The ban needs to be enacted legislatively after market creation.
What counts:
ban on distilled spirits only
ban for people born after a given date (simmilar to NZ tobacco ban)
extremely restrictive personal quotas (<20% average consumption prior to enactment)
What does not:
increasing drinking age
restricting sales to a small number of outlets
supreme court decision finding the sale of alcohol unconstitutional
anything a country with a theologically driven legislature does
an attempted ban that gets legally overturned before coming into effect
All timeframes:
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-at-least-partially-5fcd89487eee
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-at-least-partially
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-at-least-partially-db5c43829921
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-at-least-partially-b2acab53e843
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-at-least-partially-f942c2f9a355
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-at-least-partially-d31c8d2e6e56
See also:
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-legalize-recreatio
/CodeandSolder/will-any-country-legalize-recreatio-1a525266f522
(and other timeframes)
1,000
3.00If someone proves that the countries that already ban it, ban it for non-religious reasons, does this instantly resolve YES?
I am pretty sure that the "religious" reason for the bans is that alcohol can make people drunk, which seems like a non-religious reason. Just because religious authorities asked for the ban does not mean they did not have a non-religious reason for asking; they almost certainly did.
@DavidBolin no, as the rules state the ban needs to be enacted after market creation. And "alcohol makes you drunk and being drunk is against our religion" is still religious reasons.
@CodeandSolder if "being drunk is against our religion," there is almost certainly a non-religious reason why they put a rule in their religion against it, namely because they do not like the way drunk people behave.