A century ago today: when well-intended met unintended consequences with Prohibition

[Craig234]

First, prohibition was a progressive policy.

Why? Alcohol caused all kinds of harm in the country. Just as women were getting the vote, their being aware of how it harmed men and women and caused domestic violence mattered.

The religious community was also aware of harm.

It was a time of trying to make things better. End child labor, the aforementioned women's suffrage, regulating food safety, electing US Senators to reduce corruption, a progressive income tax; the list is long, and it includes prohibition and eugenics.

America would be a better country without alcohol, right? All the violence, alcoholism, health issues, and other harms it caused. (If your eyes are glazing over, trumpistas, Great Leader never drinks alcohol, he says).

But what actually happened were a lot of unintended consequences. People wanted to drink. The most notable harm was how it fueled organized crime and all the corruption and violence that came with it.

People often don't know how bad that was. By the time of JFK, one crime family alone, Carlo Marcello, had income matching the largest US corporation, General Electric. The corruption of police and judges was massive.

And so, over about a decade, the very hard to pass constitutional amendment enacting prohibition that took effect a century ago today, was repealed by another very hard to pass amendment.

Lots of lessons could be learned, some good some bad. The 'war on drugs', of course, most would say was history repeating itself, as we see entire countries devastated by US-money fueled drug criminals.

Let's just look at drunk driving. Over 10,000 Americans are killed each year by drunk driving; and that's down by half since 1980. The CDC estimates 121 million drivers are drunk every year.

Do the match, how many Americans have been killed in a century by drunk driving? I don't have the numbers for earlier years, but if that 10,000 were an average that's a million. MADD is credited by the NTSB with saving 380,000 lives since 1980.

When you consider the other harm, the pleasure of alcohol - which has now been found to be a threat to your health used at all - has a hell of a high price.

So the intentions of prohibition had a lot of good points. While practically no one suggests bringing back prohibition - whether because they simply think the price is worth it, or they think it can't practically be enacted - there are a lot of lessons in the issue, and it's interesting to note how little our politics care about the harm it causes today.

Thankfully, the legacy of organized crime that had a lot of roots in alcohol was finally largely wiped out - current occupant of the White House excepted - especially by the wars on it by Robert Kennedy, and one of the few things I'll give him credit for, Reagan.

 

[Dittohead not!]

First, prohibition was a progressive policy.

Why? Alcohol caused all kinds of harm in the country. Just as women were getting the vote, their being aware of how it harmed men and women and caused domestic violence mattered.

The religious community was also aware of harm.

It was a time of trying to make things better. End child labor, the aforementioned women's suffrage, regulating food safety, electing US Senators to reduce corruption, a progressive income tax; the list is long, and it includes prohibition and eugenics.

America would be a better country without alcohol, right? All the violence, alcoholism, health issues, and other harms it caused. (If your eyes are glazing over, trumpistas, Great Leader never drinks alcohol, he says).

But what actually happened were a lot of unintended consequences. People wanted to drink. The most notable harm was how it fueled organized crime and all the corruption and violence that came with it.

People often don't know how bad that was. By the time of JFK, one crime family alone, Carlo Marcello, had income matching the largest US corporation, General Electric. The corruption of police and judges was massive.

And so, over about a decade, the very hard to pass constitutional amendment enacting prohibition that took effect a century ago today, was repealed by another very hard to pass amendment.

Lots of lessons could be learned, some good some bad. The 'war on drugs', of course, most would say was history repeating itself, as we see entire countries devastated by US-money fueled drug criminals.

Let's just look at drunk driving. Over 10,000 Americans are killed each year by drunk driving; and that's down by half since 1980. The CDC estimates 121 million drivers are drunk every year.

Do the match, how many Americans have been killed in a century by drunk driving? I don't have the numbers for earlier years, but if that 10,000 were an average that's a million. MADD is credited by the NTSB with saving 380,000 lives since 1980.

When you consider the other harm, the pleasure of alcohol - which has now been found to be a threat to your health used at all - has a hell of a high price.

So the intentions of prohibition had a lot of good points. While practically no one suggests bringing back prohibition - whether because they simply think the price is worth it, or they think it can't practically be enacted - there are a lot of lessons in the issue, and it's interesting to note how little our politics care about the harm it causes today.

Thankfully, the legacy of organized crime that had a lot of roots in alcohol was finally largely wiped out - current occupant of the White House excepted - especially by the wars on it by Robert Kennedy, and one of the few things I'll give him credit for, Reagan.

