Now, as you all know, I am not a huge drinker, and I grew up in a house that used to be teetotaling, but I am amused at the apparent ideological overreaching the DEA is evincing. Apparently the DEA is nostalgic for proabition and Scott Henson has written a post about it. I understand that most information is worth reevaluating and I find the theory that Prohibition worked intresting, but their definition of worked seems to be a bit off.
Of course, discussing these ideas probably does not indicate a change in the mind set of the DEA because pushing for the illegalization of alcohol might well destroy the agency. Though the DEA's web site is intresting for its shrill, extremist tone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Exactly, also, I found it intresting that they claim that incidences of cirrosis fell during Prohibition when, as I understand it cirrosis takes quite a few years to develop. The time period involved makes any claim to its reduction only during prohibition suspect.
But I will be careful to be more explicit the next time I make a half-joking post.
Post a Comment