In 1926 there were 0 *legal* breweries. Guess what, all breweries were illegal. So no fucking kidding!

There was no production of full strength beer, dingbat.

Yeah - because it was *illegal*. It was still made in backrooms and basements and imported from Canada.

You're from Cincinnati, you should be well aware that Prohibition shut down the brewing industry there.

"It was still made in backrooms and basements and imported from Canada."

And how successful was that compared to the production levels of the early 1900s?

Again, no fucking duh! It was illegal so only organized crime was willing to take the risk.

Your are aguing prohibition worked because production levels went down. Outlaw anything and production levels go down. But if they don't go down to near zero and still continue with a significant black market produciton, it ain't working.

So how is this not proof of success?

I just explained how. Production wasn't reduced to less that 10% and it only took a couple decades after prohibition was lifted for it to return.

Meanwhile, organized crime took over the produciton and distribution and didn't do it in a business friendly manner like legal producersd had done, instead forcing businesses to buy a certain amount or get blown to hell. Incidents like the opening of The Untouchables happened and they weren't the odd outlier. They were business as usual. So your prohibiton put something new into the mafia's hands to use as a tool to make more money and got innocent people killed. When innocents get hurt and killed because of government policies, those policies areen't working. A government of, by, and for the people should first look to protecting innocent lives. Said policies which instead endanger them are complete and utter failures.

So by your bizarre & ridiculous bar, it's not a success. Nevermind that death due to cirrhosis of the liver & chronic alcoholism, not to mention domestic violence, diminished significantly, far outweighing any deaths due to organized crime syndicates.

"and it only took a couple decades after prohibition was lifted for it to return."

http://prohibition.osu.edu/brewing/consumption

Actually it took a lot longer than a 'couple of decades'.

If you're going to use different metrics, why are you even debating? Agree on a metric, or concede the other fellow's metric is valid, but please don't yell without communication. This looks like it could actually be profitable.

Putin, please don't devolve to insults too quickly. You have an interesting thesis and I want to see it develop.

Ummm...before I even begin this discussion, I must ask--

Why, Putin?
Are you Anti-Alcohol or Pro-Prohibition and want that back?
If so...why, please...and I think I can safely say most here and in the country disagree...
If not...why are you arguing the Prohibition point at all?

Isn't knowledge worth its own pursuit, obi? Does he have to care about alcohol to care about historical myths?

The prohibition myth is used to argue for the legalization of practically everything, so it's important to discuss.

BTW, I'm also pro-choice, and I disagree with the pro-choicers who claim abortion bans did not decrease abortions.

Putin, did you even read that graph?

Last year before prohibition
1919 - 21.63 1.08 1.68 0.76 0.69 0.12 1.96
12 years after prohibition lifted (less than 2 decades):
1945 - 25.97 1.17 1.95 0.88 1.13 0.2 2.250

Every single number is higher *less than 2 decades later*. I swear I question your ability to understand simple numbers.

I guess the real key is defining what "works" means. If you mean it reduces the occurence of the banned activity, then yes it works. If you mean it is in te public's best interest and keeps them somehow safe from the dangers of the questionable activity, then no it doesn't. It just changes what those dangers may be.

1919 is the wrong number, considering half the states in the country banned alcohol by 1916.

To be fair, 1945 was a good year. The boys were back from war and probably needed a drink.

The line I quoted started as 1916-1919 so your argument still fails. And all but one of the numbers was higher in 1944 when the bous were still fighting overseas. So both arguments fail to change the fact that Putin was incorrect when he said I was wrong and it took.longer than 2 decades to be back up to preprohibiton levels.

1911-15 29.53 1.48 2.09 0.94 0.79 0.14 2.56
1916-19 21.63 1.08 1.68 0.76 0.69 0.12 1.96
1945 25.97 1.17 1.95 0.88 1.13 0.2 2.250

No, 1945 did not reach pre-prohibition levels. There's a reason why alcohol consumption declined considerably in the later part of the 1910s from the early part of the 1910s when alcohol use was peaking.

You saidbuse 1916. Use 1916 and do the comparison. Or are you backtracking to even earlier now? Make up your fucking mind what uear to use already. Jesus Fucking Christ!

And also note that those are approximations, not precise and well.established factual figures. It says so in the header of the page.

Oh and one more thing. Seeing as you backpedal and go further back than you said, I must assume you are either an isiot or arguing for thr sake of argument. Either way, you are wasting my time and I consider the discussion over.

I said by 1916. 1916 & onward you're entering a period where half the country is under prohibition at the state level - hence the decline in consumption. Stop being obtuse.

I agree with Putin33 that the world should be alcohol-free. I don't know a lot about the prohibition era, but The Untouchables is a great movie.

PS I'm Pro-Life. (People do much less stupid stuff without alcohol, so who knows this issue may resolve itself once Putin and me get our way :-) )

I think I covered all my bases right?

Putin33 does not vouch for an alcohol free world. He is just showing that prohibition worked.

"So by your bizarre & ridiculous bar, it's not a success. Nevermind that death due to cirrhosis of the liver & chronic alcoholism, not to mention domestic violence, diminished significantly, far outweighing any deaths due to organized crime syndicates. "

-I agree that there's no direct evidence he does, but I find the above quote indicative of a pro-prohibition stance. That said, I'm in favor of an alcohol-free world regardless of whether Putin agrees.

I always found it interesting how people who drink think that not only you should drink, but also you should pay for theirs.

I never thought prohibition didn't work -- of course it worked at curtailing alcohol use (though not at all at stopping it). Make almost anything illegal and its use will go down. It's just that it also worked at driving crime through the roof.

As for being so popular -- I guess it's weird the 21st amendment was ratified, then, isn't it?

Through the roof? Where is the proof of that?

" I guess it's weird the 21st amendment was ratified, then, isn't it?"

About as "weird" as a major repeal occurring at the very same time an unprecedented catastrophic economic crisis occurred, yes.