Alcohol Prohibition - Should we bring it back?

If there was any way to actually prohibit the usage of the stuff completely then yeah I would support banning drink, but that will never happen. So I would prefer to put significantly higher duties on booze to pay for the problems it brings to our society.

The above applies to any drug which leads to addiction / anti social behaviour.
 
If there was any way to actually prohibit the usage of the stuff completely then yeah I would support banning drink, but that will never happen. So I would prefer to put significantly higher duties on booze to pay for the problems it brings to our society.

The above applies to any drug which leads to addiction / anti social behaviour.

That's a very important point : the use of "Psychoactive Substances"
is almost as old as humanity itself... and many People will not stop doing something, only because its illegal.
Higher Duties lead, of course, to more smuggeling / illegal production.
 
We can essentially credit Prohibition with the rise of organized crime. On the other hand, the annual costs of alcohol abuse per year are....Enormous. At least 175 billion according to this site:
http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm

That includes everything; lost work hours, accidents, etc.

Obviously, the across-the-board prohibition of drugs has resulted in...Essentially nothing.
Billions spent for little or no return save for the largest imprisoned population of any industrialized country. And the formation of drug cartels that threaten the very government in Mexico....
At some point, we are going to have to address the other part of the equation...Demand.
 
From the point of view of being able to watch the chaos which ensues, I'd love them to make it illegal again. But reality check says there's enough stupid in the world already.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge the possession and use of alcoholic beverages was never illegal, except possibly in some states or counties. Only the production and sale were prohibited.

Actually the production wasn't prohibited either.. ( by the 18th amendment )
Only the sale and transportation ..

Actually it was all three- production (manufacture), sale, and transportation.

Amendment XVIII
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
 
Alcohol abuse seems to be the problem, rather than alcohol consumption per se.

More consistent enforcement of existing laws about not serving alcohol to patrons who are drinking too much is probably a better idea...
 
Alcohol abuse seems to be the problem, rather than alcohol consumption per se.

More consistent enforcement of existing laws about not serving alcohol to patrons who are drinking too much is probably a better idea...

Why? Why not just ban it outright?
 
When I was in college I was part of a pro-prohibition group, believe it or not. This was also when I was trying to get Fraternities banned.

Strangely part of my reasoning at the time was that if it was banned the available stuff would likely be more dangerous and would kill a lot of people that would try and use it and.....at the time I thought that was a good thing. :boggled:

Of course I was a very bitter/angry young man in those days that just hated all those college parties I always saw.

So perhaps this can serve as a data point on the mind set of some pro-prohibition people.....and yes there are some out there.
 
Why? Why not just ban it outright?

We did that. It had a lot of unintended consequences, and didn't really accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.

If it had worked, we wouldn't have repealed it, would we? So why would we make the same mistake twice?
 
I think it would be a very bad idea to bring back prohibition...

I think anybody with a reasonable knowledge of history can explain why
 
We did that. It had a lot of unintended consequences, and didn't really accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.

If it had worked, we wouldn't have repealed it, would we? So why would we make the same mistake twice?

I agree with you on this argument. But what specifically was so bad about it?
 
When I was in college I was part of a pro-prohibition group, believe it or not. This was also when I was trying to get Fraternities banned.

Strangely part of my reasoning at the time was that if it was banned the available stuff would likely be more dangerous and would kill a lot of people that would try and use it and.....at the time I thought that was a good thing. :boggled:

Of course I was a very bitter/angry young man in those days that just hated all those college parties I always saw.

So perhaps this can serve as a data point on the mind set of some pro-prohibition people.....and yes there are some out there.

This reminds me of someone I was arguing with on another thread ;)
 
I agree with you on this argument. But what specifically was so bad about it?

Prohibition failed because it was unenforceable. By 1925, half a dozen states, including New York, passed laws banning local police from investigating violations. Prohibition had little support in the cities of the Northeast and Midwest.

Prohibition did briefly pay some public health dividends. The death rate from alcoholism was cut by 80 percent by 1921 from pre-war levels, while alcohol-related crime dropped markedly. Nevertheless, seven years after Prohibition went into effect, the total deaths from adulterated liquor reached approximately 50,000, and there were many more cases of blindness and paralysis. According to one story, a potential buyer who sent a liquor sample to a laboratory for analysis was shocked when a chemist replied: "Your horse has diabetes."

Prohibition quickly produced bootleggers, speakeasies, moonshine, bathtub gin, and rum runners smuggling supplies of alcohol across state lines. In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies--twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition. Many people made beer and wine at home. It was relatively easy finding a doctor to sign a prescription for medicinal whiskey sold at drugstores.

In 1919, a year before Prohibition went into effect, Cleveland had 1,200 legal bars. By 1923, the city had an estimated 3,000 illegal speakeasies, along with 10,000 stills. An estimated 30,000 city residents sold liquor during Prohibition, and another 100,000 made home brew or bathtub gin for themselves and friends.

Prohibition also fostered corruption and contempt for law and law enforcement among large segments of the population. Harry Daughtery, attorney general under Warren Harding, accepted bribes from bootleggers. George Remus, a Cincinnati bootlegger, had a thousand salesmen on his payroll, many of them police officers. He estimated that half his receipts went as bribes. Al Capone's Chicago organization reportedly took in $60 million in 1927 and had half the city's police on its payroll.

...and so on, here:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441
 
Where's mirrorglass when you need him.

So some of the problems:
- causes public corruption
- tainted liquor
- causes disrespect for law in general
- only lawful citizen effects, everyone else can get the stuff easily so it's not effective

Pretty much, maybe a bit simplistic, but touches on the basic points, I'd say.

good side:
- less people drinking overall (?)

Not when I see in that article that: "In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies--twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition. "

That doesn't sound like "less" to me. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sure sounds like "more."

Besides, people who don't drink don't need laws to prohibit drinking. They don't drink. People who do drink...well, some might stop because of the law, but those who want it will get it somehow, and it won't be regulated so it won't be safe.

And as the article (in full, it may not be in the part I quoted) said, there are people who drink as part of their cultures, and as part of their religious customs. It would be discriminatory, and against the Constitution's free expression of religion, to prohibit them consuming alcohol.

This is not to say I have any answers. I don't. But Prohibition is known as The Failed Experiment for good reasons. I don't think it's the answer to the societal ills it's intended to cure.
 
That so many people went to so much trouble to get booze during prohibition has always mystified me since I've always hated the taste and smell of all beer/booze. Especially beer. The mere smell of it causes intense nausea and this sucks because it means I have to avoid things like ballparks.
 
That so many people went to so much trouble to get booze during prohibition has always mystified me since I've always hated the taste and smell of all beer/booze. Especially beer. The mere smell of it causes intense nausea and this sucks because it means I have to avoid things like ballparks.

I don't understand why you'd be mystified. The taste and smell of alcohol doesn't have that effect on most people, so they don't have to avoid it, and can even seek it out.
Mystery solved. :p


...and wait just a minute...no you don't! You started the "Seriously ladies, when you are in a bar DON'T DO THIS!" thread, so it doesn't sound like you avoid bars, and I happen to know most bars serve a little alcohol now and then.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom