At the time of prohibition (pre 1920's) it was common for most wage earners to get paid in cash and far tomany of the men (married or not) to go and drink it, leaving little for their wife's/families. This was a social ill that those favoring prohibbition were thinking they could cure. - it wasn't their only reason btw.
During prohibbition, drinking didn't go away, but it signifigantly decreased. Infact after prohibbition drinking increased about 4 fold. - meaning once legal again everyone thought it was ok and drinking went up. BUT and this is the bigest part, the 13 years of prohibbition in this country changed the habits of those formerly drunk men who spent their wages and yes came home drunk and some even beat their wives.
I'm not sure another solution could have been used. I'm not sure the solution was just, and didn't create more problems. I only know that this is what happened. In some ways it does feel like curing a disease by killing the patient. After all prohibbition created a place for the mob to get going, it was facilitated by the national income tax - the fed's needed a replacement for the alcohol tax, it is possible it even generated the farm crissis of the early 1920s. [there was an over production of grains, none of which were being made into alcohol].
I'm not trying to reopen any debates.
Agreed. Give more rights to the people. Trust them to act responsibly and let their poor choices affect them. While I'm sure people are happier when they have more rights, tying them to responsiblities/consequences probably doesn't make them happier. >shrugg< Either we will be rule by our self control from within, or ruled by a mailed fist from without.
