Posted on 02/05/2022 8:29:45 AM PST by Kaslin
As the First World War came to an end, the U.S. federal government passed the 18th Amendment banning the sale and consumption of alcohol.
Seeing this as a permanent and irreversible victory, anti-alcohol campaigners were not slow to identify a new target…nicotine. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union financed a book entitled Nicotine Next and temperance preacher Billy Sunday declared that “Prohibition is won, now for tobacco”.
History shows Prohibition was a disaster for the United States. After 13 years of unnecessary social upheaval, economic damage, and bloodshed, the 18th Amendment was finally repealed to the relief and delight of public and politicians. A number of states did pass laws restricting cigarettes, but they were short-lived, and the impetus was lost in the atmosphere of the roaring 20s.
Fast forward a century and a similar process is happening across the world, this time more sophisticated in design and in reverse. With professional puritans believing they have won the public relations war on smoking and many countries openly discussing the “endgame” - prohibition of tobacco by a certain date – global organizations are already turning their attention toward alcohol and using the very same tactics as they did against tobacco.
In 2022, two major reports are expected to be adopted which will lead to a whole new attack on alcohol, which, just like the anti-tobacco war before it, will be promoted on the basis of health, but with the long-term aim undoubtedly being prohibition.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Alcohol Strategy is to be unveiled this summer. The new initiative commits to a target of “at least a 20% relative reduction (in comparison with 2010) in alcohol per capita (among those aged 15 years and older) consumption by 2030.” The aim is not a reduction in consumption by hazardous drinkers, instead the goal is to reduce alcohol use across the board, however moderate the drinker.
“Heavy-impact policy options” that the WHO wants to see adopted by nations are high taxation of alcohol products and minimum price regulations (in Ireland this year, minimum pricing more than doubled the cost of packs of beer), bans on advertising and marketing of alcoholic drinks, and restrictions on where and when alcohol can be sold.
Meanwhile, plans by the European Union’s Committee on Beating Cancer (BECA) will be adopted following a vote this month. Based on the claim that “there is no safe level of alcohol consumption when it comes to cancer prevention,” the plan proposes restrictions on the promotion and pricing of alcohol, while also demonizing the industry in the same way that anti-tobacco lobbyists have done with tobacco companies. From there, it is only a short hop to advertising bans, health warnings and – again, as in Ireland– alcoholic drinks hidden from sight.
All of these proposals have been replicated from the war on smoking, which has thrived on the motto that “there is no safe level of tobacco use” for the past couple of decades and which aspired to the goal of “denormalizing” tobacco use. Arguably the same goal is being pursued for alcohol now.
What is most concerning about this new global temperance activity is that none of it has resulted from a clamour by the public. Both the WHO and the EU are entirely funded by taxpayers and are using those tax receipts to wage war on the free choices of consumers. Furthermore, the people proposing, drafting and enacting the policies are unelected and practically unaccountable due to the impenetrable nature of both the EU and the WHO. What lobbying the WHO and EU does receive is from professional pressure groups funded by the same taxes, often handed out by the WHO and EU themselves.
Anyone who ignored the crusade against smoking in the recent past because they do not consume tobacco may soon be surprised to be targeted in just the same fashion as smokers were, simply for enjoying a beer or two at the end of the day.
It is scandalous that the public’s free choices are being assaulted in this way without being allowed to vote for or against the measures. And, it is also arrogant and insulting for unaccountable bureaucrats to do so using our taxes.
It was said that the reason temperance campaigners got away with imposing Prohibition a century ago was because they were organized while drinkers were “too busy drinking.” One can only hope that those who like a beer or two get organized quickly in opposition this time around.
They want everyone on the weed and pharmacologicals.
The bad news is that those organizations were useless against the lockdowns.
” none of it has resulted from a clamour by the public”
Brexit!
