3 ms·
That's only if prohibition works, prohibition of consumption does not have a great track record of actually accomplishing the intended outcome. If instead you
by chownie 2y ago
That's only if prohibition works, prohibition of consumption does not have a great track record of actually accomplishing the intended outcome.
If instead you look at why people drink, why they over consume, you can work levers that way. Are people seeking out escapes? Why? What can we do to make it so they don't feel that need?
- gadflyinyoureye 2y agoActually health improved under prohibition. 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... The provider of health care can require that individuals stop indulging in certain practices. In the EU they can say you stop drinking or no health care. A person would then be free to find an alternative provider of health insurance. Maybe the EU countries would allow private insurance.
- chownie 2y ago"health" did not improve, cirrhosis of the liver cases dropped. At the same time crimes related to drug addiction jumped 45% and all crime was up 20%. That article is blinding the reader in its selective use of stats, by limiting the assessment to violent crime they ignore the wider social deleterious effect alcohol prohibition had. The question is not "will this succeed in what it attempts to do", but rather "is it worth all the extra baggage", does it matter if alcohol prohibition works when it's also a weed and cocaine popularity campaign?