The "Noble Experiment" that failed

[jayem]

100 years ago today, the 18th Amendment took effect. It prohibited the importation, sale, and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. Though not the consumption. But the sale of medicinal alcoholic preparations was also prohibited. The only exception was for products used in religious sacraments. As we know, the net result--rather than promoting sobriety--was one of largest crime waves ever. Which included gang activity, smuggling, black marketeering, and one of the highest murder rates in American history. The 18th is the only amendment to have been repealed. Which occured 13 years layer.

The lesson is that laws which excessively interfere with people's private behavior will not ensure good behavior. They only ensure law breaking.

Understanding the 18th Amendment | Constitution of United States of America 1789

 

[Chesterton]

It didn't fail. Consumption decreased, as did alcohol-related problems such as domestic violence, missed time from work, physical health issues, etc.

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

The lesson is that laws which excessively interfere with people's private behavior will not ensure good behavior. They only ensure law breaking.

Another way of saying "rules are made to be broken".

 

[durangodawood]

It didn't fail. Consumption decreased, as did alcohol-related problems such as domestic violence, missed time from work, physical health issues, etc.....

On balance it failed pretty spectacularly though..... which is why it flamed out so fast.

There was a strong sense that the law had turned against people's natural and valid inclinations. I mean even Jesus made wine, so the story goes.

 

[Chesterton]

On balance it failed pretty spectacularly though..... which is why it flamed out so fast.

Read what I linked. There were reasons it was repealed, very little having to do with it failing at its intentions.

There was a strong sense that the law had turned against people's natural and valid inclinations. I mean even Jesus made wine, so the story goes.

Every law ever passed is intended to curb people's natural inclinations. Whether a given inclination is "valid" is not a question I've ever considered, I don't think.

 

[JohnC2]

Remember that the USA was not the only nation that tried banning alcohol in the 19th and 20th century... It was basically a spectacular failure everywhere and was actually a central "cause" for the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917....

But for a particularly non-obvious reason...

Tax revenue. You can't tax stuff that is no longer done by the sort of legit businesses which pay taxes.. And so all the governments that tried it suddenly experienced huge tax revenue shortfalls....

This hit the Imperial Russian government particularly hard - one primary source of income for the Tzar was taxes on Vodka... With the sudden decrease in tax revenue - the Tzar no longer had the funds to keep the Military Generals and Officer Corps happy and to pay their military.... And when you don't pay your soldiers - they may well take up arms against you and side with The Revolution... And thus it goes...

 

[durangodawood]

Read what I linked. There were reasons it was repealed, very little having to do with it failing at its intentions.

Every law ever passed is intended to curb people's natural inclinations. Whether a given inclination is "valid" is not a question I've ever considered, I don't think.

Failure can result from unintended consequences too, and often does.

Good thing you dont make the laws if you cant distinguish between valid inclinations and ones we shouldnt sanction.

 

[jayem]

It didn't fail. Consumption decreased, as did alcohol-related problems such as domestic violence, missed time from work, physical health issues, etc.

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

Prohibition failed in the same way thalidomide failed. It did relieve morning sickness in some women. But the side effects were worse that the disease.

Another way of saying "rules are made to be broken".

Bad rules, that are poorly thought out and overly authoritarian deserve to be broken. Remember, rules like that were the reason we rebelled against King George.

 

[Hank77]

It didn't fail. Consumption decreased, as did alcohol-related problems such as domestic violence, missed time from work, physical health issues, etc.

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation


Another way of saying "rules are made to be broken".

Very interesting, I didn't know that Prohibitionist thought and methods were so socially progressive.

 

[paul1149]

There was a strong sense that the law had turned against people's natural and valid inclinations. I mean even Jesus made wine, so the story goes.

This is my problem with Prohibition - it went beyond what is written, since the Bible nowhere condemns the moderate use of alcohol. We shouldn't generalize Prohibition's failure by saying that all laws to modify behavior are wrong or misguided. But there are limits to what we should try to regulate.

