Jump to content

Talk:Prohibition in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IllegalKnowledge (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 28 July 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Let's add a Criticism section!

Here's some text for consideration to include in the article:

The ideological and political notion of limiting access to alcohol products has been noted by many researchers as outdated, unscientific and overly-manipulative of human populaces. (Add many easy to find, empirically researched references here.) Furthermore, contemporary studies highly correlate moderate alcohol beverage consumption with many health benefits, including (but not limited to) decreased risk of atherosclerosis,[1]

References

  1. ^ Kuller, Lewis H., Pearson, Thomas A., Steinberg, Daniel. Alcohol and atherosclerosis, Article Abstract. American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1991. ISSN: 0003-4819.
The above is a criticism of temperance in general and might go in that article. Even there though, a criticism citing one scientific paper only would not survive for 30 seconds. Take a look at the articles in the Alcohol and Health box to see hundreds of papers about alcohol's effects, often bad but sometimes good. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution note

Some of the content in the section Winemaking during Prohibition is from the merged stub Bricks of wine. AgneCheese/Wine 19:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of article

Wouldn't it be better for this article to be called "Prohibition of alcohol in the United States"? An article's title should clearly reference what it is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.46.94 (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denatured Alcohol

There's an article on Slate [1] that talks about how the federal government required industrial alcohol to be denatured poisonously and that it ended up killing some 10,000 people. I will leave this here so that a regular maintainer of this article can best incorporate its points. -- Limulus (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Olathe :) -- Limulus (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is slate really credible? You should probably have more sources before you add it into the article. I want to use this statistic for a debate, but am suspicious of the credibility of your source. --Hawkcohen (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some successes

Among other "successes", the rate of cirrhosis of the liver had started to drop noticeably just as Prohibition ended. This should be noted if someone can find a reliable ref. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

"While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it tended to destroy society by other means." this is not a scientifically based statement, it's a matter of opinion. (Just becasue I happen to agree with the opinion doesn't make it any less so). It should be stripped. 174.25.34.44 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON[reply]

Actually, the full quote was "While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it tended to destroy society by other means.Von Drehle, David (24 May 2010). "The Demon Drink". New York, New York: Time. p. 56."
That is, it was cited in the New York Times. This seems more appropriate than going into the background, citing a decrease in cirrhosis of the liver, admission of alcoholics to wards, etc. and then trying to measure the offset against increase in the power of the Mafia. It is altogether too common for people to say nowdays that "Prohibition was a failure." Indeed it was a success, as the original instigators had intended. But it had very unpleasant unanticipated affects which society eventually decided were worse than the "cure." Or, actually, society, seeing kids drunk all the time, may not have realized that fewer people were drinking. Who knows? But it is cited by a publication that has a good reputation. Is is opinionated about "destroying society by other means"?" Yes, but that is the way most social things are reported, since backing them up with mph, or number of electrons, or whatever, is not really possible. Student7 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the New York Times; that's Time magazine!!!! What we need is a citation from the book Last Call, the history of Prohibition which Von Drehle was reviewing in the cited article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dry States before Volstead

I came to this article looking for information on or a link to a list of which states went dry and when. I was hoping to find a table with a list of states, the date each went dry (effective), and any repeal dates. It would make a good supporting wiki, and a new section in this article could introduce and link to it. Unfortunately, I don't have the data, and I don't know how to make wiki tables...Jeffryfisher (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a dry state list with a half dozen states whose dry dates I have found elsewhere. Jeffryfisher (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Prohibition was successful claim

The citation for the claim that less alcohol was consumed during prohibition is unreliable and the text should be removed unless a reliable source can be obtained. The source in question is a Time article that merely quotes the claim without providing justification or any source of their own. Slepsta (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much has to be a summary from an unbiased source. Providing figures would require a subsection which seems a bit inordinate. What makes you think that the source is not WP:RELY? while it is commonly accepted that "Prohibition was unsuccessful", readers seldom question exactly what was not successful. The original aims were met, but created more problems that society could handle is the answer.
Cirhossis of the liver dropped dramatically during Prohibition, for example. Someone has to "summarize" this, and they have. Time magazine. The quote is accurate. It should stand unless some fault with reliability is found. What is the problem? Student7 (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiki: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."

