# Prohibition; new PBS Ken Burns Series **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 2, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384 "2011-10-02T23:09:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Skara\_Brae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@Skara\_Brae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skara_Brae)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/41 "2011-10-05T21:32:10Z")
What interested me was that a number of people voted for prohibition thinking that beer and wine would still be allowed under it…then the Volstead Act was written so that anything over 1/2 of a percent was outlawed. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/42 "2011-10-05T22:57:24Z")
What I never understood about prohibition: -the USA has a 4000 mile border with Canada, 1800 miles with Mexico, and a 20,000 mile coastline: how did they ever think that they could stop booze imports? -wineries, breweries, distileries, etc. employed thousands of people-what were these people supposed to do, once their employers closed down? -all of the East Coast cities (and most of the midwest ones) were run by highly corrupt machines-did they really expect that these machines would allow prohibition? President Harding served his Whitehous guests whiskey, gin, rum,etc., …all supplied by local bootleggers. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Nader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Darth\_Nader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Nader)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/43 "2011-10-06T00:55:39Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > What I never understood about prohibition: You know, there’s a _reason_ documentaries are made. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/44 "2011-10-06T01:37:53Z")
Pretty good documentary. I found the first part, the build-up to Prohibition, the freshest and most interesting episode. Interesting tidbit: In the final episode, as they were doing the post-Prohibition wind-down, there was a picture in a bar with a man in the background. He looked so familiar. Who is he, I asked myself. Then I realized I had seen him in the opening credits of “Cheers.” He appears at the 45-second mark in this clip, when they have John Ratzenberger’s name on screen. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7KtAgAMzaeg/hqdefault.jpg "Cheers Intro") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KtAgAMzaeg) They doctored it on Cheers to remove a cigarette from the guy’s hand. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/45 "2011-10-06T01:41:19Z")
> [@Darth\_Nader](#): > > You know, there’s a _reason_ documentaries are made. Don’t you know that Burns brings nothing of value? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/46 "2011-10-06T05:45:40Z")
One argument I’ve heard about the drug laws, is that it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, so way can they outlaw drugs with just an act of Congress? I guess the the answer is that the 18th amendment wasn’t to outlaw alcohol. It was to make a law we couldn’t **unmake**. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/47 "2011-10-06T06:05:50Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > What I never understood about prohibition: > -the USA has a 4000 mile border with Canada, 1800 miles with Mexico, and a 20,000 mile coastline: how did they ever think that they could stop booze imports? > -wineries, breweries, distileries, etc. employed thousands of people-what were these people supposed to do, once their employers closed down? > -all of the East Coast cities (and most of the midwest ones) were run by highly corrupt machines-did they really expect that these machines would allow prohibition? Another thing I noticed, is that many arguments made against prohibition could be applied without changing a word to drug laws or for that matter the campaign to outlaw tobacco. The difference is that I’ve actually known people killed by second hand drinking. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/48 "2011-10-06T21:24:31Z")
At the risk of beating to death the WWI issue,a 2007 article in the [Policy studies Journal](http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7196212/Constitutional-blemishes-American-alcohol-prohibition.html) supports my view: > [@](#): > > The change of policy venue would be accompanied by a dramatic shift in policy image with the looming war in Europe after 1914. The frenzied emotions associated with war mobilization allowed prohibitionists to recast prohibition from an issue of personal morality to one of patriotism, sacrifice, and national security by urging and subsequently achieving wartime bans on distilling and brewing between 1917 and 1919. . . . The key initial element to the shift from negative to positive feedback is a heightened attention to the issue, evidenced by the fivefold increase in published articles on prohibition beginning about 1915, which overwhelmingly cast prohibition in a positive light (Figures 3 and 4). Moreover, with the European war looming, the most salient dimension of the liquor question shifted–from a condemnation of personal moral shortcomings to a call for economic sacrifice on the home front in defense of the homeland. Additionally, an increased expectation of political success of policy change only furthered the mimicking behavior and opinion cascade, as not only was there perceptible progress toward national statutory prohibition but also the dry gains at the state level and reports of wartime prohibition in foreign countries bolstered expectations for success of constitutional prohibition. The reframing of the alcohol issue also served to shift the institutional decision-making venue from the states to the federal government. While liquor policy was long understood to be a state matter, imposing wartime prohibition in order to conserve foodstuffs was considered a matter of national security–the sole jurisdiction of the federal government (Rossiter, 1948). > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > One argument I’ve heard about the drug laws, is that it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, so way can they outlaw drugs with just an act of Congress? This is a common question. As the Constitution was understood before 1920, Congress had no power to ban the production and sale of alcohol within state boundaries. Congress could have banned the interstate transport and importation of alcohol, which would have been a boon to local breweries