Prohibition

notice how the drug addicted mong instinctively squeals his propagandistic lies and then samefags like a little bitch when I'm too busy to call him a crybaby faggot the first time

It's funny that women's suffrage was promoted by Anglo Nativists like the KKK as a means to enact prohibition.

When you look at how much alcohol fucks up a lot of countries like Russia it becomes understandable why a Christian housewife would want to stop her husband from destroying himself and his family with chronic alcoholism.

It's hard to imagine women being that moral, most modern women would rather go to the bar and get a train run on her.

Not that it would cause the rise of organized crime and the mafia in the US, that's for sure

How much did beer cost prior to prohibition years anyway not adjusted for inflation anyway?

>Gangsters lobbying the government to keep alcohol illegal
You know you done fucked up when something like that happens.

Women nagging

Not even memeing u

>It's hard to imagine women being that moral, most modern women would rather go to the bar and get a train run on her.
All it took was a few brave (((women))) to push society in that direction.

This, but unironically

>if someone is selling bootleg PS4s, they should be secretly sabotaged by the government so they explode and blow your face off when you try to power them on
Just subcontract them to Samsung

I wish I had Empire of Liberty on hand right now, there's a passage about American drinking in the early 1800s and they slammed hard liquor the way frat boys slam cheap beer it's crazy.

Anyway, alcohol is evil and definitely should be banned. Does nothing but bring misery to everyone.

>Does nothing but bring misery to everyone.
What about the people who drink in moderation and enjoy themselves?

Every now and then our country just loses its goddamn mind. Such is the price of freedom.

Does the book perhaps say what was the average price of alcohol in the 1890s or 1900s?

Found it, the tl;dr is that Americans were drinking 5 gallons of alcohol per person in 1820 which is three times the amount today and this is all had liquor, not beer. This may have been a cause in people in the time period being so aggressive and quick to fight.

People drink differently today than what they used to though. Usually limited to a few hours in a couple days a week.

When you're drinking quite regularly, that's not actually that much, not like they were all raging drunk all the time.

>women get the vote
>they INSTANTLY pass the most retarded legislation in US history
can't even make this shit up

women getting the right to vote

>all these reddit tier responses completely ignorant of the fact that prior to prohibition alcoholism was at an epidemic level and an era of prohibition was warranted
I bet you fags complain about Based Duterte taking care of the meth epidemic in the Philippines too.

Prohibition was so effective that it doubled the rate of violent crime in the US.

That's the success I'm talking about. I'm really glad that women got the vote. It really makes you fucking think.

>I'm really glad that women got the vote.

Prohibition -- 18th Amendment
Women get the vote -- 20th Amendment

>Women get the vote -- 19th Amendment

I fucked that up, but the point still stands.

It was a noble experiment

Too bad men aren't angels

>telling other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies

numerous morons are actually ok with this

>society isn't the sum of its parts as long as everyone shoots heroin and gets HIV in the privacy of their own apartments everything will just be gravy

>What the fuck were they thinking?

"Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat."
-- Frank Herbert --

>and this is all hard liquor, not beer.

No.

Alcohol is, in the most literal and technical sense of the word, a poison. And it's addictive. It makes citizens unaccountable. It's exactly the sort of thing you should expect a democracy to ban, even when a majority of the voting citizens want to be able to indulge in it for reasons they know are selfish and harmful to the collective.

It's not bad for society to waste billions upon billions in locking up non-violent criminals.

Nope, not bad at all. It's not bad for society when people have no culture of using drugs responsibly.

Plus they ban psychedelics too. They're literally the most cost effective means of "having a good time". Of course I guess you prefer feebly giving stacy a 7 dollar drink and feeling like a man while she fucks chad in a bathroom stall.

>using drugs responsibly

That is to say, for strictly medical reasons. Otherwise it'd be a contradiction in terms.

In the U.S drunk driving accidents kill around 11,000 people a year, 3,000 shy of the number killed by firearms. If you don't consider that a problem, you're a retard who should violate your skull's NAP with .38

>>That is to say, for strictly medical reasons

? Having a good time is good for you medically lol.

The problem is that you're trusting legalistic bureaucrats to decide what is right and what is wrong for you. The same bureaucrats who keep a fucking photo of Obama on their desk as a saint.

Honestly, you have to be fucking stupid to trust our government in regards to matters like these.

Jesus Christ this.

Your government is not mine, and your general distrust of it has no place in this issue. Prohibition seemed reasonable to most people at the time. Alcohol was banned for the same reason that meth is banned.

