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 ...
Do you suppose that alcohol consumption only harms the consumer? Well beyond 25,000 lost each year due to drunk driving. what are the dollar numbers, born by society, of the alcoholics, the wife beaters, the derelicts and the growing stupidity of our ‘party nation’.
I would think whether prohibition failed or succeeded depends on it’s original intent. As soon as it was repealed, alcohol sales did what? Go down, stay level, skyrocket? If it did anything, it proved that people with a taste for alcohol were forced to drink discretely as they tended to dislike being arrested. Once the threat of arrest was lifted, discreteness was immediately dropped.
Look at smoking. We couldn’t buy smokes as a teenager, but many high-schoolers smoked. Discretely when there was a risk of being punished and openly otherwise. Jump to today and teen smoking is down — not because there are laws & regs against it, but because it has fallen out of fashion. No one “cool” smokes anymore. Well, at least in our area.
When it comes to tobacco, alcohol or drugs, laws may artificially reduce consumption, but it has a greater tendency to force discreteness and promote a thriving black-market. I’m not saying legislating morality is good or bad, but the “good” of the legislation is often overshadowed by the “bad” of the unintended consequences. How to better address the desired outcome is beyond me. But personal observation shows that what’s been tried so far includes some *seriously* bad unintended consequences.
The government has no business telling us what the f*** we can eat, smoke or drink. Plain enough for you?
Your last comment was totally idiotic, please don't make any more, you disgust me.
I agree. The average American did not want prohibition.
I said "direct harm".
There are laws against beating your wife, or anyone else for that matter, drunk driving, etc.
Personal reponsibility should handle the rest.
BTW, I agree about the stupidity of our "party nation".
Thanks for that entertaining strawman, AC. Much more creative than expected.
Actually, they did, if you studied the history. Needless, to say, I’m not for alcohol bans but oppose LSD for kids. The fundamental issue is: Anarchy or some laws?
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.