Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 7th, 2012, 05:50 PM   #11

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,786

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
People, like me, if I had the place, prestige and power, would wage a war on drugs
and I would not, would not, back down: a modern day Ms. Nation?
There are some people back then and today, who feel they/we have to at least try to
do something positive instead of caving in. Today's drug problem is 40x worse than
the drinking problem of the past. If we just give up then what? What if the pro-drug side
wins a battle, but then something else pops up in society, that the pro-drug people don't
like, then what? Wouldn't the pro-druggies have to say, "Well, if they want it, let them have
it, we won our battle." It has has to stop or at least tighten the spigot more.
Prohibition took on one of the main tenants of man kind, around the planet: the love
of drinking.
If the Temperance Movement had taken a different approach: hitting
the drinker in the pocket book, then they would have had more success.
I don't think it is simply a love of drinking which is a tenant of mankind, but rather a case of a love of intoxication. People will pay almost any price for mind altering substances whether they be drugs or alcohol. When you throw in the levels of addictiveness that some of these substances have, then we start seeing the problems.

Anyhow, I personally believe any Temperance movement, whether for drugs or alcohol is wrong. As an American I should have the freedom to drink alcohol if I choose or use drugs if I choose as long as I don't hurt anyone.

It sickens me that there are violent criminals roaming the streets of every American city while the prisons fill up with drug offenders.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 7th, 2012, 05:58 PM   #12

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 2,994
Blog Entries: 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
People, like me, if I had the place, prestige and power, would wage a war on drugs
and I would not, would not, back down: a modern day Ms. Nation?
yeah, a little bit. Learning from the lessons of the past says prohibition isn't the way to success. Only a way to criminalize a large segment of society.
Baltis is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:02 PM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
People, like me, if I had the place, prestige and power, would wage a war on drugs
and I would not, would not, back down: a modern day Ms. Nation?
There are some people back then and today, who feel they/we have to at least try to
do something positive instead of caving in. Today's drug problem is 40x worse than
the drinking problem of the past. If we just give up then what? What if the pro-drug side
wins a battle, but then something else pops up in society, that the pro-drug people don't
like, then what? Wouldn't the pro-druggies have to say, "Well, if they want it, let them have
it, we won our battle." It has has to stop or at least tighten the spigot more.
Prohibition took on one of the main tenants of man kind, around the planet: the love
of drinking. If the Temperance Movement had taken a different approach: hitting
the drinker in the pocket book, then they would have had more success.
TJ, I can tell you as your friend that people like myself do drink beer in the evenings. I do not harm anyone else, I do not drink and drive, I just enjoy my beer. I am already hit in the pocketbook by taxes on beer, just like they did on cigarettes. I quit smoking cigarettes for some reason last year, but I won't quit drinking beer.
Virgil is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:14 PM   #14

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,786

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltis View Post
yeah, a little bit. Learning from the lessons of the past says prohibition isn't the way to success. Only a way to criminalize a large segment of society.
Learning from the past is our job as historians. Sadly, the government rarely listens to what we have to say. In the words of one demotivational poster:

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it; those who do study history are doomed to watch everyone else repeat it.
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:54 PM   #15

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,389
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
TJ, I can tell you as your friend that people like myself do drink beer in the evenings. I do not harm anyone else, I do not drink and drive, I just enjoy my beer. I am already hit in the pocketbook by taxes on beer, just like they did on cigarettes. I quit smoking cigarettes for some reason last year, but I won't quit drinking beer.
I'm not passing judgment on people who drink or smoke pot in this thread, that's for another thread.
I am the son of a man who was very verbally abusive when drunk, so you can see
my granite hard opinion against drinking.
We can sit comfortably with our feet up and see where the TempMovement went wrong,
they pushed hard against something that millions of Americans did back in the day and that
wasn't the move to do. I'm surprised it was even passed by Congress.
tjadams is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 07:28 PM   #16

RoryOMore's Avatar
Foremost Authority
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Northern Virginia
Posts: 2,907

Prohibition came about with a substantial assist from anti-Catholic bigotry. The Ku Klux Klan's resurgence during and after WWI was strongly tied to Prohibitionism.

Something to keep in mind: the 18th Amendment made prohibition of alcohol national, but many states were "dry" before national prohibition was passed (edit: as Rongo mentioned above).
RoryOMore is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #17

ucanefan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Asheville/Charlotte NC
Posts: 743

Good thread was thinking the same thing the other day
ucanefan is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 08:47 PM   #18

skizzerflake's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 2,135

Prohibition seems like a perfect storm. An unlikely coalition of interests converged to make it happen. It's important to realize how heavy alcohol use was in the 19th century. It was largely unregulated, cheap and easily available, especially since water was often a dangerous drink.

