Prohibition Party Candidate gets 4% in National Poll

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/prohibition-party-gets-4-in-national-poll

The report was written by a member or supporter of the prohibition party, so it's hardly an impartial report.

If people don't wish to drink then don't do it, why do they instead wish to prevent other people, who obviosuly do wish to drink, from doing so? Prohibition is simply government meddling with people's individual rights. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s, it simply handed over control of alcohol to organised crime syndicates. What is the earthly point of trying to repeat a failed policy?

The article is written by prohibition party member indeed. But the poll it references was conducted by a reputable national polling organization, and it is on this basis that the opinion editorial is written.

The reason why is on the basis that alcohol is harmful to everybody and it is in the interest of human welfare to prevent its use. When something is of vital interest to the wellbeing of the population, especially one which involves the preservation of life and protecting others from being harmed by the actions of others, then the state holds a legitimate reason to intervene. People have no individual right to consume alcohol under any sensible theory of rights. Alcohol is destructive to life (through its physical effects and the actions it leads some to do), to liberty (through distorting the mind), and to happiness (from all the suffering and harm which results from its effects).

Furthermore, the idea that prohibition didn't work is based in a false mythology about the prohibition era, which contradicts the actual facts of the historical period. I am a historian, and have actually studied the subject. In actuality, national prohibition significantly reduced alcohol use and crimes resulting from the use of alcohol. The general crime rate was reduced by nearly one third following the implementation of prohibition, and the rising murder rates of the 1910's were stagnated during the prohibition era. National Prohibition was the most effective policy for combating the problems of alcohol which this country has ever had. Why wouldn't we want to reestablish a policy which did so much good, while facing up against the wealthy, media, and criminal elements who fought to subvert it. If we judged democracy as having failed due to the end of the first democratic state, we would still be stuck in monarchy.

If the prohibition act had been successful it would never have been repealed. The only thing it acheived was to create a huge funding and growth opportunity for organised crime, which they gleefully seized upon.

4% voted for the prohibition party candidate? That means 96% didn't and they effectively rejected the party's policies. Yet you think you know what's better for them than they do themselves? You say... "People have no individual right to consume alcohol under any sensible theory of rights." Sensible in whose opinion? The law currently allows people to consume alcohol if they wish, anybody who doesn't wish to do so is not compelled to drink it, it's a matter of personal freedom of choice. You propose taking away that freedom of choice and telling people that because you disgree with alcohol nobody else is allowed to drink it, even those who wish to do so? That attitude might work in North Korea but not in the rest of the world. Most sensible people will listened to reasoned requests but nobody with any sense of self tolerates being told what to do or think.

here are a few sources I would suggest you read, to help a better sense of the facts involved with the prohibition era.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015071420817;view=1up;seq=2

No thanks, I know enough about the prohibition era for my peace of mind. If prohibition had worked they wouldn't have repealed it. Why does anyone think that they have the right to impose their own personal beliefs, be it about alcohol or anything else, onto other people who have completely different beliefs?

Government policies aren't necessarily based on whether or not something is a good policy. Its based on the arrangement of power. The government can reject good policies when the wealthy and influential push them to do otherwise. And wealthy interests who had a stake in the alcohol industry did just that.
Good policies don't always win on their first attempt. The equal rights amendment hasn't been passed with current attempts. Would you say because the government rejected it, that the idea was failure? Or would you say that those in power were misguided.

.
Read more closely. The article says that 4% polled in favor of the candidate Jim Hedges. That means 4% thought he was the best choice among the options and would be willing to vote for him in that scenario even if he won't win. In terms of how many people support banning alcohol, polls indicate that is around 20%.
Furthermore, I'm not sure you would want to use that argument. Most people during the implementation of prohibition supported it. By your logic those who opposed prohibition had no right to criticize them or try to change the law.


yes I do. I assert that my claims about the harmfulness of alcohol are based in fact and that policy should be directed in regard to this fact. Just as how I believe that it is a fact that rape is wrong and that government policy should prohibit it as well.

.
Under the standards of logic and evidence. If you wish to disagree present a theory of rights which would claim a right to drink alcohol and we'll see if it is logically consistent and backed by evidence or not.

.
Yes, I contend that the current law is not good for the welfare of people. In a democratic republic, such as the U.S., citizens have the right to try to change the law. those who hold views which are currently minority views have as much of a right to advocate on matters of the law as anybody else.
Furthermore it is not a form of freedom. It is a form of license, which harms the doer and often others by effect.
And a government, which is chartered on the basis of protecting life and promoting the public welfare (which the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. constitution say America is), has a basis to legislating on such matters.


I propose prohibiting such choices on the basis of it based on the factual case of the harm alcohol does, and the principles of protecting human rights, life, and human welfare, which are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. constitution.
People do not have the right to make unrestricted individual choices on whatever they want. Its impossible to have either society or the protection of individual rights if people operated in such a manner.
Just try applying the notion of personal choice to all behaviors. Oh, some people don't like murder, but others like it, so why should we have a law against it? Oh, some people don't like rape, but other people like rape, so why ban rape. Now this kind of standard is ridiculous. And the reason is because some things are of such importance to human wellbeing that we must make rules and prohibit certain behavior. And I would make the case that alcohol is one of those things which is so harmful that it should not be legally allowed.
And this is how it works in virtually every governed country. Behaviors which are deemed to be too harmful to the public wellbeing are prohibited and choice is legally denied because it is of vital interest to do so.

