Which of the following bans would be successful?

[ALiberalModerate]

I agree

no, you didn't.

It did not. That's why bootlegging was so profitable.

It didn't go along with it, which is why bootlegging flourished.

Then don't make them.

Except I'm not actually. We know prohibition did not reduce alcohol consumption. We know drug prohibition does not reduce drug consumption. We know a gun ban would not reduce gun availability.

I provided evidence that prohibition did indeed reduce alcohol consumption. It also increased crime which is why we did away with it. You are just stating, well there were bootleggers so it didn't work. Can you haul more liquor behind your seat or with a semi truck?

 

[rahl]

I provided evidence that prohibition did indeed reduce alcohol consumption.

no, you didn't.

It also increased crime which is why we did away with it.

because it increased crime, and did not reduce consumption.

You are just stating, well there were bootleggers so it didn't work.

We know it didn't work.

Can you haul more liquor behind your seat or with a semi truck?

Did they have semi trucks during prohibition?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

no, you didn't.

because it increased crime, and did not reduce consumption.

We know it didn't work.

Did they have semi trucks during prohibition?

It did reduce consumption. That is the point. That is what you seem to be ignoring. Alcohol consumption was 30% of what was during prohibition than what was previous to prohibition. The problem is not that it didn't reduce alcohol consumption, the problem is that it cause a spike in crime.

 

[RF667799]

It did reduce consumption. That is the point. That is what you seem to be ignoring. Alcohol consumption was 30% of what was during prohibition than what was previous to prohibition. The problem is not that it didn't reduce alcohol consumption, the problem is that it cause a spike in crime.

I read a couple interesting articles on this topic recently.

Alcohol consumption was already exhibiting a decline prior to prohibition.

However, consumption did decline sharply immediately after prohibition was enacted.

However again, within a few years it was back up to about 70% of what it had been pre-prohibition. Given its earlier pre-prohibition decline, that might have been where it would be expected anyway. Possibly.

That crime rose during prohibition is difficult to ascertain. High profile organized crime, perhaps. But this was almost certainly accompanied by a decline in alcohol fueled crimes, if alcohol consumption did in fact decline. The data for that era is mostly incomplete.

I doubt any of this helps either the bans never work or the bans are always effective crowd.

 

[rahl]

It did reduce consumption. That is the point.

It didn't though, which is the point.

That is what you seem to be ignoring.

yes, I tend to ignore made up claims.

Alcohol consumption was 30% of what was during prohibition than what was previous to prohibition.

No it wasn't.

The problem is not that it didn't reduce alcohol consumption, the problem is that it cause a spike in crime.

The problem was it didn't reduce consumption, BECAUSE there was an increase in crime.

 

[Dayton3]

Sex for money, in any aspect. Sex not for procreation...

Not many people claim that all sex must be for "procreation".