Posted on 06/17/2011 6:17:48 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
I oppose Prohibition in my kitchen. But – there is often a but - I’m also against professional libertarians and drunks making stuff up. Were American Prohibitionists really complete failures? You see, when a questioner proposes a few laws to curb drug addiction, your hysterical libertarian will unthinkingly scream, “Prohibition failed!” Or cry like a baby.
Critical thinkers armed with primary sources, by way of contrast, beg to differ. And we’ve known this for decades: Prohibition was far more moderate and successful than what some libertarians imagine. It wasn’t pure socialism or pure lassie-faire romanticism. On the one hand, mainstream commercial manufactures and distributors shut shop. On the other hand, personal production and consumption was openly allowed.
The results were mixed. But it wasn’t a complete failure as made-for-HBO shows and libertarian propagandists would have you believe. In 1989, for example, Mark H. Moore, a professor of criminal justice at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government advanced an evidence-based position. In truth, “alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.”
What’s more, Moore noted, arrests for public drunkenness “and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.”
A complete failure? As well, this idea that crime exploded is a fiction. There were no historically significant crime explosions, but in any case, criminal gangs existed before and after Prohibition. “The real lesson of Prohibition is that the society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws,” concluded Moore.
(Excerpt) Read more at weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com ...
I think we should see it on a case by case basis.
“My Lord G-d blessed/cursed me with free will at the moment of my birth. Who is The Government to take it away?”
In some cases, we have the opposite of Prohibition whereby taxpayers are forced to feed and clothe drunkards. It depends on how one defines liberty.
Yes, Prohibition had its faults, as the post states. And yet in many cases, thousands were saved. People see what they want to see. I try to see the good and bad.
“Interesting and probably containing some truth. I know my Grandfather on my Dad’s side made a little beer for personal consumption.”
Haha – I bet it was tax free too. Good for him.
“One bad law breeds disrespect for all. Prohibition turned a relatively law abiding nation into an utterly lawless one. Other more standards plummeted terribly during that time. We have still not recovered.”
I think you’re exaggerating. The crime stats don’t show a massive rise after Prohibition, at all. In fact there were crime drops across many states. To blame one “bad law” on disrespect is just an excuse for anarchy. There have always been “good” and “bad” laws, that’s just a cop out.
Could be a good discussion.
Just look at DUIs, auto insurance costs, child abuse, health care costs, lost work time........to mention a few costs.
calex59: “Actually you lie about being against prohibition.You are for it as your article clearly shows.”
Read the whole piece. I drink wine! I just don’t have a black and white position.
Read the title too: “For And Against Prohibition”!
I think prohibition can work in some circumstances, and not in others.
“Prohibition was a total failure and led to huge criminality across America,just as the drug laws in effect do today.”
Yes, all laws are bad, let’s have anarchy! I provided real medical records, and crime facts, from the period, but you feel the truth.
calex59: “Actually you lie about being against prohibition.You are for it as your article clearly shows.”
Read the whole piece. I drink wine! I just don’t have a black and white position.
Read the headline too: “For And Against Prohibition”!
I think prohibition can work in some circumstances, and not in others.
“Prohibition was a total failure and led to huge criminality across America,just as the drug laws in effect do today.”
Yes, all laws are bad, let’s have anarchy! I provided real medical records, and crime facts, from the period, but you feel the truth.
A ten-second google search produced this well-researched and attributed article which destroys the author's fantasies and fallacies. The graph images wouldn't load for me, but the text makes it clear: cirrhosis rates were at their lowest right before prohibition, and murder rates jumped considerably during prohibition - and murder rates jumped again when the current WoD was escalated.
Does trading victims of cirrhosis for victims of murder make sense in any logical or ethical system? Perhaps some people are confused by the use of the term 'victim' in both cases. To be clear: people that died from cirrhosis slowly killed themselves, most often with ample warnings and opportunities to stop. If I have to explain the difference between this and murder, you should stop reading now and instead immediately seek professional counseling.