and distilleries but had limited impact on consumption. Or, Congress could conceivably have enacted stealth prohibition by excise tax, as it did for opiates via the Harrison Act in 1914. The excise tax could have been set at $1,000 per gallon. This approach was occasionally advocated. However tests of the constitutionality of the Harrison Act were still working their way through the courts until 1919, and it faced an uncertain future. Then, too, there would have been greater resistance to using stealth prohibition on something as important as alcohol. The constitutional amendment offered the multiple advantages of avoiding a court battle, avoiding the hypocrisy of prohibition by tax, and making repeal more difficult. Since the Great Depression, more expansive judicial interpretation of the interstate commerce clause has allowed Congress to ban substances outright, and modern drug prohibition no longer relies on prohibition-through-taxation. > [@Skara\_Brae](#): > > What interested me was that a number of people voted for prohibition thinking that beer and wine would still be allowed under it…then the Volstead Act was written so that anything over 1/2 of a percent was outlawed. Curiously enough, Congress finally legalized beer and wine in March 1933 while the Twenty-First Amendment was working its way through the states. So for the last eight months of Prohibition beer and wine were legal as many thought they should have been from the beginning. It’s interesting to speculate how things might have worked out differently if the 1933 logic had been followed in 1920. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/49 "2011-10-06T21:49:05Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Another thing I noticed, is that many arguments made against prohibition could be applied without changing a word to drug laws or for that matter the campaign to outlaw tobacco. Actually, arguments against Prohibition have been used to counter opponents of anti-public smoking legislation who sneer “Why don’t you just ban sale of tobacco products, then?”. There is no “campaign to outlaw tobacco”. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/50 "2011-10-07T00:07:56Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Another thing I noticed, is that many arguments made against prohibition could be applied without changing a word to drug laws or for that matter the campaign to outlaw tobacco. The difference is that I’ve actually known people killed by second hand drinking. Is there a campaign to outlaw tobacco? That’s an uphill fight (not to mention a stupid one). ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/51 "2011-10-07T01:56:28Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > What I never understood about prohibition: > -the USA has a 4000 mile border with Canada … how did they ever think that they could stop booze imports? I would have liked to see the documentary pay more attention to the Canadian border. Growing up in southern Ontario back in the day, we were well aware of the role that our nation’s distilleries played in supplying thirsty Americans during Prohibition. From Hiram Walker’s (makers of Canadian Club) near Windsor, to Gooderham and Worts in Toronto, to Corby’s near Belleville, and many others; our distilleries were close to the border, so it was easy to sell it to Americans. Legend has it that Al Capone ran booze in from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, which can’t be confirmed; but we do know for certain how it got the the US in other ways: shipped from Corby’s (for example) to the docks in Belleville, loaded on a boat that went out across Lake Ontario to the Duck Islands, and sold there to an American bootlegger, who took it to the American shore. There were many easier routes though: the Detroit River isn’t nearly as wide as Lake Ontario, and porous land borders at such places as Whisky Gap, Alberta made sure that American drinkers in other areas were supplied also. In short, I was puzzled why so much attention was paid to bringing it in from the Caribbean (with all the ships and the Coast Guard and so on), and so little was paid to bringing it in from a closer place, and via a much easier route. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/52 "2011-10-07T03:46:02Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > There is no “campaign to outlaw tobacco”. [http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/19972-republican-senator-seeks-to-outlaw-tobacco](http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/19972-republican-senator-seeks-to-outlaw-tobacco) [http://www.thetandd.com/news/opinion/article\_86d4e2e4-ebeb-11e0-8466-001cc4c03286.html](http://www.thetandd.com/news/opinion/article_86d4e2e4-ebeb-11e0-8466-001cc4c03286.html) [http://blog.livecitizen.com/government-outlaw-tobacco-smoking/](http://blog.livecitizen.com/government-outlaw-tobacco-smoking/) [http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/hospital+bans+third+hand+smoke/5506229/story.html](http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/hospital+bans+third+hand+smoke/5506229/story.html) [http://www.smudailycampus.com/opinion/baylor-bans-smoking-amidst-controversy-1.2610528#.To5105sr2so](http://www.smudailycampus.com/opinion/baylor-bans-smoking-amidst-controversy-1.2610528#.To5105sr2so) ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/53 "2011-10-07T04:03:07Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > Is there a campaign to outlaw tobacco? That’s an uphill fight (not to mention a stupid one). I’m a life time non-smoker, but the links I quoted in the previous article show there is an active campaign to ban the sale of tobacco. I can remember when you could smoke almost anywhere. Restaurants, airplanes, offices, movie theaters. Now they are banning smoking in public parks and people are talking about 3rd hand smoking, where they ban anyone who smells like smoke. Companies that won’t hire anyone who smokes. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/54 "2011-10-07T13:39:30Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I can remember when you could smoke almost anywhere. Restaurants, airplanes, offices, movie theaters. Now they are banning smoking in public parks and people are talking about 3rd hand smoking, where they ban anyone who smells like smoke. Companies that won’t hire anyone who smokes. These particular points don’t rely on the existence of an active campaign to ban entirely the sale of tobacco products. I would expect all these things to remain true if marijuana use even if the sale of marijuana was entirely legalized nationwide. ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/55 "2011-10-07T16:08:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, Burns will skillfully increase the interest level as the story reaches the Prohibition era. > > It’s a 1920s-style deft raise. I laughed IRL. This deserves some credit. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/56 "2011-10-07T16:32:45Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > These particular points don’t rely on the existence of an active campaign to ban entirely the sale of tobacco products. Go back to post 52. The first link was to a article titled \*\*Republican senator seeks to outlaw tobacco \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/57 "2011-10-07T16:36:53Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Go back to post 52. The first link was to a article titled \*\*Republican senator seeks to outlaw tobacco > \*\* Yeah, so what? I’m addressing the list of things I quoted. You state them as it they are somehow ominous. These are things that are perfectly legitimate even in the absence of any such “campaign.” In any case, for _any_ particular thing that exists in the world, there is a legislator somewhere and a pressure group somewhere that has expressed an interest in banning it. I’m not sure that amounts to a “campaign.” ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/58 "2011-10-07T17:34:08Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > I would have liked to see the documentary pay more attention to the Canadian border. > > Growing up in southern Ontario back in the day, we were well aware of the role that our nation’s distilleries played in supplying thirsty Americans during Prohibition. From Hiram Walker’s (makers of Canadian Club) near Windsor, to Gooderham and Worts in Toronto, to Corby’s near Belleville, and many others; our distilleries were close to the border, so it was easy to sell it to Americans. Legend has it that Al Capone ran booze in from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, which can’t be confirmed; but we do know for certain how it got the the US in other ways: shipped from Corby’s (for example) to the docks in Belleville, loaded on a boat that went out across Lake Ontario to the Duck Islands, and sold there to an American bootlegger, who took it to the American shore. There were many easier routes though: the Detroit River isn’t nearly as wide as Lake Ontario, and porous land borders at such places as Whisky Gap, Alberta made sure that American drinkers in other areas were supplied also. > > In short, I was puzzled why so much attention was paid to bringing it in from the Caribbean (with all the ships and the Coast Guard and so on), and so little was paid to bringing it in from a closer place, and via a much easier route. You are quite right: years ago, I read the memoirs of a french fisherman from St. Pierre island. He got fed up with making peanuts fishing for cod-instead he ran rum from Martinique (he could buy it there for 50 cents/gallon, and off load it to bootleggers in small boats (off the NJ coast)-for $5-$10 per gallon. He made so much money that he was able to build a big house in France and retire. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2011, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/59 "2011-10-08T05:52:59Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Yeah, so what? I’m addressing the list of things I quoted. You state them as it they are somehow ominous. These are things that are perfectly legitimate even in the absence of any such “campaign.” > > In any case, for _any_ particular thing that exists in the world, there is a legislator somewhere and a pressure group somewhere that has expressed an interest in banning it. I’m not sure that amounts to a “campaign.” And another link you didn’t read said that 25% of the population is in favor of outlawing tobacco. My post referenced the list in the previous post. You spouted off like they are independent. Also companies telling their employees they can’t smoke at home? That is perfectly legitimate? What activities can companies **not** forbid their employees from doing? Here are the links again. [http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1…outlaw-tobacco](http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...outlaw-tobacco) [http://www.thetandd.com/news/opinion…cc4c03286.html](http://www.thetandd.com/news/opinion...cc4c03286.html) [http://blog.livecitizen.com/governme…bacco-smoking/](http://blog.livecitizen.com/governme...bacco-smoking/) [http://www.montrealgazette.com/healt…229/story.html](http://www.montrealgazette.com/healt...229/story.html) [http://www.smudailycampus.com/opinio…8#.To5105sr2so](http://www.smudailycampus.com/opinio...8#.To5105sr2so) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2011, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384/60 "2011-10-08T11:27:11Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > And another link you didn’t read said that 25% of the population is in favor of outlawing tobacco. My post referenced the list in the previous post. You spouted off like they are independent. Also companies telling their employees they can’t smoke at home? That is perfectly legitimate? What activities can companies **not** forbid their employees from doing? > > Here are the links again. You’re embarrassing yourself. I don’t know whom you are arguing with, but it’s clearly someone past my shoulder. I don’t address those links, because those links are not the point of my comment. What I am saying is that particular list of things I quoted is likely to exist regardless of the existence of any campaign to ban the sale of tobacco. > [@](#): > > Also companies telling their employees they can’t smoke at home? That is perfectly legitimate? What activities can companies **not** forbid their employees from doing? As to what employers _can_ forbid their employees to do in their private time, legally speaking, is quite a lot. The question is how motivated any particular employer might be to forbid something. There are certainly employers who would fire you if they found out that you had engaged in certain sexual behavior (adultery, infidelity, for example). As I said, if marijuana is ever completely legalized for personal use, I expect that many employers _will_ have a rule forbidding their employees from using it, even in their private time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibition-new-pbs-ken-burns-series/598384.md?page=4)