Talk:Prohibition

Playpen time
Is what I grabbed from the page source that makes the intercom message load.  ħ uman  00:20, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Removed form tags

Changing color tags in table  ħ uman  00:22, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Obviously, we need to hack into class="userpage" and make a new version of it. So at least it does not pad the internal table, or better, we make a new one with appropriate colors. Where can I find the definitions for the "class"?  ħ uman  00:25, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Failed to fix the white line crap.  ħ uman  00:26, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

No improvement.  ħ uman  02:54, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Truth
So do you question the notion that Prohibition was a brilliant and good thing? --Elvis is King (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Revert 2/2/15
I've rolled back a BoN edit as (s)he claimed that prohibition led to a decrease in drinking whereas - from the ref provided - The greatest unintended consequence of Prohibition however, was the plainest to see. For over a decade, the law that was meant to foster temperance instead fostered intemperance and excess. The solution the United States had devised to address the problem of alcohol abuse had instead made the problem even worse. The statistics of the period are notoriously unreliable, but it is very clear that in many parts of the United States more people were drinking, and people were drinking more.Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wrong; in my memory I conflated the rate of cirrhosis with the rate of drinking. I've fixed it; I at least like to think I can acknowledge when I'm wrong and accordingly adjust. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Opium
This is a rather minor point, but I would sort of set a high bar for the question of whether or not banning Opium was motivated by anti-Chinese racism. I am well aware of the history the USA has in treating Chinese immigrants. But simply put, given the history of Opium in China I must insist that we should set a higher bar of evidence for the claim that banning Opium was motivated due to malice towards Chinese immigrants. Given the history of anti-Chinese xenophobia in the US I'd be surprised if that weren't the case, but I would insist on a firm source to back up evidence of malice. Their are many reasons for this but by far the most important reason is because the Chinese government (under the rule of the Qing dynasty) also thought that restricting the Opium trade was a good idea before the British "persuaded" them to change their minds. Alsto003 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * Yes and no. Because while opium smoking (seen as an especially "Chinese" vice) saw early crackdowns and plenty of moral panics, the kind of opium used by (white) Europeans and Americans, such as, was only targeted much later. I'd wager that imbibing what was effectively a 1% morphine solution with an addition of anywhere from 18% to 48% alcohol was probably not much less hazardous to your health or less addictive than smoking opium in a Chinese opium den. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The path to Prohibition
KnowledgeHub has a excellent video called History of Prohibition: Why It Failed. According to the video the process to the 18th Amendment "were quite shady". Wayne Wheeler and his Wheelism resulted in corruption on a mammoth scale which, you guessed, it made the corruption of those who had a hand in passing Prohibition more inclined to be corrupted by those who broke the law.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

And who were behind the prohibition?
The same people as behind gun control. Of course it is censored out. 2003:C3:3725:3000:1D3C:582:E055:43CD (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a reasonable claim. Who are "the same people". What are their stances? How does it even overlap with why people want gun control? I doubt it is "censored out" as it is such nonsensical reasoning it isn't worth putting in the article. 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the implication is obvious. Vee (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Gee I hope the BoN is thinking about just "the left" or "the Democrats". 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)