It makes way more sense when you realize the five decades of temperance movements and state level legislation that led up to it. also Alcohol related deaths (not just accidents, but drinking so much that you fall ill and die) were frighteningly common. Wives and children everywhere were getting beat harder than a rented mule. Throw in some turn of the century ethnic hatred towards Irishmen, Italians, and Catholics in general, and you have a movement that was truly popular at the time. It would've been politically stupid for elected officials NOT to push for it.

5 gallons of alcohol compared to 3.
They said alcohol. Not alcoholic beverage.

So yeah it's more, but what you're talking about is wrong. 5 gal x 50% alc >> 3 gal x 06% alc
Way too big of a difference to be realistic.

This, it was so bad the U.S Census even had a seperate sections for it in the "Vital statistics" volume. Deaths and "Diseases" included.

In case anyone's interested:
>The following table gives the death rate due to e:ach disease and class of diseases in the registration area and its subdivisions per 100,000 of population in 1900, in comparison with 1890

If you're unironically retarded enough to think this proposed solution would do anything but cause crime increases then you have no business violating other people's NAPs

No shit of course it would cause crime increases, because more activities would then be classified as a crime. What matters is the effect on society, not a pretty curve in your crime statistics.

>And ban fun this time too.
>wahhh alcohol is only about muh unapologetic hedonismXDDD it has nothing to do with the awful side effects of the substance itself!

yes because a phenomenon played up by sensationalist newspapers and glamorous films means that gangsters became an existential threat to america's security, rather than just a bit disruptive in some major cities!

>All these Muslims in this thread.

>your general distrust of it has no place in this issue.

It has everything to do with it. Why do you trust the government so much to make "rational" decisions and to make "rational' solutions?

All prohibition does is give the elite another club to whack down the 99% while they host bacchanalias of their own.

Not to mention that the "criminality" of meth only started when they stopped prescribing it en masse to people.

There's a reason why the "perky and optimistic" stereotype exists about the 50s. Because a lot of housewives were on meth and a lot of leaders and managers were on meth. Legally.

Imagine the downer!

>have minor social problem of drunk people causing minor cirmes and non functioning alcoholics dropping out of society.
>"solve" it by turning it into a major criminal problem.

Of course. The prohibitionists are complete scum.

They would rather kill themselves to preserve smugness than look at how actual bureaucracies and regulations work. They pretend it's just a matter of big daddy yelling "SHARE AND BE NICE". Not a collection of psychopathic ladder climbers.

>Capone ran chicago and rival politicians to the mayor in his pocket got a fucking bomb thrown into his house
>a bit disruptive

You've no right to take a man's drink away. And if you want to you're either a) a woman or b) a beta fag "ally"

when women vote.

You don't understand how scummy prohibitionists are. They don't care about individual responsibility or the co-evolution of man and beer for the past ten thousand years.

They just want to maximize units of utility like goddamn bugs.

Yes, and amount of people who died from alcohol poisoning was drastically raised

I believe that the sentiment at the time for non-puritans was "this will suck for me because I am a responsible drinker, but society at whole will benefit"

Of course once people found out how many other people were flouting the law, it became a free for all

And like another user mentioned, a lot of people thought it would just be hard spirits banned, which desu may have worked out a lot better

whom are you quoting?

Was this the only time when christian fundamentalists and feminists joined forces to enact a law against the rest of society?

1900 census, volume 3 - vital statistics, p. cxii
Text that came before the table which I posted

Fuck off Abdul.

>banning alcohol
>look at me me am smart and edgy i'm giving le hard facts matter of factly
Retarded. If you want to get rid of alcohol you need to phase it out culturally. Outright bans when people still want to consume alcohol just leads to organized crime. t. never drink and hate drunk people

Women got the vote and they voted for prohibition candidates. Any politician standing in their way was removed from office. The American government lost a huge source of revenue and introduced the income tax.

It was a strange coalition of dispirate groups, promising everything to everyone. Business owners were told their sober employees would work harder. Socialists that workers whose faculties weren't filled dulled by drink would rise up against their lot in life. Then there was a general suspicion against pesky immigrants with their wine and beer cultures. Prohibition was supported by the Klan. Women were told their husbands wouldn't beat them or waste all their money on drink.

cool

The eternal thots. Women advocate, society degenerates. And today they advocate for drunk sex and the ability to revoke consent thereof.

>Women were told their husbands wouldn't beat them or waste all their money on drink.
From what I heard, that's actually quite what happened. A lot.

