Answer:
Becuase they never helped people out so the people didn't believe anymore
the gods didn't do anything, so they thought that it was all fake.
National prohibition of alcohol (1920–33) — the “noble experiment” — was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure. The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.1
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 — most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger. Hope this helps! Mark brainly please!
Send it please thank you for asking thank me you
At first, the view by the Department of War<span> Ordnance Department was that soldiers would waste ammunition by firing too rapidly with repeating rifles, and thus denied a government contract for all such weapons. (They did, however, encourage the use of carbine breechloaders that loaded one shot at a time. Such carbines were shorter than a rifle and well suited for cavalry.)</span>[8]More accurately, they feared that the armies logistics train would be unable to provide enough ammunition for the soldiers in the field, as they already had grave difficulty bringing up enough ammunition to sustain armies of tens of thousands of men over distances of hundreds of miles. A weapon able to fire several times as fast would require a vastly expanded logistics train and place great strain on the already overburdened railroads and tens of thousands of more mules, wagons, and wagon train guard detachments. The fact that several Springfield rifle-muskets could be purchased for the cost of a single Spencer carbine also influenced thinking.[9]<span> However, just after the </span>Battle of Gettysburg<span>, Spencer was able to gain an audience with President </span>Abraham Lincoln<span>, who invited him to a shooting match and demonstration of the weapon on the lawn of the </span>White House<span>. Lincoln was impressed with the weapon, and ordered Gen. </span>James Wolfe Ripley<span> to adopt it for production, after which Ripley disobeyed him and stuck with the single-shot rifles.</span>[1]<span>[10]</span>
Ideology, <span>He believed that America had obligation to take care of global democracy by helping people under oppressive rule in other countries change into a democracy. Mexico at the time was under an oppresive rule</span>
