…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)
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.
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.
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