Talk:Prohibition in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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The ideological and political notion of limiting access to alcohol products has been noted by many researchers as outdated, unscientific and overly-manipulative of human populaces.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,

References

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)

Attribution note

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have a problem with information sourced from websites that have a clearly demonstrated agenda. I refer particularly to the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, which despite its apparently neutral name, is on any unbiased perusal, a platform in favour of legalization of substances currently illegal in the United States and most other countries, and in particular, the legalization of marijuana. It has a collection of articles (many written by its owner and main proponent, Clifford A. Schaffer - which could only be classified POV), and a selective collection of other materials which support his POV. Regardless of the accuracy of an individual article sourced there, there is the risk of bias due to selectivity. Information in this Wiki article sourced from this site should be deleted or qualified with POV. And in the 13 external links at the end of this Prohibion in the United States article, 3 are from this source alone. If they are genuine items from external sources, then they should be referenced to the original source, not the website of one faction in the discussion. Ptilinopus (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The media's agenda with marijuana is well-known, which is why any broadcast concerning Prohibition mentions that it was a "failed experiment," which is not true regarding the consumption of alcohol. Student7 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"...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)

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)

The reference, however, I would question. It is not an article stating the opinion of the author or summarizing academic or other reliable sources, it seems to be a book review. I think it would be better to cite the book itself. I think this is stretching the boundaries of reliable source. To be honest, even assuming it's unintentional, it smacks a bit of POV.Jbower47 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IllegalKnowledge (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard Oil was broken up by the government as a monopoly in 1911. They were under strict government observation not to act collectively for a long time thereafter.

Not sure what you mean by "public" transportation. Do you mean buses? Or just cars?

Although Ford may have wanted to give consumers the opportunity to buy a car with a competitive fuel, we know today (as they did then) that ethanol is inferior to gasoline. It doesn't burn as well (less efficient) and ruins motors. Which is why American gas today has "only" 10% ethanol in it. And why they use oil to refine ethanol. Using ethanol (it's own product!) is less efficient and would make the product cost more!

Over the years, there have been a lot of "oil company conspiracy" myths. An old one was that the oil companies "suppressed" "better/cheaper" fuels. There is a "better" fuel, actually. It is naphtha. Which is explosive! (I'm rather glad they "suppressed" it!). Student7 (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Naptha is not explosive. It's highly flammable, but far from being substantially more "explosive" than gasoline is. Naptha is still in use as a solvent and as lighter fluid, as in the mixture for Zippo lighters and Coleman fuel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naptha.

As for any oil company sponsoring prohibition to prevent ethanol from being used as fuel, you failed to notice that ethanol WAS still produced, but denatured, which would NOT impact its use as a fuel. Ethanol wasn't of significant use in pure form as an automotive fuel, as the low compression engines at the time could not efficiently utilize it. In short, just another conspiracy theory that, as usual, cannot hold up in the clear light of the facts.Wzrd1 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Higher crime (correlating all problems with prohibiton)

A new addition claims higher crime during Prohibition. I have not checked this out. Assuming it is true, we have found in the past, that higher crime was due to a variety of reasons. Correlating them with one item, Prohibition, may not be valid. Correlation is not causation.

For example, there was "higher crime" during the 70s. Republicans cheerfully attributed this to Democratic judges, easy tolerance of drugs, etc. This may have been partly true, but there were simply more young men in the "risk-taking" group from late teens to the 30s. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there were increased numbers in their 20s during the 1920s. Ascribing all problems to the topic at hand is not scientific IMO. Foreign relations deteriorated, too. Prohibition again? Not hardly!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The correlation was direct from multiple law enforcement sources. It's well established, even in the popular media of the time and into this current age, that the Mafia in particular had a great boom from bootlegging and the operation of speakeasys. The crime wars in the street were, per old news reels, literally as depicted in much of our entertainment media portrayals show, men firing Thompson submachine guns at opposing "families". The Valentine's Day massacre, was a prime example and has also been heavily studied, with our current entertainment venues even re-enacting the event, with full scientific investigation of the murders. Don't confuse politics with history, which may or may not be colored by the political stance of the recorder. The empirical facts show that organized crime flourished largely due to the increased mass marketing and production of the banned alcohol. In short, the "cure" was far, far worse than the "disease". Once firmly established, organized crime continued in other venues, after prohibition ended, as it had expanded to such an extent as to be not as easily damaged by the loss of their alcohol revenue.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As the electorate is entitled to do, it made a subjective determination that the unexpected rise of an unentitled group was worse than curing alcoholism. As is typical, most people did not come into contact with criminals. Most people obeyed the law. This did not include the "at risk" 20-30 year olds which patronized speakeasies in droves in cities. As they always disobey the law, in every generation.