Meanwhile, we are take for granted that less alcohol was consumed during prohibition due to the following statement in Time: "In one sense, Prohibition worked: less booze was consumed." Would not a source interpreting empirical research towards this end be more effective and trustworthy? Slepsta (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not due to one statement in Time. There are no reputable historians who say (now that the facts are long since in) that more alcohol was consumed during Prohibition than before. It was an "urban myth" to start with, based on public misperceptions and happily nourished by today's media who wants to legalized drugs for the reason that "less" would be consumed.
If you can find any reputable source that says that more alcohol was consumed during prohibition than before, please mention it. I don't think that such a statement exists today. It just that the media (non-historians) aren't terrifically interested in the truth. But reliable historians are. The "single" statement is just so the article is not totally devoid of accuracy regarding why Prohibition was ended. It was a enforcement disaster that enriched crooks. But the reduction in the consumption of alcohol, the original goal, was met. It just had "unintended" consequences, which BTW is true of most legislation. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not claimed that more alcohol was consumed during Prohibition but have expressed concern over the weakness of the chosen citation that claims less alcohol was consumed. If there really are “no reputable historians who say that more alcohol was consumed during Prohibition than before” then a citation that indicates this would be a better source than a single line from Time magazine. Anyone anywhere can write “In one sense, Prohibition worked: less booze was consumed.” Is this source considered reliable just because it comes from Time magazine instead of a random blog? Surely there exists a better source. Wikipedia should not have to rely on its readers to accept commonly held points of view.

In any case, the question of alcohol consumption is, in principle, a scientific one and the opinions of historians are irrelevant. Empirical research by economists, particularly by Jeffery Miron, has shed real doubt that prohibition indeed reduced consumption over the full length of its implementation. Whether this deserves mention in the article is for others to decide. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol

To conclude: I agree that, right or wrong, there is a general historical consensus that less alcohol was consumed during prohibition but that the current citation in the article does not sufficiently address this point.Slepsta (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire for a more comprehensive quotation. I don't have one. I have read elsewhere that the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver had dropped noticeably, another indication of lower alcohol consumption. I don't mind replacing this material IFF another better reference can be found, but it is not reasonable and even biased, to suggest that the only citation stating the truth of the effectiveness of prohibition should be removed. It is WP:RELY and therefore should stand until replacement. Student7 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the only citation you can provide, perhaps you should reconsider whether what you think you know is actually the case. Remember: verifiability trumps veracity. If you can't provide a solid citation, then perhaps your assertion is not verifiable. (And given the lead time for cirrhosis of the liver, the cirrhosis assertion is just silly.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you objecting to the WP:RELY of the source, which is Time magazine? If you are challenging the source, that is one matter. If not, then it seems to me that it falls into the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I had no idea that people generally accepted the media's bland statement that "it had failed." Nowhere, since WWII, has this been recorded anyplace by a genuine historian. I guess we now have a separate topic for the "rest of the sentence" below.
A successor sentence or two (saying the same thing since it is true) would be acceptable. I agree that it can be improved on as far as detail goes. Student7 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...tended to destroy society by other means"

This line is kind of hilarious, but I can't see how it's survived since May, especially since it's in the introduction:

"While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it tended to destroy society by other means."

The claim about Prohibition's success aside, the "destroy society" clause seems basically meaningless and just stupid. 206.248.134.92 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line assumes that the reader is familiar with the fact that gangsters became rich and undermined law enforcement and the judiciary, which was dangerous to society. Arguably more dangerous than drinking was to individuals. This was the "unforeseen side affect" of the legislation. All legislation BTW has "unforeseen" and usually unpleasant side affects. Can it be better worded? Yes. Is it wrong because the source is biased or incorrect or unreliable? I don't think so. Can a better reference be found? I would assume so, but I am in the boondocks and don't have easy access to wideband or a decent library. But the original stands unless it can be challenged on the basis of being wrong and not simply unlovable or surprising. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a movie titled "Fuel" which made some claims....

The claims made were that Standard Oil helped encourage prohibition, and perhaps funded at least some of it, so as to ensure that ethyl alcohol (EA) could not be used as a fuel source for a gasoline engine, and that only oil could then be used. The claim was that Henry Ford made cars which could run on EA and then prohibition was enacted so that EA could not be used to run the cars. It was further stated in "Fuel" that Ford kept the manufacture of EA cars until 1932, thereby making a non-EA car in 1933, the same year the prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment.

Is this at all true? It would not surprise me much if it were, considering what lengths the oil companies went to destroy public transportation in the US in the 30s. Could anyone please find a source for this info if it exists and add to the article, please?

~Michael

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prohibition_in_the_United_States&oldid=375945492"