In your heart, you know they were right

They weren't right, simply because banning things doesn't actually address the underlying problems. They were successful in reducing drinking somewhat, but it was a stupid cost.

I don't disagree that alcohol is a dangerous drug and a serious public health concern however.

>t-that doesn't count!

Coincidentally, also a small, homogenous, conservative Christian non (((diverse))) society.

fun fact, alcohol use dropped massively following prohibition. So I guess you're full of shit lmao

>opiod epidemic caused by war on drugs
wrong

and was that drop really worth the rise in crime and people getting poisoned by an unregulated supply coming from Billy-Joe's bathtub?

Daily reminder that a complete and total gynocide is the only solution to the woman question.

rates of cirrhosis dropped. Less people were actually getting poisoned. So that's also horseshit

>rising crime!
S I N G A P O R E

The drug war is winnable it's just more profitable for all parties involved to maintain some milquetoast half measure status quo. Full legalization or full crackdown with 25 year sentences for any quantity are an equally workable solution.

>S I N G A P O R E

Has a rising heroin use rate and reports their drug use rates based on arrests, which has an obvious flaw as a metric.

0.05% use rate for marijuana. That's progress

>le rates fluctuate

haha, this is pathetic

They were wrong because the laws did not punish the end user, drug laws that don't punish the end user fail to cut off the demand for the product. Case in point, if our drug laws punished the end user like in Singapore, then people would not be smoking the Devil's herb in the streets like they do here.
google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Don't expect coherent arguments from libertarians. They believe that people are islands and that destroying your mental health with drugs should be legal because it apparently only impacts you.

indeed, that island city-state will assuredly have the same practical problems in enforcing it's laws as a continent-spanning nation

When you have fearsome punishments that punish the end user, the demand will decline dramatically. Western drug laws are a joke because the end user is not adequately deterred

yeah, the whole line of thinking to me seems like a defense of unhealth. What's the end goal here? The right to bad life choices

Even if execution is necessarily less efficient, it's still far ahead of what currently exists

This. The idea you can't drive down demand is a fucking joke.

Again, their reported usage rates are based on arrest rates.

No, I just happen to think taking the word of an autocracy at face value on what's an effective solution to drug problems that comes at a cost to human life is a foolish idea that only an edgy teenager without a moral compass would buy.

Execution is not an effective deterrent.

>The right to bad life choices

The right to life choices in general, actually. You start dictating what life choices the state is allowed to make for you, you set a precedent that the state is allowed to meddle in every affair of their private citizenry, and basically adopt a totalitarian stance that nothing is outside the state.

>t. dickhead who likes to post about "degeneracy"
Kill yourself
If Jesus can drink wine at a wedding party, why the FUCK can't I drink beer in my own fucking house

execution is not an effective deterrent, but it is an effective prevention of recidivism

>the slippery slope!
oh get real. Drugs are an obvious social problem and nobody is suggesting we control every faucet of human life. Vices are addictive and personal choice is completely irrelevant in this context. In economic terms, the government has a right to intervene in inefficient markets

>execution is not an effective deterrent, but it is an effective prevention of recidivism

A good way to give your state means to dispose of "undesirables" and get innocent people killed too.

>slippery slope

You're a fucking dipshit. Slippery slopes are actually applicable in government matters and law due to the way precedents work.

>nobody is suggesting we control every faucet of human life

The precedent for further manipulation is already set.

>In economic terms, the government has a right to intervene in inefficient markets

They have the same right a government has to genocide: the might to do so against people that can't fight back.

This is pretty funny. You agree with what I"m saying, but then tack on little irrelevances of no substantive importance to show how problematic you think efficient drug control is

false positives? By far a low chance and hardly worth considering. Slippery slopes are universally true? I bet you think having traffic tickets is an encroaching police state. But law is now equatable to genocide? What kind of crystal meth are you smoking child.

But the road to serfdom! Okay, here's your welfare stub and bus ticket. You can walk back to your trailer park

>By far a low chance and hardly worth considering.

Innocent lives aren't worth considering? You're a monstrous piece of shit.

>Slippery slopes are universally true?

In law? Absolutely. Laws accumulate faster than they are taken away. This is why virtually every modern nation has an absolutely Byzantine code of laws.

>I bet you think having traffic tickets is an encroaching police state.

Nice assumption, but wrong.

