5 ms·

It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf Whether or not it was worth the c

It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.

lisper 12y ago
I didn't say that it didn't work, I said it was an unmitigated disaster. A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow "worked" too.
- jMyles 12y ago
  Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of heroin and even stronger drugs. As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.
  - ddingus 12y ago
    Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances, making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens with Grannie's decorative flowers. That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.
orionhenry 12y ago
Sorry. The link isn't working for me. Does the study properly account for percent alcohol by volume? Studies I have read showed people just switching beer for whiskey. The consumption difference was negligible once normalized.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
If I showed data that shooting a person in the head was an effective means of removing brain tumours, it would be very unlikely that anyone anywhere under any circumstances would ever agree with the proposition, "shooting a person in the head words in removing brain tumours". It's just not the way "worked" is used, and falling back on the most literal, narrow meaning of the term actually signals conceding the argument.
cracell 12y ago
The relevant point of your link is "We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level." If I was trying to prohibit something but could only manage to prevent 30-40 percent of it compared to when it was legal I would certainly feel I had failed. This is without factoring in all the other problems Prohibition caused.
brasky 12y ago
Does government itself work? I think that is what people need to ask themselves.

lisper 12y ago

I didn't say that it didn't work, I said it was an unmitigated disaster. A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow "worked" too.

jMyles 12y ago
Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of heroin and even stronger drugs. As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.
- ddingus 12y ago
  Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances, making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens with Grannie's decorative flowers. That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.

orionhenry 12y ago

Sorry. The link isn't working for me. Does the study properly account for percent alcohol by volume? Studies I have read showed people just switching beer for whiskey. The consumption difference was negligible once normalized.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

If I showed data that shooting a person in the head was an effective means of removing brain tumours, it would be very unlikely that anyone anywhere under any circumstances would ever agree with the proposition, "shooting a person in the head words in removing brain tumours". It's just not the way "worked" is used, and falling back on the most literal, narrow meaning of the term actually signals conceding the argument.

cracell 12y ago

The relevant point of your link is "We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level." If I was trying to prohibit something but could only manage to prevent 30-40 percent of it compared to when it was legal I would certainly feel I had failed. This is without factoring in all the other problems Prohibition caused.

brasky 12y ago

Does government itself work? I think that is what people need to ask themselves.