Everyone dies sometime. Plus, there are too many people on the planet already.
That would depend on the action, and the result desired.
Estimated deaths from smallpox in the 20th Century alone: 300 MILLION.
Deaths from the 1918 flu epidemic: 50 MILLION
Seems to me infectious disease are a potentially much greater hazard than a bunch of drunks. Let’s address the bigger risk first?
Dude, you’re not smart enough to be clever. Just make your case. Stop using metaphors.
Boom goes the dynamite
Smallpox has been eradicated. No known cases since 1977. Just sayin’…
Alcohol use doesn’t cause 88,000 deaths – alcohol misuse does. So ban misuse of alcohol. Problem solved (not really, but for the purposes of the silly OP, it does).
Prohibition and Jalad at Tanagra!
Prohibition broke the back of heavy and continual drinking in the working classes, at the expense of spreading it into virtually all classes.
There were other approaches that would have reduced heavy drinking in the labor classes, and many of them came into being more as a result of the Depression (and then the war) than the Great Experiment. Put simply, if you improve the conditions of your working class through labor laws, unions, workplace safety etc. - they won’t be as inclined to stay drunk all the time as a counterweight.
Prohibition did the job quickly, but at considerable social cost. In the end, it was social pushback that broke it - social nullification - a force that’s of considerable interest to me.
Maybe you should come right out and tell us what this thread is really about instead of the asinine nonsense in the OP or stupid evasions and circumlocutions. The OP sounds like a poor attempt at sarcasm by one of the more demented libertarian nutjobs and I’m not about to waste my time trying to decode what it’s really supposed to mean, which I suspect will turn out to be “not much”.
And the answer to the unbelievably stupid OP is that you can’t prohibit something that’s been an established part of human culture and tradition for thousands of years, and it’s absolutely astounding that such an effort was ever made, and no surprise at all that it was a total failure. To screeching church ladies alcohol was the town drunk and wife-beater, to others alcohol is the pleasure of having wine with dinner.
This. For fuck’s sake, this strawman ‘‘gotcha’’ nonsense is getting old already.
I don’t oppose vaccinations. If you check my posts over there you’ll see I never said people shouldn’t get vaccinated. And those numbers are not currently happening. The 88,000 are. Shouldn’t we be concerned about the present as well? We don’t even ban alcohol commercials that target young adults. Where are your statistics about how drinking is good. I’ve presented stats how its bad for society.
So what the flying fuck is the point of this fucking thread? Are you talking about vaccination, prohibition or what? What exactly are you fucking pitting in this thread?
It is different.
Hope you use the same reasoning about guns.
Premise: Banning alcohol consumption is the same as making people get vaccinated.
Analysis: Premise fail. These things are not enough alike to make any valid comparisons.
Conclusion: Try again.
At least iiandyiii addressed the issue, but how does one stop the abuse of a product that can be bought by anyone of legal age in any quantity they want. Most of the rest of the posters continue to attack my motivations, because when stats don’t work for them, that’s all they have left. And the Barbarian realized that it is a problem and wanted to address it by fixing the social problems that cause it. Its not just the working class, though. Lot of rich well-off peple drink heavy, so while fixing social problems may help, people will still die.
Are you asking if I support making misuse of guns (i.e. shooting people) illegal? If so, my answer is yes. So consider your hopes met.
Prohibition failed and was totally ineffective – banning an easily produced (or otherwise widely available) and highly desirable product will always fail. So why would you advocate for a policy that wouldn’t do anything to stop those 88,000 deaths? Education might help, and making treatment centers widely available, but banning alcohol won’t do anything.
So, the topic is strictly prohibition? If so, say so. If not, then the answer is that different problems obviously have different solutions, and should be discussed on a one-on-one basis. What worked and didn’t work with prohibition has no bearing on what might work with other problems, it is a total waste of time to try to find some sort of universal solution that can be applied across the board.