For a long time after Prohibition the percentage of alcohol allowed in beer was limited...3.4% I think.

Great news indeed. Alcohol abuse only is responsible for 88,000 deaths per year in the US.

UTExan said:

---

Great news indeed. Alcohol abuse only is responsible for 88,000 deaths per year in the US.

---

For a country of almost 400 million people that seems like a fairly miniscule number.

Not that these are not tragedies, I have had people I know affected by them but these are the actions of people who generally are the types to break the law and disregard themselves and others. This is a criminal issue as much or more than it is an alcohol issue.

I say themselves because a great number of those people killed are in single vehicle accidents.

I also think your numbers are wrong as the National Highway Safety states there were less than 10,000 deaths that were alcohol related in 2014.

These made up less than one-third of all highway deaths.

Aggiefan#1 said:

---

I also think your numbers are wrong as the National Highway Safety states there were less than 10,000 deaths that were alcohol related in 2014.

These made up less than one-third of all highway deaths.

---

Okay----

Quote:

---

Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in the United States:

• Adults (ages 18+): According to the 2015 NSDUH, 15.1 million adults ages 18 and older3 (6.2 percent of this age group4) had AUD. This includes 9.8 million men3 (8.4 percent of men in this age group4) and 5.3 million women3 (4.2 percent of women in this age group4).
  
  • About 6.7 percent of adults who had AUD in the past year received treatment. This includes 7.4 percent of males and 5.4 percent of females with AUD in this age group.5
• Youth (ages 1217): According to the 2015 NSDUH, an estimated 623,000 adolescents ages 12176 (2.5 percent of this age group7) had AUD. This number includes 298,000 males6 (2.3 percent of males in this age group7) and 325,000 females6 (2.7 percent of females in this age group7).
• About 5.2 percent of youth who had AUD in the past year received treatment. This includes 5.1 percent of males and 5.3 percent of females with AUD in this age group.5

Alcohol-Related Deaths:

• An estimated 88,0008 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women8) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The first is tobacco, and the second is poor diet and physical inactivity.9
• In 2014, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 9,967 deaths (31 percent of overall driving fatalities).10

Economic Burden:

• In 2010, alcohol misuse cost the United States $249.0 billion.11
• Three-quarters of the total cost of alcohol misuse is related to binge drinking.11

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

---

Alcohol related driving fatalities are officially slightly more than 10 % of all annual alcohol abuse deaths. I referred to the data regarding all deaths from alcohol abuse, not merely the traffic statistics, which account for slightly more than 10 % of all alcohol abuse deaths.

chimpanzee said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Alcohol related driving fatalities are officially slightly more than 10 % of all annual alcohol abuse deaths. I referred to the data regarding all deaths from alcohol abuse, not merely the traffic statistics, which account for slightly more than 10 % of all alcohol abuse deaths.

---

Good thing prohibition doesn't lead to any violent deaths.

---

Hey now! If the 1920's and the War on Drugs have taught us anything, it's that prohibition totally works and there are no catastrophic unintended consequences such as empowering violent cartels that peddle those substances. And it certainly doesn't lead to an erosion of basic freedoms at the hands of government.

...so if the Federal Government needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, why is it that they didn't need one to outlaw drugs? Nevermind, get back to your Budweiser.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

...so if the Federal Government needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, why is it that they didn't need one to outlaw drugs? Nevermind, get back to your Budweiser.

---

I'm pretty sure most posters here have enough self-respect to not drink Budweiser.

PacifistAg said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

...so if the Federal Government needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, why is it that they didn't need one to outlaw drugs? Nevermind, get back to your Budweiser.

---

I'm pretty sure most posters here have enough self-respect to not drink Budweiser.

---

Dang skippy. We drink sophisticated beverages like Lone star.

chimpanzee said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Alcohol related driving fatalities are officially slightly more than 10 % of all annual alcohol abuse deaths. I referred to the data regarding all deaths from alcohol abuse, not merely the traffic statistics, which account for slightly more than 10 % of all alcohol abuse deaths.

---

Good thing prohibition doesn't lead to any violent deaths.

---

Actually prohibition did not. It was criminal actors gunning each other down by the tens or hundreds. But we exchanged that for a mere 88,000 deaths per year by alcohol abuse.

UTExan said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Alcohol related driving fatalities are officially slightly more than 10 % of all annual alcohol abuse deaths. I referred to the data regarding all deaths from alcohol abuse, not merely the traffic statistics, which account for slightly more than 10 % of all alcohol abuse deaths.

---

Good thing prohibition doesn't lead to any violent deaths.

---

Actually prohibition did not. It was criminal actors gunning each other down by the tens or hundreds. But we exchanged that for a mere 88,000 deaths per year by alcohol abuse.

