Prohibition: A Cautionary Tale

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 2010-01-03

[Persevero]

The women you cite are in the current milieu of free sex, easy divorce, plenty of social welfare support, etc.

The women of prohibition times had no such features to their lives and were not generally running around with party animals.

At this point, due to our social welfare system and crummy morals, there is no disincentive for a young woman to find a sober guy.

My post addressed a main reason for Prohibition AT THE TIME.

That reason does not exist now, due to the welfare state.

I would just rather a better solution than a welfare state be found.

[absalom01]

It’s been “decriminalized” for years, since more than one ounce is required to be arrested for possession.

You may wish to consult California HSC section 11357(b) which reads in part:

11357.(b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100).

OK, so there's no jail time, but it's still an arrest...

[Jabba the Nutt]

Re-legalize dope. End the Progressive Prohibition Agenda.

[carenot]

I suppose folks think that is a better than a sober man providing for his family.

They weren't sober. They just had to sneak around and spend more.

[Persevero]

“They weren’t sober. They just had to sneak around and spend more. “

Well, if a serious drunk can provide for and avoid abusing his family, he is a rare creature indeed.

[syriacus]

What the Library of Congress says on its prohibition learning page

Prohibition: A Case Study of Progressive Reform

Prohibition exhibited many of the characteristics of most progressive reforms. That is, it was concerned with the moral fabric of society; it was supported primarily by the middle classes; and it was aimed at controlling the "interests" (liquor distillers) and their connections with venal and corrupt politicians in city, state, and national governments

Nowdays progressives rail against big oil, big insurance, and big banking.

One hundred years ago progressives railed against big liquor.

[Issaquahking]

I do not remember the gentleman’s name. It was around the middle of last year, and he’s probably gonna keep reintroducing the legislation....he was very honest on the radio, admitted he wanted to essentially do away with most public drinking and privately also, by tax.

Obviously the guy lives a sheltered life...One of the richest people in the world is a prominent drug dealer in Mexico. They don't care who buys their product, or how much, they're picking the money up.

If taxation worked (say for just a microsecond) let's consider the price of their product.

Doctors buy pharmaceutical grade Cocaine at $100 an ounce...druggies buy at $1500 - $2000 for a much less quality product. I could see the end of the deficit looking south! All the idiot addicts would die in a year or less, the recreational users can pay the tax that Americans refuse to pay!!!

[DrC]

“a MAJOR opposition to alcohol is the bad effect a drinking man has on his wife and kids.”

Right. Puritanism had been in America for hundreds of years, so it cannot explain passage of Prohibition. What CHANGED was the involvement of women in politics:

“Consumption of alcohol was discouraged by law in many of the states over the first century of the United States under the Constitution. By 1855, 13 of the 31 states had temperance, or alcohol prohibition, laws. The Civil War distracted the public from the temperance movement, but the proliferation of saloons after the Civil War, and the trappings of the saloons (like gambling, prostitution, and public drunkenness) led to the so-called “Women’s War” in 1873. Over time, the movement became more organized and the Anti-Saloon League was established in 1893. The ASL’s goal was national prohibition, and it set up an office in Washington to that end — it even established its own publishing house in Westerville, Ohio.

The ASL polled candidates on their stand on the temperance question, endorsing candidates with a pro-temperance stance. In the election of 1915, ASL-sponsored candidates swept the elections for Congress, and on December 18, 1917, Congress passed the 18th Amendment. It quickly was adopted by the states, being ratified in just over a year, on January 16, 1919 (394 days).”
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html

Although womens’ right to vote was not passed by Congress until after the 18th Amendment, the “temperance” movement and suffragette movements grew interactively, each one fueling the other:
“By 1918, about half the states had granted women full or partial voting rights; the stature gained by women involved in the temperance movement also helped push the suffragist movement along. The support of women to the war effort convinced many more, even President Woodrow Wilson, who had been staunchly opposed to a federal suffrage amendment. On June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920 (441 days).”

[Smogger]

Um.. You make my point exactly.

“Decriminalization is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: Legalization).”

And NO there is NO arrest. You are merely given a ticket.

[swarthyguy]

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

Well, you’re a “dead_corpse” anyway ;>>

[Dead Corpse]

That I may be, but I’m on average .2% more correct than El Rushbo. ;-)