Your article only counts alcohol-caused deaths. Indeed, it fails to account for domestic violence deaths. Although it's true that hundreds of alcoholics died, their children were spared their violent tendencies. One could argue that prohibition pushed the consequence of death on the guilty instead of the innocent, which, if we have to choose between the two, seems the appropriate direction.
So while a few hundred alcoholics died, many more children and women lived. Why is this even a debate? The data are so abundantly clear.
1. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088683/death-rate-rate-...
3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42705455?typeAccessWorkflow=log...
Your article only counts alcohol-caused deaths. Indeed, it fails to account for domestic violence deaths. Although it's true that hundreds of alcoholics died, their children were spared their violent tendencies. One could argue that prohibition pushed the consequence of death on the guilty instead of the innocent, which, if we have to choose between the two, seems the appropriate direction.
So while a few hundred alcoholics died, many more children and women lived. Why is this even a debate? The data are so abundantly clear.