Octavious,

I can assure you, a broken leg is easier restored than a rotten liver.
Also, hitting your head against a tree hurts less than a husband hitting his wife's head after a night out with the office, even at equal impact speed.

Perhaps, but you must also factor in broken backs and necks, getting trapped under snow, and the domestic violence that results when one partner is significantly better than the other. You can't deny that the benefits from banning skiing clearly outweigh the ill effects resulting from the small scale illegal skiing that will continue to exist.

Also, not entirely sure about the accuracy of your tree comment.

Re: Ban skiing.

I read somewhere that the seven most popular Spanish beaches cover the surface of one quarter of an Austrian ski slope. And they bring much more money, of course. On the other hand, those slopes wouldn't be used for anything else anyway.

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

Fair point, but so far as substances go...what wouldn't you want legalized, or are we still just playing purely hypothetically here?

Beaches encourage sun-bathing and swimming, which results in skin cancer and drowning respectively.

I think if we're banning skiing we need to consider banning beach use aswell. Plus a whole new sector of the economy could be opened up if people spend their money on some other form of entertainment rather than going to the beach!

^Not to mention shark attacks.

Touché

The sucess or failure of a particular policy can be judged objectively if all of the results, ie the direct results and indirect results are properly measured. The problem occurs when we try to be subjective with the results.

For example say we want to bring in a policy of forcing kids to wear cycle helmets. If we then measure the impact of child casualties and serious injuries we are likely to see fewer incidents. However, we may also see a 60% cut in cycling which leads to a more unhealthy population and greater medical costs in the longer term. Both sides could claim sucess or failure of the policy but how can anybody be objective. Who decides if 1 saved life is equal to £x pounds saved in medical costs.

Prohibition may have achieved some positive results, that does not mean it succeeded and I would suggest that as very few people are campaigning for its return any benefits are perceived to be overwhelmed by the downside.

That said Putin has a point. Most laws prohibit something and most laws work. They are generally all difficult to police but that should mean we give up making laws just because the policing may be difficult.

Thalidomide did prevent morning sickness by the way, again not many people think this 'success' was worth it.

Who thinks Thalidomide was worth it? birth defects at what percentage?

Just read: Alcohol and Al Capone: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/allen/ch10.html

Some highlights: WW1 had "turned public opinion against everything German-and many of the big brewers and distillers were of German origin." (part of why it was relatively easy to pass prohibition).

Near beer was made by brewing real beer and then boiling off alcohol (it's still made this way, not sure where Putin is getting his grain saving stats, malt liquor vrs beer?).

"If anything was ceded to suggest how ubiquitous was the illicit still in America, the figures for the production of corn sugar provided it. Between 1919 and 1929 the output of this commodity increased sixfold, despite the fact that. . .the legitimate uses of corn sugar 'are few and not easy to ascertain.'"

Govt. started putting wood alcohol and other poisons in industrial alcohol so people couldn't drink it, and lots of people died. "In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700." (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html). This is still practiced (!!!) to protect subsidized ethanol from becoming heavily taxed booze, and people still die from this.

Drinking went down the first three years of Prohibition, but by some counts it went up in 24-26 when compared to the period before prohibition. Crime rose drastically, In 1917 there wre 75k arests in philly by 1924 there were 130000. There were 130 murders in Chicago with no convictions and Al Capone banked 60 million dollars off the proceeds of the illegal trade in liquor.

Prohibition was a xenophobic measure that failed miserably to achieve its purposes.

*it went up compared to the period just after prohibition

There was also an entirely new epidemic of children drinking that had not existed in nearly the same strength as before prohibition.

One final thing to think about with this prohibition stuff. We are a country built on freedom. Personal freedom is tantamount to being an American. So curtailing our vices by completely prohibiting them is taking away exactly what makes us American. The current war on drugs (at least soft drugs like pot) is a good example of prohibition not working. The current unrest over the dracomian methods of the TSA and the extreme measures they are using to supposedly keep us safe (and yet I can show you how to smuggle things on by misdirecting their attention to other innocent items that are on the banned list and playing innocent about it, so not exactly working) is another example.

