“Prohibition” seems to have had a strong effect on the American and world psyche as a kind of ultimate argument against regulation and in favour of libertarianism. See, say the conservatives, try to ban something and “pouf!”, gangsters. Curiously they fail to see that exactly the same argument applies to drugs – completely banning them with “zero tolerance”, and pouring ever more money into law enforcement and prisons while criminal organisations become rich.
Conversely, in relation to alcohol itself, prohibition having “failed” so spectacularly, Australia is now suffering the effect of what amounts to almost totally open slather on alcohol. Available 24 hours a day, licensed premises in huge numbers, liquor sales in and around even supermarkets, “mixer” drinks specially designed for addicting teenagers, massive promotion of alcohol via sporting events and teams, constant jocular remarks in media about binge drinking.
But US Prohibition failure isn’t an argument against regulation, it’s an argument against not regulating well. The problem in America before 1920 (and now here and elsewhere) was not ANY alcohol consumption but EXCESSIVE alcohol consumption, both at an individual and a society level. Closing off all alcohol consumption at the stroke of midnight, without support from business, and a large part of the population including police forces, and the failure to involve Canada and other neighbouring countries, was a recipe for the huge flouting of the law, and corruption, and violence, and health problems from bootleg liquor, which quickly became the norm.
If America had, instead, said that the aim was to reduce excessive alcohol consumption, then the approach would have been very different. A reduction in the number of licensed premises, and a reduction in the hours alcohol could be sold. A reduction in the number of places of retail sale. A reduction in advertising and promotion. Education for children about alcohol. Increased support for rehabilitating alcoholics and helping their families. Better training and support for police dealing with domestic violence. And so on.
Many such approaches of course could equally be applied to non-alcoholic drugs, instead of prohibition. Or to gambling, obesity, and perhaps other social problems. In fact “Prohibition” is an object lesson not against regulation, but in favour of doing it properly. Ninety years on we should be a lot more sophisticated in our approaches to more civilised societies.
[Note the title comes from the inscription on a jug that my grandmother, a very vocal teetotaller opposed to alcohol in all its forms, bought around 100 years ago. A period, as in America, which also saw moves to try to prohibit alcohol in England].
Those teenagers’ drinks are a problem. I specifically bought some for our oldest so she could learn in the safety of our home. The lesson was well learnt, I have to say! She is VERY wary of them now. She realises just because they taste like fizzy cordial, they are certainly not. Of course, she drank them too fast, but that was, in part, the lesson to be learnt.
As far as prohibition is concerned, the oldest profession in the world has never been eradicated, despite being illegal in most places in the world (Australia being one of the exceptions).
Nothing is ever solved by prohibition. History tells this so well. Why do we never learn?
There’s always an argument for regulation. The trick is to keep that regulation to the absolute feasible minimum. Unfortunately intrusive meddling government, and the lawyer-driven “duty of care” scam, militate against minima. Prohibition was a disaster. It was a classic object lesson in how not to do things. It should certainly never be tried again.
The key is education: “Don’t do dangerous drugs” seems to be good pitch. Another key to sensible progress as a society is to accept that some people will never learn. That’s their fault (except in tightly defined cases of actual imbecility) and we all need to accept that too.
Using narcotics or chemical drugs is stupid, but use should not be crime. Supplying classified drugs should be a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.
As for naturally grown cannabis, its use is widespread and its effects in no way fundamentally more dangerous that alcohol. The law could deal with it under provisions similar to those relating to alcohol-induced inebriation. Don’t smoke and drive!
Water is the gift of god, beer and whisky are concoctions of the devil. Go and have a drink of water – is that a Furphy? Anyway, even water should be imbibed in sensible moderation.
From everything that I have seen, it appears the opposite was true about prohibition. It was a success. Diseases related to alcohol dropped in half during prohibition and stayed that way after prohibition. I was watching History Detectives on PBS and they said something like every 7 days before prohibition men were drinking on average a liter of whiskey. Prohibition forever changed America’s alcohol consumption for the better and it only needed to be enacted for 14 years. I bet a cost benefit analysis would show that for 14 years of gangsters doing what they would do anyways compared to 100+ years of lower alcohol consumption, we should take that trade off any day.
Really enjoy your “tolerating” my presence on your blog David, I learn a bunch of stuff; thanks to Colin for “Furphy” and thanks to Oyeniyi that prostitution is legal in Australia. You and I agree on many points in this column.
I’m not quite sure how the gov’t can “properly” regulate any social/cultural behavior. It seems to me that choices of morality (with the exception of theft, fraud & violence) are best left to the individual human being and their own personal convictions. And, that would leave gov’t regulation out altogether (you know of my penchant for LIMITED gov’t!)..
Education is certainly not the answer as there has probably not been any stronger education program in the world than the anti-smoking (tobacco) efforts in the US. But, all a teen needs to see is Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, or, for the more astute, our President Obama puffing away and it all goes down the drain.
“Self government” is a great way to regulate morality in a society but the “self” needs to know the difference between right and wrong. And, with increasing relativism, that is getting to be very difficult for anyone, let alone young people, to determine.
Always welcome my friend, always welcome.
I think you’re wrong about education, Eric. Tobacco smoking rates have plunged in Australia, for example, and that’s not only because excise imposts make it very expensive. I;d venture to suggest a high proportion of young Americans taking up smoking are among the cohort that doesn’t know where Canada is.
Nor do I think “relativism” is making it more difficult for people to distinguish right from wrong. Relativism is just a cop-out – and that’s exactly the problem.
While tobacco remains a legal product, it’s legal to smoke it. It may not be wise, it may indeed be unutterably foolish … but it’s legal.
You’re right, smoking rates have plunged in the US as well. And, probably education (as well as all the taxes making a pack of smokes about 80 times more expensive than when I was a youth) does have a great deal to do with the reduction. I’m just surprised that any young person starts/continues to smoke in spite of all the education. And, tobacco is illegal in the US for anyone under 18.
I don’t get your comment about relativism being a “cop-out.” Relativism does blur boundaries between right & wrong.
I think the point (on relativism) is simple and clear. It is a post-modern construct that facilitates dismissal of ethical and moral decisions that might personally disadvantage in favour of options that are (seen as or are assumed to be) advantageous.
I guess I considered “relativism” to be just that, a dismissal of morality in favor of self-centeredness.