21–30 of 55 posts
Total prohibition is a failure; however, jurisdictions in which alcohol is more expensive and less convenient do experience lower rates of alcohol-related issues. I’m sorry I don’t have a citation for this.
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 disea…
hardly?
> and declare both to be morally unsound.
hardly?
> It’s a neat rhetorical trick, but like my math instructor used to say:
like my english instructor would say, "did you even read the book?"
> The social drinker that misjudged their state and crashed a car?
they'd be incarcerated for drunk driving, not drinking in and of itself.
> The kid who fucks up his liver because he took Tylenol to treat his hangover?
you can screw up your liver taking too many tylenols without alcohol, and a privileged high school kid isn't not going to drink at some party because taxes made it cost a few dollars more. alcohol taxes are only going to impact low income people in any meaningful way. if the theory is, well these damn poor people just keep drinking too much and can't control themselves, the alcohol is not the reason for that, the poverty is. Address poverty, not punishing people for being poor.
edit: if I may add some tangible detail, in my extended family are some extremely impoverished, extremely diseased alcoholics. What these people need urgently, right now, is medical care and addiction rehabilitation services. Like, several weeks in a quality in-patient facility would be great, such a thing costs tens of thousands of dollars and is available only to the very privileged. Medical care and quality rehabilitation services are not generally available to impoverished people in the US. An alcohol tax would quite directly mean they simply would have even less money to buy food, which would directly impact the health of their 16 year old son, and incarcerating them would also destroy whatever financial ability they have left to survive. It's pretty offensive to read about proposals just to tax and punish people negatively affected by alcohol without even a consideration for the rehabilitation and medical services they desparately need and are denied by the US system of health care. Address the health care and poverty first. Going straight to punishment is cruel and out of touch.
Total prohibition is a failure; however, jurisdictions in which alcohol is more expensive and less convenient do experience lower rates of alcohol-related issues. I’m sorry I don’t have a citation for this.
Interesting to hear. I've heard the opposite in that in dry counties in the US the incidence of alcohol related driving accidents is 3x that of wet counties. A quick look at the Wikipedia[0] article corroborates this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county#Traveling_to_purcha...
Dry County -> Lots of Drink Driving (Unhealthy relationship with alcohol)
Or it could be
Lots of Drink Driving (Unhealthy relationship with alcohol) -> Dry County
You’d need to do historical research to see if the bad relationship preceded the alcohol ban. A first pass would be historical murder rates seeing as drunkenness leads to violence, which leads to deaths.
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, howev…
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, howev…
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...
* It uses the words "strong" and "tough" a lot - which really means nothing but sure sounds good.
* It endorses taking away the driver's license of someone caught with a fake id - without paying any thought to what that does to their life. Some kid that takes an Uber to a bar and is caught with a fake id on Saturday now can't drive to his job on Monday. This is messed up and almost certainly impacts lower income populations more than higher income ones.
* The article specifically cites a "news release". The whole article is a summary of a press release of a study.
* The study was conducted by Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), which describes itself as: "PIRE was founded as a 501(c)(3) organization in San Francisco, CA, in 1974, when a group of allied scientists were among the first to recognize the dangers inherent in the emergence of widespread drug use. PIRE developed and disseminated some of the earliest prevention strategies."
This seems like a low quality article summarizing a press release from an organization with a clear bias. I can't speak to the quality of the study itself (although, due to how PIRE describes its founding, I'm suspicious), but the article isn't worth citing.
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.
I think there are efforts that are ill placed, and others that counter balance natural harmful tendencies or other efforts from groups benefiting from harmful behavior. I wouldn’t label all banning and efforts to shape a society as useless or counter productive.
Consider Winston Churchill used to drink 12 ounces of hard booze a day.
Underneath the House of Commons / Parliament in Canada, the used to be the 'bar' where people would go and get wasted every day - and a lot of official government business would happen! Canada's 'George Washington' - Sir John A MacDonald would drink 12 ounces-ish a day as well. Literally the first Prime Minster would disappear on several day binge benders and show up to Parliament so wasted he could hardly speak. Again: head of a nation. [1]
The Prohibition movement was strongly associated with those leading the Feminist movements at the time, it was a matter of social justice, because drunk men were a serious problem in their potential violence, infidelity, absenteeism etc.
"The Prohibition amendment prohibiting the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol would not have passed without the persistence of the women involved in the temperance movement starting in the 19th century. " [2]
So I think we have to historically contextualize the issue a little bit differently that we would otherwise, now that we have alcoholism mostly under control, better public health, and I think a little more ability to handle such problems.
It was a different time, with different problems.
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/everyone-knows-john-a-m...
[2] http://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/how-prohibit...
Interesting that the Alcohol lobby is only mentioned once and the big industry players not mentioned. Surely their actions were fundamental in orchestrating the pushback? Considering the emergence of 'PR' during the same period, alcohol would have remained well supported. Much as with drugs, total prohibition is not the answer for adult problems, but a balance of education, taxes and regulation should work to reduce…
Education only goes so far, as DARE shows you must tell the truth and not embellish it or people neglect your whole message.
Push taxes too high and you create a black market too.
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.
Would you see the regulations regarding tabaccomor gambling as efforts that did more harm than good ? I think there are efforts that are ill placed, and others that counter balance natural harmful tendencies or other efforts from groups benefiting from harmful behavior. I wouldn’t label all banning and efforts to shape a society as useless or counter productive.