>But law is now equatable to genocide?

Unjust state sponsored murder is indeed equivalent to unjust state sponsored murder. You'll note I wasn't talking about all laws, just the idea of executing drug offenders as Singapore does.

>efficient drug control

First off, execution isn't efficient if you want to maintain this "low chance" that's "hardly worth considering" of executing innocent people. Secondly, there's considerably more of value to the functioning of a state than "efficiency." In fact, from a standpoint of strict state function, just ignoring the problem entirely is actually more efficient. But I'm not here to argue for efficiency, I'm here to argue for a sound moral policy that can keep a society healthy for something more than an irrelevant autocratic city-state.

They were right in spirit, but not in execution.

In reality the lowly plebs should be left with their alcohol while the enlightened 420 teetotal master-race blazes it.

> Enlightened
> Smokes cannabis
Pick one

be realistic. thousands of people die in traffic accidents, heart disease, all kinds of nasty things. The chances of your death being a false positive is incredibly low. But the benefits of getting rid of drug dealers cannot be understated. Cry bloody tears over the preventable deaths and impairments of the drug addiction you defend, why don't you. This is a drop in the bucket

>unjust state sponsored murder!
you mean just, lawful, state-sponsored murder. And within an entirely rational reason.

As for the rest of your crying episode I think you're lapsing into sociology levels of stupidity. Oh, the definition is the problem! We must "deal" with this "problem" of "Framing" the "problem".

Singapore's methods are demonstrably effective, you've zero counterargument to make besides appealing to fear. I don't care what you think, we need smart public policy based on empirical effectiveness

They execute people possessing an amount of a drug that could only be conceivably for the purpose of trafficking. They punish and attempt to rehabilitate the end user.

>be realistic. thousands of people die in traffic accidents, heart disease, all kinds of nasty things.

We do not simply passively accept those things, we work to minimize them. What's your fucking point?

>The chances of your death being a false positive is incredibly low.

Only, and I should stress this ONLY if you make execution such an inefficient process that it completely undermines your stated purpose for considering it. Appeals are expensive, lengthy, and absolutely required to ensure that the state doesn't fuck up or just push someone through execution just to get rid of them.

>But the benefits of getting rid of drug dealers cannot be understated.

Those are some good numbers you brought up, considering your hardon for "empiricism."

>Cry bloody tears over the preventable deaths and impairments of the drug addiction you defend, why don't you.

Self inflicted death is not of the same magnitude as state-sponsored death.

>This is a drop in the bucket

One innocent death at the hands of the state is an unacceptable quantity. Anyone that supports those policies is a murderer by proxy.

>you mean just, lawful, state-sponsored murder. And within an entirely rational reason.

The Ottoman Empire considered the Armenian Genocide a lawful action it being lawful does not make it right.

>Singapore's methods are demonstrably effective

According to Singapore, based on a flawed metric.

>I don't care what you think, we need smart public policy based on empirical effectiveness

Well I do care what you think, and people like you need to be opposed at every single turn, because society needs a moral standard, not insect-like murder (this isn't an exaggeration either, bees are known to rip the legs off of other bees that come to the hive drunk too many times).

Still monstrous.

I'm reading a lot of text but the tl;dr is a drawn out WAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Singapore: it works!

Fuck off Mohammad, every free man has the right to buy some drinks.

They were dead wrong. I don't care how many peoples lives were ruined by X, personal responsibility trumps emotions. Your husband got drunk and killed himself? Sorry, not my problem.

>i have no concept of what an outlier is or means

Abstinence education working well in one state out of the many that practice it does not mean it is a good idea.

Works for drugs.

Exactly.
The other states having all those out of wedlock births are being influenced by people from other states.

>1850s
Women push for strict Victorian morality and prudishness which leads to a century of sexually repressed, hyper moralistic Anglos

>1910s
Women push for alcohol prohibition because their drunk husbands are beating them, this results in Italian and Irish mobsters completely controlling America with their illegal booze and people dying from alcohol poisoning.

>1960s
Women do a 180 on their Victorian morality, promote prostitution, pornography, drugs and exposing their bodies

>2010s
Women realize sexual liberation led to several generations of men jerking off to porn and fucking whores, get butthurt about "sexual objectification" and want to ban all porn

Why the hell do we let women fuck up our societies repeatedly so much?

