Sweeping social taboos are unlikely to work when most people experience net positives, or the negative effects are hard to attribute. See veganism for an example here, and tobacco for a counterexample (many people experienced large, visible net harms).
I can see good arguments for policy work in neglected countries, and I like the work that Concentric Policies are doing here. But a broad social taboo in high income countries seems really, really hard.
Broadly, I think the argument might also be somewhat unnuanced. You could achieve similar effects on alcoholism with targeted policies, which makes it different from veganism and tobacco, where almost all incremental units of consumption cause harm.
(But again, super loose thoughts, open to critique on this)
There’s a paradox where countries with high taxation on alcohol also have high consumption—but this might just be correlative
I expect it to be causation in the other direction. Slamming on the brakes might be correlated with accidents, but it’s neither correct to say brake-slams cause accidents nor that the correlation is spurious and has no causal element.
(My comment is only about that specific point and not about anything else you said)
US public is extremely not well versed in ketamine, but I feel low doses of ketamine (20- 60 mg) feel quite similar to 1-3 units of alchohol (same loose feeling, less buzz, less hangover) - although effects diverge greatly soon there after in dose.
I think this is a good thought. With loneliness and social capital underdevelopment such large and apparently consequential problems, it is important to think about alternate candidates that might perform alcohol’s social lubricant role
When you say that Prohibition “didn’t work”, is the claim that because it was repealed it is definitionally a failed policy? I think that is a reasonable perspective, and what your link hints at, but you could also imagine an argument that Prohibition was a good policy, actually, and that it was bad to repeal it.
I have heard the latter argument made specifically in the context of domestic violence; essentially the claim is that Prohibition so reduced alcohol consumption that the resulting drop in domestic violence outweighed all the gangster violence.
Ah! I should be clearer—in the context of this post, I was claiming that it did not create a lasting social taboo. In the linked chart, you can see that alcohol consumption remained stable before and after prohibition.
A few loose objections on tractability and neglectedness specifically, not very well thought out:
Prohibition didn’t work in the U.S. and the U.S. now has similar rates of consumption to other countries (on the other hand, Islam is very effective at this)
There’s a paradox where countries with high taxation on alcohol also have high consumption—but this might just be correlative
Alcohol mostly seems to burden specific wealthier countries, so it probably isn’t cheap to focus on. These countries will already have large lobby groups on either side of the debate, and it would get political.
Sweeping social taboos are unlikely to work when most people experience net positives, or the negative effects are hard to attribute. See veganism for an example here, and tobacco for a counterexample (many people experienced large, visible net harms).
I can see good arguments for policy work in neglected countries, and I like the work that Concentric Policies are doing here. But a broad social taboo in high income countries seems really, really hard.
Broadly, I think the argument might also be somewhat unnuanced. You could achieve similar effects on alcoholism with targeted policies, which makes it different from veganism and tobacco, where almost all incremental units of consumption cause harm.
(But again, super loose thoughts, open to critique on this)
I expect it to be causation in the other direction. Slamming on the brakes might be correlated with accidents, but it’s neither correct to say brake-slams cause accidents nor that the correlation is spurious and has no causal element.
(My comment is only about that specific point and not about anything else you said)
hmm what about providing substitutes though?
US public is extremely not well versed in ketamine, but I feel low doses of ketamine (20- 60 mg) feel quite similar to 1-3 units of alchohol (same loose feeling, less buzz, less hangover) - although effects diverge greatly soon there after in dose.
I think this is a good thought. With loneliness and social capital underdevelopment such large and apparently consequential problems, it is important to think about alternate candidates that might perform alcohol’s social lubricant role
When you say that Prohibition “didn’t work”, is the claim that because it was repealed it is definitionally a failed policy? I think that is a reasonable perspective, and what your link hints at, but you could also imagine an argument that Prohibition was a good policy, actually, and that it was bad to repeal it.
I have heard the latter argument made specifically in the context of domestic violence; essentially the claim is that Prohibition so reduced alcohol consumption that the resulting drop in domestic violence outweighed all the gangster violence.
Ah! I should be clearer—in the context of this post, I was claiming that it did not create a lasting social taboo. In the linked chart, you can see that alcohol consumption remained stable before and after prohibition.