this is quite an anti-drug article.
Raise prices? Limit access? Research shows that even a little bit can mutate DNA..?
Drinking 100 years ago was way worse and that's how we got prohibition. Hope we don't go back in that direction.
Raise prices? Limit access? Research shows that even a little bit can mutate DNA..?
Drinking 100 years ago was way worse and that's how we got prohibition. Hope we don't go back in that direction.
[1] https://blogs.cdc.gov/cancer/2018/04/02/3-weird-things-about...
Returning to 2019 regulatory framework is not prohibition nor blue laws. It would likely reduce alot of human suffering without impacting moderate drinkers.
The only thing I can recall was to-go liquor sales with takeout - which I strongly suspect is not a big mover of change here.
It facilitates alot of work day drinking and bad outcomes for people with problems.
I don't think anyone here seriously doubts whether alcohol consumption carries health risks or whether increasing excise tax decreases consumption (although they might quibble on the degree for each). the question is more around how much the government should intervene to limit poor personal choices. there aren't enough peer reviewed studies in the world to answer that.
Also, he's not your monkey.
https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/how-prohibit...
And another from the literal mafia museum:
https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-rise-of...
Don't move the goalposts.
> the idea that it was some kind of obvious catastrophe is nothing short of ridiculous
It was literally an unmitigated catastrophe, which is why it was the only constitutional amendment to be overturned.
It also led to government agents spiking ethanol with methanol, leading to blindness. Pure evil.