Posted on 07/31/2007 11:55:26 AM PDT by notbackingdown
The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this:
Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.
This popular belief is completely mistaken. Here's what really happened:
National alcohol prohibition did begin on Jan. 16, 1920, following ratification of the 18th Amendment and enactment of the Volstead Act.
Speakeasies and gangster violence did become familiar during the 1920s.
And Americans did indeed keep drinking.
But contrary to popular belief, the 1920s witnessed virtually no sympathy for ending Prohibition. Neither citizens nor politicians concluded from the obvious failure of Prohibition that it should end.
As historian Norman Clark reports:
"Before 1930 few people called for outright repeal of the (18th) Amendment. No amendment had ever been repealed, and it was clear that few Americans were moved to political action yet by the partial successes or failures of the Eighteenth. ... The repeal movement, which since the early 1920s had been a sullen and hopeless expression of minority discontent, astounded even its most dedicated supporters when it suddenly gained political momentum."
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Prohibition was how the Kennedy Klan got rich beyond Joe’s belief.
Some of us bless the wine.
ML/NJ
I’m with you on that one. ;) Just taking a stab at a bit of alliterative goodness.
The demonization of alcohol amazes me. It’s been with us for thousands of years and will be for thousands more. So simple to make, and has nice side effects when taken in moderation.
Interesting take on history worth noting.
Same goes for marijuana.
My thoughts exactly. Sad to admit it, but I am one of the kids who walked away from history class with the usual misconceptions about Prohibition. Maybe I’d heard this once before, but judging by how interesting I found this article to be, that time it didn’t stick.
Yikes, so this is all about drugs, eh? I endured the 1960s, and that was enough. It doesn't seem to sink in with this chap that there's a reason the same people who adored totalitarian socialism then also loved drugs. What their two interests shared was an addiction to delusion, and a lot of neurotic anger.
Why is it that many Reason writers have trouble seeing the distinction between something good that it's possible to abuse—such as food, alcohol, or sexual relations—with substances that are intrinsically evil, such as what we call "drugs"?
God gave us wine. Not crystal meth.
True. And he also gave us cannibis, which was part of the accepted physician's pharmacopia until 1937, when it was decreed that it makes white women have sex with black jazz musicians.
I am reminded of a conversation from my junior year of college, during the last couple of weeks of the 1988 campaign. About a dozen friends and acquaintances were hanging around, and the topic of pot legalization came up (it seemed to a lot).
Friend: Man, you’ll never see it legalized, because if it was, you would see the biggest shift to the left this country has ever seen. The far right won’t allow it.
Me: How many people in this room smoke pot?
Friend: Everybody.
Me: Other than you, how many of us are voting for Dukakis?
Friend: Screw you, man.
No substance is "good" or "evil"; inanimate objects can only be judged on their utility. Giving moral authority to a thing is a form of idolatry.
Interesting. Prohibition ended because the Government needed more tax revenue. Sounds right. As with all things in the world, ‘follow the money’.
Sounds a bit like the evils of gambling . . . until state governments realized they could get in on the cash flow. Now they run the games.
All the talk of banning tobacco will end the same way. Governments will continue to push in the direction of a ban until they have maximized the profit they can get from the tobacco companies. Then all talk of banning will end.
This perspective would seem to have credibility as money, not ethics, drives so much of what occurs in politics. It seems most politicians will only find ethics, be they good or bad, when there is money in the mix.
I suspect replacing the income tax with the FAIR tax might lead to drug legalization, since raising revenue from sin taxes would politically easier than raising FAIR tax rates.
But as long as congress has the bottomless barrel of the income tax, motivation to legalize will remain low.
thanks, bfl
I’m still getting acquainted with the FR acronyms...what’s “bfl?”
Makes perfect sence that FDR was a “wet”.
bfl means bump for later
Bump is giving credit for an interesting article. BTTT means bump to the top. It also generates attention for it because folks check recent comments to any article.
A ping is for directing someone to an article and its thread of comments.
Al Smith had been more or less in favor of relaxation or repeal of prohibition during his 1928 presidential campaign, though he may not have said as much. Support for repeal was one reason his campaign was shot down.
Four years later anti-Prohibition sentiment couldn't be ignored. The presumed windfall of excise taxes sugared the pill for those who weren't convinced of the wisdom of repeal.
My father used to tell me that when he was a boy, everyone knew where to get illegal booze, but he never encountered a drunk on the streets.
The demonstrated policy of the socialist utopian crowd is that the prefer a populace which is drunk or stoned. Witness the old Soviet Union policy to make vodka cheaper than safe drinking water. Witness the stated goal of the George Soros globalists to make drugs legal and encourage promiscuity.
The fact is, most people respect the drug laws. Many don't, but they are small enough in number so as to present a manageable crime problem. This problem will never be completely solved, but crime problems never solved, only managed, and as far as I can tell, law enforcement is managing the drug crime problem reasonably well. In contrast, most people did not respect the 18th amendment, and hence prohibition was not manageable.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Didn’t Jesus drink wine?
You’ve already gotten your specific answer. Search on “lexicon” and read the FR lexicon threads for much more. I noticed an updated one going around the other day.
What about marijuana?
Very interesting — thanks for posting this. It’s another example of how one government encroachment (income tax) inevitably leads to another (prohibition).
What about marijuana?
Is it true that marijuana can cause of schizophrenia even in moderate doses? (Is that study well-reasoned?) Stuff likes that puts me off. That, and the fact that I never knew where the mildewy, long-haired guys at the party were getting the pot they were offering.
Bump for placemarker
God gave us marijuana.
And God gave men the ability to synthesize drugs for curing ills as well as the ability to synthesize crystal meth.
Excess in anything is wrong. Nothing wrong with a few drinks or a few tokes and the government shouldn’t be making those decisions. That is anathema to freedom.
Today drug merchants pay no income tax.
The Fair Tax would tax money spent regardless of origin.
The other explanation that I’ve heard from my friends and family who go to weekly Bible study classes is that the “wine” they were referring to is really just grape juice.
Obviously Baptist or Church of Christ.
My relatives were and are, and I got the same lecture all of my formative years.
Read the article at the link.
Actually they weren’t. Catholics and Orthodox.
You’ll find this article very interesting. I know I did, and really appreciated this historical perspective.
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
Benjamin Franklin
That's the 'Third Way'! "I didn't inhale".
Which ammendment prohibits Hippie Lettuce? I'm against that too. If there isn't one, perhaps that explains why "most people" aren't against it.
Tell that to Ray Charles, Jimi Hendrix, and a few others who rocked the music world while buzzing along. "Have you ever been, experienced?"
Many got it in the back yard. They did not then stomp on it in bare feet and let little critters grow in it before consuming it, so I guess it is pretty unGodly.
V-man: I just noticed your tag from an ancient thread, and it warmed my heart to see the name of the valiant Massoud, requiescat in pace. I wonder if he could be God's signal to us that there are Moslem saints.
May we all reach Heaven, and be privileged to learn the answer.
Thanks for the smile. Massoud was a good man who we ought to be holding out as an example to all Muslims rather than the whiners in CAIR.
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.