The arguments for and against the prohibition of alcoholic drinks.
In dealing with this topic, we must discount entirely, the Moslem world in which alcoholic drink is forbidden on religious grounds, and deal with only with those communities to whom the drink is legally available. There are few countries in the world where beers, wines, and spirits are not manufactured, and/or imported.
Prohibition was a ’cause celebrate’ in the USA in the 1920 and 1930s. Its history there began in 1846 in Maine and many other states followed this example, but the legislation was ignored and became a ‘dead letter’. By 1900, many Americans were campaigning for a revival of the laws, part of the argument being that wheat and barley were in short supply. In 1920, Congressman Volstead succeeded in passing an amendment, known as the Volstead Act, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor. But public opinion insisted on its repeal in 1933. What was the background of this reversal of policy?
Briefly, smuggling and illicit distilling. not only was there a steady demand for a drink among Americans, but there were also an element of excitement in being able to obtain it and a certain ‘status’ in being able to offer it. The results were predictable. The supply of alcohol was ‘concerned’ by the gangsters, who in addition, ran the halls of vice known as ‘speakeasies’ and controlled gambling drugs and prostitution into the bargain. Millions of dollars were made out of illicit liquor; gangs ‘ruled’ their own territories, the police being powerless against them and to some extent corrupted by them; gang-warfare led to pitched battles in New York and Chicago, with great loss of life. Very little of the liquor was genuine; most of it was dangerous and rapidly led to addiction, alcoholism with all its attendant evils, and blindness. Repeal of the laws of prohibition became inevitable. The law had become a menace; it was observed nowhere, and it had led to far greater social evils than those it had been designed to remove. The result was that in nearly every state, all laws against drink, even hours of ‘opening’ were repealed; the country settled down to normal drinking habits, and the social evils attendant on drink became no greater or less than those in other countries.
It is more than likely that similar results would attend to introduce prohibition in any other country; people will go on drinking whatever happened and so from the practical point of view, legislation is virtually useless. But there is, nevertheless, a case to be made for prohibition — if it could ever be effectively enforced. The poorer the country, the more relevant is the case. Where incomes are small, living standards low, and consumer goods in short supply, men and women naturally tend to drown their sorrows in alcohol. Money that cannot really be spared from the domestic economy is wasted on drinks; children go unified and ill-clothed, and wives receive no money for housekeeping. the drinkers themselves lose not only their health but their self-respect. In extreme cases, they become alcoholics, and die in institutions, years before they need to, causing suffering and degradation to others as well as themselves disgusting; overweight, blurred speech, unpleasant breath, and lowered personal standards. Drink causes gloom or false hilarity; it can lead to violence and quarreling. It can and does cause death on the roads when a drunken person is in charge of a motor car, and all countries quite nightly impose severe penalties on such offenders. A heavy drinker is a menace to the society in which he lives as well as to his family and himself.
Nevertheless, experiences have shown that prohibition is not the method of dealing with these problems, because it is ineffective. Severe legislation against the individual who offends against society through drink is, however, another matter, and most countries operate such laws.
The main argument against prohibition is that it is a curtailment of individual liberty. In a normal society, nobody should need to fly to drink as a refuge from life. And if the use of alcohol is moderate, there is a case to be made that alcohol is a social asset. It helps to reduce shyness and social inhibitions and ‘makes a party go.’
Secondly, there can be a positive medical value in the judicious use of spirits, such as brandy, which is sometimes prescribed in small quantities by the medical profession for helping certain kinds of heart conditions.
Thirdly, suddenly banning all production and consumption of alcohol would destroy the means of livelihood of many thousands of people. Practically the whole agricultural economy of Spin and Southern France is based on the grape, and to destroy their overseas markets would not only cause untold misery but would devastate thousands of acres of land which are unsuitable for growing anything else.
Fourthly, there would be enormous losses of revenue to every government. Liquor in bond and on wholesale and retail is subject to very heavy taxation, and this factor alone would prevent many governments from seriously considering prohibition at all!
The real case, in fact, is not so much ‘for or against prohibition, but for so educating the people that they make proper use of alcohol, avoid its abuse, and become masters rather than servants of drink.