Only muslim extremists preach the abolishment of the sweet ambrosia and social lubricant that is alcohol. So go join isis and die in an air raid faggot.

This. Governing with subsidies and incentives is a far better way than by taxing and outlawing.

>not being allowed to advertise
>strong stigma and warnings from medical industry
>taxed into orbit

NOT

>illegal

>January 16, 1919, Momentous day in world's history

fucking mongs thought anyone gave a shit about discount europe's muslim-tier laws lmao

Read Elliot Rodger for the final solution to the female question.

>be degenerate
>die

What was the problem with this?

>1920's: nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
>2017: (You are never going to have a gf)

>still monstrous

Ok, butthurt stoner faggot detected

As much as I want to sympathize with Elliot I just can't. He wasn't even mad about women, he was butthurt about other men taking women away from him. Hence why most of his victims were actually men.

And this is the problem. Marx was talking about the bourgeoise pit various proletarians against in each other in order to prevent revolution against them, and Hitler said something similar about the Jews, but I feel this is actually applicable to women. Since the dawn of time, women were pitting men against each other with divide & conquer tactics. The most legendary conflict of the antiquity, the Trojan War, literally happened because of a fucking woman.

The real solution is men overcoming differences and allying with one another against women.

>Christian
>Literally believe that the God of the Bible was born to some alien God

I hope you enjoy hell.

in my heart, I know protestants are retarded

DEUS VULT

Why do you want a nanny state so much

Why ban drugs and alcohol, things that hurt and kill people, if you will hurt and kill people anyway? Observe your motivations.

The health of the nation and the health of the individual are conjoined at the hip. It's why pot smoking degenerates such as yourself like to light up on the weekends but never would get caught dead in Meth Town, Kansas. Individualism is a lie.

>Unironically using the word degenerate to describe harmless behaviors you don't approve of
Nice meme

I know plenty of smokers from everywhere, old and young, rich or poor. What is degenerate and what isnt depends entirely on how much of society is exposed to it and familiar with it's use to imagine and judge a responsible usage. I dont smoke weed but i know people who would literally die from headaches and other ailments without it.

Society and humanity as a whole adapt. We are all an ever evolving form, and it is more human to find a way to normalize and structure things than to live in a perpetual state of denial and threat of cruelty. People like to break rules just because they are rules too.

Coffee and Tea became accepted, alcohol became acceptable, unmarried sex and gay sex became acceptable(once again), addictive trash food is not even fully understood as bad but people wont even think of banning them, only promoting responsability, it's all in the standards.

hmmm. Better public health? Measurably less drug addicts?

No no, that can't possibly be why, it must be about not being fun at parties or something (^:

watch this guy disassociate individual actions from collective results. It's coming

>anecdotes, implying statistical diversity changes objective trends, relativistic morality, "but we can adapt to chronic poison exposure!", lack of any scientific rigor

You're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. The opioid crisis and the obesity epidemic are making the US a non viable nation. It's time to take out the garbage

I mean, if you dont have people anymore they wont need better health, technically.

Lets just outlaw life and spare us the chase.

>oh shit someone said something inconvenient about women and my worldview feels threstened.
Uhhh, you're a virgin.

Some fag with a vape machine slightly annoying you isnt a crisis

The prison industrial complex is making the US slaves to corporate interests.

I'm really scratching my head about how this is getting turned into a genocide debate, lol. Not even remotely the principle

sure is as an overall statistic

Misquote?

It's not the habits I'm attacking it's the mentality. Obesity rates being considered a threat to national security seems to be the conclusion of "well as long as it's not hurting me..."

Obesity is the result of subsidized corn production. Literally no other western nation has such an absurd obesity rate despite being on the same technological level. If a single person gets fat he's probably just lazy. If an entire nation gets fat in a rather short period of time then the problem is likely elsewhere.

citation on the corn production fact. And that's untrue to my knowledge, every country that adopts a western diet has been getting much fatter.

I've heard the cause may be fructose/sugar, or alternatively wheat depending on the speaker

This. We eat too much corn because we make too much corn because we subsidize too much fucking corn.

Seriously do research on corn subsidies. What's worse is that were absolutely wrecking Africa's agriculture because we're flooding their markets with corn.

>i heard the cause may be fructose/sugar

High fructose corn syrup. Again, corn.

What do you mean by "western diet"? Because gobbling up HFCS burgers is not western diet, it's American garbage.