There are a number of unaccountable, but uncanny, similarities between the period of Prohibition (which eventually failed), the campaign against nicotine, and the period of lockdown, masking and prohibition of adequate and effective treatment of COVID-19 Wuhan virus we are now subjected to, which shall not end until the general population comes out overwhelmingly against the restrictions.
And to think the college drinkers thought their liberal indoctrinators were rebelling against only their fuddy duddy Christian parents. LOL
You are not far off. Despite the fact that hard booze are sold in every grocery store, wholesale club, and just about every other retail establishment... in the State of Washington just legal marijuana already outsells both tobacco and alcohol combined. The taxes are so high that illegal sales still make up the majority of the market. The skunk like odor of marijuana is everywhere these days. You can't drive half a mile in town without your car being filled with the smell of marijuana.
I’ve been following this for a while—noting more and more with interest and alarm the growing anti-wine studies and the new trend of “dry January” which hurt my local wine bar’s business.
My husband and I share a bottle of wine at dinner daily, and once a month enjoy going to Napa etc for wine tasting at wineries and collecting wine. It’s a fun, relaxing hobby, and wine country in Napa is gorgeous. We have about 400 bottles now stored, but our oldest reds are 2017—not very old yet. We have room and time and money to buy and store more.
I figure that if we buy and store more now before the Next Prohibition starts, we’ll have more time for our reds to age and we’ll have enough to get through the rest of our lives. That is, unless and until the government comes to confiscate both our guns AND our wine collection.
Like General Wellington says, it’s important to look over the next hill and know that SOMETHING is coming, and try to prepare.
I agree that our new authoritarian governments want us all stupid and stoned and compliant on weed rather than fired up drinking in pubs planning revolutions (which is where they are ALWAYS planned).
Booze makes you fight, weed makes you watch TV and eat junk food. Do the math.
Let us ban alcohol, yet allow the drunks, crackheads, junkies and pot-heads to live on the streets.
In major cities, they are declaring Motels a blights on the city. They then take over ownership, remodel them, and turn them from cheap places to live housing drug addicts and hookers, into expensive housing. The fill them with drug addicts and hookers, then say they are doing something with the $1 Billion annual budget.
I assume alcoholics go to work, come home and pay bills. Drunks can and do quit drinking, and return to regular life sober, so they are a poor customer of government.
Drug addicted are better clients, they stay the same for life. Passing on the habit, and the genetic changes that makes more clients for Uncle Joe. They are better consumers of government largesse than drunks. In short, they are a permanent reason for big government to take care of us all.
Of course they would want to ban something that people can moderate usage of in favor of more addictive things.
Anyone think that the rich will be affected?
After responding to both boozers and pot heads for 25 years I can report back that this stereotype is not all that accurate. It depends completely on the individual. The truly serious mental cases are more likely to be pot heads, and they can and do become violent.
You make some good points. My last serious girlfriend before I got married, smoked, drank and used pot. The only thing she said she could never give up was the marijuana. She was actually a very pretty, nice and honest person, but I left her because of her bad habits.
The WHO is heavily Muslim influenced. Muslims hate alcohol.
In public, LOL
As long as you don’t have the alcoholic gene I say good for you
Govt idiots always want to tax things they don’t like. Then they can’t give up the tax revenue.
Pot, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
They should cancel all those taxes and make all three illegal. That would be fun to watch.
Good luck with that battle - I’ll hang with my weed 🤪
Too many alcoholic politicians to get much traction imo
“ You can’t drive half a mile in town without your car being filled with the smell of marijuana.
”
Well I lived in the state capital of OLympia for a year for 17 - 18 and never once experienced that 🤪
Only thing I ever saw anyone blowing out their car window was nicotine vape
In fact that’s when I seat up my FR account and thus my screen name though I couldn’t wIt to get back to a red state (with weed)
The number of places that have a strong aroma of pot smoke coming out is astonishing when on a motorbike. It’s like every third house is hot-boxing themselves.
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.