are referring to is from 1915. You aren’t basing yourself on anything modern and you come off as deeply ignorant in the current convo. Spend 5 minutes on Google next time you are challenged.
Ah, nice to clearly show your sophistry and disingenuous argumentation.
Nice try sluggo.
So you’re saying eugenics isn’t unethical? Because I said we shouldn’t do it because of ethics. You’re argument was to say I’m wrong, the issue is we CANT do it, when in fact it a pretty big series of industries already.
Therefor the ethics of eugenics aren’t problematic to you?
No, I was pointing out that eugenics has been proven as a pseudo science. Your originally argument seemed to suggest that there were positive aspects of eugenics, which there isn’t since its is a pseudo science.
It’s like saying eugenics isn’t inherently bad.
Maybe not but it always leads immediately to bad things.
A better argument would be, “no, eugenics has been proven to be a pseudo science with no benefits.”
“Maybe not but it leads immediately to bad things”
Learn to read. I never said eugenics isn’t unethical. I said maybe there are applications that aren’t unethical, but I’ve never seen one.
Learn to read.
“A better argument would be” no it wouldn’t you unethical monster lol. Is murder wrong because it’s unethical or is murder wrong only because YOU can’t do it?
My argument is it’s wrong because it’s unethical. It’s not a skill issue. You are on team “the ethics are irrelevant!”
Which is a bad take buddy. Maybe quit digging.
You are correct, there are lasting effects in alcohol consumption.
Unfortunately, there are also lasting effects in alcohol prohibition. The costs of prohibition far outweigh the costs of consumption.
Humans have consumed alcohol for thousands of years, in many cultures, daily or near daily. It’s been banned a few times, and the costs are great. We know what they are.
- When you ban any very popular thing, you create a black market for that thing. In the case of a alcohol prohibition, a fantastically large and well-funded black market. This black market will murder many people to continue to make outrageous amounts of money (much more than anyone makes when it is legal).
- Home-made alcohol will be sold by that black market. Just like drugs, people will cut that alcohol to make larger profits. A lot of people will get sick and/or die from the various problems that arise with that. Much more than alcohol alone.
- Alcohol is a part of nature, you can’t get rid of it. It’s a byproduct of food. Food can also cause lasting effects from consumption. Very costly effects; obesity, addiction, heart disease, and so on are all often byproducts of food. Yeah, there are lasting effects from consumption. You don’t need alcohol to live, you don’t need Twinkies to live, and so on. Just… let it go. It’s a never ending quest for control that leads straight to hell.
- So not only do you have larger black markets with more money, and not only do you have increased workload for medical facilities everywhere, you also have to have a police force to suppress all of this now illegal drinking. You can pretend that these are robots that won’t abuse power, but they aren’t, and they will abuse power, and people will die. (and a lot of cops drink).
- This doesn’t even scratch the costs of prohibition. I could write a book. Instead, other authors have written about it, and they are much smarter than me. See Peter McWilliams, “Ain’t Nobody’s Business if you Do”. His death was tragically connected to prohibition, but I’d have to write another book.
When you ban any very popular thing, you create a black market for that thing.
Making dangerous things illegal because a black market (also illegal and something you can punish when found) will form for it anyways is a logical fallacy. Blasting caps are highly regulated and the OKC bomber had to steal them in order to build his truck bomb, but that doesn’t mean the regulations making them harder to obtain failed and we should just make them available at every store. It means criminal elements will always be part of our society and that we need to better address those criminals.
Home-made alcohol will be sold by that black market.
It was completely legal for people to make their own beer and wine and in some cases even obtain legal liquor so long as a doctor said it was medicinal. This point doesn’t defend your argument that there are long-term consequences of prohibition that out-weigh the positives.
Alcohol is a part of nature, you can’t get rid of it.
Yes but so are deadly mushrooms. Do we eat them? No. Most Native American tribes knew about alcohol, the naturally occurring stuff that you occasionally see birds get sloshed off of, but they all treated it as a sacred drink reserved for things like the occasional vision quest or other ceremonies. They didn’t abuse it like Europeans did until they were eventually exposed to hard liquor, which is not a natural by-product of nature. Liquor requires distillation which is a artificial and a uniquely human process.
Alcoholics downvoting you? Lol
I don’t drink (anymore) and I downvote, so I’m no alcoholic.
But nice sophistry attempt by employing an ad-hom. That’s always so convincing
My general view of things is that people can’t be trusted not to consume to excess but solving it by prohibition, even half measures like weekly limits or losing the right to drink, requires draconian laws and fuels organised crime.
