...if it is a time-bound prohibition, maybe in the order of a few weeks, so society can rethink about their consumption habits.

Indefinite prohibition, of the kind that was amended in the US constitution, denies the human desire to consume alcohol and pretend it can be legislated away. A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article on the capital-P Prohibition showed lasting effects in alcohol consumption (I guess, good in the sense that there's changes in domestic abuse patterns, for example?) and organized crime (bad, with Al Capone and people like him)

Banning Jesus would save more lives.

Useless comment, we'll do both now

Prohibition made the problems worse though.

Imagine a world without authoritarian busybodies bent on inflicting their bizarre rules on everyone else.

My general view of things is that people can't be trusted not to consume to excess but solving it by prohibition, even half measures like weekly limits or losing the right to drink, requires draconian laws and fuels organised crime.

Tobaccos a good ban candidate but I don't see alcohol being a good idea, even more so because of how ingrained it is in normal life and events.

Prohibition is one of the single biggest factors in the creation of organized crime at real scale. It took more than the local street gang to pull off everything that needed to be done. The American Mafia as we know it was a direct result of Prohibition.

Alcohol consumption itself didn't change much. Speakeasies and bathtub brewers were open secrets. Cops didn't raid them (much) because where else were they gonna get their 'shine?

In fact, my greats grandparents were bookies and bootleggers. My father told me his grandparents were pulled over with a trunk full of liquor during prohibition. Grandma said she would take care of it. Coo asked to see inside the trunk. Grandma said "Of course," popped it open, pulled out two big bottles of liquor, tucked one under each of the cop's shoulders and asked, "Is there a problem, sir?" He tipped his hat and bid them a safe trip as he climbed back into his car.

Time-based is an interesting proposition, though. As in, for two weeks or what have you, it is simply unavailable. You either have your home stock or you don't. I can see benefits to that.

It’s like saying eugenics isn’t inherently bad.

Maybe not but it always leads immediately to bad things.

And how easy it is to make at home

Oh you poor fool. You think these monsters give a crap about Jesus lol. They’d just pick a new Jesus and continue doing this shit.

At the very least we should stop advertising it everywhere.

They did. Trump haha

I’m not a “the world is ending” type of guy but trump lines up more with the Antichrist than Jesus.

Save this one. You'll look back on it in ten years and laugh.

Eh? I don't think it is well taught how bad alcoholism was in the English speaking world at the turn of the century. It was relatively common for men to drink away their wages, leaving their families poor. Alcohol also increased the likelihood of domestic violence, something which was somewhat socially acceptable.

Now, the outright ban obviously had nasty side effects including the creation of organized crime. However, I could see the argument that increased regulation and restriction in availability was justified.

After all, they had to ban buying gin by the pint.

If you think it isnt still common for people to drink away all of their family's meager wealth I encourage you to find a local AA chapter, call up to ask for permission, then to come and listen in quiet support.

Thankfully we know he can't be the anti-Christ because he didn't even fool everyone in his own country, let alone the whole world.

I'm not saying it isn't possible today. What I'm saying is that it was far more common back before Prohibition.

You are correct, there are lasting effects in alcohol consumption.

Unfortunately, there are also lasting effects in alcohol prohibition. The costs of prohibition far outweigh the costs of consumption.

Humans have consumed alcohol for thousands of years, in many cultures, daily or near daily. It's been banned a few times, and the costs are great. We know what they are.

1. When you ban any very popular thing, you create a black market for that thing. In the case of a alcohol prohibition, a fantastically large and well-funded black market. This black market will murder many people to continue to make outrageous amounts of money (much more than anyone makes when it is legal).
2. Home-made alcohol will be sold by that black market. Just like drugs, people will cut that alcohol to make larger profits. A lot of people will get sick and/or die from the various problems that arise with that. Much more than alcohol alone.
3. Alcohol is a part of nature, you can't get rid of it. It's a byproduct of food. Food can also cause lasting effects from consumption. Very costly effects; obesity, addiction, heart disease, and so on are all often byproducts of food. Yeah, there are lasting effects from consumption. You don't need alcohol to live, you don't need Twinkies to live, and so on. Just... let it go. It's a never ending quest for control that leads straight to hell.
4. So not only do you have larger black markets with more money, and not only do you have increased workload for medical facilities everywhere, you also have to have a police force to suppress all of this now illegal drinking. You can pretend that these are robots that won't abuse power, but they aren't, and they will abuse power, and people will die. (and a lot of cops drink).
5. This doesn't even scratch the costs of prohibition. I could write a book. Instead, other authors have written about it, and they are much smarter than me. See Peter McWilliams, "Ain't Nobody's Business if you Do". His death was tragically connected to prohibition, but I'd have to write another book.

