I was watching something and they mentioned prohibition. So that got me to thing about it, and I was wondering what the purpose was for the ban of alcohol in the U.S. in the 1930s or whenever it happened? Was it to prevent rowdy people or something?

Temperance movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement)

and because of it we now have organized crime and NASCAR!!

It was primarily religious. People who wanted to tell other people how they have to live their life. Same elements of society that are against minor drugs, porn and gambling being legal.

I kindof wish we taxed the hell out of it like smokes.

Yes, you have the right to it, but the government, who is in the business of the greater good of the whole country- particularly with health care and traffic law enforcement, should try to curb it as lower use is better for society as a whole. I think anyone would be hard pressed to show how excessive alcohol is good for anyone

SI

Yes, you have the right to it, but the government, who is in the business of the greater good of the whole country- particularly with health care, should try to curb it as lower use is better for society as a whole. I think anyone would be hard pressed to show how excessive caloric intake is good for anyone

:)

It was primarily religious. People who wanted to tell other people how they have to live their life. Same elements of society that are against minor drugs, porn and gambling being legal.

Of course the proponents also included black labor advocates speaking on social grounds in NYC as far back as the 1850's but that's inconvenient for your anti-religion rant.

Seriously dude, I don't come on here & preach to you. So why come you feel the need to beat this same drum? Whatever else you encounter in the rest of the world at large, I don't come here & proselytize so I'm pretty righteously offended about the persistent attack mode attitude I run across.

We already do tax the hell out of it. I think every state has an additional tax added to alcoholic purchases.

I'm not a big fan of these "moral taxes". We each have our own set of morals and shouldn't be taxing certain things more than others. While some could argue that it has negative effects, I would argue that many use a glass of wine with dinner as a healthy way to relax and enjoy the company of a signifigant other.

:)

As a weird tangent, I think we eventually will get rid of or at least drastically reduce livestock in the world. It's a really inefficient use of space and resources and causes all sorts of environmental issues. When this planet has twice as many people as it does now, that sort of thing gets magnified. However, I think it's a long, long ways down the road- not in any of our lifetimes so I will continue to enjoy a nice juicy steak.

SI

I don't necessarily think eliminating livestock is going to end the problem as there will be unhealthy processed food going forward. I've seen plenty of fat vegetarians.

Of course the proponents also included black labor advocates speaking on social grounds in NYC as far back as the 1850's but that's inconvenient for your anti-religion rant.

Seriously dude, I don't come on here & preach to you. So why come you feel the need to beat this same drum? Whatever else you encounter in the rest of the world at large, I don't come here & proselytize so I'm pretty righteously offended about the persistent attack mode attitude I run across.
I am stating a fact. The man asked what the reasons were for the ban. Religion was the major force behind the banning of alcohol in this country.

Are you offended by history or dispute it?

We already do tax the hell out of it. I think every state has an additional tax added to alcoholic purchases.

I'm not a big fan of these "moral taxes". We each have our own set of morals and shouldn't be taxing certain things more than others. While some could argue that it has negative effects, I would argue that many use a glass of wine with dinner as a healthy way to relax and enjoy the company of a signifigant other.

We don't tax the hell out of it- it's under 10% or basic sales tax in almost every state. Smokers have their costs basically doubled by taxes.

I don't know if I ever posted it here, but I had a rough idea for a tax based on the amount of alcohol in a drink. You get a bottle of wine that's only 10% alcohol or a beer that's 3-6%, there's not very many grams so the tax isn't that substantial. But if you buy a 24 pack of beer, it's going to start getting pricey as will bottles of hard liquor because there are more grams or mL of alcohol in those.

SI

Then overweight people should be taxed also.

I don't necessarily think eliminating livestock is going to end the problem as there will be unhealthy processed food going forward. I've seen plenty of fat vegetarians.

Not talking about health problems so much as global resource problems- hence the note that it was a tangent. And, again, it's a long ways down the road- decades.

