[rabscuttle385]

In 2010, with talk of restructuring large swaths of our economy back in vogue, Prohibition should also remind us that Congress, scientists and economists seized by the noble desire to achieve some great moral goal may be abysmally wrong.

Of possible interest.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[norraad]

Well, I would like to ban ethanol in gasoline.

It's only there by virtue of stolen tax dollars by ADM and the like.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

The only positive contribution of the Recabite madness known as Prohibition is that it raised the general quality of homemade beer making.

[a fool in paradise]

In 2010, with talk of restructuring large swaths of our economy back in vogue, Prohibition should also remind us that Congress, scientists and economists seized by the noble desire to achieve some great moral goal may be abysmally wrong.

So this is a coded cautionary tale against abortion and socialized medicine, right?

They are both couched in moral arguments made by the Left.

Abortionists and death panels push eugenics.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Alcohol and Drug Prohibitions were programs of and by Progressives. Why do Conservatives go along with drug prohibition? It's not constitutional. It's not conservative. It's socialist in that it socializes everyone's blood stream and brain waves.

I hope the constitutional movement will open conservatives eyes to the damage drug prohibition has done to America.

[swarthyguy]

I dunno, today we can follow the tobacco model.

In MA, one legislator wants to lower the DUI line to 0.04 from 0.08 down from 0.16 originally, IIRC.

Could work. No solo person gets a drink, all parties and couples must specify the designated teetotaller/driver.

Eventually, start taxing beer, wine and booze like tobacco -$50 for a case of Bud is going to start hurting, like with tobacco taxes.

[Responsibility2nd]

In before the liberatrians chanting “we should end Prohibition against drugs” get here.

(Ooops, I’m too late)

[spintreebob]

For hundreds of years prohibition was a local option issue. It should have stayed that way.

Prohibition always had its WCTU types who believed in nationalizing it. They alone did not have the power to make it happen.

But a coalition was formed with pragmatic politicians who had another agenda. Those pragmatic politicians wanted to distract populist and ideological groups from politicians self-dealing on economic issues. The ideologues were seduced to ignore corruption in a quid-pro-quo.

This happens in one way or another on many issues. During the Rove-Hastert years in DC they did not want grassroots Republicans to notice Republican corruption. So they tacitly allowed the grassroots to build around the illegal immigrant issue thinking that was a harmless distraction on people who don’t vote. They did not forsee that the illegal immigration issue would quickly rise to become a major issue. The establishment thought it would just be a minor and conveneient distraction.

As with the carnie magician, politicians want the audience wowed and distracted by the cute little bunnty or the terrifying flames while they get their pockets picked.

[qwertypie]

God, libertarians are a pain. Proverbial cranks walking around nude with a doobie. Thankfully, only 1% of the population.

[Persevero]

Having known a woman who was nationally involved in the WCTU (Women’s Christian Temperance Union) all of her life, I’d like to note that a MAJOR opposition to alcohol is the bad effect a drinking man has on his wife and kids.

Men were getting their Friday wages and drinking them up, leaving family destitute. There was abuse associated with the drunkenness (murder, assault, rape). Men were spending all their time in bars leaving wife and kids on their own most of the time. Men were losing jobs, not working, barely working, because they were drunks. Their dependents would go hungry, go cold, go without medical care.

While I am not a WCTU adherent, I can understand why they hoped that banning alcohol would address some of these social evils. The evils were very real and it caused a lot of despair to see families suffering like that. “Angela’s Ashes” by Frank McCourt, written by a total lush (!) is a good illustration of what alcohol abuse was doing to families at the time.

Well, now we have women’s suffrage and they all work while the kids are warehoused, divorce is easier, we have welfare of all types and indigent medical care, I suppose folks think that is a better than a sober man providing for his family.

[GeronL]

It was a tiny minority that passed it in all those states. lol

[AZLiberty]

Prohibition made Joe Kennedy wealthy, beginning the Kennedy dynasty.

[SoCal Pubbie]

It's too bad people, even in prestigious publications like the Wall Street Journal, cannot report history accurately. Prohibition did not make “wine and beer... illegal.” It banned the production of alcohol, save for small quantities for specific uses, and the sale and importation of same. It did not ban possession nor consumption of booze.

[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.