The Dry faction had religious objectors morally objecting to "demon rum" (probably with some of the previously mentioned anti-catholic prejudice and in spite of all the obvious biblical references to OK use of alcohol), corporate guys who wanted sober workers, social reformers who saw the damage done by alcohol to workers and their families and feminists, who saw many women who had to work twice as hard to be the mainstay of families with a drunken husband/father.

None of these interests could have been persuasive alone, but together they were. It was an idealistic social experiment that profoundly failed.
skizzerflake is offline  
Old December 9th, 2012, 03:23 AM   #19

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 2,537
Blog Entries: 1

Temperance and prohibition movements were not only popular in the US at that time, they were present in Europe as well, and was extremely active and succesful in almost all Nordic countries (with the exception of Denmark), for example Finland had prohibition from 1919-1932, Sweden had a referendum for prohibition in 1922 (which failed with 51% vs 49%), Iceland had prohibition from 1915 to 1935, Norway from 1917 to 1923.

So it must be said to have been a general trend in Western culture at that time, in Europe probably spurred on by the rationing on grain and manufactured products instituted during WWI, and it just gained the political upper-hand in the US as well as many other countries for a short period of time during those first couple of decades of the 20th century.

It must be said there was also massive alcohol consumption at the beginning of the 20th century. Not least because it was cheap and available everywhere. Buying a bottle of liquor was cheaper than buying a loaf of bread, and even countries who didn't have prohibition introduced taxes on it during the same period, something which seemed to have contributed to a considerable drop in average alcohol consumption (Denmark is an example).
Gudenrath is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 08:51 PM   #20

Patito de Hule's Avatar
Quack
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 3,319
Blog Entries: 9

I am currently reading an interesting book,

Amazon.com: Through the Alimentary Canal with Gun and Camera: A fascinating trip to the interior, personally conducted by George S. Chappell: George S. Chappell, Robert Benchley, O. Soglow: Books
Amazon.com: Through the Alimentary Canal with Gun and Camera: A fascinating trip to the interior, personally conducted by George S. Chappell: George S. Chappell, Robert Benchley, O. Soglow: Books


It was published in 1930, early in the depression and late in the Prohibition era. The humor is sophomoric, and for me the interest is nostalgic. It was given to me by my dad in 1955 when I could enjoy such nonsense and was just at the right level to love the humor and, at the same time, to recognize the allusions. Some of this is historical, so I hope I'm forgiven if I am hijacking the thread. My quote is from Chapter XV, Into the Kidneys in a Big Way.

[quote]It is in the Kidney Country that the failure of the Eighteenth Amendment to operate beneficially is particularly in evidence. Elsewhere throughout the circculatory and traffic-bearing system, there is doubtless an enormous amount of bootlegging. My friend the Chief-Larynx at the Œsophagus . . . "Gus" as I call him . . . as well as the Customs Officials at Thorax, had spoken despairingly of doing anything to prevent the flow of illicit liquor. "Most of the lock-keepers are bribed," they told me. "What can you do about it?"

But in the larger cities along the Canal thiss clandestine commerce is hardly noticeable, concealed as it is by the bulk of legitimate business. Bolus-loads of fresh vegetables, meats, fruits and breadstuffs are frequently mere camouflage for shipments of pseudo Scotch, synthetic gin, and bogus Baccardi. A large part of these shipments invariably finds itss way into the Kidneys. Here the absorption is frankly in defiance of the Constitution. Their attitude, like that of the state of Connecticut, is "What is the Constitution between Kidneys?" They are a law unto themselves and neither Bishop Cannon nor Mr. Volstead can tell them what to do. They will take what they can get and make the best of it. "The Kidneys Carry On!"

The part I don't understand is why Connecticut?
Patito de Hule is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
enacted, prohibition


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Books on Prohibition Cuish History Book Reviews 1 September 14th, 2012 06:40 PM
Prohibition and WWI Vladd American History 8 September 4th, 2012 01:00 PM
Prohibition of Alcohol lokariototal General History 35 July 1st, 2012 04:52 AM
Well known supporters of Prohibition Cuish American History 10 April 28th, 2012 11:00 PM
Successful prohibition Sharks and love Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 10 May 21st, 2011 12:41 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.