Looked like the popular health craze at the time. Goes to show the dangers of democracy and why certain matters need to be constitutionally clarified.

You kind of see the same thing happening now with tobacco and all sorts of wacko rules being implemented for it. Right now you see people proclaiming their right to be free from cigarette smoke but perhaps in the future it will be people defending their right to choose whether to avoid cigarette smoke or not.

best thing ever. why didn't we give women the right to vote earlier, we could've fucked up so much more

So much this. Thread is full of people
like
wilfully ignoring the harm to others from their selfishness.

An important point. The speakeasies had their own version of the cuck meme, selling the idea that people who weren't drinking were being exploited or cheated.

>The American government lost a huge source of revenue and introduced the income tax.
Correction: the income tax had been introduced in 1913, about 7 years before prohibition. Turns out that funding your government by how drunk people are getting was a bad idea.

>It was a strange coalition of dispirate groups
Yes, but what everyone in this thread has been conveniently forgetting was that the mainstream conformist culture of the time was protestant Christian, and it was teetotaling conservative christians protesting the demon drink who were leading the charge, along with women who, as points out, were having their lives destroyed by the rampant alcoholism of their husbands

Just gonna share some other Census stuff I've found in the 1900 U.S Census, if anyone's interested.
Here's statistics on establishment and "value of products". The "liquors and beverages" seems to have a greater value than even tobacco.

This one shows earnings in establishments, now if my maths isn't fucking up, that means a single salaried official would get about $1,300 yearly, while a wage earner would get about $438 yearly on average. IIRC a pound of bread costed $0.26 back in the 1900s

It was women

Women pushed for it and men were dumb enough to listen to women

And regards to salaried officials in the liquor department, they would earn around 2,090 yearly (nearly double), while a wage earner in the Liquors and beverages combination would earn an average of $638, about 45% higher than the average shown in the table.

nobody cared when it was just white people getting high.

drug prohibition has always been a means to criminalize ethnic minorities.

But it seems like I did a silly mistake and didn't take into account the actual whole industry, here's the whole picture.
Another thing I found was the production of the distilleries and whatnot in the census by gallons:
>The products of the distilleries, breweries, and wineries of the country represented a total annual production of 1,325,358,094 gallons of beverages. If this quantity be increased by the excess of imports over exports of the various classes of malt, distilled, and vinous liquors, and the total diminished by the excess of distillates manufactured over those withdrawn from bond, the result obtained (1,322,000,000 gallons) will indicate the approximate annual consumption by the people of the United States.

Found a more "modern" one showing the capital of Liquor shortly before the prohibition kicked in! Interestingly enough here it's split into various kinds of liquor.

As we can see this sort of gives us shocking results the "Liquors, distilled" capital dropped by 51% between 1914-1919.

>posting an image which proves the exact opposite of what you're posting
What did the robot mean by this?

Women got the vote and everything instantly turned to shit.

Honestly, they should do this again for native americans.

>trying to regulate the free market

Prohibition was a good idea. Alcohol is a harmful and addicting substance.

But you can't force people not to do, much less abuse, things that are harmful to themselves.

Women are biological statists. This was foreseen.

>a single city
>affecting only the government and rival gang members at that.
>in a period when government was as good as useless anyway
>implying corruption isn't always present in government anyway and that this corruption somehow spread to other parts of government even though the era was already corrupt.

>ban fun
I agree. If I was dictator of America, not only would I ban alcohol, but also cigarettes, marijuana, caffeine or any other psychoactive substance that damages the brain. I would also censor the internet and ban violent video games, shows and movies. Pornography will be outlawed as well.

>Women are responsible for the Mob
WEW
It always amazes me when women try to coopt Lysistrata when it's clear that Aristophanes was always just taking the piss out of the concept

Women got the vote

In this case your firm conviction runs counter to the facts. Please do a tiny bit of reading.

>Please do a tiny bit of reading.
Why the fuck would all these kissless permavirgins do that? They already had the answer picked out before someone even asked the question.

You realize women could vote before the 19th amendment right?

Yeah, locally. Are you saying their actual votes for local representatives alone tipped the scales in favor of Prohibition? Feel free to prove that.

The US did not have an equivalent to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_prohibition_referendum,_1922. Like men, women had good reason to oppose legal drugs, and women had lower rates of addiction and fewer economic opportunities when their husbands wasted their money on drugs. It makes perfect sense that they would vote for Prohibition in higher numbers than men, like they did in Sweden and (I assume) the Canadian plebiscite. They just didn't get a real chance in the US.

is this a crypto ./r9k/ thread?

...