Alcohol Prohibition “Worked,” According To DEA Report

V

villian

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
2,250
Location
aham brahmāsmi
America’s embrace of alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933 generally ranks among the biggest mistakes in public policy in the 20th century. It was a period that resulted in a profound loss of personal liberty that gave rise to criminal syndicates that often used violence to control the black market of liquor sales.

But if you ask the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), alcohol prohibition was fantastic, and something we should reconsider as a society.

In reaction to the almost comical viral videos this week of Congressmen Jared Polis (D-CO) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) grilling the DEA chief Michele Leonhart over her agency’s marijuana policies, Republic Report took a look at the DEA’s official policy papers on the subject.

We found that the agency released a report along with a police union in 2010 detailing the many reasons why we should celebrate America’s experience with alcohol prohibition. A section devoted to “Popular Myths About Drug Legalization” claims that alcohol prohibition was wildly popular and that the ban on alcohol consumption had nothing to do with the spread of the mob:

Google-ChromeScreenSnapz053.png


The report goes on to mock the idea of marijuana legalization, and claim that there are no parallels between alcohol and weed prohibition.
Click to expand...

source @ http://www.republicreport.org/2012/dea-prohibition-worked/
 
It put small breweries out of business in the US, so the big boys could come in when it was made 'legal' again and take over the industry.

So yeah, of course it was a success, since that was one of their goals.
 
they conveniently forgot to mention how they murdered tens of thousands of people by adding methanol to ethanol

Just like they've murdered tens of thousands more by adding Tylenol to opioids
 
They are using a very narrow and convoluted definition of "worked" by looking at just the decrease in visible use of alcohol. Colour me unsurprised.

Canada and Mexico didn't have prohibition laws at the time so the alcohol more or less flowed freely into the U.S. The American laws were a total failure from the ground up.
 
Foreigner said:
They are using a very narrow and convoluted definition of "worked" by looking at just the decrease in visible use of alcohol. Colour me unsurprised.
Click to expand...

How can you be surprised when they don't recognize the right every human being has to responsibly alter their consciousness?
 
Ok let me say first of all that I hate the DEA just as much as you guys. But lets be real here, the DEA only exists because of Washington. What do you expect the DEA officials to say? Go against Washington's stance on drugs? Im not as angry at the DEA for. usting people as I am for their creation in the first place.

and thats on Washington DC
 
lets be real here, the DEA only exists because of Washington. What do you expect the DEA officials to say? Go against Washington's stance on drugs?
Click to expand...

Or, as a more apposite and precise rhetorical question: "What do you expect [insert organization] to do, disown policies and mission statements in keeping with the very reason for their existence in the first place?"

I've actually encountered the whole 'contextual shift' farce (for the full text, see here) on numerous occasions and in a variety of settings, but I've never heard of any attempt at formal academic rebuttal by a serious historian or social scientist on the matter. I assume that this is due either to an unwillingness to take on such an ironclad work of propaganda (which I doubt) or a tacit realization that there is simply not enough substance to rebut in the first place. See here for an amusing informal reply.
 
Alcohol prohibition worked so well that the government had to repeal it.

And even if organized crime has always been a problem, the government shouldn't be passig laws that essentially give them new markets to exploit.
 
From said report -

the use of marijuana, heroin, or other controlled drugs has never been a widely accepted activity.
Click to expand...

Well tell that to popular music and the 18-25 demographic, also every rapper ever.
 
The amount of self delusion and cognitive dissonance that goes into this chain of thought it mind-blowing, but I guess if they refuse to believe this, then it removes any justification for their current policy towards other drugs.

The problem is that you can't simply measure harm in reduced death or reduced use. Even if you do have 20% less people dying from alcoholism, but twice that number dying from distribution related violence or poisoning from tainted liquor or having their lives ruined by the legal system or unable to get proper treatment thanks to social stigma, the net harm on society is still greater.

Also the main link appears to be broken.
 
the use of marijuana, heroin, or other controlled drugs has never been a widely accepted activity.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, I found this funny. I know this is from the DEA, but if you come up to Canada, you'll notice that the use of marijuana is DEFINITELY a widely accepted activity. And from what I know from people in the states, its mostly only the government that doesn't accept it either haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top