Look, I’ve just finished a bottle of wine, so I’m no teatotler. But what data does exist shows the immediate post-21st Amendment years as lower than pre-18th years. Prohibition was an overall failure, and I celebrate Repeal Day. but it did actually reduce the national average of alcohol consumption for a time.
Not sure how reliable it is, then. Or it could be that drinking culture bifurcated, where casual drinking stopped, and you either made it your life or did without, and a lot of the former category fucking died.
Yeah, exactly. Tons of economics research shows how often people don’t step out of line, so lack of access has real effects. Prohibition locked out casual drinkers and people with no trustworthy connect to a bootlegger.
Lack of access only reduced consumption among those who lost access. For those who were consuming bootleg their consumption increased. Often to harder liqours for obvious reasons.
Yeah. That’s the point. Reducing access has an effect. That’s basic basic economics. So is the expectation that forbidding the sale of something so easy to make would create a robust informal market. But informal markets usually lock out casual consumers as they don’t care or want to spend the time or effort to find a trustworthy contact for A bottle of wine.
This isn’t rocket science, this is super basic economics.
…Except for 1920 to 1933…
Alcohol consumption went up for many people. Way up.
For some. Which is not enough to raise averages.
Look, I’ve just finished a bottle of wine, so I’m no teatotler. But what data does exist shows the immediate post-21st Amendment years as lower than pre-18th years. Prohibition was an overall failure, and I celebrate Repeal Day. but it did actually reduce the national average of alcohol consumption for a time.
https://theconversation.com/how-prohibition-changed-the-way-americans-drink-100-years-ago-129854
Does that track reported consumption or alcohol related ailments?
Just consumption
Not sure how reliable it is, then. Or it could be that drinking culture bifurcated, where casual drinking stopped, and you either made it your life or did without, and a lot of the former category fucking died.
Yeah, exactly. Tons of economics research shows how often people don’t step out of line, so lack of access has real effects. Prohibition locked out casual drinkers and people with no trustworthy connect to a bootlegger.
Except for the bootleggers and speakeasies, wink wink.
Sure, but lack of access actually did reduce general consumption. The average person doesn’t drink more during prohibition.
Lack of access only reduced consumption among those who lost access. For those who were consuming bootleg their consumption increased. Often to harder liqours for obvious reasons.
Yeah. That’s the point. Reducing access has an effect. That’s basic basic economics. So is the expectation that forbidding the sale of something so easy to make would create a robust informal market. But informal markets usually lock out casual consumers as they don’t care or want to spend the time or effort to find a trustworthy contact for A bottle of wine.
This isn’t rocket science, this is super basic economics.