• pandacoder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Except Standard Oil has been broken up 13 years earlier and 1924 was smack in the middle of Prohibition and the illegal transportation of alcohol was called bootlegging. Both the breakup of Standard Oil and the alcohol ban are written down in legal documents, so we can confirm their existence wasn’t sensationalized.

    Bootlegging would be the only part that could have been sensationalized, but I see how people drink today and I don’t think thousands of years of human behavior with alcohol was sensationalized, leading me to a conclusion that we as a society wouldn’t just give up alcohol for a decade, bootlegging was almost certainly not sensationalized.

    If the contemporary context wasn’t the above, I might have agreed with the implication of sensationalization. Due to that contemporary context however it doesn’t read like that.

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      leading me to a conclusion that we as a society wouldn’t just give up alcohol for a decade, bootlegging was almost certainly not sensationalized.

      Today’s equivalent is the War on Drugs and while there’s a ton of hysteria and sensational coverage as well, it can’t be denied that drugs are HUGE business. Huge profit margins on cheap to produce, addictive products, with government enforcing strict restrictions on supply? It’s the same thing all over again.

      We will study the meth epidemic in 100 years and say “how did the government decide this situation was better than the public having access to clean, legal prescription amphetamines?”