Prohibition Laws Never Work
Video Links [TikTok] [YouTube]
As the Bard once said, "All the world's a stage and we are merely players," and when everyone has a role to play, there’s no act more delightfully absurd than the political drama surrounding vice and morality. Vice and morality laws - I call them "prohibition laws" because they try to prohibit certain actions - are typically shaped by cultural, religious, and societal norms. The larger problem is that, based on the evidence, they simply don't work.
Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but the hypocrisy surrounding prohibition laws is not news; it's a punchline from a bad 1970s sit-com. How many times have we seen Old Party politicians and pundits passionately argue about the virtues of virtue while, at the same time, indulging in a buffet of their own delightful contradictions.
Most of these laws aim to regulate behaviors that are often (but not always) perceived as detrimental to individuals or society in general. They often focus on activities related to alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, and obscenity, but are mostly focused on attitudes and actions that one group finds objectionable even if no one else does. Some societal attitudes change over time leading to adjustments in prohibition laws. There are some jurisdictions that have decriminalized or even legalized certain actions or attitudes that were once considered vices (e.g., marijuana).
Much of the controversy surrounding these laws regards their subjectivity, i.e., determining what is morally acceptable - and unacceptable - can be subjective and varies across cultures and time periods. To quote an old comedy movie where the protagonist asks, "how many people have you brutally murdered?", the response was "'Brutal' is a subjective word. After all, what might be brutal to one person may be perfectly reasonable to someone else."
Picture this: a senator fervently campaigns against the perils of gambling while enjoying an all-expenses-paid trip to Las Vegas. There, he's glad-handling casino owners, taking their campaign donations and polishing off a plate of complimentary shrimp cocktail. Meanwhile, his speeches about the dangers of gambling play on repeat in the background. It’s like watching someone argue against sugar while munching on a donut the size of a small tire.
And let’s not forget those heartwarming stories of the tireless advocates who dedicate their lives to cleaning up vice, only to find themselves caught in their own vice-filled mess. Or the family-values crusader whose personal life is a soap opera of scandal and intrigue. And let's not forget the anti-pornography advocate who’s somehow found themselves in an amusing entanglement with questionable content. It’s as if they’ve written the script for a dramatic comedy where they forgot they’re the lead actors.
Critics of these laws may also argue that they infringe upon individual freedoms and privacy, and that balancing enforcement with personal autonomy is an ongoing challenge. It’s important to recognize that a law, even if properly issued by a legitimate authority, is not truly a law if it conflicts with morality. The distinction between legal and moral is clear: what is legal isn’t necessarily moral, and what is immoral shouldn’t always be illegal. A classic example is slavery in the U.S., which was legal but widely considered immoral. And while laws play a crucial role in maintaining order and justice, they must still align with our shared moral compass to truly serve society’s best interests.
"And if the music stops, there's only the sound of the rain. All the hope and glory, all the sacrifice in vain, and if the love remains though everything is lost, we will pay the price, but we will not count the cost."
Good Intentions
Remember Prohibition? A splendid time when America decided that alcohol was the root of all evil. In the end, it only led to speakeasies and bootlegging—making crime as popular as, well, bootlegged alcohol. What we don't seem to have learned from that period is that criminalizing an act, or a product does not eliminate that act or product itself, but merely drives it underground. Yes, there were some distinct improvements as a result of passing the 18th Amendment, at least for a couple of years. Many people were forced to "sober up" and change their lives. Worker production improved as a result of people not showing up to work intoxicated, so companies prospered. As an indirect result, families also prospered financially, and personal health began to improve. There were fewer incidents of alcoholism, cirrhosis, and there were fewer accidents. Domestic abuse, stealing, public intoxication, murder, theft, prostitution, and disorderly conduct incidents all declined significantly.
"If we burn our wings flying too close to the sun, if the moment of glory is over before it's begun, if the dream is won though everything is lost, we will pay the price, but we will not count the cost."
Disastrous Results
But it also exposed a number of ugly aspects that had been previously hidden. Younger Americans wanted to drink because it was forbidden, outlawed, and exciting. Others did not want to be controlled by the government or denied the pleasures of alcohol. Organized crime exploded because of Prohibition making it difficult for Prohibition to be completely successful. The government lost millions (or billions) of dollars when prohibition didn't allow them to make money off the taxes that would have been derived from the sale of alcohol. Many people died of alcohol poisoning from trying to make "bathtub gin", poor-quality alcohol that had no common control or regulation to act as guidance. Alcohol substitutes such as tobacco, marijuana, and hashish began to increase as more people started to use them. Prison population also increased by as much as 1000% because more people were being locked up in jails due to some illegal activity involving alcohol.
The government, with the help of many "moral" organizations, had made a law intended to control a person's morality, but after twelve years of Prohibition, they started to realize that there were many more people who were willing to risk (and accept) the consequences in defiance of that law. Ultimately, Prohibition made enough people realize that laws cannot control a person's morality or their choices, and that each person's morality is up to that person. In the end, the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.
"When the dust has cleared and victory denied, a summit too lofty, river a little too wide, if we keep our pride though paradise is lost, we will pay the price, but we will not count the cost."
Fast forward to today, and you’ll find some folks still advocating for dry laws while sipping on their artisanal craft cocktails and reminiscing about the "good old days" when everyone drank in secret. It’s a bit like championing a ban on fast food while sneaking burgers in the back seat of your car.
The world of prohibition law hypocrisy is like a comedy show where the audience is both laughing and facepalming. It’s a place where rules are made and unmade, where virtues are extolled and promptly ignored, and where everyone is a little too eager to tell you how to live while living a bit too freely themselves.