No, it's a long winded "How about you be honest about the damage caused by Alcohol?" I see that you didn't,
I've never denied alcohol-related damage so I'm under no obligation to do any Googling.
so I don't think i'll bother with the rest of your comment.
The facts you're evading:
The cons of Prohibition: 'Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
'Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition'
- Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure
The pros of Prohibition: It made 'Progressives' and other nanny-statists feel good.
To hear your side talk about it there *IS* no downside to legalized Alcohol.
I don't know nor care who you think "my side" is - I'm responsible for only what I post.
You are implicitly denying it by asserting that there was no upside to Prohibition. Again, you do not seem to have the ability to be honest when you debate a topic.
Were we losing 70,000 people per year from Alcohol in 1933? No.
What were your cons again, and how do they stack up to 70,000 dead people per year?