
Reconsidering whether Prohibition was a failure - jasonhansel
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits
======
baudehlo
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.

~~~
da_chicken
_> 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](https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=169206)

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

~~~
baudehlo
It’s an interesting reply but your conclusion feels like a stretch to me.
Mostly because that’s a very long time ago. Access to information has
massively changed since then. I feel like saying America can’t have a good
relationship with alcohol is a cop out.

------
headsoup
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 the
harm, particularly in home and public violence.

I only assume the industry players have been extremely successful in in-
graining the attitude that alcohol is a God-given right and social necessity
social harm be damned.

~~~
pixl97
Eh, you're underestimating the attraction of vice. Trying to say it's the
industry that says alcohol is a right completely neglects the enormous black
markets for illegal drugs that don't have rights for.

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.

~~~
xfitm3
DARE is a failure. As is the entire war on drugs in America.

~~~
dragonwriter
> DARE is a failure.

Studies of DARE have shown it's a success at producing more positive images of
law enforcement among children exposed to it (they've also shown it has no
effect on its _nominal_ goal of reducing drug abuse, but do you think it keeps
going because no one cares that it's a failure at it's real goal or because
it's real goal was never the nominal goal in the first place?)

------
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.

~~~
hrktb
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.

~~~
pmoriarty
Some other examples:

\- seat belt laws

\- speed limits

\- traffic lights

\- car and airplane safety standards

\- clean air and water regulations

~~~
50656E6973
Those are industrial equipment operational safety precautions, not a
prohibition of cars and planes

------
ttul
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.

~~~
vichu
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county#Traveling_to_purchase_alcohol)

~~~
barry-cotter
The causality could go

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.

~~~
sfRattan
Or it could go:

Dry county -> social drinkers must drive to the bar in the next county over,
or even several counties over -> drunk drivers from the dry county spend more
time and distance on roads than they would otherwise -> higher instance of
drunk driving related accidents in the dry county.

------
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.

~~~
dikkechill
The problem is not so much whether it's the government's job to regulate it,
but that it is primarily treated as a criminal issue, and thus is 'solved'
through police enforcement. In other countries people see it more as a health
issue, this leads to completely different approaches and policies. What would
happen if we treated e.g. education primarily as a criminal issue?

------
zzzeek
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...](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955138/alcohol-247-sobriety-
program)), 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.

~~~
bitcurious
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
shados
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

------
pg_bot
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.

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

[https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20080702/age-21-drinkin...](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20080702/age-21-drinking-
laws-cut-traffic-deaths)

~~~
dagenix
There are a number of red flags with that article:

* 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.

------
sonnyblarney
We often forget context: alcoholism was an utterly rampant social malaise. It
was everywhere, and affected everyone.

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...](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/everyone-knows-john-a-macdonald-
was-a-bit-of-a-drunk-but-its-largely-forgotten-how-hard-he-hit-the-bottle)

[2] [http://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/how-
prohibit...](http://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/how-prohibition-
changed-american-culture/womens-rights/)

