Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prohibition: A Cautionary Tale
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 2010-01-03

Posted on 04/12/2010 9:43:31 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

America's experiment with banning alcohol created problems that persist to this day.

BY THOMAS FLEMING

On Dec. 5, 1933, Americans liberated themselves from a legal nightmare called Prohibition by repealing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Today most people think Prohibition was fueled by puritanical Protestants who believed drinking alcohol was a sin. But the vocal minority who made Prohibition law believed they were marching in the footsteps of the abolitionists who sponsored a civil war to end another moral evil—slavery.

At least as important was the belief that Prohibition would produce health and wealth. Yale economist Irving Fisher, the best-known economist in the nation in the early 20th century, predicted that a ban on alcohol would guarantee a 20% rise in industrial productivity. He cited "scientific" tests that proved alcohol diminished a worker's efficiency by as much as 30%.

Fisher and many other anti-alcohol proponents were fervent believers in eugenics, the science that preached humans could and should control the evolution of the race. His book, "How to Live: Rules for Healthful Living Based on Modern Science," was a best seller. Removing alcohol from the national diet was central to many eugenicists' belief that an invigorated America would eventually create a race of supermen and women.

(snip)

...Prohibition corrupted and tormented Americans from coast to coast. A disrespect, even contempt for law and due process infected the American psyche. Rather than discouraging liquor consumption, Prohibition increased it. Taking a drink became a sign of defiance against the arrogant minority who had deprived people of their "right" to enjoy themselves.

(snip)

In 2010, with talk of restructuring large swaths of our economy back in vogue, Prohibition should also remind us that Congress, scientists and economists seized by the noble desire to achieve some great moral goal may be abysmally wrong.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: alcohol; allwewantisourdope; anslingersghost; bongbrigade; cinocacus; dopersforpaul; druggiesunited; drugs; dude; givememypot; irresponsiblitycacus; iwantmydope; jackbootedthugs; jesusfascists; liberalfascism; liberaltarian; libertines; lping; nannystate; obotfreepers; payformydope; policestate; potheadsforpaul; progressiveclub; prohibition; statism; stupidpost; wantdopenow; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: Responsibility2nd

So does that mean you think CA has legitimate authority under the Tenth Amendment to carry out such a policy? Or, do you think the Commerce Clause authorizes fedgov to shut it down? (you did not say which you believed in your answer)


41 posted on 04/12/2010 11:43:03 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy

The longer I am on FR, the more convinced I am that “more government” is not a “conservative” goal.


42 posted on 04/12/2010 11:51:23 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: qwertypie
Yeah... Couldn't have anything at all to do with RKBA, property Rights, respect for the Constitution, a desire for real freedom instead of our current indentured servitude, a disgust with having to pay for everyone else's piss poor life choices...

Nope. Gotta be dope and butts.(/sarc)

What is it about smaller, more Constitutional, government that you don't like?

43 posted on 04/12/2010 11:54:04 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Yes. I think CA could - under the Constitution - legalize dope.


44 posted on 04/12/2010 11:56:14 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Arnold is not a libertarian. Not by even the most perverse stretch of the imagination.


45 posted on 04/12/2010 11:56:32 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

A moronic idiot spammed the keywords.


46 posted on 04/12/2010 12:04:46 PM PDT by Rebelbase (Don't think of work as 5 days on, 2 days off. Instead think 4 nights on, 3 off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Marijuana is de facto legal in California, as it is. It’s been “decriminalized” for years, since more than one ounce is required to be arrested for possession. In addition this was the first state to institute medical marijuana, and it’s a fairly trivial task to get a medical marijuana card. Add that to the fact that weed is California’s number one cash crop, and a main point for entry into the country, and basically anyone who wants to smoke pot can get it.

Liberal marijuana laws didn’t wreck California. Environmentalists, public employee unions, unfettered illegal immigration, and tax and spend Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature did.


47 posted on 04/12/2010 12:13:06 PM PDT by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Of course not. That is very naive of you. The drunkenness, abuse and abandonment happen AFTER the marriage, not BEFORE.

Horsepuckey.

"Men marry women expecting they'll never change; women marry men expecting they will."

48 posted on 04/12/2010 12:38:27 PM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
Generally happens when they can't legitimately support the abuse of power by the Fed. History, economics, constitutional law support legalization no matter how “emotional” someone wants to be supporting the counter argument.
49 posted on 04/12/2010 12:38:29 PM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: catman67

Hence, a zero tolerance enforcement policy.

