Can Prohibitoin succed?

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
You'd need a POD involving the US being a much more puritanical society. Say a colonial policy where Britain only dumps its religious dissidents, no Jamestowns, only Plymouths. You'd also need a Know Nothing type movement to succeed in a big way, keeping out all immigrant groups that aren't puritanical.

The only upside to this I can think of is that at least alcohol won't be used as a weapon against Indian tribes.
 

Jack Uphill

Don't most Indian Reservations still have some form of prohibition present? Perhaps an earlier Prohibition (way earlier) could help?
 

boredatwork

Banned
To the OP - No.

>>Don't most Indian Reservations still have some form of prohibition present? Perhaps an earlier Prohibition (way earlier) could help?<<

Never saw any evidence of that in the few reservations I've visited. I think most folks of Indian descent nowadays realize their vulnerability to alcoholism and moderate their intake accordingly, but every gas station in every res I've passed through sold beer & wine.
 

benjamin

The current decline in alcohol consumption is much more closely related to technological developments than social pressure. Today our industrial society offers a much broader range of beverages with everything from soy "milk" to acacia juice, wide scale easy refrigeration allows every household to keep perishable drinks on hand for long periods of time, and the heavy use of autos cuts back on alcohol consumption by those who are traveling. None of this has anything to do with the success of the Temperance movement. The prohibition of alcohol was a failure for the same reason that our current drug prohibition is a dismal failure. Governments cannot and should not attempt to control the private lives of their citizens.

Benjamin
 

jacobus

I don't support alcohol or drug prohibition, but it could work, if the penalties for possession were sufficiently harsh. I enjoy an occasional drink and a smoke, but at some point I'd be too intimidated to risk indulging, if the temperance police were numerous and effective enough that I stood a good chance of getting caught, and if getting caught meant my life was effectively over. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.
But aside from a few moralists, most Americans would consider the imposition of draconian punishments too high a price to be paid, for the eradication of these substances.
 

Greenlanterncorps

Banned
In some senses it did work, alcoholism and related problems did drop substantially even in large cities like New York and Chicago.

However, the increase in crime related to alcohol smuggling to supply the small minority of illlegal drinkers caused all sorts of problems.

It should be noted that it was not a complete prohibition. It was perfectly legal to serve and consume any alcohol purchased prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment and the National Prohibition Act (aka the Volstead Act) as long as you did not sell it.
 

Cash

Maine had Prohibition long before the rest of the country, dating back to the 1850s, and it was obeyed mostly in the breach. Just about every hotel had a bar in the basement. Farmers made a fair amount of cash money every fall and winter selling hard cider made from their own apples. When the local sheriff wanted to court the church vote, he would meet one of the trains from out of state, comb through it for the inevitable cases of booze, and break the bottles on the rails -- after keeping out a case or two for personal consumption, medicinal purposes only, you understand.

IOW it was basically unenforceable and led to widespread corruption.
 

Mark E.

History has proven that total prohibition will not work. What about partial prohibition? Before the 1830's, didn't temperance refer primarily to distilled liquor as opposed to beer and wine?

Suppose congress outlawed whiskey in 1917. Beverages are limited to something like 17-18% alcohol. The prohibition amendment does not pass.

People live with the restriction. Eventually, "mixed" beverages containing diluted whiskey are re-introduced. As years go by, the alcohol limit might jump to 20%. At some point, "licensed" bartenders might be able to mix the strong stuff on site.

Given the global impact of US law on marijuana since the thirties, what might such a scheme mean for alcohol laws worldwide?
 

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
Jack Uphill said:
Don't most Indian Reservations still have some form of prohibition present? Perhaps an earlier Prohibition (way earlier) could help?
Click to expand...

Most did at some point. That number has declined. Prohibition on the rezzes is undercut by bootlegging and the tendency of store owners to open their stores right outside the rez border. Whiteclay Nebraska is notorious for that. It's basically nothing but a strip of liquor stores.

I tend to not trust the claims that alcoholism is something inherent in Indians. Generally alcoholism is worst on the rezzes or bands where the livelihood's been taken away, weakest on both the most traditional rezzes and those who have the greatest economic success.
 

benjamin

Dave Howery said:
isn't it also due to a better understanding of the health risks too?
Click to expand...

Doubtful. People knowingly do a lot of dumb and very dangerous things all the time. Besides in moderation, there are very few health risks to even daily alcohol consumption. Alcoholic drinks arose because there was no way to store alternative beverages for long periods of time without their going rancid. Even water would accumulate harmful bacteria. Alcoholic drinks solved these problems and made it possible for people to carry at least limited fluids along with them on long journeys with little fear of getting ill from drinking it. Now a days you can just stop at the next convenience store and pick up a cold milk or juice or anything that suites your fancy. Fermented or brewed beverages are now the luxury, they are the no longer a necessity.

Benjamin
 

GreatScottMarty

The Kiat said:
Sure, and America would probably still be dry if not for the Great Depression. The booze barons convinced Congress if they repeled that amendment it would create a lot of jobs.
Click to expand...

and make people happier, I argued this in a New Deal paper in High School and the teacher took a big red marker and wrote no write in the middle of the paper. Bitch!!:D

But seriously, Prohibition just won't work we are all descended from a bunch of drunks. I have a relative who was the named Elder Brewster and he used to make the Puritan beer
 

proximefactum

Autanimous said:
Keep in mind, different areas reacted differently to prohibition.

I do now remember where, I'm sorry, but I read this:
While new York only had 5% of their population following prohibition (which was probably the part that would have anyways), Kentucky had a 95% rate of enforcement.
Many people assume that it couldn't work at all, but it did do a very good job in some areas. If you cause the rest of the US to become like those areas, it could work.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of my experiences in current-day Canada. One of the first things I noticed about life in Ontario is the LCBO and "The Beer Store". 'Case you don't know, the province of Ontario has a total monopoly on alcohol sale. The LCBO stocks wine and spirits as well as beer; "The Beer Store" is self-explanatory. Prices are through the roof compared to northeast US prices.

As an American from a very wet New York and lower New England, I thought the idea of a state monopoly on all alcohol was puritanical to say the least and almost exploitative. It was not until a ministry student friend of mine let me know that Ontario was one of the strongholds of the Protestant-lead temperance movement and Prohibition. The current monopoly is just too profitable to let go, and is a strong legacy of the religious-cultural mores of the province at one time.

I breathed a sigh of relief in Quebec. Quebec has a monopoly on spirits and fine wine, but everything else is readily available from private retailers just like in the Northeast US. I take it that Prohibition wasn't all the rage in Catholic Quebec ;-) While the spirits monopoly is probably lucrative, I still think that all alcohol should be privatized.
 
The Byronic Hero

The Byronic Hero

If you want to know how successful Prohibition would be if upheld until today, look at its successor: The Drug War. Organized crime would continue selling it making millions and fueling a slew of criminal activities and other problems. Money that could be invested elsewhere is instead spent on law enforcement's losing war on alcohol. Prisons are overflowing with people arrested for selling, possessing, and using alcohol. Etc., etc. Prohibition was nothing more than a flawed attempt at government trying to legislate society's morals. As long as people want something, there will be someone willing to sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top