5 ms·

> Almost everyone agrees that despite the harms caused by alcohol, we were even worse off under prohibition. That is an exaggeration. In polls a sizable propor

> Almost everyone agrees that despite the harms caused by alcohol, we were even worse off under prohibition. That is an exaggeration. In polls a sizable proportion (~20%) are still in favor of banning alcohol. Popular assessments that we were “worse off” during prohibition are based on decades of propaganda and mythology rather than careful analysis, and a confusion between the effects of prohibition and the effects of the great depression. e.g. from a quick web search (there are probably better resources) https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibit... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/ (Note: I am not personally in favor of prohibition.)

kazinator 8y ago
If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; the point stands. It seems that Prohibition brought about improvements in social problems rooted in self-harm, but a worsening in crime and random violence linked to the black market. People don't want to be the victims of random violence, and they don't care about self-harm that much. Someone drinking away their liver is that someone else's problem. But, speaking of self-harm, one thing not mentioned in the above references is that black market liquor is dangerous, due to the possibility of being contaminated with methanol. Prohibition doesn't eliminate self-harm. It may be that fewer engage in self-harm, but those who do are gambling with higher stakes. There is a bit of a parallel there with fentanyl-laced opioids.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobolus 8y ago
  > If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; The claim was “almost everyone agrees that [..] we were even worse off under prohibition”, which is a clear exaggeration. Your response is a non sequitur. > People don't want to be the victims of random violence, People don’t want to be the victims of domestic violence either, which is very commonly caused/exacerbated by easy access to alcohol. It’s not clear that prohibition had a large impact on the overall level of random violence, pop culture mythology notwithstanding.

kazinator 8y ago

If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; the point stands. It seems that Prohibition brought about improvements in social problems rooted in self-harm, but a worsening in crime and random violence linked to the black market. People don't want to be the victims of random violence, and they don't care about self-harm that much. Someone drinking away their liver is that someone else's problem. But, speaking of self-harm, one thing not mentioned in the above references is that black market liquor is dangerous, due to the possibility of being contaminated with methanol. Prohibition doesn't eliminate self-harm. It may be that fewer engage in self-harm, but those who do are gambling with higher stakes. There is a bit of a parallel there with fentanyl-laced opioids.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jacobolus 8y ago
> If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; The claim was “almost everyone agrees that [..] we were even worse off under prohibition”, which is a clear exaggeration. Your response is a non sequitur. > People don't want to be the victims of random violence, People don’t want to be the victims of domestic violence either, which is very commonly caused/exacerbated by easy access to alcohol. It’s not clear that prohibition had a large impact on the overall level of random violence, pop culture mythology notwithstanding.