Tobaccos a good ban candidate but I don’t see alcohol being a good idea, even more so because of how ingrained it is in normal life and events.
And how easy it is to make at home
At the very least we should stop advertising it everywhere.
Save this one. You’ll look back on it in ten years and laugh.
People talk like alcohol is this untouchable pillar of society but, like, there’s one big prohibition success story being ignored here. The core problem with the original Prohibition is that it didn’t build up public legitimacy for such a move before doing it.
Very good success story when “proper punishment is flogging, though legal scholars disagree over whether the number of lashes should be 40 or 80”.
I mean, it worked, hence success story. Besides, there’s no nice way to enforce something via state violence, and Muslim flogging (as opposed to the stuff, say, Singapore is famous for) isn’t any more brutal than the crippling fines or imprisonment doled out by modern states.
Hate to spoil things but I know lot of Muslims that regulary consume alcohol. Also alcoholis not banned in modern muslim countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Albania. It’s ban in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, … all democratic countries.
Hate to spoil things but I know lot of Muslims that regulary consume alcohol.
I mean, sure, but those are (outside the Balkans) the overwhelming minority. Most of the first 30 or so entries on the list of countries by alcohol consumption per capita are Muslim countries for a reason.
Also alcoholis not banned in modern muslim countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Albania
It’s not banned in most of them, but Muslims (for the most part) don’t drink it anyway, because irrespective of the law the religious prohibition is taken seriously. That’s what I meant by public legitimacy: Islam got the vast majority of Muslims to quit alcohol by giving them a reason to do so (that reason being “God said so”).
Banning Jesus would save more lives.
Oh you poor fool. You think these monsters give a crap about Jesus lol. They’d just pick a new Jesus and continue doing this shit.
They did. Trump haha
I’m not a “the world is ending” type of guy but trump lines up more with the Antichrist than Jesus.
Useless comment, we’ll do both now
It taught us what happens when you try to make it illegal. Afterwards, it was legalised again, but with some government oversight. Seems to have worked out better than to prohibition era.
Strangely, drugs are still illegal though. I expect that having some government oversight with drugs should have a similar effect.
It is important to note that alcohol becomes a dependency. You cannot dry out like Amy Winehouse tried to do:
It will kill you.
You see, alcohol causes the body to stop creating GABA inhibitors. Without these inhibitors, the muscles will use all available energy.
This is why drunks get the shakes.
Without these inhibitors, your heart is going to pump, your diaphragm will vibrate, and your brain will burn.
You cannot just abolish alcohol. You are literally lining up a death sentence.
Oh yeah, worked great the first time. Telling people they can’t do something isn’t going to stop them from doing it.
OP is correct. Prohibition, though not perfect, had many beneficial effects.
It did reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by Americans per capita, and this decrease remained even post-prohibition. The problem that caused prohibition was workers going out and blowing their paychecks on booze at the saloons/taverns on Friday leaving their families no money to survive on.
Booze wasn’t completely illegal. You could brew beer and wine at home and consume it until you were as drunk as a lark. Beer companies started making beer making kits. All completely legal. Hard liquor was legal if your doctor gave you a prescription for medicinal reasons.
Organized crime was already an issue prior to prohibition. Gangs have existed, usually formed by ethnic enclave, throughout history. Haven’t you ever heard of The Gangs Of New York. Sure, some crime syndicates made money on illegal hooch but to be fair Capone and other would’ve been doing some other scam had booze still been legal. And some famous criminals from the same era, Bonnie and Clyde, were not selling booze but just robbing banks. The proliferation of radio broadcasting in the 1920’s is likely more responsible for making these gangs famous than prohibition.
Most people who wanted alcohol could get it and weren’t really punished. Like I said some forms of booze were legal to make and consume. Liquor was still widely available and some really popular families (the Kennedy’s) made some money running Canadian rum into the USA.
But despite the problems we can rest assure that prohibition did, in fact, lower alcohol consumption which likely had many positive effects down the road. —
Right - the mob jumped in influence courtesy of prohibition.
It’s how (as you mention) the Kennedy’s beca The Kennedy’s.
Some people will go through dangerous withdrawals. Having been through that, you’re gonna have to propose how we’ll care for people who face that before I get onboard. That’s way before I complain that I don’t want you to take away my alcohol; people die from going cold turkey.
You’d think the manufacturers of Xanax would absolutely be in favor of a ban for this reason.
