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

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

[OneWingedShark]

>Actually, I find a lot of young conservatives . . . and not the “religious right” . . . that never drink. They may not be for prohibition, but they don’t partake.

I drink. I also brew. Anyone that thinks that alcohol is evil should be reminded that Jesus’s first miracle was turning water into wine... and why would Jesus produce something evil?

[NVDave]

Bartender, just give me the bottle.

And the one next to it there on the shelf...

[rhombus]

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

Try one of the War on Drugs threads.

[SoftwareEngineer]

Once again Freepers are missing the religious component of this.

Yes, we who can handle our drinks find them to be busybodies but these women feel that they are doing the work of the Lord. That is why they are against Homosexualism and Abortion too.

Their point of view is that our body belongs to God and we should not do anything to corrupt it.

I don’t fully agree with them but I do respect them. I do see why many women whose homes have been destroyed by alcoholism see the drink as the devil. If you read the posting you will notice that these women are against drugs and any and all kinds of narcotics.

I know Jesus Christ partook wine but I wonder how strong that wine was and how the Lord worked with alcoholics back then. So much is missing in our history that we dont have a full picture of how addictions were handled.

[NVDave]

Yea, I’ve always asked that of the prohibition types.

Never got any answer.

[PurpleMan]

And they’re the next prohibitionists as soon as they get drunk with power.

[windcliff]

Any excuse will do.

[sola_fide]

Nah, these nags are worse than the ACLU. At least I can sip a nice Scotch while griping about the ACLU. :-)

[Citizen Blade]

Their point of view is that our body belongs to God and we should not do anything to corrupt it.

A perfectly legitimate position. But, at least if we're talking about alcohol, not something that the government should decide for adults.

[JamesP81]

I drink. I also brew. Anyone that thinks that alcohol is evil should be reminded that Jesus’s first miracle was turning water into wine... and why would Jesus produce something evil?

Simple. Drinking is not evil. Excessive drunkeness is, much the same way that overeating, greed, and gluttony are.

A man should know his own limits. I do not partake at all because I've got family pre-disposed towards alcoholism on both sides. It's not out of the question if I started I might not stop. So my limit is zero. Other people have limits above zero. No one should be telling them they can't knock back a cold one or two with their buddies.

[sola_fide]

Amen, brother!

[lonestar67]

It won’t be popular here but I have always thought the true feminists were the 19th century feminists like these.

Their opposition to abortion and alcohol were both intrinsic to understanding the sources of misery for women.

Alcohol is related to 40% of all violent crime and 40% of all automobile accidents.

Its amazing to me that alcohol gets the light treatment that it does in society.

I do think it will start moving in the direction of smoking which would be good in my view.

Alcohol abuse does a lot of social harm and yet its considered scandalous to criticize it.

I wish these women would be more successful.

[rhombus]

Just call it medicine and the pain will disappear... AND the Gov will pay for it. ;-)

[Mancolicani]

Mamma Mia, these people would strip the hills of Piedmont and Burgundy, kill the pride of Bavaria!

[messierhunter]

I don’t drink, but that picture is inspiration to start. Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty,...

[NeoCaveman]

Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours

Is that a promise?

[re_tail20]

Just curious,

Would you, or do you, drink non-alcoholic beer or non-alcoholic wine, and if so, how much?

In Oliver Stone’s “W”, George W. Bush is shown drinking non-alcoholic beer, and he seems fine, and finally gets his life together

[messierhunter]

It's not out of the question if I started I might not stop. So my limit is zero. Other people have limits above zero. No one should be telling them they can't knock back a cold one or two with their buddies.

Amen. I'm the exact same way, I'm right there with you. Can't say I have much of a family history of alcoholism, but there are other forms of addiction that run in one side of my family regarding drugs, and I know personally I'm prone to addiction. Once I start something, whatever it is, I have a very hard time stopping, so I just never started drinking. I know that for myself it's the right choice, but I don't presume to tell others what their choice should be.

[Constitution Day]

Hopefully! LOL

[M203M4]

Not at first, but as it becomes increasingly difficult to provide the promised benefits, certain measures will be adopted to "reduce health risks" (and thus delivery costs). Drinking, smoking, certain driving habits, eating fatty foods, too much sodium, refined sugars, corn syrups, cholesterol, etc etc etc. First inhibited (additional taxes, "zoning", consumption "credits", mandatory reeducation) and then prohibited (forced pharmaceutical therapies, import and manufacturing bans, random searches, health screenings, jail time).

Such policies may even be hailed by tomorrow's "economic conservatives" for their ability to keep taxes lower, and by "social conservatives" in the spirit of the prohibition ladies here (or in the context of gluttony, etc). They might get creative and declare "war on illness", or tie it somehow into national security and get the neo diaper-wetting cons to sign on. Leftists of all stripes will sign on obviously to protect their precious "right" to medical care.

The major theme faced in these battles is the difference between positive and negative liberties. Health care (a "positive liberty") will be declared a fundamental human right, while production, purchase, or consumption of consumer products ("negative liberties") will move from right first to privilege, and then to crime. Compulsory collectivism is the natural enemy of liberty; new generations of "rights" never augment - they only supplant. The long-term battles faced tomorrow will not have battle lines drawn along today's normally accepted political dichotomy.