That’s the ticket, gradually, steadily, with local laws gradually coming down hard.......


50 posted on 04/12/2010 12:59:54 PM PDT by swarthyguy (KIDS! - Deficit, Debt,- Pfft! Lookit the bright side of our legacy - Ummrika is almost SmokFrei!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nostrum09
Libetarians are like mice. Elephants believe they are damgerous, so they fear them. No rational explanation, they just do.


51 posted on 04/12/2010 1:03:39 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (great thing about being a cynic: you can enjoy being proved wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
It's too bad people, even in prestigious publications like the Wall Street Journal, cannot report history accurately. Prohibition did not make “wine and beer... illegal.” It banned the production of alcohol, save for small quantities for specific uses, and the sale and importation of same. It did not ban possession nor consumption of booze.
52 posted on 04/12/2010 1:16:16 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt

“Of course not. That is very naive of you. The drunkenness, abuse and abandonment happen AFTER the marriage, not BEFORE.”

Ok. Women married drunken sots assuming they’d sober up after marriage. Please.


53 posted on 04/12/2010 1:25:58 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“So your solution is the big bad nanny government telling men what they can and cannot spend their money on?

Should the bartender be a licensed government official that cuts you off after you spend an appropriate % of your wage on alcohol?

Or do you more go for complete prohibition? “

I see four possible scenarios:

1. Prohibition

2. Families and individuals, particularly vulnerable children, routinely destroyed as in killed, starved, abused and neglected through drug and alcohol abuse, call it “freedom” (which is how things were before Prohibition)

3. Social welfare and feminism to replace worthless or near worthless husbands/fathers; (our current system)

4. Or, strict enforcement of abuse, neglect, abandonment, alimony, child support, and drunkenness laws with fathers held strictly accountable.

My preference is #4.


54 posted on 04/12/2010 1:32:33 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Well I agree that spending your money on booze while leaving children destitute is bad, perhaps even criminally negligent; does spending money on some Whiskey instead of a new Playstation 360 count as abuse?

What government bureaucrat gets to draw the line?

Will the line be more rigorously enforced among Republican parents than among Democrat parents?

55 posted on 04/12/2010 1:47:15 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“does spending money on some Whiskey instead of a new Playstation 360 count as abuse?”

Failing to provide for your family constitutes abuse. Whatever the reason, unless it is accidental (i.e. you are in a coma etc.).

If your family is: beaten by you, dying at your hand, starving, going without basic medical care, freezing to death, unclothed - then they are being neglected and in my world the provider would be prosecuted for such neglect.

Again, not if it is not his fault, i.e., he is too ill or too handicapped.


56 posted on 04/12/2010 1:56:11 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; RockyMtnMan
SoCon’s believe in making us better people through government regulation

Well then, they do in fact have quite a bit common with progressives.

They do at that.


57 posted on 04/12/2010 2:09:03 PM PDT by uglybiker (BACON!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: norraad

“Well, I would like to ban ethanol in gasoline.”

I’d like to ban most bans.


58 posted on 04/12/2010 2:42:50 PM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Ok. Women married drunken sots assuming they’d sober up after marriage. Please.

Please yourself !

My niece is living with a guy who hits her regularly, steals her money, orders her around, belittles her in front of her friends, is insanely jealous, ad nauseum.

She's left the jerk at least 8 times, but keeps coming back for more.

Tell me she doesn't believe she can change him !!

A good friend of mine married a woman from Austin, TX. When they met he carried an open fifth of Cruzan Clipper (120 proof) under the front seat of his Volvo P1800 and was well known as a party animal. He was the kind of fellow you'd much rather have on YOUR side in a fight.

Within two years she had changed him utterly. Pussy-whipped is the appropriate expression. If she was crossed, she'd make his life hell for weeks.

He had changed under constant assault.

Women REGULARLY expect men to change under their enlightened tutelage. Or drive them so nuts with constant criticism, carping and conniving that drinking is refuge.

The examples are legion.

I had to dump two to find a good one. She DOESN'T expect me to change. I'll die with all my bad habits.

59 posted on 04/12/2010 2:49:17 PM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jimt
I had to dump two to find a good one. She DOESN'T expect me to change. I'll die with all my bad habits.

I'll drink to that brother!

60 posted on 04/12/2010 3:39:36 PM PDT by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson