4 ms·
The prohibition movement is the usual example provided to support that theory, but historians and experts in the domain do acknowledge there was still an overal
by h0l0cube 7y ago
The prohibition movement is the usual example provided to support that theory, but historians and experts in the domain do acknowledge there was still an overall decrease in consumption of alcohol during prohibition.
'Courtwright’s The Age of Addiction has the statistics: “Per capita consumption initially fell to 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, before gradually increasing to 60 or 70 percent by 1933.” That suggests a 30 percent reduction, at a minimum, in consumption — although that was less than the initial effect, as people figured some ways around the law.'
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
- pmoriarty 7y agoBut was that reduction in use a result of Prohibition or of the moralistic anti-drinking attitude that was prevalent at the time? Even if Prohibition itself was responsible for the reduction in drinking, we must consider whether the overall effect on society was worth it. This effect included an enormous increase in organized crime, murders and other types of violence, and widespread corruption. American society as a whole decided that no, it was not worth it, and repealed Prohibition. The effect of the current war on drugs is arguably much, much worse than Prohibition ever was.
- h0l0cube 7y agoI recommend reading the article. It has compelling alternate hypotheses for the increase in crime. It also broaches the topic of the 'war on drugs', though I don't recall that it makes any useful comparison of modern 'harm minimization' strategies and prohibition.