SI

Then overweight people should be taxed also.

And somehow you've brought it back around to NASCAR? ;)

SI

I am stating a fact. The man asked what the reasons were for the ban. Religion was the major force behind the banning of alcohol in this country.Are you offended by history or dispute it?

The history is what it is & I can't imagine anyone would dispute the facts about the role religious groups played in the movement. I'm offended by the editorializing in your initial post, which was anything but an innocent recitation of facts you seem to be trying to portray it as now.

And somehow you've brought it back around to NASCAR? ;)

SI

NASCAR would cease to exist if there was heavier taxes on smoking, alcohol, and obesity. Put in an RV tax and we could be in the black in no time.

Then overweight people should be taxed also.

Instead of taxing overweight people, we should just add a tax for every food that has a over a certain amount of calories.

The history is what it is & I can't imagine anyone would dispute the facts about the role religious groups played in the movement. I'm offended by the editorializing in your initial post, which was anything but an innocent recitation of facts you seem to be trying to portray it as now.
Do you not feel that religious people in these movements want to tell other people how to live their lives? I don't consider that editorializing anything. Nor does comparing it to religious movements in support of banning pornography and gambling in the country.

I have a semi-long post that I've been kicking around (I have a text file called "random info to file away" where I have a lot of half finished thoughts) about something called a materials tax or something like that where we do away with or drastically lower sales tax and instead tax things based on their societal value. I realize it has a lot of practical flaws like "who gets to be the arbiter who decides what has 'societal value' " and how it's completely unfeasible in the real world, but I do want to try and flesh it out. Maybe tomorrow- it's getting late tonight.

SI

I gotta admit John I didn't see anything offensive or out of line in Rainmakers posts.

He seems pretty on. It does seem like the uber conservative religious people in this country are more worried about me destroying my family values then letting me enjoy my freedom as an American.

If I want to watch some hot girl on girl action while playing some internet poker with my hard earned money in my own home I should be able to without someone telling me I'm destroying America.

He seems pretty on. It does seem like the uber conservative religious people in this country are more worried about me destroying my family values then letting me enjoy my freedom as an American.


The argument is that if you existed in a vacuum that might be tolerable but since your behavior has an impact on (and/or as part of) society as a whole then reasonable limitations are appropriate.

But in the historical context of prohibition, it bears noting I think that there were more dry congressional districts than there were wet districts. And that had been the direction of the country for several decades before the federal amendment. It wasn't any sort of uber conservatism at the time, it was rather mainstream.

We don't tax the hell out of it- it's under 10% or basic sales tax in almost every state. Smokers have their costs basically doubled by taxes.

I don't know if I ever posted it here, but I had a rough idea for a tax based on the amount of alcohol in a drink. You get a bottle of wine that's only 10% alcohol or a beer that's 3-6%, there's not very many grams so the tax isn't that substantial. But if you buy a 24 pack of beer, it's going to start getting pricey as will bottles of hard liquor because there are more grams or mL of alcohol in those.

SI
It's more than that. A lot of the taxes are built into the cost of the product. In Massachusetts, it's 37% of the cost already. It's kind of like gasoline, where you don't really see it when paying at the pump. But you'll pay more per gallon of alcohol than any other beverage on the market.

I think your idea is already implemented in a lot of states. Many have different rates based on alcohol content.

It's more than that. A lot of the taxes are built into the cost of the product. In Massachusetts, it's 37% of the cost already. It's kind of like gasoline, where you don't really see it when paying at the pump. But you'll pay more per gallon of alcohol than any other beverage on the market.