Alcohol withdrawal can kill, very few other substances are as dangerous to cut suddenly.
Yeah. Xanax is one of them. Also treats alcohol withdrawals.
History (and the present, frankly) shows us you can’t stop people consuming things they want to
Attempting to do so only makes it less safe and puts more lives at risk
That is not true and is dangerous thinking. Oregon tried to decriminalize hard drugs under the guise that it’d lower drug use rates since people would always find a way to use drugs even if they were illegal. It failed miserably.
Oregon decriminalized small amounts of personal-use hard drugs via Measure 110 in 2020, but the state officially reversed the policy on September 1, 2024, making possession a misdemeanor again.What Happened in Oregon
The Original Law: In 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 110. It made possessing small amounts of illicit drugs (like heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl) a non-criminal violation punished by a small fine instead of jail time.
The Goal: Supporters wanted to treat addiction as a public health issue rather than a crime, directing people to health services.
The Problems: Promised treatment programs and infrastructure lagged or failed to launch effectively. Public drug use, homeless encampments, and fatal fentanyl overdoses surged, especially in cities like Portland.
The Reversal: Lawmakers voted to repeal the core parts of the decriminalization law. On September 1, 2024, possessing personal amounts of hard drugs became a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, accompanied by new “deflection” programs meant to offer treatment options instead of automatic prosecution.
Prior to the regulation of opium and its derivatives there was a wave of women ODing on medicines that were usually just snake-oil with opium in them. By regulating and removing these products we saw a clear reduction in harm to the public. Learn your history.
I mean, your own source points to the problem being a lack of support rather than the legality itself.
The Goal: Supporters wanted to treat addiction as a public health issue rather than a crime, directing people to health services.
The Problems: Promised treatment programs and infrastructure lagged or failed to launch effectively. Public drug use, homeless encampments, and fatal fentanyl overdoses surged, especially in cities like Portland.
So the goal was to decriminalize hard drugs, treating drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Kudos. Fantastic. Very noble. But in practice this failed; the drug use increased, homelessness increased and overdoses increased. You can argue that they failed to implement the treatment of the drug addiction as a health issue however we’re discussing if deregulation of hard drugs would lower things like drug abuse. In this case no it didn’t.
I’m all for treating drug addicts as a health issue instead of a crime but that doesn’t mean I think just making everything legal is the solution. Limiting access to hard core drugs reduces the availability, we need to offer additional resources to those addicted so they can stop abusing these dangerous drugs.
The problem with treating addiction like a health issue is that the US does not treat its health issues.
Agreed. But I wouldn’t suggest that we legalize every drug just because prohibiting them occasionally fails and a small subset of the population still get addicted to them. We need to start treating these health issues. Why don’t we just deregulate freon since people know it was damaging the ozone layer so nowadays they won’t use it. Right?
Problem is we know human nature is more complicated than that. That’s why some stuff is made illegal. It’s ok to prohibit objectively bad things (and drugs like pain killers that offer some benefits under controlled circumstances are in fact allowed to be used under the supervision of authorized experts. Its not like we just blindly outlaw anything “bad” despite their being genuinely good uses for them.)
Learn your history
It’s obviously not black and white, is it
What works in Portugal failed to work in Oregon. Maybe one country, that is small and insignificant, shouldn’t dictate how every other country treats their narcotics regulation.
Oregon decriminalized small amounts of personal-use hard drugs via Measure 110 in 2020, but the state officially reversed the policy on September 1, 2024, making possession a misdemeanor again.
What Happened in Oregon
The Original Law: In 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 110. It made possessing small amounts of illicit drugs (like heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl) a non-criminal violation punished by a small fine instead of jail time.
The Goal: Supporters wanted to treat addiction as a public health issue rather than a crime, directing people to health services.
The Problems: Promised treatment programs and infrastructure lagged or failed to launch effectively. Public drug use, homeless encampments, and fatal fentanyl overdoses surged, especially in cities like Portland.
The Reversal: Lawmakers voted to repeal the core parts of the decriminalization law. On September 1, 2024, possessing personal amounts of hard drugs became a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, accompanied by new “deflection” programs meant to offer treatment options instead of automatic prosecution.
small and insignificant
Like Oregon?
You’re being bizarrely myopic here
Also repeatedly quoting the same thing is kinda undermining your point
Prohibition made the problems worse though.
Prohibition is one of the single biggest factors in the creation of organized crime at real scale. It took more than the local street gang to pull off everything that needed to be done. The American Mafia as we know it was a direct result of Prohibition.
