4 ms·

This is a bit of a non sequitur. The benefits of drinking are obvious! And, yes, religions and political parties have opposed alcohol...because the harmful effe

This is a bit of a non sequitur. The benefits of drinking are obvious! And, yes, religions and political parties have opposed alcohol...because the harmful effects are equally obvious. The causal arrow runs that direction. There was indeed a prohibition on drinking a century ago, spearheaded mostly by women who were tired of their husbands beating them when drunk. Prohibition is widely regarded today as an obviously ridiculous blunder, but that's mostly revisionist and ahistorical. German Lopez at Vox did a couple good pieces on what people get wrong about it: * https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-mis... * 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... There's also a bit of an asymmetry that makes weighing the pros and cons difficult. If 40 people enjoy a night at the bar, but one one of them goes home and beats their wife and another kills a family in a drunk-driving accident on the way home, do we just say, "well, 38 of the 40 peacefully enjoyed their evening, so it's mostly good." That looks like a horrific outcome, to me.

wahern 5y ago
A critical fact that destroys modern narratives about the supposedly naive rationales behind Prohibition is that the 18th Amendment was only supposed to apply to what we now call hard liquor, not to beer and wine. Indeed, much of the country already had similar or identical legislation yet beer and wine was perfectly legal in most (all?) of those localities. The Federal prohibition was simply for national consistency with a public policy that was well tested. Unfortunately, an overly pedantic Supreme Court interpreted "intoxicating liquors" very broadly, resulting in a national ban that far exceeded the state and local legislation with which most people were accustomed and comfortable. It was the narrower definition only encompassing distilled liquor that the public knowingly gave their consent.
- allturtles 5y ago
  This isn't quite accurate either. It was the Volstead Act - an act of Congress - that defined the breadth of the ban (i.e. what constitutes intoxicating liquors). The Supreme Court did uphold the legality of the Volstead Act.
  - wahern 5y ago
    Noted. Thank you. And for more context, the Volstead Act passed with supermajorities in Congress, enshrining a war-time prohibition (based on war-time powers) that was already in effect. So there were indeed some very strong political dynamics pushing for strict alcohol prohibition, but arguably not enough alone to get from inception to a constitutionally enumerated power. Perhaps the better lesson is that there is no simple narrative.

wahern 5y ago

A critical fact that destroys modern narratives about the supposedly naive rationales behind Prohibition is that the 18th Amendment was only supposed to apply to what we now call hard liquor, not to beer and wine. Indeed, much of the country already had similar or identical legislation yet beer and wine was perfectly legal in most (all?) of those localities. The Federal prohibition was simply for national consistency with a public policy that was well tested. Unfortunately, an overly pedantic Supreme Court interpreted "intoxicating liquors" very broadly, resulting in a national ban that far exceeded the state and local legislation with which most people were accustomed and comfortable. It was the narrower definition only encompassing distilled liquor that the public knowingly gave their consent.

allturtles 5y ago
This isn't quite accurate either. It was the Volstead Act - an act of Congress - that defined the breadth of the ban (i.e. what constitutes intoxicating liquors). The Supreme Court did uphold the legality of the Volstead Act.
- wahern 5y ago
  Noted. Thank you. And for more context, the Volstead Act passed with supermajorities in Congress, enshrining a war-time prohibition (based on war-time powers) that was already in effect. So there were indeed some very strong political dynamics pushing for strict alcohol prohibition, but arguably not enough alone to get from inception to a constitutionally enumerated power. Perhaps the better lesson is that there is no simple narrative.