There is scant official data on how many people were killed or blinded by unregulated alcohol products, but there's no doubt that it happened far more frequently during prohibition.
In addition, alcohol consumption patterns were changed dramatically by prohibition - hard liquor gained precedence over beer and wine, due to the risk/reward of transporting illegal goods. This pattern is repeated by today's WoD.
There is nothing new or novel or noble or "successful" about a prohibition. A prohibition says, in effect, "You will adhere to this moral standard or we will kill you." Prohibiting an otherwise lawful transaction between consenting adults is simply wrong, regardless of whether you personally like or dislike the transaction. The supurious argument 'well why not remove the prohibition on murder' is fallacious: murder is not consensual. In a prohibition, there is no victim to protect. No one's rights are violated. "Society" is not a victim, "society" is not a partner in the transaction, "society" is nor harmed by the transaction, "society" - an imaginary collective - has no rights. The attempt to justify prohibitions by using "society" in this manner are illogical, and every bit as reprehensible a tactic as politicians hiding their personal ambitions and pet schemes behind the smokescreen of "the chilrun".
Arguments about the costs of alcohol, drug, and/or tobacco users on government-supplied systems such as Medicare or Welfare et al are equally irrelevant. You cannot justify keeping one bad policy or program because of its impact on another bad policy or program. If anything, these are just more reasons to discontinue these policies/programs.
Prohibitions cause crimes beyond the simple violation of the prohibition itself, by unbalancing the supply, demand, and price. Worse, prohibitions get people killed. It's a race to see if tainted products claim more victims in the long run than associated violence - but regardless of the final numbers, there is no winner.
“Beer is God’s way of telling us he loves us” Ben Franklin
It depends on the drug, for sure.
I did read the article and your love of prohibition stood out. You think, somehow, prohibition should work. Not all laws are bad but laws such as prohibition and the ones that spawned the war on drugs eventually lead to huge losses of freedom and a watering down of our rights under the constitution.
The mmiddle ground is personal,family, or public, responsibility.
If you can't handle your drink then family, or the gendarms, handle you.
I am not against laws. Laws are one of the things that allow mankind to exist in a, somewhat, orderly manner.
Sweeping laws that affect everyone, whether the action will hurt anyone besides the actor, are another thing altogether.
I am not against laws. Laws are one of the things that allow mankind to exist in a, somewhat, orderly manner.
Sweeping laws that affect everyone, whether the action will hurt anyone besides the actor, are another thing altogether.
Self restraint in the individual is a learned action.
Self restraint in the broader society is imposed by laws.
Laws that affect the individual for actions that impose direct harm on no one but themselves are not good.
So you believe in a prohibition against Prohibition? You obviously do believe in bans when they suit you then.
What’s a good law? What’s a bad law? I have more faith in the average American than a libertarian think tank.
CzarChasm: I’m going to go with the Harvard guy over the Boston University guy who demonstrates that there were successes. It’s interesting how Miron admits that some health outcomes improved (but has to spin his way out of it) and that he only focuses on one type of crime because it interferes with his narrative.
Nice try though. Anarchy is not my cup of tea. Blaming laws for crime is often ludicrous. I’d love to know your position on LSD lollipops for kids though.
True. Christ loved wine and exercised moderation.
The drys didn't lose because they were drys. They lost because they were the ones running when everything came down.
I think 0 is going to do to his party what Hoover did to the Pubs, btw.
Anyway there is a lesson for libertarians regarding Prohibition: booze makers and distributors following their "rational self-interest" created such a mess that the ground was seeded for regulatory extremism to where a constitutional amendment actually passed.
Something very similar is happening with cigarettes. Tobacco companies following their "rational self-interest" managed to get 2/3s of Americans smoking at least a pack a day by the mid-60s.
A backlash occurred and now there are bans on smoking in restaurants and cars.
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.