Yep, it did.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If I recall correctly, these benefits shrunk, over the time of prohibition; that is to say, their largest impact was in the years shortly after enacting the law, while the benefits just prior to repeal were considerably less.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How is this controversial? I would assume that a country wide broadly enforced prohibition would have had some effect on consumption, which must in turn have kept at least some people from developing alcohol-related damage/disease
-
The problem is alcohol-related damage/disease wouldn't have been classified as alcohol-related damage because there is no alcohol available. There would have been a spike in something seemingly unrelated ie food poisoning, genetic defects similar to FASDs which were not examined
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.