From: [d--i--y] at [carson.u.washington.edu] (The Freedom Courier) Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs Subject: On the 60th Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition Date: 4 Dec 1993 18:03:50 GMT Here is an article which I received from libernet and thought worth sharing. Professor Thornton is associated with the von Mises Institution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Dec 93 11:22:27 CST From: [M T HORN T N] at [business.auburn.edu] Subject: 60th Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition To: [l--er--t] at [Dartmouth.EDU] Prohibition's Repeal: 60 Years Ago Today by Mark Thornton We are accustomed to the federal leviathan, yet sixty years ago today (December 5, 1933), in a victory for liberty, its power was curtailed in one fell swoop. When Utah voted for the 21st amendment to the Constitution, it provided a necessary two-thirds majority to make it law. Section one read: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution [1919] of the United States is hereby repealed." Today alcohol enjoys specific constitutional approval. Politicians admitted their error and did something about it. It was a rare victory for the rights of individuals. Repealing Prohibition made economic sense. It ended the high profits that drew law-abiding people into the underworld of speakeasies, moonshiners, and rum-runners. Poisonous brews were replaced by safe and legal drink. And moderate and responsible drinking became the social norm, as it has been throughout history. The lesson of Prohibition is that the government cannot ban highly desired goods without imposing terrible economic and social costs. With the 21st amendment, our libertarian heritage triumphed over a puritanical fit of statism. Yet today, we are repeating the errors that brought on Prohibition in the first place. Liquor production and consumption is under attack again. As a part of its Healthy People 2000 program, the federal government intends to cut per capita alcohol consumption by 25 percent. To do that, we'll need new "sin" taxes, absurd Blood Alcohol Concentration standards that define "drunk" driving, more bans on advertising and promotion, and much more. Alcohol warning labels mandated in 1988, which infuriated the world's wine exporters, were just the beginning. Pregnant women are constantly scolded by government-mandated warnings in restaurants. Bars are sued for the irresponsible behavior of patrons. Beer producers are being pressured not to distribute in the innercity. In some ways, the New Prohibitionism casts a wider net than the old. America is supposed to "Smoke Free" by -- you guessed it -- the year 2000. Discrimination and hate against smokers is the norm. The tobacco industry has had to diversify its portfolio to protect its institutional life. Hundreds of bills in Congress are to designed to prohibit the use of tobacco products step by step. We haven't heard much about the drug war lately, probably because it has failed so miserably. Yet every year, the federal government spends $30 billion in the war on drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences force occasional pot smokers to spend five years in prison. Meanwhile real criminals out on the streets and committing violent crimes. Double jeopardy is routine for small- time dealers, in violation of the Bill of Rights. In the name of drug enforcement, government at all levels has made a growth industry out of civil asset forfeiture. Government agents confiscate property on the flimsiest of evidence. Even when you're found innocent, recovering your property is virtually impossible. The message of the New Prohibitionism equates use with abuse, as if human volition had nothing to do with turning moderation into excess. Common sense helps us distinguish between a glass of champagne and a pure-grain alcohol overdose. People know that one drink is not "a risk" for everyone, no matter what the Neo- Prohibitionists claim. That's why "Just Say No" educational campaigns often backfire. We are often told, for example, that increased alcohol consumption is directly correlated with increased highway death. That's not true. From 1966 to 1981, highway fatalities dropped from 5.7 to 3.2 persons per 100 million vehicle miles. Yet during the same period, per capita alcohol consumption increased by 19 percent. In the subsequent decade, traffic fatalities fell again, not because of MADD campaigns, but because of anti-lock brakes, airbags, and crash-proof auto designs. Just as during Prohibition, laws curtailing consumption backfire in unexpected ways. "Dry" counties typically have higher incidence of drunk driving than "wet" ones (Alabama is a case in point). Dry Indian reservations have experienced a higher rate of alcohol related fatalities than wet ones. Strictures against marijuana use lead to higher consumption of cocaine and heroin. Police crackdowns on crack lead to boons in designer drugs. Higher taxes on liquor cause people to drink stronger brews that give more bang for the buck. And mandatory closing hours on bars throw drunks out on the road all at the same time and lead to accidents. What if someone again proposed an amendment reading: "The manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors...is hereby prohibited." It might garner a measure of support. As we sip our New Year's Eve champagne, let's remember that liberty is a mosaic woven of many freedoms, including economic and personal, as the 21st amendment reaffirmed. __________________ Mark Thornton, O.P. Alford III Assistant Professor of economics at Auburn University and coordinator of academic affairs of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is author of The Economics of Prohibition (University of Utah Press, 1991).