The initial premise was "prohibition is ineffective."

In Germany, from 1933 to 1939, prohibition on the consumption and sale of tobacco saw the majority of the country's tobacco advertisers, distributors and manufacturers close down, daily consumption of tobacco among the adult population reduce by 25% and among minors almost entirely.

In Canada, from 1920 to 1925, prohibition on the consumption and sale of alcohol saw three quarters of all alcohol breweries close down and decreases by 66% each in cross-border alcohol smuggling, public intoxication and related criminal offences.

To the present day, hundreds of municipal governments maintain prohibitions on the use, manufacture and sale of alcohol within their boundaries and have reduced the consumption of it by 100%.

how the term is used

Then the goal post was shifted to "it could be voluntary."

Which is very irrelevant

if its mutual, it is by definition not a dry town

Okay fine

okay

That's extremely pedantic

yes, you were being extremely pedantic

It's funny how, you know, making a substance *illegal* makes it, well, less used by the population!

A mutual arrangement that prohibits the sale of alcohol isn't a dry town because the government isn't involved?

correct

it is not listed as such on any govt. records

it is not in any law codes

and the ones that Beady was referring to

were actual dry towns

aka, not hypothetical voluntary dry towns

@Leaf War on Drugs has wasted billions, used to justify invasions of foreign counties, destruction of property and illegal coups. Yet, hasn't halted the sale of transport of drugs into the United States.

Furthermore, America's foreign policy often involved supporting orgs that move drugs into the states, such as the Sicilian mob and the Contras.

I'll do more research soon but its late and I'm tired.

it's all a red herring

they take your money anyway

whether they enforce drug laws or not

* * * politicians

once again, you pretend that someone supports American policy

criminals*

its particularly funny considering that you're talking to beady

I mean, I can respect that beady opposes current forms of prohibition, like the use of private prisons, and prison for dealers in general.

@Weaboo Kempeitai do not forget "fast and furious" under Eric Holder

gave military grade weapons to cartel member

But how can you support prohibition without supporting an aggressive foreign policy? @Nerthulas

What is being compared is actual prohibition policies to the U.S. funding of cartels

because those aren't the same thing

Or you are using the financial support of drug traffickers to prove prohibition is ineffective

It's not prohibition, the U.S. government is funding cartels not suppressing them

I mean, the governments they fund and support take the extreme measures you advocate. @Leaf

'how can you support X without supporting Y?'

because I don't

Chile executed dealers, they all migrated to Mexico.

So it was effective

It wasn't, they were still making product, and smuggled it across the border with ease.