---

Those "criminal actors" were the result of the horribly failed policy of prohibition. It also resulted in a more dangerous product.

SoulSlaveAG2005 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

...so if the Federal Government needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, why is it that they didn't need one to outlaw drugs? Nevermind, get back to your Budweiser.

---

I'm pretty sure most posters here have enough self-respect to not drink Budweiser.

---

Dang skippy. We drink sophisticated beverages like Lone star.

---

I'm not much of a drinker but when I do, longnecks are a nice mild beer
that tastes better than cans of most higher priced beers IMHO.

PacifistAg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Alcohol related driving fatalities are officially slightly more than 10 % of all annual alcohol abuse deaths. I referred to the data regarding all deaths from alcohol abuse, not merely the traffic statistics, which account for slightly more than 10 % of all alcohol abuse deaths.

---

Good thing prohibition doesn't lead to any violent deaths.

---

Actually prohibition did not. It was criminal actors gunning each other down by the tens or hundreds. But we exchanged that for a mere 88,000 deaths per year by alcohol abuse.

---

Those "criminal actors" were the result of the horribly failed policy of prohibition. It also resulted in a more dangerous product.

---

There I will disagree. It was because of individual lust for alcohol (which is idolatry IMHO) that drove the demand, which in turn ratcheted up illegal activity to meet that demand.BTW, I do not think prohibition would ever succeed because alcohol, like naturally-occurring drugs, is exceedingly easy to produce. It is but another indication that human beings are beyond helping themselves due to our sin nature and must rely on God for the strength to resist abusing alcohol if one is predisposed to addictive behavior.

PacifistAg said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

...so if the Federal Government needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, why is it that they didn't need one to outlaw drugs? Nevermind, get back to your Budweiser.

---

I'm pretty sure most posters here have enough self-respect to not drink buy Budweiser.

---

FIFM
I assume i'm not alone in this but there is a pretty large gap between the beer that I will buy and the beer that I will drink. My standards for beer I will drink are:
-Is it cold?
-Is it in my hand?
and if it was free the first one is negotiable.

Prohibition leads to criminal actors because it takes the market and pushes it underground, making it one controlled through force. The demand will be there, but the government so grossly distorted the marketplace which incentivized those who were willing to use force to increase their market share. It took the production and distribution from legitimate actors and drove them underground to the arms of the violent.

To absolve the policy of prohibition for the rise in organized crime is to ignore history and fundamental economic laws.

PacifistAg said:

---

Prohibition leads to criminal actors because it takes the market and pushes it underground, making it one controlled through force. The demand will be there, but the government so grossly distorted the marketplace which incentivized those who were willing to use force to increase their market share. It took the production and distribution from legitimate actors and drove them underground to the arms of the violent.

To absolve the policy of prohibition for the rise in organized crime is to ignore history and fundamental economic laws.

---

You revere demand too much. You also cede too much to assume that a thing must be legal simply because demand exists or that prohibition caused a rise in organized crime. It doesn't. It simply provides focus for those organizations.

Okay.

UTExan said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Alcohol related driving fatalities are officially slightly more than 10 % of all annual alcohol abuse deaths. I referred to the data regarding all deaths from alcohol abuse, not merely the traffic statistics, which account for slightly more than 10 % of all alcohol abuse deaths.

---

Good thing prohibition doesn't lead to any violent deaths.

---

Actually prohibition did not. It was criminal actors gunning each other down by the tens or hundreds. But we exchanged that for a mere 88,000 deaths per year by alcohol abuse.

---

I was thinking more of lower case "p" prohibition and the violence in "the war on drugs" and among competitors across the drug value chain from growers to dealers. Capital "P" Prohibition was only mildly bloody because it was only mildly impactful and mildly enforced, but it did incubate a business model that cartels have applied to everything illegal that people will still pay for.

No one is stopping demand for intoxicating and addicting substances short of draconian, Saudi-level prohibition enforcement. Whenever an economy is driven underground, the most ruthless and/or most connected with corrupt would-be enforcers of the law will be the ones receiving the profit.

PacifistAg said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Alcohol related driving fatalities are officially slightly more than 10 % of all annual alcohol abuse deaths. I referred to the data regarding all deaths from alcohol abuse, not merely the traffic statistics, which account for slightly more than 10 % of all alcohol abuse deaths.

---

Good thing prohibition doesn't lead to any violent deaths.

---

Hey now! If the 1920's and the War on Drugs have taught us anything, it's that prohibition totally works and there are no catastrophic unintended consequences such as empowering violent cartels that peddle those substances. And it certainly doesn't lead to an erosion of basic freedoms at the hands of government.

---

Hello GigEm01, my old friend.