History (and the present, frankly) shows us you can't stop people consuming things they want to

Attempting to do so only makes it less safe and puts more lives at risk (see: prohibition in the US, the war on drugs worldwide)

Hell even non-consumptive activities, any attempts to restrict abortion result in more deaths from unsafe abortion

No, it's called a delusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

Learn your history

It's obviously not black and white, is it

small and insignificant

Like Oregon?

You're being bizarrely myopic here

Also repeatedly quoting the same thing is kinda undermining your point

I’ve read plenty of history. So one guy said a thing a once so therefore it’s impossible forever. Cool story bro.

I’ll just forget all human history of domesticated animals and genetically modified crops.

You didn’t even name the scientist.

I mean, your own source points to the problem being a lack of support rather than the legality itself.

Dude. You're running around with the whole "you people" thing, thinking you're bagging on other people. It completely undermines any attempt you make because it shows lack of good faith, and someone just trying to dunk on people. It's not cool at all. You could make the exact same comments without being an absolute dick and be just fine.

Great post!

And one I happen to agree with. Short term prohibitions can be a great tool to give an area a chance to play catchup with resources. Has to be used carefully, but it's a solid concept

Nice try sluggo.

So you’re saying eugenics isn’t unethical? Because I said we shouldn’t do it because of ethics. You’re argument was to say I’m wrong, the issue is we CANT do it, when in fact it a pretty big series of industries already.

Therefor the ethics of eugenics aren’t problematic to you?

The problem with treating addiction like a health issue is that the US does not treat its health issues.

Agreed. But I wouldn't suggest that we legalize every drug just because prohibiting them occasionally fails and a small subset of the population still get addicted to them. We need to start treating these health issues. Why don't we just deregulate freon since people know it was damaging the ozone layer so nowadays they won't use it. Right?

Problem is we know human nature is more complicated than that. That's why some stuff is made illegal. It's ok to prohibit objectively bad things (and drugs like pain killers that offer some benefits under controlled circumstances are in fact allowed to be used under the supervision of authorized experts. Its not like we just blindly outlaw anything "bad" despite their being genuinely good uses for them.)

“MAYBE not but it ALWAYS leads immediately to bad things”

Learn to read. I never said eugenics isn’t unethical. I said maybe there are applications that aren’t unethical, but I’ve never seen one.

Learn to read.

“A better argument would be” no it wouldn’t you unethical monster lol. Is murder wrong because it’s unethical or is murder wrong only because YOU can’t do it?

My argument is it’s wrong because it’s unethical. It’s not a skill issue. You are on team “the ethics are irrelevant!”

Which is a bad take buddy. Maybe quit digging.

Maybe he is anti blatant bullshit? The study you are referring to is from 1915. You aren't basing yourself on anything modern and you come off as deeply ignorant in the current convo. Spend 5 minutes on Google next time you are challenged.

Scientist is Thomas Hunt Morgan. He finally stopped his fly experiment in 1915.

So eye color is attached to the sex of the fly and he couldn’t break that.

That’s one trait for a fly that is attached to the sex of the fly so he had trouble breeding it out.

That a long way from a eugenicsist proving egunics is impossible.

That’s not even close lol

I don't think treating addiction like a health issue implies some libertine approach to drugs, there's plenty of room for regulation.

The real problem is that allowing addictive drugs to proliferate in a society where a large percentage of the population wants to die is a good way to collapse the economy. Why keep suffering when there's a way out?

Alcoholics downvoting you? Lol

The relationship between alcohol and violent crime is so tight, the police are prevented from keeping statistics on how many violent crimes are committed by drunk people. Thanks to a significant alcohol lobby.

But the number of saloons/taverns decreased thanks to prohibition and never rebounded, as did the amount of alcohol consumed by Americans per capita.

Incorrect. "Never rebounded" on alcohol consumption is flat out wrong. It rose back up over the years and surpassed pre-Prohibition alcohol consumption levels during COVID.

https://apnews.com/article/public-health-health-statistics-health-us-news-ap-top-news-f1f81ade0748410aaeb6eeab7a772bf7

That's crazy that it has gone back to pre Prohibition levels.

Oh yeah, worked great the first time. Telling people they can't do something isn't going to stop them from doing it.