Since moving to Virginia, the gas taxes are posted on the tanks here- it's 37.5c per gallon split almost right down the middle between state and federal, I believe. Or are you talking to some sort of hidden tax at the refining level? (Tho, one could also argue that it's probably more than offset by the subsidies)

SI

The argument is that if you existed in a vacuum that might be tolerable but since your behavior has an impact on (and/or as part of) society as a whole then reasonable limitations are appropriate.
But we punish people who's behavior has an impact on others. You are allowed to drink alcohol, but not drive drunk. You are not allowed to act disorderly or beat the crap out of your wife after having a few beers.

Same goes for gun ownership. You are allowed to own a gun but not randomly shoot people you don't like. That is the argument of 2nd Amendment supporters such as myself. The gun is not perpetrating the crime, the individual is (who happen to be a small percent of the population). Same goes for those who abuse alcohol or other vices.

But in the historical context of prohibition, it bears noting I think that there were more dry congressional districts than there were wet districts. And that had been the direction of the country for several decades before the federal amendment. It wasn't any sort of uber conservatism at the time, it was rather mainstream.
They were dry though because of strong religious presences. We still see it in many communities today. When I lived in Minnesota, we had a lot of blue laws such as not being allowed to buy liquor or automobiles on Sundays.

Since moving to Virginia, the gas taxes are posted on the tanks here- it's 37.5c per gallon split almost right down the middle between state and federal, I believe. Or are you talking to some sort of hidden tax at the refining level? (Tho, one could also argue that it's probably more than offset by the subsidies)

SI
Well they don't put the tax on the pumps here in Illinois. Wasn't aware they were doing that in other states.

I guess what I'm saying is that you aren't buying a bottle of Vodka for $9.99 and going to the register and seeing it come up as $17.99. It seems most of the taxes on liquor are built into the cost where you aren't necessarily seeing it at the register.

Seriously dude, I don't come on here & preach to you. I don't come here & proselytize so I'm pretty righteously offended about the persistent attack mode attitude I run across.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/hahaha-lulz.jpg

As someone who (outside of a few very noteworthy issues) generally agrees with Jon and pretty much disagrees with everything Rainmaker says, I find myself surprisingly on Rainmaker's side here. I can't stand the effort to extend moral behavior law into other people's personal space, unless it is required to save harm to others. People should be able to do to themselves what they please. And I also agree with Rain that the primary backing for these laws is religion, which represents a side of the GOP I have as much to disagree with as my more traditional opponents, the Dems.

As to how much religion played into the Prohibition, I leave that to history buffs. I don't recall myself.

I have a semi-long post that I've been kicking around (I have a text file called "random info to file away" where I have a lot of half finished thoughts) about something called a materials tax or something like that where we do away with or drastically lower sales tax and instead tax things based on their societal value. I realize it has a lot of practical flaws like "who gets to be the arbiter who decides what has 'societal value' " and how it's completely unfeasible in the real world, but I do want to try and flesh it out. Maybe tomorrow- it's getting late tonight.

SI

I can see a 25% tax on video games. After all, what's the 'societal value' in them? ;)

I have a semi-long post that I've been kicking around (I have a text file called "random info to file away" where I have a lot of half finished thoughts) about something called a materials tax or something like that where we do away with or drastically lower sales tax and instead tax things based on their societal value. I realize it has a lot of practical flaws like "who gets to be the arbiter who decides what has 'societal value' " and how it's completely unfeasible in the real world, but I do want to try and flesh it out. Maybe tomorrow- it's getting late tonight.

SI

so essentially you want to tax our individuality away and turn us all into little production apparatuses for corporations and the state?

wouldn't that wreck the economy as discretionary spending would see a huge drop (people chosing to save over being taxed for living their lives)?

might as well go all the way and turn us into the "humans used as batteries" future of the Matrix

no thanks

As to how much religion played into the Prohibition, I leave that to history buffs. I don't recall myself.

Where's Bucc when you need him....

FWIW, the Anti-Saloon League was a primary driver of the prohibition movement, and its leader at the time, Wayne Wheeler, is credited with authoring the 18th Amendment and the subsequent Volstead Act, which was the national legislation enforcing it. The Anti-Saloon League was led by mostly Protestant ministers and was organized through churches.

