USA - The Politics of Prohibition

[Heretic.Ape.]

The Politics of Prohibition

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121674.htmlHow government greed, not individual rights, ended America's ban on alcohol.
Don Boudreaux | July 31, 2007
The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this:
Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.
This popular belief is completely mistaken. Here's what really happened:
National alcohol prohibition did begin on Jan. 16, 1920, following ratification of the 18th Amendment and enactment of the Volstead Act.
Speakeasies and gangster violence did become familiar during the 1920s.
And Americans did indeed keep drinking.
But contrary to popular belief, the 1920s witnessed virtually no sympathy for ending Prohibition. Neither citizens nor politicians concluded from the obvious failure of Prohibition that it should end.
As historian Norman Clark reports:
"Before 1930 few people called for outright repeal of the (18th) Amendment. No amendment had ever been repealed, and it was clear that few Americans were moved to political action yet by the partial successes or failures of the Eighteenth. ... The repeal movement, which since the early 1920s had been a sullen and hopeless expression of minority discontent, astounded even its most dedicated supporters when it suddenly gained political momentum."
What happened in 1930 that suddenly gave the repeal movement political muscle? The answer is the Great Depression and the ravages that it inflicted on federal income-tax revenues.
Prior to the creation in 1913 of the national income tax, about a third of Uncle Sam's annual revenue came from liquor taxes. (The bulk of Uncle Sam's revenues came from customs duties.) Not so after 1913. Especially after the income tax surprised politicians during World War I with its incredible ability to rake in tax revenue, the importance of liquor taxation fell precipitously.
By 1920, the income tax supplied two-thirds of Uncle Sam's revenues and nine times more revenue than was then supplied by liquor taxes and customs duties combined. In research that I did with University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard, we found that bulging income-tax revenues made it possible for Congress finally to give in to the decades-old movement for alcohol prohibition.
Before the income tax, Congress effectively ignored such calls because to prohibit alcohol sales then would have hit Congress hard in the place it guards most zealously: its purse. But once a new and much more intoxicating source of revenue was discovered, the cost to politicians of pandering to the puritans and other anti-liquor lobbies dramatically fell.
Prohibition was launched.
Despite pleas throughout the 1920s by journalist H.L. Mencken and a tiny handful of other sensible people to end Prohibition, Congress gave no hint that it would repeal this folly. Prohibition appeared to be here to stay -- until income-tax revenues nose-dived in the early 1930s.
From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent.
In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.
With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue.
That source was liquor sales.
Jouett Shouse, president of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, was a powerful figure in the Democratic Party that had just nominated Franklin Roosevelt as its candidate for the White House. Shouse emphasized that ending Prohibition would boost government revenue.
And a House leader of Congress' successful attempt to propose the Prohibition-ending 21st Amendment said in 1934 that "if (anti-prohibitionists) had not had the opportunity of using that argument, that repeal meant needed revenue for our government, we would not have had repeal for at least 10 years."
There's no doubt that widespread understanding of Prohibition's futility and of its ugly, unintended side-effects made it easier for Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. But these public sentiments were insufficient, by themselves, to end the war on alcohol.
Ending it required a gargantuan revenue shock -- to the U.S. Treasury.
So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source.
That's the sorry logic of politics and Prohibition.
Don Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department at George Mason University. This article originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

[Nagognog2]

Somethings never change. Baaaaaaaah! A nation of sheep.

[Bajeda]

OYEZ, OYEZ

Justice Stevens Calls On History He Lived
'Bong Hits' Dissent Points to Prohibition

By Charles Lane

Published in the Washington Post

On Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062601852.html


Justice John Paul Stevens, the third-oldest person ever to sit on the Supreme Court, turned 87 on April 20. If he's still on the court 142 days from now, he'll overtake Roger B. Taney, who died as chief justice in 1864 at the age of 87 years 209 days.

Stevens still has a long way to go if he wants to catch Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who was 90 when he retired from the court in 1932. But he has already started invoking his considerable life experience to buttress his opinions.

On Monday, Stevens dissented in the case of the Alaska teenager who was suspended for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner at a school event. While a majority of the court said the Constitution does not protect pro-drug student speech, Stevens took the historic view.

Harking back to Prohibition, which began three months before Stevens's birth and ended a month before he turned 13 in 1933, Stevens compared the current marijuana ban to the abandoned alcohol ban and urged a respectful hearing for those who suggest "however inarticulately" that the ban is "futile" and that marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated instead of prohibited:

"[T]he current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs."

Stevens knows something about Prohibition -- he was born and raised in Chicago, where Al Capone and other organized-crime figures controlled hundreds of speakeasies. And he knows something about the moral fervor of Prohibition's supporters, because one of them was his mother, Elizabeth Stevens, who used to say, "Lips that taste wine will never touch mine."

His father, Ernest Stevens, was a hotelier who carefully obeyed the alcohol ban in his establishments but who predicted in 1932 court testimony that his business would benefit from the end of Prohibition, because diners would abandon the speak-easies for legal restaurants like the ones in his hotels.

"[J]ust as Prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies," Stevens wrote, "today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs."

This was the second time in recent years that memories of Prohibition helped shape Stevens's view on a case. Dissenting from the court's 5 to 4 decision overturning state laws against direct shipments of out-of-state wine in 2005, Stevens argued that the majority misinterpreted the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which repealed Prohibition. He cited his own "recollection" of "the historical context."

And in a case about a police car chase earlier this term, Stevens made reference to the long-ago days when he was a new driver and "most high-speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways" and "split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slow-poke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine."











I thought it was a fitting addition to this thread.