| ▲ | nostrebored 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah, this is absolutely one post hoc interpretation of it. The black market for spirits absolutely pales in comparison to public health and legal data, which conclusively show that second order effects of drinking like liver disease, public intoxication, and domestic violence plummeted. This prohibition era retcon is a way to justify the fact that people like to drink and there were many people who stood to make money on re-legalization. Which is why I said the question of it being a good thing is different. I encourage you to look at the data, as someone who also enjoys to drink. Government bans are surprisingly effective in most developed countries. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"success" can be viewed in different lenses. In your lens of "did it make America healthier", sure. I wouldn't be surprised. My lens is "did America actually learn anything valuable from this period?". And all I see is "We The Government are fine poisoning our citizens as long as we profit from it". A lesson that passed on to cigarettes, then hard drugs, then fast food (which persists to this day), and now with social media. Then The Government wonders why no one trusts them to do the right thing. In that lens, I'd say prohibition and its downstream effects on how to regulate in general was absolutely awful and damning. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||