It created a lot of problems, but it solved one problem that would have otherwise gone unaddressed: the incidence of alcoholism fell, and overall consumption fell. Patterns of consumption also changed; white liquors and wine almost went away, and the nation's drinkers rotated to beer and brown liquors.
America in 1934 was a lot less lush and drunken than America in 1914.
Prohibition broke the freedom of drunkards and alcoholics and put the whip in other hands, esp. those of women who were Not Amused by their husbands' recreant behavior.
'Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, ....'
....is in the same position as a Clintonoid or Obamarrhoid SecDef who is called upon to defend either DADT in the first instance or its repealer in favor of open catamitism and barrack-room sodomy in the other.
He likes his job and he knows what the politicians want, so he's not the best guy to ask.
Oh, and btw, "subverted authority" is a legitimate debating technique. Unlike appeals to motive, ad-hom, and all the rest of the Leftist toolkit.
It created a lot of problems,
Did they outweight the (alleged) benefits?
but it solved one problem that would have otherwise gone unaddressed: the incidence of alcoholism fell,
More claims from you. I don't suppose I ought to hold my breath waiting for evidence.
and overall consumption fell. Patterns of consumption also changed; white liquors and wine almost went away, and the nation's drinkers rotated to beer and brown liquors.
America in 1934 was a lot less lush and drunken than America in 1914.
Yet another claim.
Prohibition broke the freedom of drunkards and alcoholics
And social drinkers.
and put the whip in other hands, esp. those of women who were Not Amused by their husbands' recreant behavior.
And you think this is conservative governance?
'Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, ....'
....is in the same position as a Clintonoid or Obamarrhoid SecDef who is called upon to defend either DADT in the first instance or its repealer in favor of open catamitism and barrack-room sodomy in the other.
He likes his job and he knows what the politicians want, so he's not the best guy to ask.
What about Joao Figueira, chief inspector of Lisbon's drug unit, also quoted in favor of the new policy?
And what about producing any evidence whatsoever for your claim that "European drug-tolerant states (the Netherlands, Switzerland) don't exactly present a rosy picture of unrestricted or slightly-restricted drug use"?
Oh, and btw, "subverted authority" is a legitimate debating technique. Unlike appeals to motive, ad-hom
I searched and can find no evidence for your claim that "subverted authority" is a legitimate debating technique - nor for the implied claim that "subverted authority" is anything other than an ad-hominem appeal to motive.