Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure • Hacker News Board

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#51

Post by sonnyblarney » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 4:11 AM UTC

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…

"The philosophical argument here "

It's not a 'philosophical argument' - it's a very practical argument.

Alcohol is regulated pretty much everywhere, even where ages are lower, there is definitely a social contract around it.

Young Germans don't just go around getting wasted at 16 'because they can' - there are still social norms, in addition to real laws.

I interpret a lot of discussion around here to be very academic, more contemplative of issues such as liberty, freedom of expression etc. - but my own personal experience relating to this is more applied: I've heard numerous stories about my family members way back a couple of generations and how alcohol was fairly intertwined in all of this. My family was relatively average. These things can be a huge social malaise.

For example 'heavy/problem drinkers' account for most alcohol sales. [1]

Basically, the alcohol industry might not exist without alcoholics.

The top 10% of drinkers average 80 (!!!) drinks a week [2]. On average. That's just a crazy amount of alcohol for an average, and that's the top 10%, not the top 1%.

The problem is similar to that of other drugs: for most people it's probably not going to be a problem, but for enough of society, it will be a problem to the point wherein it affects the community ... ergo ... regulation and social norms of some kind are unavoidable.

"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."

100% of 'Liberal Western Democracies' regulate alcohol in a meaningful way.

Even in Germany: "Selling or serving spirits or food products, containing more than insignificant quantities of spirits, to a young person over the age of 14 but under the age of 18 years" - 2000 Euro fine for retailers. [3]

The author provides a different angle on prohibition and I think the very vague conclusions of 'finding middle ground' are reasonable.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/22/problem-drin...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_in_Germany

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#52

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 5:01 AM UTC

shados wrote: post #44

dragonwriter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, “think of the children” is a cliche, but it exists for a reason. Yes, and the reason it exists is that it's a thought-terminating rhetorical technique that has proven effective at getting people to support government actions without critical thinking about whether there is even a plausible argument that the action serves he nominal goal.

Not wrong. If we take tobacco laws, with the cancer side effects, frequently going "omg don't expose the children to it!". Really, the reason people pushed to ban smoking is because its fucking annoying and little more. "Think of the children and cancer" was just an easier way to get the point through.

> If we take tobacco laws, with the cancer side effects, frequently going "omg don't expose the children to it!".

Indoor tobacco bans in public spaces were pushed largely by labor groups as a workplace health and safety issue.

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#53

Post by pmoriarty » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 6:06 AM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #27

quotemstr wrote: post #13

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.

Some other examples:

- seat belt laws

- speed limits

- traffic lights

- car and airplane safety standards

- clean air and water regulations

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#54

Post by 50656E6973 » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #53

hrktb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some other examples: - seat belt laws - speed limits - traffic lights - car and airplane safety standards - clean air and water regulations

Those are industrial equipment operational safety precautions, not a prohibition of cars and planes

Re: Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure

#55

Post by 50656E6973 » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #27

quotemstr wrote: post #13

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.

Were tobacco and gambling blanket banned like alcohol was on a national level?