Prohibition: Forever a lost cause? - 75 years later, Women's Temperance Union not giving up

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | December 5, 2008 | Kara Spak

[ctdonath2]

grape juice didn't exist until the mid-19th century with the advent of pasteurization!

Excellent insight. Not only did He not make "grape juice" for obvious reasons, grape juice per se didn't exist! ...'course some would then respond with how wonderful grape juice would seem as a miraculous new invention, the taste and goodness without all that icky alcohol...

'scuze me while I head home for a nice glass of fermented cabernet sauvignion...

[lonestar67]

I honestly don’t look at alcohol differently than marijuana and other substances. Consequently, banning alcohol does not strike me as CAUSING crime. It seems absurd to suggest that bans require people to engage in crime. Again, I know the libertarian crowd will get irate at this suggestion.

One poster said, WCTU should not be allowed to have an opinion on the matter.

That is the absurdity. Alcohol is a social clique that has created communication rules where its usage should not be criticized. When something cannot be criticized— whether its Barack or Alcohol— I tend to think something is up.

Bush is highly criticized but still acts like a leader. Consequently, I see him as highly legit.

Many many many things are banned. We don’t allow ‘bans cause crime’ arguments to undo the bans. I am not saying alcohol must be banned but I won’t play along with the ‘alcohol never hurt anybody’ party fest that emerges every time issues like this are discussed.

[ctdonath2]

As someone who didn't touch the stuff until 35, and doesn't drink to excess, and who is now making the stuff, may I observe that you're confusing the enjoyment of fine beverages with gross intoxication. Appreciating the classy fruits of ancient craftsmanship alongside a gourmet meal, to accompany a meaningful conversation, or to enhance enjoyment of legitimate pleasures, is not to be rendered indistinguishable from getting blind drunk on yeast excrement. Those of us who do see - and live - the difference are frankly irritated at those who blather on as if there is no difference, and subsequently try to trample a high point of human existance as though it were the basest.

Look also at how people who don’t drink are treated.

I was one for 35 years. Nobody bothered me about it. I simply imbibed what I chose.

They are ridiculed and mocked in the ‘you’re forcing your values’ meme

Those who force their values are suitably ridiculed and mocked for having confused values. Perhaps being ridiculed and mocked is indicative of an action which warrants it.

Even in your post which I am responding to, you repeatedly harp on the "abuse" part while utterly failing to acknowledge that "abuse" differs from "responsibly enjoying". Nobody is advocating abuse; plenty are annoyed that a legitimate enjoyment (pervasively advocated in Scripture no less!) is being derided as "abuse".

Again, I've been both a teetotaller and a conesseur. I suggest the latter for a more uplifted existence.

[dilvish]

What bans do is create a black market, black markets are historically more profitable that white markets, because of the risk involved the markup is more. It doesn’t necessarily cause crime, but if you can’t actually get rid of the demand a ban will help the crime be more profitable.

I didn’t say they should not be allowed to have an opinion, I said they didn’t DESERVE to have an opinion. Being as they are not my friends or relatives what I do with their life is none of their business. It’s MY life, not the WCTU’s. If they don’t want to drink that’s their business and I don’t deserve to have an opinion on that, I’ll stay out of their life and they can stay out of mine.

Alcohol is not a social click and does not create communication rules. That’s one of the WCTUs oldest and biggest lies. Many of my friends are non-drinkers, we don’t have any problem with each other, we’ll hang out together, I might or might not have a drink in my hand, they will not have a drink in their. The only time somebody’s not drinking is EVER a problem is when the non-drink is a WCTU style preacher that gets in the face of the drink, and then it’s not their non-drinking that’s a problem, it’s their busybody BS.

Actually the list of banned things in this world is pretty small. The list of banned things that can’t be acquired is even smaller, zero actually. Banned things have a bigger mark-up, and risk in the acquisition, but they’re still readily available.

In animate objects don’t hurt people, people using them incorrectly hurt people. Alcohol has hurt no more people than SUVs or guns. Stupid people incorrectly using alcohol, SUVs and guns have hurt and killed many many people. But don’t blame the object, not only is it specious logic, but it lets the actual wrong doer off the hook.

[Ken H]

So the bottom line is that you would recommend keeping alcohol regulation by government pretty much the same as it is now?

[uglybiker]

Can’t think of a more obnoxious group of busybodies.

Mein life sucks! Zat much iss true!
I vill noot shtop til yours sucks, too!

[TypeZoNegative]

Can I pretend I drink just so I won't kiss them?

[Mariebl]

The only time somebody’s not drinking is EVER a problem is when the non-drink is a WCTU style preacher that gets in the face of the drink, and then it’s not their non-drinking that’s a problem, it’s their busybody BS.

Hmmm, you've never seen someone harassed for being a puritanical spoilsport for saying 'no thank you', when the drinks are going around?

[dilvish]

Nope. I’m sure it’s done but never around me, and with good reason, I’d point out to them that they’re a$$#01#$. And really anybody that would do that is doing it entirely because they’re an a$$#01#$, it has nothing to do with the drinking. People that just don’t drink aren’t puritanical spoilsports, that label is reserved for the ones that think they’re better than drinkers and hassle them about it.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Today, the women of the temperance union advocate and educate not only against alcohol but use of tobacco and illegal narcotics.

Hey, ladies...

...up your noses with rubber hoses!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Uh, I think THOSE ladies didn’t have anything to worry about...

GUILTY all!!!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I honestly don’t look at alcohol differently than marijuana and other substances.

I don't, either. End the War on Drugs, and let smokers back into the bars.

[kalee]

“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

I think he was probably thinking of Ben Franklin to whom the above is attributed.

[meowmeow]

our body belongs to God and we should not do anything to corrupt it.

Totally agree. Everyone should throw out their TV (the mind is part of the body), stay away from processed food and get plenty of exercise. And drink a glass of good red wine daily.

And I am quite serious...

[Oztrich Boy]

Actually, I think this is a quote from Benjamin Franklin

And today, he like most of the Founding Fathers, would be classed as a high functioning alcoholic.

[SoftwareEngineer]

Oddly enough I do agree with what you say. Eat natural foods, exercise, watch limited TV and drink either red wine or a small dose of single malt and you will be a happy person.

You have about described my fantasy lifestyle. The only thing I would add to it is that I would live in a rural location away from the stress of the city.

[ctdonath2]

I won’t play along with the ‘alcohol never hurt anybody’

Nobody says that. Everybody acknowledges that IN EXCESS harm may ensue.

You, on the other hand, play along at 'alcohol is ONLY harmful', which is what annoys the heck out of people.

[lonestar67]

What we have here are a bunch of Lady Macbeth drinkers.

These women are despised as Nazis and all manner of caricatured evil.

Apparently, people do have problems with alcohol, therefore they must engage in hyperbolic criticism to hopefully silence the thoughts apparently dancing about in their own minds.