First, it's hard to deny that the country would be better off if alcohol and drugs didn't exist. Unfortunately, they do exist.

Second, the prohibition of alcohol and the prohibition of drugs had/has exactly the same unintended consequences. That's a great observation. Yes, organized crime took a real hit when prohibition was repealed. It would take another hit should the war on drugs be ended.

The war on drugs, like prohibition, is more of an authoritarian than a progressive idea. Authoritarianism usually has some unintended consequences. It's like those drug ads on TV: Quite often, if you listen to what they say instead of just watching the pretty pictures, the cure is worse than the disease. The same is true of a lot of authoritarian ideas, they're worse than the social ills they try to cure.

 

[Crovax]

First, prohibition was a progressive policy.

Why? Alcohol caused all kinds of harm in the country. Just as women were getting the vote, their being aware of how it harmed men and women and caused domestic violence mattered.

The religious community was also aware of harm.

It was a time of trying to make things better. End child labor, the aforementioned women's suffrage, regulating food safety, electing US Senators to reduce corruption, a progressive income tax; the list is long, and it includes prohibition and eugenics.

America would be a better country without alcohol, right? All the violence, alcoholism, health issues, and other harms it caused. (If your eyes are glazing over, trumpistas, Great Leader never drinks alcohol, he says).

But what actually happened were a lot of unintended consequences. People wanted to drink. The most notable harm was how it fueled organized crime and all the corruption and violence that came with it.

People often don't know how bad that was. By the time of JFK, one crime family alone, Carlo Marcello, had income matching the largest US corporation, General Electric. The corruption of police and judges was massive.

And so, over about a decade, the very hard to pass constitutional amendment enacting prohibition that took effect a century ago today, was repealed by another very hard to pass amendment.

Lots of lessons could be learned, some good some bad. The 'war on drugs', of course, most would say was history repeating itself, as we see entire countries devastated by US-money fueled drug criminals.

Let's just look at drunk driving. Over 10,000 Americans are killed each year by drunk driving; and that's down by half since 1980. The CDC estimates 121 million drivers are drunk every year.

Do the match, how many Americans have been killed in a century by drunk driving? I don't have the numbers for earlier years, but if that 10,000 were an average that's a million. MADD is credited by the NTSB with saving 380,000 lives since 1980.

When you consider the other harm, the pleasure of alcohol - which has now been found to be a threat to your health used at all - has a hell of a high price.

So the intentions of prohibition had a lot of good points. While practically no one suggests bringing back prohibition - whether because they simply think the price is worth it, or they think it can't practically be enacted - there are a lot of lessons in the issue, and it's interesting to note how little our politics care about the harm it causes today.

Thankfully, the legacy of organized crime that had a lot of roots in alcohol was finally largely wiped out - current occupant of the White House excepted - especially by the wars on it by Robert Kennedy, and one of the few things I'll give him credit for, Reagan.

Opinion | Actually, Prohibition Was a Success - The New York Times

Opinion | The (Not So) Roaring ’20s - The New York Times

 

[Craig234]

The war on drugs, like prohibition, is more of an authoritarian than a progressive idea. Authoritarianism usually has some unintended consequences.

The roots of the two are pretty different. Prohibition, as I noted, was a Progressive initiative primarily. The war on drugs was begun by Nixon, as a weapon against black and 'hippie' enemies of his and a rallying cry for his base; and expanded by Reagan for similar reasons.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

First, prohibition was a progressive policy.

Promoted by the "dry" crusaders, the movement was led by pietistic Protestants and social Progressives in the Prohibition, Democratic, and Republican parties. It gained a national grassroots base through the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. After 1900, it was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League.

That's a pretty vague use of the word "progressive". By that token, right to lifers would be progressive.

And organized crime is definitely not wiped out in the least.
The Sicilian la cosa nostra might have been damaged but you're no doubt aware of the fact that our current president is a fully mobbed up gangster, you're no doubt aware of the fact that drug cartels are organized crime, and so are today's modern street gangs.

Organized crime is bigger and more powerful than ever. It is in fact threatening to destroy the very fabric of our democracy, the so called "deconstruction of the administrative state" Steve Bannon jizzed over a couple of years ago.
What do you think fills the power vacuum left by the absence of the administrative state?

Organized crime, FFS...that's what always fills a power vacuum created in that manner.

 

[Craig234]

That's a pretty vague use of the word "progressive". By that token, right to lifers would be progressive.