>I've heard the cause may be fructose/sugar
Exactly. Corn fructose.

well yeah, but he said "Corn production" which could mean just about anything

mcdonalds is worldwide by now. So yeah, if you throw in a coca cola it is

McDonalds being worldwide doesn't mean everyone is eating McDonalds. In Europe it's actually seen as a niche food rather than something you should consume every day.

Its funny that these anons were arguing to give absolute power to the state to stop drug addiction when it's the state that pushes the most devastating, most ubiquitous drug, the only that satisfies the lowest animal impulse in men.

Because my taxes will be paying for your decomposing ass when you start dying from cirrhosis.

Not to mention the deaths caused by your drunk driving and regular wife beatings Cletus.

>why the FUCK
What is it with this reddit fashion of capitalizing the word fuck recently?

Not to mention he was a narcissistic cunt who thought himself an adonis in flesh.

I'm sure if his head wasn't up his ass he could have gotten some

So I guess you think the state should control how much soda you can buy too? Because I guarantee you diabetes and obesity kill many more people than any illegal drug. Also since you're so fond of empirical evidence, take a look at how the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal has worked

"You're too much of a loser to get women" is a "You're too poor to afford heroin" tier argument.

Even under the most generous of studies (Miron, Jeffrey A.; Zwiebel, Jeffrey), usage climbed back to 70% within a few years, and those users who had been consuming beer were now consuming hard liquor exclusively.

Well done, temperance movement.

> Every single person who drinks beer consumes at least 2 six packs a night.

If you had ever tried anything that wasn't shitty light lager, you'd realize that normal lagers or ales are way too filling for that.

costs to much to prohibited anything from humans, were to damn smart (sometimes for our own good). Make everything legal just tax it to cover the negative effects and let people make there own choice be them good or bad.

Reminder muslims who say alcohol is bad will turn around and chew khat, fucking hypocrites

You realize the opiod crisis is due to doctors prescribing Oxycontin/Oxycodone liberally right? No one wants to be a heroin addict.

Soda pop is as bad as alcohol over the long term and you damn well know it. It isn't excessive or at all contradictory to say that sugar regulation is the next step in public health. Were we not talking seconds ago about fructose?

IE 30% below usage pre-prohibition

I realize that and purposely used hyperbole to prove my point.

Alcohol has disastrous social consequences. This is something many drunkards seemingly deny, but it's a well studied phenomenon.

The question is, does this danger justify some form of regulation (as is done with heroin, coke, etc)? So far, the consensus is generally "no".

But people who say prohibition (which admittedly is quite extreme regulation) doesn't work are wrong. Prohibition DID reduce alcohol consumption.

Similarly in Sidney, an alcohol curfew has significantly reduced violence and hooliganism.
google.ca/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38989001

Therefore, the question isn't whether regulation is effective or not, because it clearly is. The question is whether the substantial societal consequences of alcohol justify a reduction in personal liberty.

Are you advocating making sucrose a prohibited substance?

> IE 30% below usage pre-prohibition

Why did you ignore the bit about how that 70% gave up beer and wine altogethet and were now consuming hard liquor, often times well over 40% ethanol? Iron law of prohibition, and all that.

And only for the low, low price of a murder rate nearly twice as high in 1932 as in 1910 or 1945.

>Mississippi is a different case it's basically another country
You just destroyed your entire argument

source: your ass

I'm glad we've gotten past this

>I got blown the fuck out, and can't come up with an actual response.

Well, at least you conceded defeat. Shame you wouldn't do it honestly.

>Ok, butthurt stoner faggot detected

Yeah, because murdering people for providing a service the public wants is totally non-monstrous.

>I think the state should ban alcohol consumption

This. The only people that think this are religious lunatics and fedora tippers.

> Source: your ass

But wait, you think. He gave dates. Could it be he has a graph?

jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf
(Page 6)

Looks like something really made that murder rate plummet in 1933.

or muh deeeeejunnerassee xD shitposters

>Why did you ignore the bit about how that 70% gave up beer and wine altogethet and were now consuming hard liquor,

he doesn't have citations for this faggotry, the other stuff I'm aware of

Those could be either of those, but are mostly the latter of those, since Veeky Forums social conservatism seems to be a matter of "other people are having fun and I'm not, therefore we must make that fun illegal."