16 ms·

They didn't exactly turn a blind eye. They tried prohibition in the US, it didn't work.

rbritton 8y ago
It did work, but there were a lot of unintended consequences. I no longer have the source link for this bit, but it's from a post-grad who extensively researched that era. > It's a common myth that Prohibition did not work in the US. In reality it worked far better than those pushing for it realized. What we need to remember is that Prohibition was foisted on the US buy the upper class who felt that alcohol was keeping the working class poor and uneducated (the myth of Demon Rum is still a prevalent one today, albeit it's evolved quite a bit). Prohibition was actually effective at reducing the overall consumption of alcohol and shutting down illegal speakeasies. There were a number of unintentional consequences though 1) The alcohol industry brought in so much money to the state and federal governments that even the passage of Income Tax was unable to make up the loss. 2) Those who pushed for Prohibition never expected it to be equally enforced and once Law Enforcement was able to get working class consumption under control they started enforcing it on the upper class and politicians which of course did not go over well. 3) There was a surge in crime due to the creation of a massive black market which also encourage rampant political corruption both of which were a bad look for the United States. 4) There were so many loopholes in the Volstead Act that it was costing a fortune to enforce the law.
- x220 8y ago
  Not to mention that prohibition of a drug always makes the black market drug more concentrated and therefore more dangerous.
- _Schizotypy 8y ago
  The exact same consequences are being seen again today primarily in the opiate market
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Prohibition worked in a not very meaningful sense. Alcohol consumption fell sharply at first but gradually recovered.[1] It didn't have the benefits its supporters said it would. Most people came to believe it did more harm than good. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf

It did work, but there were a lot of unintended consequences. I no longer have the source link for this bit, but it's from a post-grad who extensively researched that era. > It's a common myth that Prohibition did not work in the US. In reality it worked far better than those pushing for it realized. What we need to remember is that Prohibition was foisted on the US buy the upper class who felt that alcohol was keeping the working class poor and uneducated (the myth of Demon Rum is still a prevalent one today, albeit it's evolved quite a bit). Prohibition was actually effective at reducing the overall consumption of alcohol and shutting down illegal speakeasies. There were a number of unintentional consequences though 1) The alcohol industry brought in so much money to the state and federal governments that even the passage of Income Tax was unable to make up the loss. 2) Those who pushed for Prohibition never expected it to be equally enforced and once Law Enforcement was able to get working class consumption under control they started enforcing it on the upper class and politicians which of course did not go over well. 3) There was a surge in crime due to the creation of a massive black market which also encourage rampant political corruption both of which were a bad look for the United States. 4) There were so many loopholes in the Volstead Act that it was costing a fortune to enforce the law.

x220 8y ago
Not to mention that prohibition of a drug always makes the black market drug more concentrated and therefore more dangerous.
_Schizotypy 8y ago
The exact same consequences are being seen again today primarily in the opiate market
pseudalopex 8y ago
Prohibition worked in a not very meaningful sense. Alcohol consumption fell sharply at first but gradually recovered.[1] It didn't have the benefits its supporters said it would. Most people came to believe it did more harm than good. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf