OTTAWA — It's illegal for kids under 18 to buy tobacco products in Canada and there's a movement afoot to make sure today's youth are never allowed to light up a cigarette — even after they come of age.
Yeah, cause everything that has been made illegal has just stopped being used and didn’t ever result in becoming more alluring as an underground substance.
The Canadian temperance movement was largely a success, that went on for a long period of time in a number of regions.
It didn’t so much fail (as it did in the U.S) as It was abandoned due to government disinterest due to lost tax revenue, societal transformation due to urban centralization and the generational shift that coincided with the allure of the short lived age of the roaring 20’s.
In the U.S, it can be argued that it was profiteers that dismantled prohibition. Not society. They’ve pushed the message that “prohibition can’t work” ever since.
In the U.S, it can be argued that it was profiteers that dismantled prohibition. Not society. They’ve pushed the message that “prohibition can’t work” ever since.
How can it work? The most glorious criminal job possible is being a rumrunner, alcohol came custom designed to be an agent of chaos and I don’t see how trying to deny that won’t just backfire. In my experience growing up the drinking age laws in the US only made things far more dangerous as people drinking under age, it did LITERALLY NOTHING to stop our access to alcohol while making it cooler and more edgey in a way that supercharged our desire to access it.
Essentially yes, I have seen no evidence in my entire life that underage drinking laws save lives or reduce the abuse of alcohol, especially because of how car dependent the US is the only places underage kids can drink they have to drive to and then there are no responsible adults wherever that is which just makes it all WAY more dangerous. It also makes it so most kids introduction to alcohol is through hard liquor because it is way easier to hide and move around.
It wasn’t super uncommon for people from my hometown to die in drunk driving crashes and it is no mystery why to me.
In general I consider the prohibition and ESPECIALLY the criminalization of drugs to be 99% about people feeling righteous about their beliefs about society and 1% about the actual impact.
Prohibition is about the righteous satisfaction of violence and control, not really about helping people.
If you are going to disagree with me prove I am wrong.
That school children should have access to illicit/highly addictive substances (that I mentioned above), because the pursuit of public health and wellness is hypocritically righteous?
No because the pursuit of public health for kids is not the same as the pursuit of things that make you feel righteous about protecting kids, they are often existentially opposed as they are in this case.
Yeah, cause everything that has been made illegal has just stopped being used and didn’t ever result in becoming more alluring as an underground substance.
The Canadian temperance movement was largely a success, that went on for a long period of time in a number of regions.
It didn’t so much fail (as it did in the U.S) as It was abandoned due to government disinterest due to lost tax revenue, societal transformation due to urban centralization and the generational shift that coincided with the allure of the short lived age of the roaring 20’s.
In the U.S, it can be argued that it was profiteers that dismantled prohibition. Not society. They’ve pushed the message that “prohibition can’t work” ever since.
https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/temperance-movement
Your linked source doesn’t support your comment. You should read it more carefully.
How can it work? The most glorious criminal job possible is being a rumrunner, alcohol came custom designed to be an agent of chaos and I don’t see how trying to deny that won’t just backfire. In my experience growing up the drinking age laws in the US only made things far more dangerous as people drinking under age, it did LITERALLY NOTHING to stop our access to alcohol while making it cooler and more edgey in a way that supercharged our desire to access it.
Are you arguing against underage drinking laws to make a case against currently nonexistent prohibition?
Essentially yes, I have seen no evidence in my entire life that underage drinking laws save lives or reduce the abuse of alcohol, especially because of how car dependent the US is the only places underage kids can drink they have to drive to and then there are no responsible adults wherever that is which just makes it all WAY more dangerous. It also makes it so most kids introduction to alcohol is through hard liquor because it is way easier to hide and move around.
It wasn’t super uncommon for people from my hometown to die in drunk driving crashes and it is no mystery why to me.
Is it your position that underage drinking laws should be dismantled as they are the last vestiges of prohibition?
What’s your position on the illegality of narcotics or opiates? Crack cocaine, street fentynal, crystal methamphetamine?
In general I consider the prohibition and ESPECIALLY the criminalization of drugs to be 99% about people feeling righteous about their beliefs about society and 1% about the actual impact.
Prohibition is about the righteous satisfaction of violence and control, not really about helping people.
If you are going to disagree with me prove I am wrong.
Disagree with what?
That school children should have access to illicit/highly addictive substances (that I mentioned above), because the pursuit of public health and wellness is hypocritically righteous?
No because the pursuit of public health for kids is not the same as the pursuit of things that make you feel righteous about protecting kids, they are often existentially opposed as they are in this case.