We are letting our freedoms slip away by accepting government interference in our lives every day. Prohibition was one example and, while I hate to admit it, the mafia and Al Capone especially were more American than the sheeple who just followed the law. Now, I'm not saying Capone was a good guy. He wasn't. He murdered innocent businessmen who didn't want to pedal his stuff and ran mroe than liquor. But the sheeple of the 20s just let the government run roughshod over their rights and freedoms. They didn't deserve to call themselves Americans.

The attitude of letting the government run roughshod over rights is part of what won WW1 (conscription is the glaring example). To say these folks don't deserve to call themselves American is jingoistic nonsense. It's a tautological argument, much like Putin's.

"I'm defining Americans as a people who highly value personal freedom, people who don't highly value personal freedom aren't Americans" has the same fundamental problem as "Prohibition's goals were to shut down legal breweries, all breweries were illegal so prohibition was successful".

Also, between October 1927 and January 1929, at least 157 bombs were set or exploded in Chicago. Holy shit.

Jingoism is not the right word there. Strike that word.

@gram - I didn't say they weren't Americans. I said they didn't deserve to call themselves Americans. Being American is a birthright and/or earned right through the path to citizenship. That said, some people are more American in their attitudes than others and those others occassionally take it to the point where they should stop self-referencing themselves as American. Putin is one of those when he goes all anti-capitalist and "let's all do things the Russian/Chinese way" bullshit. He is still an American, but he shouldn't call himself one when he wants to live under a regime that strips all people of their personal freedoms and wealth and makes everyone the same.

Okay, my argument is exactly the same, slightly re-phrased: "I'm defining people who deserve to call themselves Americans as a people who highly value personal freedom, people who don't highly value personal freedom don't deserve to call themselves Americans" has the same fundamental problem as "Prohibition's goals were to shut down legal breweries, all breweries were illegal so prohibition was successful".


Let say that there is a spectrum, people who want "a regime that strips all people of their personal freedoms and wealth and makes everyone the same" are on the bottom, and those advocating total personal freedom are on the top.

You'll hate this, and arguing about it won't get us anywhere, but I guess I wrote it:
1) For a portion of our history, a great many Americans supported "a regime that strips" SOME "people of their personal freedoms and wealth and makes everyone the same". AKA slavery. Should a great many Founding Fathers identify less strongly as American than you?

My real point:
2) There is a point on top of the spectrum where people "should" stop self identifying as Americans, because at some point personal freedom fundamentally conflicts with living in a state. But you're defining Americans in such a way that ignores falling off the edge in that direction because you're using something that we both consider a deep privileged (being an American) to make a political argument. Rhetorically excluding people from membership because you disagree with them politically is not good. (That last sentence was significantly harder to argue without resorting to tautological "is not very American" than I thought it would be. I guess you can apply to Golden Rule?)

Pure troll point:
3) "those others occassionally take it to the point where they should stop self-referencing themselves as American". Isn't that taking away the freedom to self-reference as American? Where on the spectrum do you really lie Draug?

"Ban skiing. It works!"

Amusing, but irrelevant (lawn darts were banned for less, but I digress). I'm not talking about whether it's advisable to ban alcohol at this moment, although drug legalizers usually claim alcohol is much much worse (indeed, the stats on the consequences of alcohol are startling). Kinda of odd that when alcohol is brought up the legalizers try to find some other apples-to-oranges comparison in order to dodge the issue. I'm saying that the law did what it supposed to do - curb alcohol consumption & production, and any suggestion that it didn't is pure mythology.

"Fair point, but so far as substances go...what wouldn't you want legalized, or are we still just playing purely hypothetically here?"

All current illicit drugs. I also don't think we'd suffer any if tobacco & hard liquor were outlawed. But this isn't about me. Stop trying to make it about me.

"owever, we may also see a 60% cut in cycling which leads to a more unhealthy population and greater medical costs in the longer term."

There's ways around that. Make the alternatives prohibitively costly so that people weigh the costs & benefits of riding a bicycle with a helmet and determine that "looking cool" is not worth either the extra gas money or getting killed.

"that does not mean it succeeded and I would suggest that as very few people are campaigning for its return any benefits are perceived to be overwhelmed by the downside."

I don't think the downside of banning alcohol would be 'overwhelming' by any stretch. One of the biggest 'downsides' usually mentioned is organized crime. Well, did organized crime suddenly disappear after prohibition? Not even close.

