Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!cod!rupp
From: rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Terrorism on American soil
Message-ID: <1094@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 19 May 88 20:01:03 GMT
References: <293@aplcen.UUCP> <12393408775.18.JPLILER@SIMTEL20> <6372@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <952@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. rupp)
Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego
Lines: 24

In article <952@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>
>Oddly enough, prohibition _worked_ (that is, achieved most of its stated
>goals).  For example, the _total_ rate of murders and suicides went down
>quite a bit (I've lost the reference, but it should be possible to check
>from official statistics if anyone seriously doubts it).

It seems to me that I once heard that alcohol consumption actually went
down during Prohibition.  That would not surprise me, since even
energetic bootlegging and moonshining strike me as being totally unable
to replace the supply of alcoholic beverages available in a free
market (i.e., legal) situation.

Of course, lowering the amount of alcohol available to Americans was the
main goal of Prohibition, and in that sense it probably was a success.
Whether it was a good idea is another matter.  Still, as I consider what
that "good ole boy" did to the 27 bus riders in Tennessee while totally
plastered by alcohol, I wonder if we might not be able to sell the
parents of those kids on the virtues of Prohibition.

I wonder.

Bill
(These thoughts are totally my own and do not necessarily represent those of my
employer.)