Lessons of Prohibition: Drawing comparisons to the War on Drugs

[marmar]

from the Detroit Metro Times:



Lessons of Prohibition
Drawing comparisons to the War on Drugs

By Larry Gabriel
Published: October 5, 2011


The three-part miniseries from Ken Burns, Prohibition, which concludes on Public Broadcasting on Tuesday and repeats locally Sunday, is a penetrating and meaningful look at a colorful and controversial piece of U.S. history. One thing that impressed me was the way Burns presented the complexities of an issue that from a distance seems fairly simple: to drink or not to drink?

The era now seems almost cartoonish, with a sense of Keystone Kops chasing lawbreaking but lovable bootleggers who supplied a public that went to speakeasies and ordered "tea" with a wink and a nod. Even bloodthirsty gangsters are seen as ersatz Robin Hoods who gave the people what they wanted. In a time when, in most places, any adult can walk into a store or bar and order just about any kind of alcohol concoction, the Prohibition era seems laughable. But as Burns shows, it was really an era when passions ran high and in many cases lives were on the line.

It's not difficult to see how alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition are similar, though Burns didn't pursue that angle. "Our film is a history of the 18th Amendment," Burns told me in a telephone interview last week. "We were aware of marijuana use from the project we did about jazz. Marijuana was making one of its appearances in a subcultural world. We didn't have as widespread use as now. Alcohol abuse was a huge social problem in the United States."

But Burns does not live with his head in a hole. He went on: "But you can't help but see parallels with today: single-issue political campaigns, demonization of immigrants and African-Americans, the decay in social discourse, smear campaigns, warrantless government wiretaps, perpetual questions about the role of government. One of the connections that any intelligent viewer will make is, what about drugs today? In the criminalization of marijuana there are many, many parallels." ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://metrotimes.com/mmj/lessons-of-prohibition-1.1213070

[bemildred]

1. Prohibition always fails. Liassez faire has too many pernicious social consequences (think tobacco).

Only nuanced government regulation minimizes the damage, and in a world awash in drugs, harm reduction is the only approach we can afford.

[saras]

2. How come, when we look back at prohibition, we romanticize the wealthy and ignore the poor

Most Americans couldn't afford to go to speakeasies, any more than they could afford to go to Studio 54 in the seventies. Nor would they fit in if they did go.

Prohibition was directed primarily at the effect of massive amounts of very lightly taxed, hence cheap, hard liquor on the culture of the working poor. It's effect on the partying upper classes was an afterthought, at best.

The obvious difference with marijuana prohibition is that there isn't a large class that is heavily damaged by pot use, nor are there pot shops on every corner pushing really cheap hash oil, nor does smoking substitute for food you can't afford. The violence, the abandoned spouses and children, the inability to function in any job beyond manual labor of the crudest sort, those things just don't happen with pot smokers to the degree that they do with heavy drinkers. The damage alcohol was doing at the time is more comparable to meth than pot.

It's hard to avoid classism in American drug policy. It's always been the case that people and circumstances argued for something other than universal drug laws - from Prohibition to prescription vs illegal pills to LSD, there's always been the argument that those who can use drugs and stay out of trouble 'ought to' have a right to use them that people who can't stay out of trouble don't have. It's an attractive idea because there's some truth in it, but it always seems to turn into classism. Otherwise W would have been busted repeatedly. And it avoids the fact that much of the condition of the poor isn't under their control.

[txlibdem]

3. I could only afford to go to Studio 49... not even half as much fun

And it was a nerd sausage fest.

:mad:

[nichomachus]

4. Don't miss this series

Absolutely fascinating. I learned so many things about prohibition that it was amazing -- the role of the income tax, the role of WWI, Many prohibition supporters were actually liberals, it started out as just anti-saloon but was coopted by religious extremists. And the first probition-related crimes -- hijacking liquor, etc. -- were committed within hours of it becoming law. And a host of other interesting things that put it in perspective.

[Uncle Joe]

5. "Prohibition" is an excellent series by Burns, well worth watching to get a full perspective and

this is a great column as well.


Thanks for the thread, marmar.