Looking at wiki -- it unsurprisingly has a good article about the League.

Also of note, another major player in the temperance movement was the Women's Christian Temperence Movement.

Huh. I just learned something. The Prohibition Party still exists and I knew their '04 and '08 candidate for President.

so essentially you want to tax our individuality away and turn us all into little production apparatuses for corporations and the state?

We're more than halfway there already, I'm afraid, and I don't see us turning back, since we no longer have a national political party that favors limited government.

We're more than halfway there already, I'm afraid, and I don't see us turning back, since we no longer have a national political party that favors limited government.


:lol:

i think this belongs in the politics thread, but i'd clearly disagree based on the fact that the party in power currently is much more socially permissive than the "Religious Right" that has assumed the role of "morality police"

I gotta admit John I didn't see anything offensive or out of line in Rainmakers posts.

He seems pretty on. It does seem like the uber conservative religious people in this country are more worried about me destroying my family values then letting me enjoy my freedom as an American.

If I want to watch some hot girl on girl action while playing some internet poker with my hard earned money in my own home I should be able to without someone telling me I'm destroying America.

Of course, the uber liberal Americans will be concerned about the carbon footprint of your "own" home (as if anyone is really entitled to own the land), not to mention the fact that you looking at porn makes you a misogynist hater of women. And paying for gambling while there are starving children makes no sense, so we'd better tax any winnings while we're at it.

Of course there are nannies on the right, but please don't tell me there are no lefty groups who want to take your fun away as well.

Rainmaker is right when he says that religious groups were the driving force behind prohibition. What he doesn't say is that many of those religious groups were lefties using the Social Gospel to try and make this country a solid progressive and more Christian nation.

dola: that being said, I didn't see Rainmaker's comment as out of line.

Of course, the uber liberal Americans will be concerned about the carbon footprint of your "own" home (as if anyone is really entitled to own the land), not to mention the fact that you looking at porn makes you a misogynist hater of women. And paying for gambling while there are starving children makes no sense, so we'd better tax any winnings while we're at it.

Of course there are nannies on the right, but please don't tell me there are no lefty groups who want to take your fun away as well.

Rainmaker is right when he says that religious groups were the driving force behind prohibition. What he doesn't say is that many of those religious groups were lefties using the Social Gospel to try and make this country a solid progressive and more Christian nation.

That is funny, since uhm, he didn't mention any party at all. He said...

It was primarily religious. People who wanted to tell other people how they have to live their life. Same elements of society that are against minor drugs, porn and gambling being legal.

I guess you're really reaching to put a political spin on things these days since you are the first and only (outside of one talking about big vs. small government) to try and bring politics in here and bash "lefties" whatever those are.

I mean, maybe Lathum was digging at the "Christian Right" but I didn't read it that way. I read more about an intrusive government trying to legislate their moral values (of which most that legislate don't follow). Both sides are way guilty.

That is funny, since uhm, he didn't mention any party at all. He said...



I guess you're really reaching to put a political spin on things these days since you are the first and only (outside of one talking about big vs. small government) to try and bring politics in here and bash "lefties" whatever those are.

I mean, maybe Lathum was digging at the "Christian Right" but I didn't read it that way. I read more about an intrusive government trying to legislate their moral values (of which most that legislate don't follow). Both sides are way guilty.

No, the funny thing is that I didn't mention a party either. The things that he referred to (drugs, gambling, porn) are things that are typically fought by the more fundamentalist denominations/churches these days, and those are typically found on the right. The things I mentioned these days (environmental issues, property rights, porn as violence against women) are typically positions espoused by the religious denominations/institutions found on the left.

I too agree both sides are guilty, which is why I mentioned both sides. I'm not sure how that's reaching to put a political spin on things.

