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 evilslavery.
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 ...
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)
The longer I am on FR, the more convinced I am that “more government” is not a “conservative” goal.
Nope. Gotta be dope and butts.(/sarc)
What is it about smaller, more Constitutional, government that you don't like?
Yes. I think CA could - under the Constitution - legalize dope.
Arnold is not a libertarian. Not by even the most perverse stretch of the imagination.
A moronic idiot spammed the keywords.
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.
Horsepuckey.
"Men marry women expecting they'll never change; women marry men expecting they will."
Hence, a zero tolerance enforcement policy.
That’s the ticket, gradually, steadily, with local laws gradually coming down hard.......
“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.
“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.
What government bureaucrat gets to draw the line?
Will the line be more rigorously enforced among Republican parents than among Democrat parents?
“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.
They do at that.
“Well, I would like to ban ethanol in gasoline.”
I’d like to ban most bans.
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.
I'll drink to that brother!
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.