Alcohol consumption itself didn’t change much. Speakeasies and bathtub brewers were open secrets. Cops didn’t raid them (much) because where else were they gonna get their 'shine?
In fact, my greats grandparents were bookies and bootleggers. My father told me his grandparents were pulled over with a trunk full of liquor during prohibition. Grandma said she would take care of it. Coo asked to see inside the trunk. Grandma said “Of course,” popped it open, pulled out two big bottles of liquor, tucked one under each of the cop’s shoulders and asked, “Is there a problem, sir?” He tipped his hat and bid them a safe trip as he climbed back into his car.
Time-based is an interesting proposition, though. As in, for two weeks or what have you, it is simply unavailable. You either have your home stock or you don’t. I can see benefits to that.
Eh? I don’t think it is well taught how bad alcoholism was in the English speaking world at the turn of the century. It was relatively common for men to drink away their wages, leaving their families poor. Alcohol also increased the likelihood of domestic violence, something which was somewhat socially acceptable.
Now, the outright ban obviously had nasty side effects including the creation of organized crime. However, I could see the argument that increased regulation and restriction in availability was justified.
After all, they had to ban buying gin by the pint.
After all, they had to ban buying gin by the pint.
It comes in pints?
Wasn’t an outright ban though. You were still allowed to brew your own beer and wine and consume it on your own property. You could do so till you were piss-drunk. Prohibition was primarily about shutting down saloons/taverns, reducing the wage loss and abuse by alcoholics and making hard liquor more difficult to obtain, which some could still do as long as it was medicinal.
If you think it isnt still common for people to drink away all of their family’s meager wealth I encourage you to find a local AA chapter, call up to ask for permission, then to come and listen in quiet support.
I’m not saying it isn’t possible today. What I’m saying is that it was far more common back before Prohibition.
Correct. There was no real regulation, except for booze taxes, which some druggist/soda stands circumvented because they were using alcohol for medicinal purposes. But the number of saloons/taverns decreased thanks to prohibition and never rebounded, as did the amount of alcohol consumed by Americans per capita.
But the number of saloons/taverns decreased thanks to prohibition and never rebounded, as did the amount of alcohol consumed by Americans per capita.
Incorrect. “Never rebounded” on alcohol consumption is flat out wrong. It rose back up over the years and surpassed pre-Prohibition alcohol consumption levels during COVID.
Alcoholism is an on-going issue, yes, but its also generally agreed that the amount of alcohol consumed per capita did decrease thanks to prohibition and remained lower post-prohibition.
Incorrect.
Prohibition was actually a success.
-
Prohibitionist had campaigned on ending a serious issue in every town and city in the United States, drunkards running off with their weekly paycheck and blowing it all in the saloon in one night. This left their wive and kids nothing to spend for food, clothing, etc. Alcohol consumption per capita fell and never fully rebounded after prohibition. Many of these little saloons/taverns had went under and didn’t reappear post-prohibition. Though alcoholism is an ongoing problem historians widely agree prohibition did in fact lower the rates and frequency of drinking.
-
Alcohol was not totally illegal. Beer companies transitioned to beer making kit companies and plenty of American’s made their own beer, which was totally legal to consume. Same for wine. Prohibition didn’t prohibit personal, private consumption of light alcoholic beverages. And hard liquor was still available to those who could get a doctor to agree they needed it for medicinal reasons.
-
Organized crime. Forms of organized criminal organizations have existed long before America and long before prohibition. Many of the gangs you think of that are tied to prohibition were just criminals taking advantage of the times they were in. They’d had engaged in some other crime had booze still been legal. And also keep in mind some of those famous criminals, like Bonnie and Clyde, were not booze runners but were just outlaws. If anything, the rise in popularity of criminals during this time period owe more to the proliferation of radio broadcasts (news) hyping up their crimes.
Oh and some of American’s favorite families ran illegal booze, like the Kennedys. Not everyone moving hooch was Al Capone shooting up their competition.
Prohibition was overall successful and ultimately wasn’t as terrible as commonly conveyed. Likely because up until recently every generation post-prohibition has been booze lovers. Now that younger generations are shunning alcohol I think we’ll see the pro’s and con’s of prohibition being reevaluated by… ah hm…more sober minds.
Hahahaha, so the mob growing in power massively was a success?
You’re a riot.
Comment Deleted
lol
That’s a pretty rosy take but ok
-