 

[Uber Genius]

12What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church ? 1 Cor.. 5:12

Morality laws for such a diverse culture need to be a small set.

e.g. no murder, no stealing, no lying under oath

P.S. Your quote from Robert G. Ingersoll attacks a strawman...even in Galileo's day no one claims that scientific knowledge is gained through theological pronouncements

Science knowledge comes through scientific method
however if we try and say that only things proven by the scientific method are true or knowledge then we have to eliminate all history, all math, most modern cosmology, all theoretical physics, etc.

Result is to eliminate the God inference we are willing to wipe out the majority of human knowledge across the last 5000 years. Hmm seems like special pleading to me.

 

[Nithavela]

I have read a bit about the reasons behind prohibition. Seems that before prohibition, there was a severe alcoholism epidemic plaguing society in general. That was in a time when there was no way of treating people for.. most psychological problems, actually.

There was a real problem of alcohol addiction. Prohibition was just not the right tool to solve it, and still isn't.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is my problem with Prohibition - it went beyond what is written, since the Bible nowhere condemns the moderate use of alcohol. We shouldn't generalize Prohibition's failure by saying that all laws to modify behavior are wrong or misguided. But there are limits to what we should try to regulate.

People who supported prohibition were generally religious progressives or mainline Protestants. They weren't going with strict biblical literalism.

Alot of women supported prohibition because they saw alcohol causing men to become irresponsible or violent.

So it wasn't merely conservative Christians who advocated for it. A large section of society thought it was a good and right thing.

Unfortunately, alcohol has deep roots in our culture as a socially-acceptable drug. So prohibition was an uphill battle.

 

[paul1149]

People who supported prohibition were generally religious progressives or mainline Protestants. They weren't going with strict biblical literalism.

From reading the Wiki entry, it makes for interesting history to see Northern progressives join with Southern conservatives to bring about Prohibition (I'm sure that's a gloss). But my point is that both of them, though for radically different reasons, went beyond what is written. That's not Biblical literalism either, in the sense of pulling out a proof text or two, it's simply what the Bible, writ large, teaches as God's wisdom regarding the use of alcohol.

 

[FireDragon76]

From reading the Wiki entry, it makes for interesting history to see Northern progressives join with Southern conservatives to bring about Prohibition (I'm sure that's a gloss). But my point is that both of them, though for radically different reasons, went beyond what is written. That's not Biblical literalism either, in the sense of pulling out a proof text or two, it's simply what the Bible, writ large, teaches as God's wisdom regarding the use of alcohol.

The Bible doesn't have a singular perspective on alcohol.

 

[paul1149]

Interesting article:
100th Anniversary of National Prohibition — What Are the Lessons?

 

[Chesterton]

Failure can result from unintended consequences too, and often does.

Good thing you dont make the laws if you cant distinguish between valid inclinations and ones we shouldnt sanction.

I just don't know what you mean by "valid", which would probably require a Philosophy forum. I also don't know who "we" is. And obviously you don't know that I'm a U.S. Senator.

 

[durangodawood]

I just don't know what you mean by "valid", which would probably require a Philosophy forum. I also don't know who "we" is. And obviously you don't know that I'm a U.S. Senator.

RIP the philosophy sub forum!

Correct, I did not know you are a senator. I thought it was weird that you would only judge a laws failure relative to its intents rather than the full spectrum of its effects.

 

[Chesterton]

RIP the philosophy sub forum!

Correct, I did not know you are a senator. I thought it was weird that you would only judge a laws failure relative to its intents rather than the full spectrum of its effects.

You can't judge a law based on how people will evade the law. You outlaw murder, and people get better at committing murder. There's even people in the business of murder for hire. The correct course of action in regard to alcohol-related crime was to crack down on Al Capone, but the problem then, as now, is that Chicago and other northern cities were corrupt Democrat-controlled cities.

 

[durangodawood]

You can't judge a law based on how people will evade the law. You outlaw murder, and people get better at committing murder. There's even people in the business of murder for hire. The correct course of action in regard to alcohol-related crime was to crack down on Al Capone, but the problem then, as now, is that Chicago and other northern cities were corrupt Democrat-controlled cities.

Actually you can judge a law based on how people will evade the law.

If you find most normal benevolent people are evading a law, thats a sign that the law itself is unjust.