Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#11

Post by runarberg »

pg_bot wrote: post #8

It's perceived as a failure because it was a failure. If anything, the US is still too restrictive when it comes to alcohol policy. I hope we see the drinking age lowered back to 18, and remove most geographic and time restrictions on the purchase of alcohol. (i.e. Dry counties, purchasing on Sundays) It's funny, I don't see too many people championing the war on drugs as a public policy success.

The USA is weird. There are still policies that have been shown to work elsewhere, which aren’t enforced in the USA, like taxation and ad bans, while policies with questionable success rate are (like high drinking age and consumption in a public place).

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#12

Post by bitcurious »

zzzeek wrote: post #6

Alcohol taxes, proposals to imprison people for drinking (see the same author's article about said program in https://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955138/alcohol-247-sobriety-p... ), all ways of spreading more suffering and incarceration among low income, vulnerable communities, while hardly affecting privileged communities at all. Alcoholism is a disease and should not be treated with incarceration.

Unlike most diseases, alcoholism has direct and often violent effects on second parties. Sure, “think of the children” is a cliche, but it exists for a reason.

Second, you equate prison and taxes, and declare both to be morally unsound. It’s a neat rhetorical trick, but like my math instructor used to say: “show your work.” As far as I know, taxes work.

Additionally you assume that alcoholism (even treated as a disease) is the target of these policies. What about the cost of alcohol on non-addicts? The social drinker that misjudged their state and crashed a car? The kid who fucks up his liver because he took Tylenol to treat his hangover?

Even if a tax won’t deter an alcoholic it might work for the rest of society.

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#13

Post by quotemstr »

It's completely unsurprising that a social movement mirroring the attitude and values of the 1920s anti-saloon league would rediscover temperance as a cause they want to advance. There's always, in all societies, some group that wants to "fix" social ills by banning things and controlling people. These groups, when they get their way, do more harm than good.

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#14

Post by WarDores »

The philosophical argument here is "To what extent is it the government's job to regulate substances?" The author seems to think that if it causes harm, it should be under the government's purview to curtail. The second-to-last paragraph demonstrates this position. We already have laws about driving while intoxicated and public drunkenness (among others such as carrying a firearm while intoxicated) which preserve individual freedom while punishing externalities.

The author's suggestion that we once again need to start molding what is "acceptable" leisure is simply backwards. Western liberalism is fairly good at solving these problems.

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#15

Post by sokoloff »

pg_bot wrote: post #8

It's perceived as a failure because it was a failure. If anything, the US is still too restrictive when it comes to alcohol policy. I hope we see the drinking age lowered back to 18, and remove most geographic and time restrictions on the purchase of alcohol. (i.e. Dry counties, purchasing on Sundays) It's funny, I don't see too many people championing the war on drugs as a public policy success.

Though I drink occasionally, I support the rights of locals to decide whether to allow Sunday sales or to be a dry county. (I personally prefer no local restrictions and would vote against them, but would still defend the local communities to decide their relationship with alcohol sales.)

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#16

Post by bitcurious »

pg_bot wrote: post #8

It's perceived as a failure because it was a failure. If anything, the US is still too restrictive when it comes to alcohol policy. I hope we see the drinking age lowered back to 18, and remove most geographic and time restrictions on the purchase of alcohol. (i.e. Dry counties, purchasing on Sundays) It's funny, I don't see too many people championing the war on drugs as a public policy success.

A higher drinking age has been shown to lower drunk driving fatalities.

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20080702/age-21-drinkin...

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#17

Post by da_chicken »

baudehlo wrote: post #7

Are there statistics that compare other countries? I have found in my personal experience that countries that actually have lower minimum drinking ages seem to have better relationships with alcohol. Attempting to artificially force age 21 as the limit is foolish, creates de-facto criminals, especially in universities, and forces adults who want to try drinking to have to hide it. This isn’t a sane policy.

> I have found in my personal experience that countries that actually have lower minimum drinking ages seem to have better relationships with alcohol.

I believe that's a consequence of those countries having a better relationship with alcohol. That is to say, if a country's alcohol culture is healthier, it supports a lower drinking age. You can't synthesize a better alcohol culture by lowering the drinking age, however.

Lowering the drinking age has been tried in the US before. Michigan's drinking age after the repeal of the 18th Amendment was 21. The state lowered it's drinking age in 1972 from 21 to 18, and then raised it back to 19 in 1978 and then 3 weeks later took it back to 21. The reason for the change was sharp rise in drunk driving and traffic accidents involving teenagers.

It's kind of funny, but I wrote a paper on this in college years ago and I still remember some of the studies I used (I have a good memory). U of M did a study [1] in 1979 on the effects in Michigan, and there was another study in 1990 [2] that studied the effects across the country prior to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. It's been a long time since I read that study, but I seem to recall that they showed that the people who began drinking at age 18 had a worse relationship with alcohol by age 25, and that that worse relationship continued throughout their entire lives. I fully admit I haven't re-read these studies, though, so what I'm saying here is my memory from about 13 years ago.

Bottom line: Other countries might have a culture that supports a drinking age of 18 or lower, but the United States does not appear to be one of them.

[1]: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=169206

[2]: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/occpapers/occ28.pdf

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#19

Post by pg_bot »

sokoloff wrote: post #15
pg_bot wrote: post #8

It's perceived as a failure because it was a failure. If anything, the US is still too restrictive when it comes to alcohol policy. I hope we see the drinking age lowered back to 18, and remove most geographic and time restrictions on the purchase of alcohol. (i.e. Dry counties, purchasing on Sundays) It's funny, I don't see too many people championing the war on drugs as a public policy success.

Though I drink occasionally, I support the rights of locals to decide whether to allow Sunday sales or to be a dry county. (I personally prefer no local restrictions and would vote against them, but would still defend the local communities to decide their relationship with alcohol sales.)

I am in 100% agreement with you.

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#20

Post by mantap »

WarDores wrote: post #14

The philosophical argument here is "To what extent is it the government's job to regulate substances?" The author seems to think that if it causes harm, it should be under the government's purview to curtail. The second-to-last paragraph demonstrates this position. We already have laws about driving while intoxicated and public drunkenness (among others such as carrying a firearm while intoxicated) which preserve ind…

I'm sure you can think of some substances that the government should control. Almost everybody accepts the prescription system where medications are only available with a doctor's permission.

After that it's just arguing which substances should be controlled and which should not, and to what degree.

Post reply on HN