Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
It's often forgotten that prohibition was a progressive initiative. Yes, there was input from religious folk, but the real leaders and doers were progressives. Susan B. Anthony is mostly known for women's suffrage, but she also led on prohibition.
A housewife named Mary Hunt started a movement called "scientific temperance" that promoted academic analysis. The progressives of the 19th-early 20th century, just as today, were big on looking at issues scientifically/intellectually.
In 1830, per capita alcohol consumption was an alarming 7.1 gallons per year. The number could be doubled, since most women drank little or nothing. But it was women who bore the brunt of their husbands' drinking. It could be said that prohibition was the godmother of feminism.
By 1851, the 'Maine Law' was passed to ban the sale of alcohol. By 1855, 13 of 30 states had similar laws. The 18th Amendment in 1919 was just a culmination of a long process.
The biggest problem with prohibition was weak enforcement. By 1930 there were 700 'speakeasies' in DC alone. This could have been addressed, but instead we threw out the baby with the bathwater. Should it give it another whirl 100 years later?
I believe it’s the second prohibition thread he’s posted, too.
Something something create division with a scripted thread using false equivalencies and bolded trigger-words.
Wrong, the other thread was more about the issue of date rape and alcohol. This one is entirely different. If you have nothing to say about the topic other than nebulous criticisms, and false claims of being able to read my mind over the internet, why even respond?
Wrong, the other thread was more about the issue of date rape and alcohol. This one is entirely different. If you have nothing to say about the topic other than nebulous criticisms, and false claims of being able to read my mind over the internet, why even respond?
It’s the truth, and if you can’t handle it, you can just as easily abstain from posting as well.
It’s obvious what the intentions of a thread are when they read like bullet-points from a writing guide (or did you just accidentally bold “progressives” and “scientifically/intellectually”?).
It’s hardly “mind reading” when one looks through another poster’s history and discovers obvious patterns.
Huh? What has that got to do with this thread. I am non-religious, but also basically a Judeophile. See my posts on the thread about Alice Walker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
