Skip to comments.Prohibition Didnít Create Capone
Posted on 06/21/2011 4:02:59 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
.But temperance Chicago never created Capone .
To paint Prohibition as a failure is rather simplistic, because it was always a mixed bag. As author Daniel Okrent (no Prohibition lover) explained to Life.com, People don't realize how much drinking there was in this country before Prohibition. We were awash in booze. In 1830, for example, the per capita consumption of alcohol was three times what it is today -- 90 bottles of booze per year per person over the age of 15. By 1933, drinking was around 70 percent of pre-Prohibition.
Change isnt always a straight road. Again, Prohibition was a mixed bag. Jack S. Blocker, Jr, PhD, from the Department of History, Huron University College, University of Western Ontario, explains: Perhaps the most powerful legacy of National Prohibition is the widely held belief that it did not work. I agree with other historians who have argued that this belief is false: Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption. The lowered level of consumption during the quarter century following Repeal, together with the large minority of abstainers, suggests that Prohibition did socialize or maintain a significant portion of the population in temperate or abstemious habits...That is, it was partly successful as a public health innovation. Its political failure is attributable more to a changing context than to characteristics of the innovation itself.
This is not the message Stossel wants to hear, my guess, but should history be prohibited, to appease libertarian-inspired myths? Another inconvenient truth, noted by Professor Mark H. Moore at Harvards Kennedy School of Government: arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com ...
Maybe not, but it gave us honey fitz and his besotten killer son teddy and allowed him to buy the Presidency for his other drug-addled son, John (who muddled through pretty well until his untimely demise).
And we all have to admit to the comedy gold that was Jerry Rivers opening up the “tomb” to find 3 empty gin bottles.
LOL, good one. I thought I might be fast enough to mention old Joe K., but FReepers are just too quick.
Prohibition may not have created Capone. But instead of being just a street thug and petty criminal, Prohibition allowed Capone to become CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
.......along with a little help from old family friend Johnny Torrio.
Tend to agree. The best book on Prohibition is Norman H. Clark, “Deliver Us from Evil,” a new look at Prohibition.
This article is crap. Prohibition did create Capone, and a lot of other gangsters as well.
Prohibition was a huge failure and so is the so called "war on drugs" we have going now. After repeal of prohibition gangs were quiet for a short period(by gangs I mean the mafia)teenage gangs were virtually harmless because they lacked real weapons until the mob started running drugs to make up for the money lost after prohibition was repealed. Prohibition costs us many freedoms, among them were some second amendment rights that are down the drain forever. The "war on drugs" is costing us even more freedoms, open warfare on the 4th amendment for starters, swat teams shooting down innocents and breaking down doors without legal warrants(no knock warrants are not mentioned in the constitution, therefore they are illegal).
No amount of spin will ever make Prohibition successful.
I remember talking with my grandfather many years ago who lived through prohibition. He said that everyone still drank, period. Perhaps events related to drinking declined because people who were drinking did not want to call attention to themselves.
Shot down in flames...
So Prohibition with its bribery,widespread citizen disregard for the law, gang warfare, and all was just great because FOR SOME REASON people were drinking less years later?
How does the author isolate all factors to be sure Prohibition was the only ,or even major, reason alcohol consumption decreased?
I’ve been doing some research on my great grandfather and found that he was arrested during a raid on a speakeasy in Detroit in 1916. 2 years before prohibition.
Prohibition didn’t turn people like Capone into thugs but it did turn them into quite wealthy thugs with political power.
So, in 1830 Americans were a bunch of lushes and stayed so until Prohibition. 1830 was soon after the founding of this nation. Hmmm...
Someone once said, "it is not the length of life that is important, but the depth". I'll drink to that.
Hear! Hear! There will always be people who believe they have the right to tell others how to live their lives. Such people are a menace to free society, and should be flogged.
>>The premise that less alcohol consumption is better for people is false.<<
It gives us our best thread posts!