BTW, did you completely miss DT's comment (which came right before mine):

i think this belongs in the politics thread, but i'd clearly disagree based on the fact that the party in power currently is much more socially permissive than the "Religious Right" that has assumed the role of "morality police"

So yeah, I'm the first one to mention "lefties". I'm not the first one to bring politics into the discussion, but thanks for paying attention.

My problem with thinking that drinking, minor drugs, and gambling are morality plays ignores the great damage that each of those does beyond the person(s) engaging in the activity.

Porn I'll give you.

No, the funny thing is that I didn't mention a party either. The things that he referred to (drugs, gambling, porn) are things that are typically fought by the more fundamentalist denominations/churches these days, and those are typically found on the right. The things I mentioned these days (environmental issues, property rights, porn as violence against women) are typically positions espoused by the religious denominations/institutions found on the left.

I too agree both sides are guilty, which is why I mentioned both sides. I'm not sure how that's reaching to put a political spin on things.

BTW, did you completely miss DT's comment (which came right before mine):

So yeah, I'm the first one to mention "lefties". I'm not the first one to bring politics into the discussion, but thanks for paying attention.

i was responding to King of New York's post which brought the politics into it.

i was responding to King of New York's post which brought the politics into it.

Well, my name's not King of New York either. :)

No, the funny thing is that I didn't mention a party either. The things that he referred to (drugs, gambling, porn) are things that are typically fought by the more fundamentalist denominations/churches these days, and those are typically found on the right. The things I mentioned these days (environmental issues, property rights, porn as violence against women) are typically positions espoused by the religious denominations/institutions found on the left.
You tried to imply that this was some anti-right statement I made when it wasn't. It was first and foremost just answering his question with a fact.

The issues I mentioned are fought from both sides. Perhaps the right gets more attention for it, but there are a lot of feminist groups fighting pornography as you said and I can distinctly remember Tipper Gore fighting hard to censor music with suggestive lyrics in them. I could have thrown in other examples such as the banning of trans fats or smoking if you want (which are probably fought heavier on the left). I honestly didn't mean for it to be a left/right statement instead of a statement about people who have a strong desire to tell people how they must live their lives.

The fact is that religious organizations have a huge role in shaping the laws in our country. They fall on both sides of the aisle. The blue laws in each state are a sign of that.

My problem with thinking that drinking, minor drugs, and gambling are morality plays ignores the great damage that each of those does beyond the person(s) engaging in the activity.

Porn I'll give you.
And those things are against the law. Driving drunk and beating your wife while intoxicated is against the law. Stealing to fund your gambling habit is against the law.

Just about every element of society can be abused in some way. Some people joyride in cars and cause accidents. We don't ban cars. Some people use baseball bats as weapons to commit crimes. We don't ban those either. It's wrong to tell other people how to live because a tiny percent of people abuse that privelege. Regulations on these things also help reduce the number of people able to abuse it too (limits on when you can buy beer at a game for instance).

The people who want gambling, porn, and drinking made illegal don't car about "the damage". They care about telling people how to live their life.

No, the funny thing is that I didn't mention a party either. The things that he referred to (drugs, gambling, porn) are things that are typically fought by the more fundamentalist denominations/churches these days, and those are typically found on the right. The things I mentioned these days (environmental issues, property rights, porn as violence against women) are typically positions espoused by the religious denominations/institutions found on the left.

I too agree both sides are guilty, which is why I mentioned both sides. I'm not sure how that's reaching to put a political spin on things.

BTW, did you completely miss DT's comment (which came right before mine):

So yeah, I'm the first one to mention "lefties". I'm not the first one to bring politics into the discussion, but thanks for paying attention.

Hmm..you insulted "uber liberal Americans" whatever that is, then you say despite the fact that there are people on the right that do it, the movement was founded by "lefties" and they do it too.

You are correct though, you weren't the first to mention it (I acknowledged as much, but missed one post), you were just the one using condescension and snipes, but lately that seems par for the course. See, I do pay attention.

