General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlcohol Prohibition “Worked,” According To DEA Report, Released With Police Union Lobby
This is crazy
---
In reaction to the almost comical viral videos this week of Congressmen Jared Polis (D-CO) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) grilling the DEA chief Michele Leonhart over her agencys marijuana policies, Republic Report took a look at the DEAs official policy papers on the subject.
We found that the agency released a report along with a police union in 2010 detailing the many reasons why we should celebrate Americas experience with alcohol prohibition. A section devoted to Popular Myths About Drug Legalization claims that alcohol prohibition was wildly popular and that the ban on alcohol consumption had nothing to do with the spread of mob:
Read more: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/dea-prohibition-worked/
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Dirty Socialist
(3,252 posts)[link:
|]I'm calling bullshit on the claim prohibition didn't help spread organized crime.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)So how did Capone make the money he was imprisoned for not paying taxes on? (Yes I know that is ending a sentence with a preposition.)
Have these cretins not even watched Ken Burns' "Prohibition"?
"In his early twenties, he moved to Chicago to take advantage of a new opportunity to make money smuggling illegal alcoholic beverages into the city during Prohibition."
Every biography of Al Capone details this. The DEA is apparently terrified they will get their funding cut if marijuana is legalized so they decided to make shit up. This is the biggest heap of shit I've ever seen and flies in the face of both history and logic.
I wonder how long it took the person that dreamed this up to quit laughing long enough to finish it?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)No, prohibition lowered legal consumption, but people were still drinking just as much - they just didn't tell you about it because it was illegal. LMAO.
It's like saying that outlawing premarital sex would lower instances of it happening - the human race would have died out by now were that true because every damn religion on the planet attempts to discourage it..and does it work? No, we're still hear and our numbers are growing.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I think in the prohibition-era, like you stated, a great many people (possibly even a majority) didn't stop drinking one bit... they just did it more discreetly. However it would be foolish to think a large number people didn't at least drink on fewer occasions because of the legal inconvenience... or that perhaps a small percentage of very casual drinkers didn't bother with the hassle at all after it was illegal. And then there's the economics to be considered; bootleg products often carry a premium price due to the risk involved in manufactre/distribution so it's only logical that the new higher price of bootleg alcohol would see a diminished demand (if you charge more for something, fewer people will buy it).
You have to remember that there alot of people who try not to break the law becaue they wish to be considered law abiding. For people that didn't really care about booze one way or another, they may be inclined to stop consuming to avoid risk of arrest. And then you have to consider that many people only drink socially - if alcohol consuption must now be done in private they'll likely drink ALOT less because it's not their style to drink bathtub gin at home with the doors locked.
Me? I love beer. I've got a about 40+ pints in the cellar aging that I brewed myself. Prohibition would not stop me from drinking beer AT ALL since I make it myself. On the other hand, I'm pretty neutral about wine and liquor and only have some in rare social situations. If alcohol was made illegal tomorrow, I'd probably stop drinking wine and liquor altogether. By definition, prohibition would have lowered my overall consuption of alcoholic drinks.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That it really opened the door to organized crime. I don't know why I'm shocked, though, because many of the nation's founders made their fortunes in smuggling. It's apparently a time honored tradition.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But is that really the goal? The effectiveness of prohibition in reducing consumption came at the cost of major gang crime and distrust of the police.
If the people don't agree with the laws, it breaks the social contract.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)nebenaube
(3,496 posts)by every definition of the word.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Call them what they are: traitors against liberty.
Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)We cannot believe any of our departments or representitives as they do CORPORATE bidding.
The more 'illegal' in this instance, the more PROFIT and control by CORPORATIONS over the people.
More police funding, more private prison stock, more fines, fees, and payoffs.
EVERYTHING is now FOR the corporations and AGAINST the people. We are now slaves to be exploited and abused.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Katherine Austin Fitts does a nice job explaining:
http://solari.com/blog/life-vs-death/
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the gin factory. Just down the street from the local dance hall. Home was owned by a doctor.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)
She was a none-too-bright, Bush holdover, crazy drug-war zealot when he gave her the job. She was quite possibly the worst choice I could think of to head the DEA. I hold the President responsible for the actions of his administration and this is one he has a lot to answer for.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I only wonder how many of the Chimp's appointees were quietly held over by this administration. I suspect it is a very large number indeed. Yeah, that's the change I voted for.
What sucks is that the POTUS can get away with this shit because millions of progressives have no place else to go and will do anything to prevent Rmoney from becoming president. I suspect we are laughed at on a regular basis by the WH inner circle.
Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Time is now for us to start demanding better from the second Obama administration.
-app
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)Why is this story worth highlighting on Republic Report, a blog about money in politics and the corrosive influence of special interest lobbying?
Its notable that this pro-alcohol prohibition paper was released in conjunction with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the umbrella organization for the many police unions and police departments across the country. As weve investigated in the past, police unions have become dependent on federal drug war grants, many of them targeted towards marijuana eradication, as a vital source of income.
Thanks for the thread, Report.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)They remind me of Zed in pulp fiction.
Stephen Caddell
(6 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)the religious right wing (mostly rural white protestants)
racists who opposed Italian and German immigrants
women who didn't want people to be able to make choices for themselves
corrupt politicians who always made sure they had access to alcohol themselves throughout prohibition
criminals and law enforcement whose jobs were enhanced by prohibition - no matter the general cost to society.
_______________________
what were the effects?
alcohol consumption did go down - but alcohol production led to poisoning and crime
CRIME SOARED
Corruption flourished
Class determined if you were a criminal or not, and whether you were held accountable for your actions.
The KKK was incorporated into society as "moral authority" with all the race hate that implies.
Prohibition did not make society safer, or better - so, if the goal of law is to improve society, rather than control what others do in their private lives - prohibition was a spectacular failure.
So, application of the law based upon race, class, corruption, crime, infringement upon civil liberties...
Just like prohibition of marijuana.
Now that alcohol prohibition has been lifted - we see that doing so did not destroy society - just as will be the case with re-legalizing marijuana.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)You hit every relevant point squarely on the head.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Benjamin Parish
(15 posts)Yea, thats pretty dumb.
eShirl
(18,490 posts)Mz Pip
(27,434 posts)Prohibition lead to mob wars and some really nasty violence.
Criminalization just created a hot mess. Just like it does today with weed.
Initech
(100,060 posts)The anti booze arguments of the 1920s were really no different from the anti abortion arguments of today - both groups led the same debates and scare tactics used today. But I'm betting the DEA is saying this because lots of people made lots of money from selling illegal booze.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Things like "speakeasy" and "bootleg."
Bake
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Or drinking. Or whatever.
Rex
(65,616 posts)If that is possible. Keep lying and making shit up, no one is buying it...but that doesn't matter does it? Just as long as the Owners get a fat paycheck...who give a fuck about the rest of us!?!?!
The DEA - Dumbass Enforcement Agency. Dumb on purpose to make a paycheck and keep the lights on.