News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible by dalke on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:30PM (#7900296)
Sigh. Yes, yes, we know the US is special. So is everyone else. ;)

The temperance movement was not restricted to the US. The Swedish temperance movement started in the early 1800s, and gained a lot of strength with the starting of IOGT in the 1880s. This latter growth was strongly influenced by the Good Templar movement in the US and Canada. The peak was likely the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922, where 51% of the voters voted against prohibition. (There have only been six referendums; others include "join the EU?" and "adopt the Euro?")

Instead, Sweden moved to a quota system - the Bratt system - first for hard alcohol and then for all the lowest alcohol drinks. While the quota system disappeared in the mid-1950s, the government still has a monopoly, excepting through bars and restaurants.

While on the other hand, Iceland had prohibition from 1915 until (in some form or other) 1989. That ending is still celebrated as "Beer Day", because until then the Icelandic temperance movement had successfully argued that strong beer, being cheaper than hard liquor or wine, would cause more depravity so should not be sold. People ended up mixing legal, weak beer with hard liquor to make an ersatz strong beer. Prohibition of that mix finally tilted the scales to end prohibition.

Norway had prohibition from 1916 to 1927, again, from the same temperance movement that was strong in the US.

Re:Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible by endersshadow on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:59PM (#7900471)
I'm quite aware of the global temperance movement. However, you've missed my point completely. My sigh was because every time somebody brings up something in the US that needs to be changed or reformed, you can bet that some European will come in and say, "As a European, I'm shocked this is like this!" As if we all got in a room and decided that whatever the thing is was the right thing to do, and it all sounded like a good idea at the time. In reality, these things, especially laws, go through complex histories, compromises, concessions, and interests. I gave an overly brief history of the alcohol laws in the US, or at least their influences. Just to give a little context.

In reality, this discussion should be around regulatory capture. But that's too hard, so instead, we get into a Europe vs US pissing match. It's stupid. It's foolish. So, instead of discussing how to better fight regulatory capture, we just try to show off how special we are. I say again: sigh.

Re:Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible by alexeisadeski3 on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:44PM (#7900720)
The fact that Europe doesn't have these regulations yet the sky hasn't fallen is in fact relevant to the discussion, is it not?

Just like when one looks at the much maligned US gun laws: Washington State has a similar murder rate to that of British Columbia, thus the gun laws probably don't have much impact on murder rates.

Re:Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible by endersshadow on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:58PM (#7900799)
No, it's not. And it saddens me that you think it is. This is an issue of regulatory capture, not "Should we have these laws." The entire article is about regulatory capture, and how special interest groups are able to effectively block changes to these laws. The fact that Europe (or at least some of Europe) doesn't have these laws is completely irrelevant.
Re:Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible by imgabe on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:55PM (#7900780)
The whole point behind regulatory capture is that "whether or not the sky has fallen" is not necessarily a deciding factor in creating or keeping a law. So, no, it's not really relevant that the lack of a law in another country has worked out all right.
Re:Rum Deal: America’s booze laws are terrible by dalke on Monday June 16, 2014 @09:22PM (#7902397)
My reply, however, was to point out that those who argue that the "laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America" are actually ignorant of the actual history of Western Europe.

More specifically, lvh's comment about "As a (western) European" is an incorrect generalization. There are western European countries where it's impossible to buy alcohol from convenience store. I believe that your response should not have been to bring up any special history of the US - thus inviting a pissing war - but instead highlight the parochialism in lvh's observation.