Is Prohibition ever a good policy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. It's never worked and never will.

[opebo]

No, and it doesn't appear it is ever going away.

[Friz]

No.  Stupidest idea ever.

"Alcohol: The cause and solution to all of society's problems."

[bergie72]

No -- you can't legislate common sense, morality, or being sober.

Look at how many underground stills were run, all the millions of gallons of bathtub gin were made, and all the rum runners that made money transporting the 'illegal' booze.

It was a bad idea.

[12th Doctor]

On substances that don't cause serious harm to a person or society, in used in moderation, such as alcohol or marajuana... no... it doesn't work, and its a stupid idea.  However, when you start talking about hard drugs, then something needs to be done, so complete prohibition is probably the best option.  If someone still wants to  their own life up, then let them... go after the druglords.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

One of the worst policy decisions ever. Did the Government really think that people wouldn't drink when prohabition was in place? It should be a person's right if they want to drink or not.

[angus]

I voted Yes.  I think it all depends on your goals, and the form of government you want to achieve, and I don't think it's generally a good idea for state legislatures in a a constitutional republic such as ours should be quick to prohibit the use of substances--and I'm not alone; I saw the results of a poll on CNN last night that said 85% of Americans polled think the government should stay out of the restaurant business and let adults eat whatever they want while only 15% supported the idea of trans-fat prohibitions--but I do think in some forms of government it may be advisable.  Basically, universally quantified propositions are really hard to support, so by including the adverb "ever" you'll have a tough time defending a No vote against any and all permutations (of governmental forms and of items to be prohibited) one could imagine.

But trans-unsaturated fatty acids, prostitution, marijuana, and those sorts of things, in the USA?  Probably it causes more harm than good to prohibit them by law, if only because it takes the onus of personal responsibility off the individual and awards it to the state.  Never a good idea for a functioning democratic form.  Unless you don't mind evolution toward a different form.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - it's unnecessary, and doesn't work.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No - it's unnecessary, and doesn't work.

Good to see you oppose idiotic blue laws, high drinking ages and the war on drugs.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No. It's never worked and never will.

Well I'm not sure about the "it will never work" bit; sure it's unlikely to work now and certainly unlikely to have worked had the policy been continued in 1933 into the present day; American culture had at this point been too connected to Alcohol for that to really change - especially in major industrial towns and the south; not to mention that peculiar American attitude of reaction against the goverment in the name of "the people" - especially true when one can make a profit off it, which is why a peculiar form of Individualist gangsterism flourished during prohibition and would have not done so in most other counties (Especially in those with very little history of Democracy or mythology about "freedom" or "liberty" or etc.)

But here we are talking about a legalistic construct not a cultural one; which goes far, far deeper than politics can ever hope to tread. Essentially if there is a culture or a tradition based around Alcohol then it is almost impossible to stop it without somehow destroying or reforming that culture first. (And how do you do THAT?)

[Ebowed]

That's sort of why it's impossible to ban guns in the US.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

That's sort of why it's impossible to ban guns in the US.

And that's an extremely good thing.

[AkSaber]

No - it's unnecessary, and doesn't work.