Is it time to hijack the thread into a WOD discussion...?
In Europe alcohol is still treated as a normal part of most peoples' diets and a meal without it uncivilized. Or shall we be like the teetotaling Wahabbis and Taliban? There's sober behavior we can all emulate. /s
If alcohol dehydrates you, then how does that work?
I can take you to the desert and give you all the booze you want, and you will die.
Simple common sense tells you that can't be true. Consumption had to fall.
Alcohol dehydrates you, try living while replacing all non-diuretic fluids with alcohol, and see how long it is before thirst drives you to give up, or you die.
That is why during drinking you spend all your time at the urinal (or peeing in the 8 million gallon reservoir), and are supposed to drink lots of water before going to bed.
I had this brought home to me at a 3 day Willie Nelson Picnic (outdoor concert) in Gonzales, Texas, where I was living solely on beer.
Prohibition had two theaters - the legal and the social.
It did help create the “mobs”. It’s hard to imagine the “mobs” becoming as big and well-funded they became, without prohibition.
It also was part of a process whereby “the people” changed attitudes about drinking; where drinking heavily and drinking as an addict received increased negative public sentiment. Over time, drinking in moderation though with some regularity also gained in acceptance. The American people sort of found their median between wanton consumption and abstinence.
So, if the period of prohibition may have helped create, in its wake, our present moderate levels of alcohol consumption, as well financing the mobs, is it not possible the nation is educated enough, alert enough, changed enough and ready for the same type of transition from the War On Drugs, to something else?
If it was so successful, why did the States repeal it?
No, but it was the power of that collectivist government law that turned him into a Hitler.
You know - Hitler, the Corporal who liked to paint.
Until he ran for office.
The Greeks and Romans made very strong and heavy wine which was always, with come ceremony (read the Iliad or the Odyssey), cut with water. I doubt anybody would die from dehydration on a diet of beer, even in a desert. But drink a fifth of 80 proof "Ol' Sunshine" neat while strolling through the Gobi and your point becomes valid.
Alcohol has been a part of human culture since before the invention of writing and the attempt to alter that by force of federal law was a disaster. The "War on Drugs" has been a quieter disaster, but in terms of the money channeled into the pockets of criminals, and on a vast international scale, it makes the grand experiment of the 18th Amendment (1920 to 1933) look puny in comparison.
Think of Prohibition and the mob as parallel to what happened in Black neighborhoods more recently. Back in the 40s and 50s you had mobs running numbers -- small stuff. When drugs hit big, you got the gangsters moving into drug traffic and growing a lot bigger and more dangerous.
So sure, you had protection rackets in Italian neighborhoods before Prohibition, but it was the alcohol ban that made the racketeers so numerous and powerful and dangerous and prominent.
Prohibition was a bad idea, but it's so easy to slam that it's almost mandatory for contrarians to put in a good word for it every once in a while.
follow the $ trail
In The Odyssey, the hero Odysseus had a supply of `dark and unmixed’ wine so strong it had to be `mingled with twenty parts water to one part wine’ to be safe for mortals to drink, and even then it `gave off rare scent and sweetness’ and still caused drunkeness.
When he and his crew were prisoners of the Cyclops and were being eaten one at a time, Odysseus plied the monster with undiluted wine into a drunken stupor, and then put out the wheel eye with a sharpened burning log (ouch).
Anyway, shedding the blood of the grape remains a noble endeavor. Look up the original meaning of the word “libation”.
All you have told us is that your grandfather kept drinking
(from a white ribbon baby)
It’s really strange to find something like this coming from a site with libertarian in the title.
LOL: Well, it shouldnt be at least not for a free speech person. Why live under a strict label or be boxed? The title is Weekend Libertarian suggesting part-time, in any case.
I wonder: Do some libertarians have a right to make things up to prove their case? Why do they prohibit debates on their websites if theyre for reason and liberty?
