Anniversary of the End of Prohibition - 75th

[beans]

Intresting reading today! The following is a paraphrase of a PRNewswire story that cannot be linked:

"I think this would be a good time for a beer."

-Stated by Roosevelt hearing of the repeal of Prohibition.

On December 5th, 1928, two thirds of the States ratified the 21st Amendment, ending Prohibition nationwide.

Recent, a nonprofit coalition called the Center for Consumer Freedom, supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, is a group that advocates and works toward personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices jumps in on what they are calling "neo-prohibition" promotions.

These folks are warning that "neo-prohibitionist groups are targeting consumers in again reviving Prohibition -- as evidenced by movements seeking increased alcohol taxes, mandatory road blocks, restrictive zoning for family restaurants that "take aim at every American adult who drinks responsibly" according to the CCF's Executive Director, Rick Berman.

Such a campaign has appeared in USA Today and the neoProhibitionists have launched their new website here.

Hmmmmm.

Well, here's another Prohibition article:

The Kentucky Post, on line edition's article "When we were dry," written by Michael Collins,

Post Washington Bureau

It was the great social experiment that failed.

At 5:32 p.m. on Dec. 5, 1933, Prohibition officially came to an end as the 21st Amendment was ratified and alcohol sales became legal in the United States for the first time in 13 years.

Happy anniversary!

[woodburner]

Thanks for those articles. And I agree with much of what is being said.

woodburner

[Pan]

Beans, the general tone of the Kentucky Post article you linked to is that we are getting further and further from Prohibition, not going back to it.

As to roadblocks, whatever one thinks of the civil liberties issues involved, I don't see the relevance to prohibition. Roadblocks are aimed at people who drink and then drive, not people who simply go into a bar and have a drink or bring a 6-pack to a party. Zoning and taxation are unrelated issues, it would seem to me. (Zoning among other things can restrict the location of establishments that serve drinks, and taxation makes it more expensive to buy a drink.) But of course, I haven't read how the unlinkable article connects them. Perhaps you could elaborate on that a little?

[beans]

Differing points of view. The first article I paraphrased was a consumer watch dog type of group pointing out the NeoProhibitionist efforts. The second article was included as it related to the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition.

Without entering into moral judgments regarding any of the following, I can see where some of the legislative decisions have been seen by some as "prohibitive." Also, I need to stress quite vehemently that the Center for Consumer Freedom is stressing social responsibility with the consumption of alcohol, not as in the frat party sort of binging until puking. So, that being said, I hope any discussion can be made solely within that premise. I certainly am not able to debate whether any of this is "right" or "wrong." However I can empathise about some of these perceptions.

Think about cities, such as mine, that taxed the heck out of everyone's choice to purchase alcohol or tobacco in order to pay for a new sports stadium (sin taxes, which by the way, are being kicked around again in an effort to build a new and improved convention center so as to "compete" with the big dogs for convention business ). These taxes are tacked onto bars and restarants, as well as consumer retail purchases, and now are faced with the struggle of the added expense for patrons to drink/dine at their establishment. This directly affects their revenues.

This is sort of thrown in, but also of another consideration regarding government imposed taxing, I have travelled to countries wherein taxes are so sky high in an effort to prohibit -- when I toured Thailand, the auto tax was prohibitive (at the time a whopping 300%) so as to curb the purchase in an effort to reduce an already over-congested level of traffic.

Increased taxation may very well be to a desired positive goal, however it may make certain purchases more difficult for some that make the moral decision to consume same.

Regarding the road blocks. There are a few instances I am aware of regarding this practice prohibiting the patronage of a bar within the surrounding suburbia of the City of Cleveland. For a fair amount of time these two suburbs made quite a bit of news with their law enforcement efforts.

The City of Euclid frequently did random stops on the busy Eucild Avenue under the premise that driving was in fact a priviledge and not an individual's given right. Legalese aside, it essentially came down to curbing the patronage of many local nearby pubs. Also in another similar situation, the City of Independence's police department aggresively camped out and sat within a particular restaurant's parking lot stopping most of the leaving patrons. Needless to say, there was a really crabby bailiff now managing a clogged case load of Mayor's court hearings and some really ticked off restaurant owners, managers, servers and bartenders! Patrons avoided the City of Independence establishment to the point of almost bankrupting that restaurant and bar. So it is reasonable that one with knowledge of these police campers and road block check points, even while being responsible with the consumption of one cocktail -- or not (!), one could be nervous, uncomfortable and perhaps rethink choice of establishments, thereby creating the perception of being prohibitive.

Zoning is always a battle ground with many motivations. Change of use and location are two of the biggies that never end. I can think of one establishment that opened up shop in a restaurant location that had been vacant. But this involved semi-naked women (adult enterntainment issues) which mingled with liquor license and illegal changes in use issues as well. This was when I worked for the Law Department of the City of Cleveland and the matter was within my group area of practice. I had to giggle when the matter was before a county-elected judge for a pretrial hearing, and it was continued indefinitely for deliberation. Yes, this bar violated the zoning with illegal change of use and was noncompliant as it was within x amount of feet of a school, another adult entertainment establishment and a residential district. Yes, the City lost on that issue without the docket reflecting those exact words. The establishment owner argued he had a legally valid business that the City was prohibiting him to conduct -- the sale of alcohol and food.

Side note: Somehow, I ended up bartending there, years later!

Some may view/perceive that these legislative "penalties" linked to the consumption of alcohol as making it (more) prohibitive, in a social sense.

Whew! That was too long. I think I need a ....

[Pan]

Thanks for your explanation, beans. I understand the situation in Cleveland better now. But I still think roadblocks are basically a safety vs. civil liberties issue, not a form of Prohibition. How many of the cops who man (and woman?) the roadblocks do you think have a beer after their shift is over?

[Nick]

Roadblocks for any reason, except in the most dire of circumstances, are but one more step toward an authoritarian society.

[Pan]

That's a civil liberties issue, though, not a step toward prohibiting the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages.

[bloviatrix]

In honor of the repeal of prohibition, the NY Times ran an article about "21," the former speakeasy now restaurant.