Myth; Alcohol Consumption Increased During “Probation”

[Diesel911]

I posted on this part of the Forum because I though more people would view the thread.
It is a myth that the Prohabiton of Alcohol did not decrease the consumption of Alcohol.
Actually, Prohibition Was a Success - NYTimes.com

"First, the regime created in 1919 by the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, which charged the Treasury Department with enforcement of the new restrictions, was far from all-embracing. The amendment prohibited the commercial manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages; it did not prohibit use, nor production for one's own consumption. Moreover, the provisions did not take effect until a year after passage -plenty of time for people to stockpile supplies.

Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides. "

[Grzpdlr]

Well as I always say "I'de rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy"

[elchivito]

OK, your point?

[JB3]

Originally Posted by elchivito

OK, your point?

the article appears to be making the case against making cocaine and heroin legal by making a connection to what utility the nation got out of prohibition.

I have not seen anyone stating that cocaine and heroin should be legal, Im curious what this article is originally responding to.

[Diesel911]

[QUOTE=JB3;3730563]the article appears to be making the case against making cocaine and heroin legal by making a connection to what utility the nation got out of prohibition.

I have not seen anyone stating that cocaine and heroin should be legal, Im curious what this article is originally responding to.[/QUOTE]

The article is from the Times I guess you could contact them for the answer.

I got the opposite from the Article. Prohabition a law against Alcohol decreased drinking; meaning it did what it was supposed to do. When the Law was repealed drinking of Alcohol increased.
The well known side effect of the Prohabiton against Alcohol was illegal sindicates that developed to sell illegal Alcohol.

Not in the article: People have suggested that leagalizing illegal Drugs would end the Drug Cartels which would end a lot of violence on our streets. But that would not decrease the use of those drugs.

I ask the question of like the legalization of Alcohol would legalizing drugs also increase the use of Drugs.

[Mxfrank]

birth rate, 1910 30.1 per 1000
birth rate, 1930 21.3 per 1000

[Diesel911]

Originally Posted by elchivito

OK, your point?

It is just incorrectly widely accepted that the drinking of Alcohol increased during prohibition. That is enough all by itself.