It's not vague; the Progressive movement was a real thing, caused by the robber baron era and continuing in the early 20th century, and I listed a lot of its initiatives, which included prohibition - abortion was not an issue for them one way or the other, though they did support a lot of sterilizations as part of eugenics that are considered their biggest mistake.

And organized crime is definitely not wiped out in the least.
The Sicilian la cosa nostra might have been damaged but you're no doubt aware of the fact that our current president is a fully mobbed up gangster, you're no doubt aware of the fact that drug cartels are organized crime, and so are today's modern street gangs.

Yes, I was referring to the mafia.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The roots of the two are pretty different. Prohibition, as I noted, was a Progressive initiative primarily. The war on drugs was begun by Nixon, as a weapon against black and 'hippie' enemies of his and a rallying cry for his base; and expanded by Reagan for similar reasons.

It was progressive in that it was a change seen as "progress." It was authoritarian in that it was based on the idea that Big Brother knows better how to take care of you than you do yourself. It was an attempt to make people do what the promoters of the amendment thought they should do.

The war on drugs is the same thing, an authoritarian attempt to legislate individual behavior and make people do what the promoters of the idea thought they should do.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's not vague; the Progressive movement was a real thing, caused by the robber baron era and continuing in the early 20th century, and I listed a lot of its initiatives, which included prohibition - abortion was not an issue for them one way or the other, though they did support a lot of sterilizations as part of eugenics that are considered their biggest mistake.



Yes, I was referring to the mafia.

I was saying that if the Temperance League is progressive, then by that same definition right to lifers would FIT the same definition.
The only thing that seems "progressive" about the temperance folks is that they intended to "progressively" instill their values whether people agreed with them or not.

Look, there's a lot of misuse of popular terms these days, I just don't see anything liberal or lefty or open-minded about prohibition movements. The temperance folks refused to accept the notion that most people drink in moderation, just like the far Right refuses to believe that marijuana users mostly use in moderation.
These people were goggle-eyed fundamentalists, not liberals, not progressives, not of the Left, although the authoritarian far Left often resorts to similar tactics when attempting to cram THEIR values down other people's throats as well.

Prohibition was authoritarian in nature, there was nothing open-minded about it or about its proponents.
All alcohol users, even the most moderate or occasional drinkers, were portrayed by them as dangerous drunks bent on destroying the fabric of civil society.
And they found their support in the yellow journalism of the day, from publishers like Hearst et al, who engaged in the same kind of disinformation campaigns and agitprop that we're seeing on Fox News today.

And one might identify their descendants in the "Reefer Madness" moral panics a few decades later.

 

[Craig234]

The only thing that seems "progressive" about the temperance folks is that they intended to "progressively" instill their values whether people agreed with them or not.

Your errors are applying the modern definition of progressive, and not understanding the history of the progressive movement then. It wasn't only progressives who supported it, but they were leaders. You're stuck on 'the issues and mentality are similar', and not who actually pushed things.

The core of reconstruction was built around the reformation of laws, retribution, and bettering the country. This gave way to a progressive movement hroughout the early twentieth century. The progressive movement strongly advocated the prohibition of alcohol in order to improve the well-being of the country.

Prohibition and Organized Crime * The Gilded Age and Progressive Era: Student Research Projects * Digital Exhibits

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.

Prohibition in the Progressive Era - American Memory Timeline- Classroom Presentation | Teacher Resources - Library of Congress

 

[Craig234]

It was progressive in that it was a change seen as "progress." It was authoritarian in that it was based on the idea that Big Brother knows better how to take care of you than you do yourself. It was an attempt to make people do what the promoters of the amendment thought they should do.

I'm not using the word progressive as a generic word with its own meaning, like "fiscally conservative". There was a political movement named "progressive", just as there is a party named "Republican", which different than the generic word "republican". It's in the sense that the Progressive movement pushed prohibition, not the generic word about 'progress'.

 

[PeteEU]

Boy Americam conservatives really can never admit they did something wrong or bad. Slap on the word "progressive" or "liberal" and that is enough (in thier minds) to distract away from thier own failures.

The prohibition movement and law was based in religious Conservative America. It was driven largely by women through churches to prevent thier husbands "wandering eyes". It was to close down bars and other places of ill repute that "good Christians" did not frequent.

And it failed badly.

Sent from my Honor 8X

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm not using the word progressive as a generic word with its own meaning, like "fiscally conservative". There was a political movement named "progressive", just as there is a party named "Republican", which different than the generic word "republican". It's in the sense that the Progressive movement pushed prohibition, not the generic word about 'progress'.

