Prohibition: The Noble Experiment That Failed
Objective:
Discussion—Does the failure of one experiment (Prohibition) mean that all experiments like it will fail? Have the students read the selection below and decide for themselves.
“It’s a free country. Shouldn’t I be free to hurt myself?” That question was asked in the 1920’s. And it’s asked today.
The same message is printed on every pack of cigarettes: Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.
But I am free to say: “So what? I can still buy cigarettes if I want them. This is a free country. If I want to ruin my health, that’s my problem. Now let me enjoy my cigarette in peace.”
It seems like a good argument—and maybe it is. But there is also another argument. “I don’t live on a desert island; my life is tangled up with the lives of other people. What if I get lung cancer from smoking too heavily? Other people are going to have to take care of me. They will put me in a hospital. They could go into debt trying to keep me alive. And if I die, there’s the agony that I have caused them—and even worse the waste of destroying my own life. Why does the government allow this? If they know what cigarettes can do to people, why don’t they just ban them?”
Of course it would take a law of Congress—or of your state legislature—to take a dangerous product off the market. Thousands of laws like this have been already written. Thousands of products have been banned because government officials judged them to be dangerous to your health. Because of these protective laws you can’t buy certain drugs, foods, chemicals, and insecticides.
The question is: Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives? If so, then perhaps laws are necessary to prohibit the sale of cigarettes and alcoholic drinks. Both products have been known to kill people. The hazards of drinking too much alcohol are as bad as or worse than the hazards of smoking too many cigarettes. All right then, let’s pass a law closing the liquor stores, the bars, and the breweries in this country. Let’s put an end once and for all to the ruinous disease from which as many as ten million Americans suffer—alcoholism.
But wait! We have already tried that. For thirteen years, from 1920 to 1933, there were no liquor stores anywhere in the United States. They were shut down—abolished by the Eighteenth Amendment. After January 20, 1920, there was supposed to be no more manufacturing, selling, or transporting of “intoxicating liquors.” Without any more liquor, people could not drink it. And if they did not drink it, how could they get drunk? There would be no more dangers to the public welfare from drunkenness and alcoholism. It was all very logical. And yet prohibition of liquor, beer, and wine did not work. Why?
Because law or no law, millions of people still liked to drink alcohol. And they were willing to take risks to get it. They were not about to change their tastes and habits because of a change in the law. It was easy to obtain bootleg alcohol. Smuggling was constant over the Canadian and the Mexican borders. Speakeasies sprang up in all the large and small cities. The government tried to put a stop to all the bootlegging. Between 1920 and 1930 it hired 17,816 special agents, “dry agents” as they were called, to enforce the prohibition law. But few of the agents took their jobs too seriously. City police officers were often no more reliable than the U.S. agents.
President Herbert Hoover once spoke of Prohibition as a “noble experiment.” The experiment may have been noble in purpose, but in practice it was a dismal failure. Crime and drunkenness were supposed to decline as a result of Prohibition. Instead people drank more alcohol than ever—often poisoned alcohol. And instead of people controlling gangsters, it was common in many cities for gangsters to control the police. By 1933, most people thought the noble experiment had lasted long enough. On December 5, 1933, they repealed Prohibition by ratifying the Twenty-first Amendment.
For Discussion—Prohibition was an experiment that was tried a long time ago. Does the failure of one experiment mean that all experiments like it will fail? In a democratic society, citizens decide what kinds of laws they want and need. If a law does not work, they are free to change or repeal it.
Here is a list of products that are potentially dangerous to the consumer. Should people under 18 be free to buy them? Should an adult be free to buy them? Do you think a prohibition on these products should be enforced? Would it be a successful prohibition? What problems would result from a prohibition on these products?
1.
|
Cigarettes
|
2.
|
Liquor
|
3.
|
Beer and Wine
|
4.
|
Marijuana
|
5.
|
Handguns
|
6.
|
Cars without seatbelts
|
7.
|
Saccharine
|
8.
|
Laetrile
|