[ehnto]

We still have prohibition, it's just not for alcohol, so it's not that strange to consider. Prohibition wasn't about those kinds of health effects anyway, it was about reigning in a particularly egregious period of excess drinking as I understand it. I don't agree with it, but banning alcohol now would be a totally different situation and for different reasons.

[messe]

> but banning alcohol now would be a totally different situation

Yes, because the last few decades of drug prohibition have shown how differently it works nowadays.

[ehnto]

I did not suggest it is a good or functional policy.

[messe]

I'm not saying you did, I'm just disagreeing that it would actually be a different situation nowadays. Apologies if that came across incorrectly.

[ehnto]

Oh I see, I guess I just meant different motives and intent. I agree that it would probably play out the same though, even if the motives were health related this time.

[messe]

Ah I can see that that could've been the intended reading. I agree the purported motives would've been different this time.

I'm overly cynical about this particular matter though. Here in Ireland, the government recently introduced minimum unit pricing, selling it as a public health matter—completely ignoring the fact that about a decade ago they had suggested the same policy, but with the motivation that it would encourage people to go to pubs rather than drink at home (among many other moral problems with that bill).

[denton-scratch]

> it was about reigning in a particularly egregious period of excess drinking

Wikipedia says it was mostly about religious moralists.

[Auracle]

What wasn’t framed through religion back then?

[muttled]

Clean-shaven faces were pretty prevalent despite being technically against the bible (source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Trimming-Facial-Hair )