But it did reduce alcohol consumption dramatically, which it set out to do, even with the revolt of the young adults and the rise of gangsters. BTW, the gangster-group, including the Scilian Mafia, was fairly entrenched before Prohibition. They were doing the usual rackets, "protection", numbers, betting parlors, etc. Alcohol was merely an extra bonus for them. Student7 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Constitutionally-Mandated 1920 Census reapportionment

(Reference: Last Call) The 1920 Census showed population growth in the cities from immigration and folks moving from farms. The cities were "wet" so they "dries" did not want to give them more congressmen. Despite the consititutional requirement, they did not do the reapportionment in a timely manner. I think this info belongs in the article. belatedly signed --Javaweb (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

You make a claim, but provide no citation. Redistricting and representational changes are always contentious issues, as it impacts the political power balance for the region. Without citations proving there was any attempt to block reapportionment of representation, the claim is groundless, especially as such things take census data and time to implement.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should not be put into the article until a specific cite in Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, by Daniel Okrent, is found. I am hoping to get myself or another editor to find the pages, hence the request. The 1920 United States Census reapportionment was not done until 1933 and it was the only time when reapportionment took that long.

Deletion of trivia

I appreciate the deletion of the trivia subsection. However, the tv program "The Untouchables" does seem germane. While "Once Upon a Time in America" was a one-time film, it's main theme was illegal booze. I do admit, once you start a trivia section (with a better name, of course), it tends to degenerate and editors are left playing Grinch to new editors. Student7 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Trivia does not belong in an encyclopedia. Cultural references and impacts does. Hence, SOME mention of cultural depictions and idioms would be appropriate, whereas trivia is inappropriate.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Noble Experiment"

I question the relevance of stating various partial synonyms to Prohibition in bold in the lead. I recently read Okrin's Okrent's Last Call and can't recall seeing it even once. It might have been in there, but it certainly didn't seem to be prominent enough to merit inclusion in the lead. If there are terms like these, they should be mentioned in a separate section, preferably with terms favored by both wets and drys.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no shortage of reliable sources for use of this term as a widely recognised alternative name for prohibition of alcohol in the US during the period in question. Google Books throws up a plethora, as does Google Scholar. Current use in the article appears to conform with WP:MOSLEAD RashersTierney (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the existence of the term, and I'm not saying it should be tossed altogether. But I am highly skeptical to having it mentioned directly after the article title, though it was a term anyone would or should recognize. If you try searching for "prohibition" (and variants like "prohibition era") and compare it with combinations of either with "noble experiment", you tend to get a 20:1 ratio, even more so if you try Google Books or Google Scholar. A glance at the hits on published books and articles shows that a significant proportion of them tend to put the term in quotes and also don't tend to capitalize it.

I don't know what the current practice of synonyms is, but the example given at MOSLEAD ("sodium hydroxide (NaOH); lye; caustic soda") doesn't feel like an appropriate guidance in this case.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Must this be tossed because modern historians "don't like it?" This was the appellation. I don't know it's antecedents. I don't really have an opinion on whether it belongs in the lead, but modern historians want to believe that a) it didn't work and b) it was stupid and c) nobody liked it, even at the time. I can't vouch for b, but the others are untrue. Calling it the "noble" experiment is a clear indication of its former popularity, and the original aims of its adherents. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The name, as a proper noun, should be acknowledged in the lead. Certainly there are alternative descriptive terms for the subject, but this is different. RashersTierney (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Student, no has suggested "tossing" it. It's a matter of how prominent the term should be. It's matter of mentioning it in the lead.

Rashers, I'm skeptical to the idea of this as cut-and-dry example of a proper noun, like Mormon Church or Boxer Rebellion. No one would dream of de-capitalizing those other than for purely political reasons or sub-standard spelling. There are plenty of examples (looks like more than halft to me) of the search hits in your links that refer to it in small letter or even within quotes, sometimes around just "noble". You don't get that with widely recognized, synonym-like terms. More important is that the term doesn't seem to be universally used in comprehensive works on prohibition. Besides the lack of capitalization, there are major histories written on the topic that simply never mention it. I don't see any inherent value of stressing this term in the lead and I'm not sure there are any good precedents for it.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

All information in the lead needs to be in the article anyway.

Having said that, I would agree, based on a cursory search, that it probably should not be in the lead. Historians have taken to using "Noble Experiment" for everything since Prohibition, rather diluting that name as unique. It well may have been at the time. Student7 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Marxist interpretations

Anyone for adding some sections referring to prohibition as a tool for the rich to oppress the poor, and centralize control? http://www.google.com/search?q=whiskey+as+money can give numerous starting points for a reference search; "whiskey rebellion" also may deserve mention in history sections.