"(it's still made this way, not sure where Putin is getting his grain saving stats, malt liquor vrs beer?)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

"but by some counts it went up in 24-26 when compared to the period before prohibition. "

Provide evidence.

"Crime rose drastically, In 1917 there wre 75k arests in philly by 1924 there were 130000. There were 130 murders in Chicago with no convictions and Al Capone banked 60 million dollars off the proceeds of the illegal trade in liquor."

Source?

"Prohibition was a xenophobic measure that failed miserably to achieve its purposes."

So the Temperance movement were all 'xenophobes' from beginning to end, right? Nevermind that the temperance movement long predated WWI, and half the states in the country were dry before Germany became the enemy du jour. Also nevermind that alcohol use was skyrocketing in the early 1900s and was becoming out of control. The idea that prohibition was only implemented because of xenophobia, when the damn thing became law after WWI was over, is anti-historical.

"There was also an entirely new epidemic of children drinking that had not existed in nearly the same strength as before prohibition."

Source.

"One final thing to think about with this prohibition stuff. We are a country built on freedom. Personal freedom is tantamount to being an American. So curtailing our vices by completely prohibiting them is taking away exactly what makes us American. "

Typical Republican. Anybody who disagrees with you is not American. How anybody who identifies - even remotely - with the current Republican Party can claim the mantle of defending 'personal freedom' is beyond me, and renders the phrase completely meaningless. Usually when Republicans prattle on about 'freedom', they mean the freedom to be asshole conservatives. Actual freedoms are of no importance.

"Where on the spectrum do you really lie Draug?"

He changes his politics like most people change their underwear. Or at least he rotates from being a civil libertarian to social conservative on a day to day basis.

In our cynical rights without responsibilities zeitgeist, the idea of a progressive movement predicated on the advancement of science & public health is too incredible to believe.

Somebody also explain to me why prohibition was just an anti-German measure when during the 1920s the Weimar Republic was essentially propped up by American tax money. How does the "xenophobic prohibition" square with our collective sympathy for the German predicament after WWI?

Ah, each beer wasn't being made with fewer ingredients, they were making less near beer during Prohibition than real beer before Prohibition. I. am. shocked.

http://www.flushinghighschool.org/ourpages/auto/2009/1/5/44726823/NO%20-%20Was%20Prohibition%20a%20Failure.pdf

+1 for making fun of Draug and making good points.

From the article you linked: "The wartime atmosphere during the relatively brief period of American participation in World War I played a minor role in bringing on National Prohibition. Anti-German sentiment, shamelessly whipped up and exploited by the federal government to rally support for the war effort, discredited a key antiprohibitionist organization, the German-American Alliance."

Your statement "So the Temperance movement were all 'xenophobes' from beginning to end, right? " and ""Somebody also explain to me why prohibition was JUST an anti-German measure" are both straw men. Prohibition was enabled and motivated by a variety of sources. Xenophobia was one of them, and I doubt Santa is arguing differently.

He called it a 'xenophobic measure' gramilaj.

Here is what he said:

"Prohibition was a xenophobic measure that failed miserably to achieve its purposes."

How can a measure be 'xenophobic' unless it was primarily motivated by xenophobia? It's not a straw man, this is what he actually said.

gramilaj, I'm not sure whether that holds logically: a measure may be promoted by playing on anti-German feelings, but the motivation for the measure itself can be completely neutral. It could have just been a way to make the American people accept it. Obviously, if that's what they did, I don't find it a very civilized way to do it, but that's another matter.

I think Santa might argue that Prohibition was was primarily motivated by xenophobia. I have no idea. I think he's wrong, that's not the straw man I pointed out.

Your statements "So the Temperance movement were all 'xenophobes' from beginning to end, right? " and "Somebody also explain to me why prohibition was JUST an anti-German measure" are both straw men because the first one implies and the second one explicitly states that xenophobia was the ONLY thing motivating Prohibition, hence a straw man. And you backpedaled into "primarily" in your defense of it.

@redhouse A xenophobic argument doesn't necessarily imply a xenophobic motivation. Yes, I would have to find an example of someone arguing for prohibition with xenophobic motivations to make that sentence true. It's sure not a necessarily true statement, but in this world I suspect it's a contingently true statement that "Prohibition was enabled and motivated by a variety of sources. Xenophobia was one of them."