Oh. Well, carry on then. sounds like the "Progressive Party" wasn't progressive by today's definition.

 

[Craig234]

Oh. Well, carry on then. sounds like the "Progressive Party" wasn't progressive by today's definition.

It was mostly, but not entirely. I covered that in the OP.

 

[KevinKohler]

Prohibition was the result of the temperance movement, and those folks were the very definition of conservative.

False premise is false.

 

[KevinKohler]

I'm not using the word progressive as a generic word with its own meaning, like "fiscally conservative". There was a political movement named "progressive", just as there is a party named "Republican", which different than the generic word "republican". It's in the sense that the Progressive movement pushed prohibition, not the generic word about 'progress'.

Ah. Ok, carry on.

 

[aociswundumho]

First, prohibition was a progressive policy...It was a time of trying to make things better. End child labor, the aforementioned women's suffrage, regulating food safety, electing US Senators to reduce corruption, a progressive income tax; the list is long, and it includes prohibition and eugenics.

First of all, thank you for having the intellectual honesty for acknowledging this. You are probably one out of a million modern progressives who would do so.

But what actually happened were a lot of unintended consequences... Lots of lessons could be learned, some good some bad. The 'war on drugs', of course, most would say was history repeating itself, as we see entire countries devastated by US-money fueled drug criminals.

I disagree that the consequences were unintended, the prohibitionists simply believed that the benefits of reduced consumption would be worth the costs. Prohibition laws were nothing new back then, and there were fierce debates over the issue at the time. Furthermore, if we learned the lesson, why then does drug prohibition still exist, with no end in sight? It's because people who support drug laws believe the benefits are worth the costs.

 

[Craig234]

Boy Americam conservatives really can never admit they did something wrong or bad. Slap on the word "progressive" or "liberal" and that is enough (in thier minds) to distract away from thier own failures.

The prohibition movement and law was based in religious Conservative America. It was driven largely by women through churches to prevent thier husbands "wandering eyes". It was to close down bars and other places of ill repute that "good Christians" did not frequent.

And it failed badly.

Sent from my Honor 8X

Wait, what does this have to do with American conservatives admitting anything? You're right they can't, but this has nothing to do with that.

The religious and the progressive movement in the early 20th century were largely aligned - the right-wing politicization began mostly with Reagan. Try reading the links I posted or googling yourself and learn a little before commenting.

 

[aociswundumho]

That's a pretty vague use of the word "progressive".

No, it's quite accurate, and modern progressives haven't changed much over the last 100 years, with them calling for bans on Happy meals, plastic bags, straws, sugary drinks, bottled water, guns, etc.

By that token, right to lifers would be progressive.

Everyone is a "right to lifer". No one disagrees that babies shouldn't be killed, the disagreement is only about when personhood occurs.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Everyone is a "right to lifer". No one disagrees that babies shouldn't be killed, the disagreement is only about when personhood occurs.

Yes, you're right, everyone pretty much IS a "right to lifer" but I was referring to the so-called "Pro-Life" and "Right-to-Life" groups that have openly admitted that they want total bans on abortion, even in cases of rape or incest or even when birth threatens the life of the mother, and who have also openly admitted that they won't stop at overturning Roe, but also intend to push for criminalizing all forms of birth control and premarital/extramarital sex.

But thank you for admitting that not even pro-choicers are "pro-abortion". Yes, you are correct, nobody is really, actually, "PRO-abortion"...they just recognize that sometimes a pregnancy must be terminated.

But as George Carlin once said:

"Pro life conservatives are obsessed with a fetus...After that they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you...no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare...If you're 'pre-born' you're fine.
If you're 'pre-school' you're ****ed!"

No, it's quite accurate, and modern progressives haven't changed much over the last 100 years, with them calling for bans on Happy meals, plastic bags, straws, sugary drinks, bottled water, guns, etc.

Funny how so many conservatives love to point to and scream about all the trash in the streets of blue states and cities (while ignoring the same problems in red states and cities) but aren't willing to lift a finger to clean the beaches and oceans, or to reign in major pollution sources.
When you see a video of a dying turtle getting a plastic straw surgically removed from its nasal passages because it had begun to migrate all the way into its lungs, most people tend to become a bit more motivated to do something about it.

