Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Maybe. I think the difference is that prohibition and the temperance movements were based on top-down authoritative control (at least as I understand it). Folks in charge forbade it, and people found ways to circumvent it--because they still wanted it. The younger generations today simply aren't interested. It's not being outlawed, it's being left behind.
Add current research on top of that (and the messages young people receive based on that), and it might be in a serious decline for good. Or it could go the way of vinyl--a niche interest preserved by a dedicated community, but not mainstream. Or any number of things, who knows?
It normally goes in waves. Younger generations don’t want to do what their parents do. Parents drink? Kids will drink less or not drink at all. But when the next generation comes round, the kids are likely to drink because their parents don’t.
Temperance was led mostly by the protofeminists who wanted fewer drunk husbands beating their wives and then taken over by xenophobes and antipapists who realized that alcohol use was correlated with immigrant and catholic communities. At least at the start, it was very grassroots.
Fair enough, I didn't know much about it. But it sounds like that was based on a moral imperative impressed on those who weren't on board. But what's happening today isn't a moral suppression, which is why I think it might go differently.
That's why I'm comparing it to tobacco use. The decline in tobacco use isn't based on a moral thing--younger generations are simply not interested. And it looks like it'll only continue to decline for that reason.
It's possible that it bounces back (the alcohol industry marketeers will certainly try), but it's not just a matter of removing an artificial barrier, it would involve convincing people to want it again.