Yes, I have suggested perhaps we should have some form of prohibition. What, with about 40 percent of the murders and about half the rapes being connected to alcohol, if we can do something, should we not?
But, the reaction to the Prohibition of 1920 to 1933 does give me pause. The Moonshine Rebellion, we could call it. People dissed the law, disrespected the law, and disassociated themselves from the government making the law.
To this day, people view the right to drink as a personal liberty. To them, you aren't just taking their alcohol away, you are taking their freedom. And, you are forcing your morals on them.
Not right, they say.
I would counter that not all "freedoms" are protected. We do not have the right to commit murder, nor rape, so should we have the right to drink to the point of impairment, given that it greatly increases murder and rape?
This is more than one person forcing his morals on another. It is a matter of reducing crime.
Nor am I calling for a full prohibition, only a prohibition of drinking to the point of impairment.
Still, I hesitate. No law will be successful if the backlash against it brings hatred of the government that institutes it.
No comments:
Post a Comment