Monday, October 21, 2013
Esolen on Prohibition
I've blogged before about the fact that one of my favorite books in recent years is Daniel Okrent's Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (here). Prohibition, as a policy and constitutional experiment, was a huge failure, but not simply because (as Anthony Esolen explains, here, at Public Discourse) it failed to reduce alcohol consumption or because "you can't legislate morality." It did, and we "legislate morality" all the time. Prohibition's lessons are, in turns out -- in Okrent's book and in Esolen's essay -- more interesting. Here's a bit from the latter:
So, then, what does Prohibition teach us?
That amendment inserted into the Constitution a law that neither protected fundamental rights nor adjusted the mechanics of governance. It was a radical break from tradition. It is crucial to understand this. It took a juridical break from tradition to obliterate the customs, the lived traditions, of the American people and their forebears. . . .
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/10/esolen-on-prohibition.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
This is the best argument I've read against certain Prohibition policies, particularly in the distinction between prohibiting per se evils (like pornography) and potentially innocent activities (like making and drinking wine).
It would seem that prohibiting pornography would not have the same sorts of destructive effects on the common good the way that prohibition of alcohol had, and the way that the prohibition of narcotics has had on America's inner cities and on the border towns (e.g. Juarez, Nogales, TJ).
But without prohibition on potentially innocent activities, we wouldn't have great modern American theater with movies like Goodfellas or shows like Breaking Bad.