Also, I am under the impression that distilling for personal use is generally allowed, but selling is when the law gets involved, which is consistent with an agenda of economic control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.138.107 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently, one CAN manufacture small quantities of alcohol for personal consumption, but each state has its own limitation for quantity. Hence, one can legally purchase a still today, to distill one's own alcohol. That said, is it an economic control or is it a public health issue? Many moonshiners used lead solder and even old car radiators as a still, which leeched lead into the alcohol, leading to lead poisoning. Meanwhile, one of the controls present in the old Soviet Union was inexpensive vodka for the populace (nowhere NEAR the quality that the party members drank OR what we have in the west) and consumption was quite heavy. Whenever the supply was reduced, due to either crop failures or public health concerns, dissent increased and the supply was reestablished.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of trivia

Several unregistered editors deleted the following, bit by bit, without explanation, including the citation: " In 2010, alcohol was a factor in over 23,000 motor vehicles deaths and over 50% of the murders in the country. It is closely linked to domestic violence."(citation)

When I complained and restored it, registered editors harrumphed that it was irrelevant and I shouldn't complain about "editors" removing it, bit by bit, without explanation. That it was presumably okay to rm stuff without an explanation and that I "should have read their minds," I guess.

Actually, it was just this sort of thing that brought about Prohibition in the first place. The problems are still with us, only better reported. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How does statistics about motor vehicle deaths in 2010 relate to the era of Prohibition in the United States? It's just a random statistic thrown in there. This isn't an article about the effects of alcohol, it's about Prohibition specifically. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, one of the deleting unregistered editors had been a notorious vandal and has dozens of warnings on his page.

The aftermath of the removal of Prohibition is the return of behavior that was there prior to Prohibition, only up-to-date with technology. It is part of the history. Problems didn't stop with repeal of Prohibition. The issue is considered a "stalking horse" for the repeal of prohibition of drugs, therefore editors with that pov tend to rm everything that indicates that alcohol was ever a problem then or now. Student7 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Student7, you are totally failing the requisite assumption of good faith. I am a teetotaling non-anonymous editor, an admin in this Wikipedia, and a historian; and I am assuring you, the present-day statistics are not relevant to this article and shall continue to be removed. You are WP:COATRACKING in what you perceive as a good cause; but Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The material has been here, off and on, since 13 May. I confess that the imbedded "boomer" comment was totally unnecessary and provocative. I apologize.

Since May 13 of this year? No big. Had it been there since May 13, 2003, that would be more noteworthy. (And as one of the many boomer editors here, I cheerfully accept the apology. No harm, no foul.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

When it has been changed or deleted, it has been by either unregistered editors or without an edit summary.

It is from a .edu site, the type I try to look for. It deliberately connects the material to Prohibition. As far as I know, the .edu site was not WP:POV. If you think the source is impeachable, please tell me why.

The editor 1) removing the citation, leading, in turn to 2) deletion of the material for being uncited was here. I'm not sure what there is about this user page that I should have taken seriously. Student7 (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not everything at a .edu domain is a reliable source; my old student website is still at a .edu address, albeit in need of updating. Always judge by the edit, not by the editor. The connection of present-day statistics to Prohibition in this manner is an extraordinary leap; and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I must agree that the 2010 statistic has no relevance, save if the editor is attempting to make a claim of time travelers going back in time and using those statistics to bolster the prohibition movements. It is a useless statistic, as there are no percentages of population, no accident rate per licensed driver and is irrelevant to the historic topic of prohibition. Were this an article on a prohibition movement TODAY, it would be appropriate. Instead, it is as misleading as having an article on the ineffectiveness of driver licensing, citing the 2010 number of motor vehicle accident related deaths for 2010 versus the motor vehicle accident related death number from 1900. It is beyond misleading and extraordinarily POV leading.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I DID notice another 2010 reference, comparing volume of alcohol consumed in 1830 to the amount consumed in 2010. As it doesn't mention population numbers, the information seems quite irrelevant. The reference DOES have a citation though. Perhaps that information should be in a subsection, such as contemporary impact of prohibition on the United States?Wzrd1 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cops paid off

We can't have it both ways. Either the cops were paid to "look the other way" for organized crime; also benefiting street thugs taking advantage of the lack of policing. This would result in a lower crime rate, not a higher one. There were no "independent" sources of crime statistics then, just police blotters.

Or there was a higher crime rate, suggesting that however the cops were treating organized crime, un-organized crime was being treated just as severely as before - most crime (except for the smugglers/liquor retailers) was being prosecuted. Student7 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Price per drinker rose

One of the problems about drugs is that the street value has pretty much stayed the same or decreased over the years, demonstrating a lack of enforcement. Cost of liquor rose during Prohibition because of the difficulty of smuggling liquor (smaller supply). Enforcement may have been sloppy or non-existent in cities, but the smugglers had to get it there first. Also, their may have been fewer drinkers. People who "had problems" with alcohol would ensure that they got their "share," which would have been considerably higher than a normal person's consumption. People who weren't alcoholics just shrugged, grinned and bore it.

But, yes, the mob profited mightily, an unintended consequence. Student7 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)