Also, people are free to think whatever they want, and I would defend to death the right of free thought. But freedom of thought does not mean you get to be insulated from different ideas or alternative views. It does not mean that people can't criticize the views of others or try to convince people to think otherwise. In fact doing such things are vital to freedom of speech. And freedom of thought does not mean that people can act according to what they think on all matters. Just because someone thinks its ok to steal doesn't mean that the behavior of stealing can be allowed. There is a difference between thought and behavior. And when behavior has a significant effect on the wellbeing of people in a society, the government has a legitimate reason to legislate on such matters.

Why are you bring rape and such like into the discusion? Alcohol is legal, people are entitled by law to drink it once they reach the minimum drinking age. It isn't compulsory, people who do not wish to drink it are perfectly entitled to do so, nobody tries to force them to do otherwise. Why do you think that you have the rigth to force your beliefs onto others who do not share them? The whole thing smacks of Animal Farm...

I bring up the examples of murder and rape to point out the absurdity of thinking that people should just be able to do as they wish; which you appear to arguing in your attack against prohibition. There are instances where there is a vital interest at stake, which justifies the government legislating on the matter. I am contending that the government should change the law to make alcohol illegal. The reason being based on the assertion that alcohol is in fact harmful and that there is a public interest in prohibiting it for the sake of human wellbeing.
I am asserting these things to be facts, independent of human opinion. I am purporting this merely because I think them, but because of the justification for them as being true and right. If someone else were to do the same and assert something to be true and to have a compelling public interest to be legislated upon, then I would accept such a thing even if the realization had originated with someone else.
Though I am repeating myself, and it seems that you do not seem to understand my point.
but if you're going to speak of belief. Why do you think that you are entitled to say what it is proper to make laws on? Stating a belief in a state where such personal choices aren't prohibited is an opinion what things people are or are not allowed to do, and what the rules for society overall are. And if you claim to be asserting something plainly true, then you would have to admit that I am claiming to assert something true as well, and thus would have to deal with the actual substance of the claims, rather using that opinion ascription copout.

The imposition of one person's opinion onto others who do not share that opinion has a number of names, none of them pleasant. You're blinkered and see only your own viewpoint, you don't seem to understand that other people don't share it and do not wish it to be imposed upon them.

I've said my piece and there's nothing else to say on the subject except that by even your own estimate of 20% who might like to reintroduce prohibition, it also means that 80% don't. So in a democracy you stand no chance of ever reintroducing such repressive legislation.

Lots of things aren't good for you. I'm quite certain fatty foods are responsible for more deaths per year than alcohol. Would you be in favor of in banning unhealthy cuisine? Obesity is a serious epidemic in the U.S. We've got to stop people from doing serious harm to themselves through their poor dietary choices!

Know I am very much aware of my own viewpoint and view points of others. But some viewpoints are justified and realistic and others aren't. I am trying to convince people of the justification and to convince them to support the policy. You don't seem to understand the notion of people trying to convince others that a policy is preferable and that it should be adopted, or that people can be convinced overtime to change the public view.
In a democracy people have the freedom of speech to try to convince people of ideas. Once enough people are convinced of an idea and it is politically organized than a policy can be adopted. And I say there is good possibility that people can be convinced over time to return to this progressive legislation.

If banning corporations from producing and certain products could be shown to protect the vital wellbeing of the public, then yes I would favor it. Information which I have seen so far would indicate that by removing things such high fructose corn syrup and excessive sugar would significantly reduce the excessive rate of obesity in America.

Though with alcohol it is not only physically self-harming, but mentally self-harming, and harmful to others around the users. Alcohol distorts the functioning of the brain and mind, not just in the moments of intoxication, but in producing long term effects. It has been shown to negatively effect cognitive reasoning, decision, and inhibition. In doing so it can incline people toward risky and criminal behaviors. Its depressive qualities produce an increased rate of suicide.
Alcohol use effects others in many ways through the actions of the users. There are those who are injured or killed by drunk drivers. There are relatives who are reduced in resources by the cost of alcohol consumption and its loss of productivity. There are numerous historical instances of families placed in poverty by drunk relatives. Drinkers are also statistically more likely to abuse and/or neglect children. Drinkers can engage in negative behaviors while intoxicated, including in some instances murder. Drinking also involved=s the risk of contracting the illness of alcoholism; at which point addiction more severely distorts their behaviors to the detriment of those around them. And the list goes on.

Democracy is two teetotallers and a drunkard voting on whether people are allowed to drink. Liberty is a well-armed drunkard contesting the vote.

As W.G. Calderwood had written, Liberty for whom. This so called liberty for the drinker is not liberty for others. Its not liberty for the wife who is beaten by her drunk husband, or the children who live in want from the irresponsible actions of their parents, or the taxpayers who have to spend more of their money to fund the social services dealing with the problems of drinking.
Who wins from the legality of alcohol: only the greedy managers of the alcohol industry, who profit of the mass poisoning of the public, while foisting the cost of damage to others.

4% of people will also answer yes to the question "have you ever been decapitated?", or both "Do you support Barrack Obama?" and "Do you think Barrack Obama is a space alien in disguise?". 4% is noise.