• Jay Zagorsky

    Jay Zagorsky (GRS’87,’92), a Questrom School of Business senior lecturer in markets, public policy, and law, can be reached at zagorsky@bu.edu.  Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 8 comments on POV: The 100th Anniversary of Prohibition Reminds Us That Bans Rarely Work

  1. Should be a reminder that a healthy relationship to alcohol is important (including lowering the drinking age to a standard 18). Bans and prohibitions don’t work in a healthy way for young people now anymore than they did on Americans 100 years ago.

    1. No, sorry, wrong. Take a look at the teenage alcohol problems in countries like Italy and France. You want that here??? Look at how many alcohol-related mortality and morbidity rates of people between the ages of 15 and 20 in Italy, Germany, France, and then the US.

      Research finding after research finding after research finding shows that those who begin drinking in their teens have worse relationships to alcohol than people who start drinking in their twenties. Take a look at people who started drinking before they were 15 years old and you’ll see even higher rates of bad relationships to alcohol. Take a look at people who started drinking before they were 10 years old and you’re looking at nearly every single one of those people having a problem with alcohol in adulthood.
      David Smith MD has a lot of solid evidence-based stuff to say about that. Read his books then get back to me.

  2. So in other words, bans do work, since the consumption rate dropped significantly. I’m not sure why we would expect a ban to continue to decrease consumption 30-40 years after the ban is lifted

    1. The ban worked for a little while, alcohol consumption decreased by 30% and then increased by %60 of its pre-prohibition state. Not only did the consumption increase it also caused the crime rate to increase.

  3. The information presented regarding prohibition does not support the hypothesis that “Bans rarely work”. That is a dangerous statement given that there is no supporting criteria from other types of bans included in this document. Also, there are state bans on abortion, and another ban being discussed regarding semiautomatic guns. Making an unsubstantiated sweeping claim that bans rarely work by using prohibition to prove that hypothesis is not responsible. Alcohol is something that can be a disease for many people. People with alcoholism are not always able to manage their disease.
    However, regarding the multiple state abortion bans – the bans are extreme, not allow for rape, incest, age of female, pregnancy complications, mother’s health, or ways to prevent pregnancy. Some bans include death for provider, the female, or the driver, especially if the woman goes across state lines to obtain the abortion.
    The ban on semiautomatic guns was a success for 10 years until the ban was not renewed. Presently POTUS 45 convinced his undereducated base that if a ban was put in place all their firearms would be confiscated. AK-15s are currently the weapon of choice for mass murderers – they do not need to be a skilled shooter to kill mass numbers of people.

Comments are closed.