Prohibition wasnt all bad or all good. Again, if it was so bad, then why are libertarians hiding medical and criminal records, from some periods? I think there is a tendency for some libertarians to blame laws instead of holding thugs accountable, for their actions. Al Capone was evil.
Well, at least you admit libertarians are spinning when they say Prohibition created Capone.
At the end of the day he was responsible for his own actions to blame the collectivist government for making him Hitler makes him the victim.
Whats more there have been worse thugs before and after Capone. Were they all products of the collectivist government? When do you say: The guy was evil and theres no excuse for what he did?
If it was so successful, why did the States repeal it?
There were many reasons. One professor offers a few, if we read the full piece. But Im not saying it was all bad or all good. Both sides just see what they want, because theyre guided by emotion, not reason. Perhaps if libertarians stopped censoring alternative views, the big picture questions and answers would emerge more frequently.
Needless to say, theres no excuse for pretending Capone was created by Prohibition. He had blood on his hands, years before.
Dutch Schulz,Lucky Luciano,Hymie Weiss .
All these small time hoods became major figures because of prohibition
not to mention the extortion ,corruptions,bombings,murders ,booze smuggling,speakeasys and all the rest of the stuff that gave the roaring twenties its name
The writer has no idea what the hell he's talking about
Nice red herring the piece is about Capone (so when he is exposed you bring up other names). In any case, new research reveals that many of the Prohibition crime figures were deep in crime before Prohibition so now libertarians are madly trying to demonize questioners and critical thinkers.
Crime records contradict your thesis. I’d tell libs to stop making excuses for criminals.
Prohibition did for Al Capone what the wheel did for humanity. To say otherwise is to ignore history. Prohibition made criminal out of one in forty Americans and in the city of Chicago, law and order broke down completly with the city government and the police were in league with the boot leggers.
Think a lot depended on where you lived. My mother lived in rural Kansas and said that everyone made their own beer and the more adventurous their own bathtub gin and moonshine. My father lived in Boston where the booze had to be brought in.
In fact, it was such a gigantic failure it should be taught in every law school as an example of what not to do. I can not envision a clearer case for the failure of the liberal belief that making laws will positively change behaviors.
I further contend that a written and oral discussion of the failure of Prohibition should be part of every bar exam. Anyone who believes that Prohibition was a success should never be allowed to “practice before the Bar”.
But alcohol wasnt banned under Prohibition the sales were. I personally see good and bad parts to Prohibition, but wouldnt support it for alcohol. That doesnt mean my opponents are idiotic though.
Over the mind and body the individual is sovereign.
I think moderation is the key. That said there were good and bad aspects to Prohibition. Whats more, we dont live in a perfect libertarian world. Many temperance women were being bashed silly by drunks, so talking about private lives and choices is subjective. Are all laws bad? LSD lollipops for kids, anyone? Is prevention better than a cure?
What I am saying is that you will die of dehydration if you drink only beer or an equivalent wine.
Even in a long day of drinking beer, look at how your urine color starts reflecting the dehydration.
At your next overnight beer keg party, try to keep all the pass outs away from water or replacement fluids the next morning, and you will see the effects of true thirst on the dehydrated.
Best thing to come from Prohibition: Boardwalk Empire! Best drama on TV!
If respect for the right of adults to run their own lives and manage their own affairs is worth anything, Prohibition was a complete, abysmal failure of government.
I tell some people they need to read more about women who were no longer bashed by their formerly drunk husbands. It will give them a less black and white view.
Alcohol prohibition to westerners was impossible, because alcohol has been a most fundamental part of our culture, society, business, romance, religious life, entertainment, recreation, medicine, and family life for thousands of years.
Hard liquor may dehydrate you, but beer does not. Beer is less than 5% alcohol and the dehydration effect of the alcohol is overwhelmed by the the water content.
Excuse me. Did you read what the professors said and their statistics? Theyve offered more than pro-censorship libertarians who censor other voices to promote their selective liberty-centric philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.