A can’t-miss critique of Progressivism for the uninitiated:
Thank you for the cite, which points out exactly what I was trying to say.
With regard to my previous post, I wasn’t trying to assert that narcotics–meaning in this context any illicit drug–were not also prohibited in other countries. The US was only one of many signatories to the UN Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs in 1961. It’s just that now cannabis, in particular, seems to be condoned to a greater extent in some Western European countries than it is in the United States. I think the reluctance to think out of the box on this is a legacy of our Progressive past, although it’s arguable that political developments from about 1980 onwards also play their part in this.
The problem I have with Okrent’s argument is that the goal of prohibition wasn’t to stop the consumption of alcohol for the sake of stopping the consumption of alcohol. The purpose of stopping alcohol consumption was to put an end to poverty, a virtual end to crime, domestic abuse, lynching (if you go along with Senator Tillman of Arkansas), and a myriad of other social ills. In that respect prohibition was a failure.
Odesio
The major consequence of Prohibition to my mind–enduring to this day, after the 40 years of reduced alcohol consumption, the principal point of success noted above, had expired–was the entrenchment of organized crime, which has proven the financial basis and functional model for all kinds of antisocial mischief since.
I always find the Christian Temperance movement interesting, as nowhere in the Bible does it say that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol is sinful, unless you are breaking a fast or voluntary Old Testament pledge or something like that, and we even see Jesus and the apostles drinking, and of course, he even made his own wine in John 2, iirc. I cannot fathom why anyone could read the NT and come to the conclusion that drinking alcoholic beverages is a sin unless one abuses them.
The argument that the “wine” in the NT was actually just grape juice seems doubtful to me, since e.g. in John 2, a comment is made that most people keep the bad wine for later, after people have drunk a bit. If this was grape juice then saying this would be nonsensical since people’s senses aren’t dulled by drinking too much grape juice.
I don’t really understand the drys reasoning on drinking wine being a sin either. I just accept that this was their interpretation and work from there. People use the Bible for all manner of things. I can’t find anywhere in the OT or NT that comes out against slavery but many abolitionist in the 19th century disagreed.
It’s been in existence for a long time. Paul had to implore for Timothy to drink a little wine, even though he was having serious stomach trouble while drinking only water. (or, at least, that’s how I interpret 1 Timothy 5:23)
The idea that pleasure is bad has sprung up again and again throughout the history of Christianity. Furthermore, alcohol’s effect on inhibitions made it more likely you would do something you’d regret (and was my sole reason for being sober for a while). And if the “more holy” people were swearing it away (as you indicate), surely there must be something wrong with it that the average person didn’t notice.
So all of this got together, and became a general religious prohibition on alcohol. The idea that Jesus only drank grape juice comes after that, as reasoning that Jesus didn’t sin. Then it became easy to apply to others.
That right there is the lack of critical thinking I don’t like in religion–the desire to shift what the supposed source of your religious beliefs say, rather than to realize that your belief didn’t come from there in the first place.
ETA: Gotta comment on the actual topic: The idea was stupid because their control was not sufficient to pull it off. Still, the real bad thing that did happen from it, the rise of organized crime, was largely unpredictable at the time.
Drug prohibition has a better purpose–protecting the health of its citizen–but it’s definitely overly broad.
I think it’s important to note that prohibitionist did not oppose alcohol on the grounds that people would have fun while drinking it. The opposed it because they thought it led to the instability of families and society as a whole. Saloons weren’t like regular bars are today. They were places you could find prostitutes, drug peddlers, gambling, votes for local elections being bought and sold, etc., etc. I have never read a prohibitionist complaining that people were having fun but plenty on what they perceived to be the negative effects of alcohol consumption.
That’s the exact same purpose of prohibition. In fact, the more I research the topic of prohibition the more in common I find with the anti-drug laws and attitudes. The similarities are shocking.
Last time I checked Alcohol was still a drug. One that many times more OD on than Heroin.
I’ve long wondered about the KKK and Prohibition. Total abstention from alcohol doesn’t seem fit in very well with my mental image of their main demographic of poor white farmers and laborers. Was their enthusiasm for the cause really motivated because it gave them a “legitimate” justification for terrorizing African Americans? From their perspective, how much better it must have been if, instead of harassing them merely on general principles, they could brand them as lawbreakers and criminals caught in the act.
You can’t really die while withdrawing from heroin (except dehydration, etc). Withdrawing from alcohol is very, very dangerous.
I had a similar reaction to you when I first read about KKK vigilantes attacking moonshiners in various areas of the south. The KKK didn’t need justification to terrorize African Americans as American society at the time largely condoned such activities. The KKK at the time also had a big problem with Catholics, Jews, and immigrants from places other than western Europe. So you can put their prohibition stance in context with their feelings about various ethnic groups that also happened to have strong drinking traditions.
From what I’ve read, it was actually quite popular – at least, amongst people who held political power. Per the Wiki, and to my surprise, the Congressmen of the day were hugely in favor of it, for example. Meaning, at least nominally, that their constituents were. The somewhat inescapable surmisal is that people really DID want it.
Was it stupid? I’m going to say no. It was the (last gasp) period of “we can perfect society through legislation”. Temperence (meaning calls for moderation, and an end to problem drinking, and occasional prohibition) had a long history in the USA. I suspect that many felt, cynically, that they’d be able to get their booze, but that the troublemakers would be helped by being dried out. Etc.
And by saying its not stupid, to clarify: I mean that I don’t believe it was stupid for lawmakers and voters to believe it would be “effective”. Ultimately, I do believe it was stupid, just as I believe our continuining prohibition on other drugs – but you get the point. So, to sum up: I don’t beleive it was a stupid decision for them to make, but I believe, now, that we can see that it was destined for failure.
Do you really think it was the last time?
I would go as far as to say it was hella stupid. You cannot control what people do with their leisure time, and trying to ban alcohol is laughable. Drugs prohibition of any kind does not work, as we can see pretty plainly in our society. It is a personal choice and one the government should stay out of.
Does anyone know where to find historical data on alcohol consumption rates before, during, and after The Prohibition?
MADD was founded in 1980, which is probably not a coincidence.