this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
137 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43975 readers
588 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
actually, no, not a complete disaster. During american prohibition, domestic abuse all but disappeared, same went for a big part of self-harm due to alcohol abuse. It's normal to paint the prohibition as some complete mistake, but it has positive sides too.
And I say that as an enjoyer of alcohol and other fun stuff, disagreeing with banning it again
I'd be really interested to know the source of whatever stats say that. I mean, it's not like people actually stopped drinking, so why would domestic abuse "disappear"? That also totally implies that domestic abuse almost entirely happens because of alcohol.
With how much political/financial influence/bribery was behind prohibition, I'd totally bet statistics are skewed in favor of prohibition.