Not to be all semantic, but it really does depend on how you define success. Like with current illegal narcotics, alcohol prohibition promoted a vast profitable underground network, increased the prison population, and as I mentioned earlier the government was actively spiking ethanol with methanol in its shipments to make sure bootleggers suffered steeply. Foremost it put a lot of downward cultural pressure on the USA to conform to an alien concept of not drinking when the surrounding countries and most of the entire world were doing it. Sure it probably stemmed some cirrhosis cases but who cares when freedoms are so curtailed?
I'm defining success as reducing overall consumption and disease.
The NY times article described the crime rate, as largely the same, before and after prohibition.
The restrictions on driving (like needing a license) come from that very principle. You have to prove you understand the rules of the road and are not an obvious danger to other people before the State will give you permission to drive a vehicle. Your own argument is working against you now. By that logic we should do the same thing with guns because although most people are responsible, we can't trust the common good to prevail and must therefore ensure that people are qualified!
You can own a car, without a license.
You can own a firearm, without a license.
You cannot conceal carry, in the majority of places, without a license.
You cannot drive on public roads without a license.
More or less, they are the same.
People who want more will just turn to the black market as they always do. Have anti-pot laws stopped pot use? Not by a long shot. Any other drug? Nope. Not even making drugs prescription only has stopped their illegal distribution. The law functions in title only and dishes out punishments that aid the private prison system, but it does not stop substance use. Not now, not ever.
Of course it won't stop it, but it would reduce it.
I understand why you made this thread, but it's still a flawed comparison. Alcohol can be made from home made stills which was what happened during prohibition. It can't really be stopped. Guns can't be made in the average person's home and so gun violence could be DRASTICALLY reduced by outlawing guns or restricting them to people who prove they are qualified. Gun violence will always happen but the death rate per capita would drop.
They're using 3d printers to make firearm receivers, out of plastic.
It's still in the test phase, but once they perfect it, gun control is going to be mighty difficult.
In reality I don't support gun or drug laws. I believe in personal responsibility and supporting people who have made honest mistakes and want to change their lives, such as alcoholic addicts.
Of course, but this thread is designed to question the reasoning behind two things, which could cause societal harm and to see if people would allow exceptions for some deaths, but not for others.
Either people need to be consistent with restrictions or they're showing bias.
