>>6627
>most if not all crime came from Drunks
Even if this is true it still doesn't change the fact that:
Reducing detrimental effects to communities by way of banning alcohol utterly failed ,prohibition didn't do jack shit to curb crime, especially homicide.
And also created disrespect for the rule of law because of this misguided attempt to enforce a stupid law.
It was unenforceable , a waste a time and resources by from the perspective of law enforcement.
Not to mention that ordinary criminals could make much more money under prohibition just by moving booze around rather than other crimes like , and that in some counties after the 18th was repelled the mob kept alcohol illegal in some counties to protect their racket.
> with low population
what?
https://www.censusrecords.com/content/1920_Census
I'll assume this was a typo , but correct me if you meant somthing else
> our culture adjusted to it with the foundation of Alcoholics Anonymous and tons of ways to get people to stop doing it on their own so we got to a point where prohibition wasn't needed
AA has more in common with the Washingtonian societies of the early-mid 19th century , that it does with than with the government trying to regulate what can do.
This is beside the facts that AA was founded after prohibition , and that the Washingtonian societies stressed internal reform rather than as trying to force others to give it up as the hardcore drys wanted.
The Drys insisted upon the "absolute shall." , the primary failing of prohibition was that it was for the good for some "other people" that have problems , when the lion's share of people that are involve in any given vice don't.