Back to the fact that prohibition was a result of religious people trying to make their beliefs law. But I guess that's how we also arrive to the illegality of murder, theft, and other crimes. But those affect other people. If people want to gamble, drink, and sex their lives away, more power to them.

Hmm..you insulted "uber liberal Americans" whatever that is, then you say despite the fact that there are people on the right that do it, the movement was founded by "lefties" and they do it too.

You are correct though, you weren't the first to mention it (I acknowledged as much, but missed one post), you were just the one using condescension and snipes, but lately that seems par for the course. See, I do pay attention.

Back to the fact that prohibition was a result of religious people trying to make their beliefs law. But I guess that's how we also arrive to the illegality of murder, theft, and other crimes. But those affect other people. If people want to gamble, drink, and sex their lives away, more power to them.

Ah, so there was nothing condescending about this post?


so essentially you want to tax our individuality away and turn us all into little production apparatuses for corporations and the state?

wouldn't that wreck the economy as discretionary spending would see a huge drop (people chosing to save over being taxed for living their lives)?

might as well go all the way and turn us into the "humans used as batteries" future of the Matrix

no thanks


(Not trying to call you out, DT, just trying to defend myself here)

I ignored it because of the lack of capital letters to start a sentence. I assumed it was going to be silly :), especially having lived in Boston and getting taxed for everything.

I ignored it because of the lack of capital letters to start a sentence. I assumed it was going to be silly :), especially having lived in Boston and getting taxed for everything.


i was at work and trying to slip in a response - wasn't really focused on punctuating my sentence correctly (really i rarely am as far as capitalization goes on here). :p

Ah, so there was nothing condescending about this post?



(Not trying to call you out, DT, just trying to defend myself here)

wasn't trying to be condescending in my original post, was just trying to figure out what SI (it was SI right?) meant by his idea. trying to point out some of the flaws of it.

It's wrong to tell other people how to live because a tiny percent of people abuse that privelege. Regulations on these things also help reduce the number of people able to abuse it too (limits on when you can buy beer at a game for instance).

I wonder if the abused and neglected children of alcoholics feel this way (i.e., it's just a small percentage, so the social damage isn't that great).

I actually think prohibition was stupid, but I also spent half a decade working in drug and alcohol treatment, so I always have mixed feelings about "people should be able to do whatever they want" arguments about drugs and alcohol.

I mean, in principle, the absolute freedom argument sounds good...but once you've seen enough kids whose drunk, pissed off, alcoholic moms decided it would be a good idea to pimp them out or put cigarettes out on them...or enough families shattered by divorce...or enough second, third and fourth generation alcoholics because successive generations of kids couldn't overcome the damage inflicted on them by their addicted parents, it rings hollow.

How small is the percentage when you start looking at the network of damage inflicted by one alcoholic? One person is killed by a drunk driver...do we just count them in the percentage of damaged folks, or do we include all the people who knew and loved them?

I guess you can tell that I don't drink much anymore. :)

I wonder if the abused and neglected children of alcoholics feel this way (i.e., it's just a small percentage, so the social damage isn't that great).
Alcohol doesn't cause abused and neglected children, bad parents do.

How small is the percentage when you start looking at the network of damage inflicted by one alcoholic? One person is killed by a drunk driver...do we just count them in the percentage of damaged folks, or do we include all the people who knew and loved them?
Life sucks sometimes. People abuse things in life and hurt others. Your example of drunk driving doesn't fit as driving drunk is illegal. You go to jail for it and for a long time too if you kill someone (unless you're in the NFL). I'm for as strict of penalties as possible on that crime and believe it's extremely important to stop. But alcohol isn't the problem there, it's people who choose to drink and drive.