And by the way, straws aren't banned altogether in most states, they're more regulated. Even here in Cali, you can still have a straw with your drink, but you have to ask for it, or maybe pay a nickel for it. That motivates people to save their straws, and be more careful with what they do with it after use. I wonder if you can get through watching this without it altering your outlook.



Guess what? In OUR home, we keep a bunch of heavier and more durable plastic straws in the silverware drawer, and we run them through the dishwasher and/or clean them regularly after each use, and we keep a few in the glove box for use when we're on the road.

Happy Meal "ban"? Nope, San Francisco banned GIVING AWAY FREE TOYS WITH the purchase of a Happy Meal, and fast food joints responded by charging a dime for the toy instead. The ban has had an effect, according to Stanford University.

...over the study’s two-year period, McDonald’s in particular made big changes to its Happy Meals, said [Jennifer Otten, MD,] of the University of Washington School of Public Health — first in California, then nationally.

The fast food giant cut the amount of French fries it serves in Happy Meals in half, replacing them with apples; stopped serving caramel sauce with apples; and began offering nonfat chocolate milk to customers. Otten said those substitutions were “pretty dramatic,” — they reduced the calories in a Happy Meal by 110, and cut the sodium and fat content of the meal as well.

Show me where sugary drinks are BANNED altogether, please.
I've seen taxes applied, I've seen regulations governing the SIZE of such drinks, and I've seen rules that require posting the sugar content of such drinks. Is there a problem informing people as to the amount of sugar they are consuming?

Did you also have a problem when you learned that the sugar industry first pressured, then PAID OFF researchers to publish false studies that said sugar was okay and FATS were bad, and yet somehow a few decades later we learn that it is the OPPOSITE, and it is SUGAR that leads to obesity, sugar that leads to heart disease and kidney failure, not fats.

Plastic bags? Why is it so necessary to have a stupid plastic bag for every single thing you buy when pretty much everything you buy is already packaged. Our parents and grandparents carried around bags for shopping for a reason.
Is it so difficult to save bags and keep them in the house and car?

Must we generate garbage patches in the oceans twice the size of the State of Texas for your convenience?
Re guns, please read Maccabee's thread titled "My Compromise".

PS: "Thank you for smoking."

 

[AmNat]

First, prohibition was a progressive policy.

Why? Alcohol caused all kinds of harm in the country. Just as women were getting the vote, their being aware of how it harmed men and women and caused domestic violence mattered.

The religious community was also aware of harm.

It was a time of trying to make things better. End child labor, the aforementioned women's suffrage, regulating food safety, electing US Senators to reduce corruption, a progressive income tax; the list is long, and it includes prohibition and eugenics.

America would be a better country without alcohol, right? All the violence, alcoholism, health issues, and other harms it caused. (If your eyes are glazing over, trumpistas, Great Leader never drinks alcohol, he says).

But what actually happened were a lot of unintended consequences. People wanted to drink. The most notable harm was how it fueled organized crime and all the corruption and violence that came with it.

People often don't know how bad that was. By the time of JFK, one crime family alone, Carlo Marcello, had income matching the largest US corporation, General Electric. The corruption of police and judges was massive.

And so, over about a decade, the very hard to pass constitutional amendment enacting prohibition that took effect a century ago today, was repealed by another very hard to pass amendment.

Lots of lessons could be learned, some good some bad. The 'war on drugs', of course, most would say was history repeating itself, as we see entire countries devastated by US-money fueled drug criminals.

Let's just look at drunk driving. Over 10,000 Americans are killed each year by drunk driving; and that's down by half since 1980. The CDC estimates 121 million drivers are drunk every year.

Do the match, how many Americans have been killed in a century by drunk driving? I don't have the numbers for earlier years, but if that 10,000 were an average that's a million. MADD is credited by the NTSB with saving 380,000 lives since 1980.

When you consider the other harm, the pleasure of alcohol - which has now been found to be a threat to your health used at all - has a hell of a high price.

So the intentions of prohibition had a lot of good points. While practically no one suggests bringing back prohibition - whether because they simply think the price is worth it, or they think it can't practically be enacted - there are a lot of lessons in the issue, and it's interesting to note how little our politics care about the harm it causes today.

Thankfully, the legacy of organized crime that had a lot of roots in alcohol was finally largely wiped out - current occupant of the White House excepted - especially by the wars on it by Robert Kennedy, and one of the few things I'll give him credit for, Reagan.

Drugs are far more harmful to society (and most are far more harmful to the individual as well) than alcohol. They're also less popular. The reason why drug enforcement in America has been a failure is because our government has never seriously attempted it.