From: [d--i--y] at [carson.u.washington.edu] (The Freedom Courier)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: On the 60th Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition
Date: 4 Dec 1993 18:03:50 GMT

Here is an article which I received from libernet and thought worth 
sharing.  Professor Thornton is associated with the von Mises 
Institution.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 93 11:22:27 CST
From: [M T HORN T N] at [business.auburn.edu]
Subject: 60th Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition
To: [l--er--t] at [Dartmouth.EDU]

     Prohibition's Repeal: 60 Years Ago Today 
               by Mark Thornton 

We are accustomed to the federal leviathan, yet sixty years ago
today (December 5, 1933), in a victory for liberty, its power was
curtailed in one fell swoop. When Utah voted for the 21st
amendment to the Constitution, it provided a necessary two-thirds
majority to make it law. 

Section one read: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the
Constitution [1919] of the United States is hereby repealed."
Today alcohol enjoys specific constitutional approval.
Politicians admitted their error and did something about it. It
was a rare victory for the rights of individuals. 

Repealing Prohibition made economic sense. It ended the high
profits that drew law-abiding people into the underworld of
speakeasies, moonshiners, and rum-runners. Poisonous brews were
replaced by safe and legal drink. And moderate and responsible
drinking became the social norm, as it has been throughout
history. The lesson of Prohibition is that the government cannot
ban highly desired goods without imposing terrible economic and
social costs. 

With the 21st amendment, our libertarian heritage triumphed over
a puritanical fit of statism. Yet today, we are repeating the
errors that brought on Prohibition in the first place. 

Liquor production and consumption is under attack again. As a
part of its Healthy People 2000 program, the federal government
intends to cut per capita alcohol consumption by 25 percent. To
do that, we'll need new "sin" taxes, absurd Blood Alcohol
Concentration standards that define "drunk" driving, more bans on
advertising and promotion, and much more. 

Alcohol warning labels mandated in 1988, which infuriated the
world's wine exporters, were just the beginning. Pregnant women
are constantly scolded by government-mandated warnings in
restaurants. Bars are sued for the irresponsible behavior of
patrons. Beer producers are being pressured not to distribute in
the innercity. 

In some ways, the New Prohibitionism casts a wider net than the
old. America is supposed to "Smoke Free" by -- you guessed it --
the year 2000. Discrimination and hate against smokers is the 
norm. The tobacco industry has had to diversify its
portfolio to protect its institutional life. Hundreds of bills in
Congress are to designed to prohibit the use of tobacco products
step by step. 

We haven't heard much about the drug war lately, probably because
it has failed so miserably. Yet every year, the federal
government spends $30 billion in the war on drugs. Mandatory
minimum sentences force occasional pot smokers to spend five
years in prison. Meanwhile real criminals out on the streets and
committing violent crimes. Double jeopardy is routine for small-
time dealers, in violation of the Bill of Rights. 

In the name of drug enforcement, government at all levels has
made a growth industry out of civil asset forfeiture. Government
agents confiscate property on the flimsiest of evidence. Even
when you're found innocent, recovering your property is virtually
impossible. 

The message of the New Prohibitionism equates use with abuse, as
if human volition had nothing to do with turning moderation into
excess. Common sense helps us distinguish between a glass of
champagne and a pure-grain alcohol overdose. People know that one
drink is not "a risk" for everyone, no matter what the Neo-
Prohibitionists claim. That's why "Just Say No" educational
campaigns often backfire.

We are often told, for example, that increased alcohol
consumption is directly correlated with increased highway death.
That's not true. From 1966 to 1981, highway fatalities dropped
from 5.7 to 3.2 persons per 100 million vehicle miles. Yet during
the same period, per capita alcohol consumption increased by 19
percent. In the subsequent decade, traffic fatalities fell again,
not because of MADD campaigns, but because of anti-lock brakes,
airbags, and crash-proof auto designs.  

Just as during Prohibition, laws curtailing consumption backfire
in unexpected ways. "Dry" counties typically have higher
incidence of drunk driving than "wet" ones (Alabama is a case in
point). Dry Indian reservations have experienced a higher rate of
alcohol related fatalities than wet ones. 

Strictures against marijuana use lead to higher consumption of
cocaine and heroin. Police crackdowns on crack lead to boons in
designer drugs. Higher taxes on liquor cause people to drink
stronger brews that give more bang for the buck. And mandatory
closing hours on bars throw drunks out on the road all at the
same time and lead to accidents. 

What if someone again proposed an amendment reading: "The
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors...is
hereby prohibited." It might garner a measure of support. As we
sip our New Year's Eve champagne, let's remember that liberty is
a mosaic woven of many freedoms, including economic and personal,
as the 21st amendment reaffirmed.  
__________________
Mark Thornton, O.P. Alford III Assistant Professor of economics
at Auburn University and coordinator of academic affairs of the
Ludwig von Mises Institute, is author of The Economics of
Prohibition (University of Utah Press, 1991).