Personal responsibility needs to play a role in society. You can't band everything that has the ability to be used negatively. You can't ban all unhealthy foods because it causes early heart attacks which will cause pain and suffering for friends/family. Sometimes you have to turn the blame away from the vice they are abusing and toward the person that is abusing it. Punish those who abuse it, not everyone.

I wonder if the abused and neglected children of alcoholics feel this way (i.e., it's just a small percentage, so the social damage isn't that great).

I actually think prohibition was stupid, but I also spent half a decade working in drug and alcohol treatment, so I always have mixed feelings about "people should be able to do whatever they want" arguments about drugs and alcohol.

I mean, in principle, the absolute freedom argument sounds good...but once you've seen enough kids whose drunk, pissed off, alcoholic moms decided it would be a good idea to pimp them out or put cigarettes out on them...or enough families shattered by divorce...or enough second, third and fourth generation alcoholics because successive generations of kids couldn't overcome the damage inflicted on them by their addicted parents, it rings hollow.

How small is the percentage when you start looking at the network of damage inflicted by one alcoholic? One person is killed by a drunk driver...do we just count them in the percentage of damaged folks, or do we include all the people who knew and loved them?

I guess you can tell that I don't drink much anymore. :)

Drake, you are one conflicted mofo.

EDIT: That's a meta comment more than about this particular one. And it's not meant poorly.

I gotta say, normally Rainmaker's posts do one of two things: make me laugh hysterically or make my blood boil.

This thread is an ace for him though, he's dead on and I'm rather impressed with how well he's stated things.


Drake: Having some personal backround with the alocohol issue I can understand where you're coming from, and of course those that become victims of irresponsible people are always going to feel outrage when their plight is minimalized into mere numbers, however that doesn't change the fact that those numbers are small when compared to the nation/world as a whole.

Prohibition ought to be a blazing signal fire to all the righty and lefty fundementalists who think banning something will fix anything. Prohibition FAILED, miserably and if anything created more problems than it solved.

Human beings generally don't react well to be told "No you can't have that...because we said so." It generally gets a big FU and then people find ways around the situation.

In my own experience having free access to things actually helped me learn to moderate their use. I admit that for a couple things (alcohol and the Internet) it took some real hard life lessons to learn moderation, but I did learn.

You can't legislate knowledge and personal growth. Only life experience can give people that. banning things just defers life experience until you're older and more dangerous.

Prohibition ought to be a blazing signal fire to all the righty and lefty fundementalists who think banning something will fix anything. Prohibition FAILED, miserably and if anything created more problems than it solved.

Indeed. I know a lot of people think prohibition failed mostly because people just brewed their own beer and said, FU! But the real failure of prohibition is how it boosted organized crime. I mean they never had as much power as when they were the ones controlling the alcohol.

Alcohol doesn't cause abused and neglected children, bad parents do.


Life sucks sometimes. People abuse things in life and hurt others. Your example of drunk driving doesn't fit as driving drunk is illegal. You go to jail for it and for a long time too if you kill someone (unless you're in the NFL). I'm for as strict of penalties as possible on that crime and believe it's extremely important to stop. But alcohol isn't the problem there, it's people who choose to drink and drive.

Personal responsibility needs to play a role in society. You can't band everything that has the ability to be used negatively. You can't ban all unhealthy foods because it causes early heart attacks which will cause pain and suffering for friends/family. Sometimes you have to turn the blame away from the vice they are abusing and toward the person that is abusing it. Punish those who abuse it, not everyone.

Right. I do, in fact, mostly agree with you. Prohibition is a poor choice, and people really do need to pursue a path of personal responsibility.

I've just known too many people who were made to suffer because one person wouldn't or couldn't be responsible, and the depth of that suffering changed the trajectory of their entire lives.

I'm not pretending I have answers. Remember, I was a smoker up until 4 months ago and I was the first person to bitch about all of the stupid non-smoking laws and higher taxes by anti-smoking zealots.

I suppose the best answer is just to count my blessings that I was lucky enough not to be born into an environment like that.