From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon drugs.svg

This Drugs related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Playpen time[edit]


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[edit]

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. (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Opium[edit]

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 LaudanumWikipedia, 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 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". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)