Recognizing that some people have legitimate difficulties with alcohol, and that there is therefore legitimate concern about it among some, the end of Prohibition also represents a triumph of human liberty. It represents the first failure of the Progressive government-by-the-regulatory-state-for-your-own-good model that continues to bedevil us to this day.
Also, like similar more recent events, plenty of loopholes were baked in to allow the favored classes to continue to do what they wanted. ["Of course you can ignore these stay-at-home orders, which we assure you are absolutely necessary to save lives, provided you're protesting racism."] Prohibition was about telling the little guy that he couldn't have a beer after work. Those who could afford doctors willing to write them prescriptions, or who owned wineries, or who could claim 'sacramental' use, were allowed to carry on.
That prescription model gave rise to one of the most successful drug store chains in America, by the way, which boomed as it realized that it could provide ordinary people (at least in major cities) access to doctors who would write them that prescription. Just as certain major firms in Boston don't admit to the origins of their fortune in rum or slave ships, that 'family secret' isn't well known and certainly not trumpeted.
By the way, if you happen to be one of those with concerns about alcohol, the original article discusses the rising popularity of non-alcoholic beer. I drank a lot of that when I could get by the DFACs in Iraq, due to General Order #1 (a sort-of second Prohibition for the working soldier). Guinness has one now, which I haven't tried due to the lack of Prohibition around here. The original article also notes the continuing difficulties faced by a certain beer can sold in a blue container, which is down 28% year-over-year.
3 comments:
If we extend the thought that some people have a problem with alcohol, we notice that many, many, people have a problem with alcohol in some limited period of their lives. It's not so bad on a contained college campus (mine was a bubble) where no one is driving to get to the frat party or pledge dance, but it's not entirely benign, either. The death rate for those who have just finished Basic Training and are going home for a few days before assignment is statistically enormous. In a few months of grieving or unemployment a person might be a problem drinker, but "get ahold of themselves," (or their friends get ahold of them) and return to normal state. Are we to pass restrictive legislation that reflects this reality? What would it look like that is not frankly insane and draconian?
And not just alcohol. What about a period of life when pornography was a problem, though it isn't now? Or anger...aren't we all more irresponsible when angry, and have periods of life when that is more the default?
Where does it end? Will we eventually not allow each other be below average for even a minute in some important virtue?
Perhaps I should start a Jerk Pride - or in my case an Idiot Pride - movement to advocate for the right of all of us to have a bad day.
Perhaps you should. It sounds like a defensible concept.
I think youth is at least as much a problem as anger or alcohol; certainly all of the problems I cause myself have waned as I have grown older. Can't regulate youth out of existence by law, though, so they go after other things.
Post a Comment