Yeah it wasn’t AI. It was the head of Google Ads (who got promoted to head of Google Search) that changed the search results so they were less accurate so users would spend more time on the results page and thus look at ads longer.

The Man Who Killed Google Search

But most people like the smell of gasoline, they’ll love being showered in when they get t-boned at an intersection.

But they do allow bestiality now.

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.)

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.”

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.

So you’re pro eugenics?

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.

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.

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. —

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.

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.

No, it’s called a delusion.

You could say that about any safety regulations. A few towns tried making all drugs legal recently and many of them reversed course after drug abuse got much worse. This went against their theory that making drugs legal would lower the abuse.

Alcohol has serious negative effects on the human body. They aren’t always limited to the one using it, so it’s not just a matter of “let them do whatever they want to their own bodies.” Drunk drives are a legit menace. Not to mention alcoholics tend to be abusive and unreliable. Not fun being a child of an alcoholic.

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.

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.

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.

Incorrect.

Prohibition was actually a success.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Meta glasses without camera

So just normal glasses?

All the real hipsters use amplitude modulation. Posers use frequency modulation.