Eighteenth Amendment: What the flying fuck were you guys thinking?

[IRON MAN]

Okay, I'm doing an in depth study of the US constitution.

I'm assuming that you yanks might have a more generalised cut-through-the-bullshit idea about not only the causes of the Eighteenth Amendment, but how it managed to get past at all.

I mean the fact that it passed in the first place just blows me away.

I can't help but imagine a list of the amendments being shown on Sesame Street, and the song going, "Which of these things is not like the others?", and a bunch of fucking 6 year olds picking that one out.

I mean kudos for repealing the fucker, but what a huge fuck up.

I also wonder if it wasn't changed back for the wrong reasons - just like Capone got jailed* for tax evasion instead of for being a murderous fuck. That whole thing has never sat very well with me in the first place. It sails way to close to selective application of law.

Anyway, what's the real dope on this thing? I notice the next year women got the vote - but surely it can't be explained that easily.

How in the fuck could something so fucking goddamned ... shit there's no other word for it ... unconstitutional ... get through your system and put into your constitution?


Okay, okay, I'm going to start spelling, "gaol", with the US spelling, "jail", particularly since the poms now use it. I mean, I can see which way the river's flowing - but I want you guys to sit down and have a long hard think about that in relation to the metric system - deal?

[Sock Puppet]

Capone got gaoled for tax evasion because that's what they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect that the disconnect he maintained between his operations and himself served as a double-edged sword -- it helped him beat the rap on his worse crimes, but also helped to prove that he was evading taxes. The court system, along with everything else in Chicago, was so corrupt that they were lucky to pin even that on him.

The 18th Amendment was ridiculous, but it's not the only ridiculous offense perpetrated on the Constitution. Check out the Three-Fifths Compromise. I would argue that was even worse, counting a slave who can't vote as 3/5 of a person for purposes of congressional representation.

And I know you realize this, but "we guys" weren't thinking anything re: the 18th Amendment, most of us having not been fucking born yet.

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

I can't help but imagine a list of the amendments being shown on Sesame Street, and the song going, "Which of these things is not like the others?", and a bunch of fucking 6 year olds picking that one out.

That's what I keep thinking when Republicans start crowing about a Flag-Burning Amendment or a Marriage Amendment or other amendments that take rights away from Americans. For me, the Constitution should only give rights to citizens, not take them away.

[jd420]

I'm assuming that you yanks might have a more generalised cut-through-the-bullshit idea about not only the causes of the Eighteenth Amendment, but how it managed to get past at all.

Yes! We do! Wanna read what it sounds like?

Eighteenth Amendment: What the flying fuck were you guys thinking?

...and that's about the sum of it.

The only good thing about the eighteenth amendment is that they at least did it technically legally, though it's still a dumbshit idea.

If you read through the "all powers not herein enumerated" and compare it with the mere existance of federal drug law, or the "...from unreasonable search and seizure..." against a quick google search of the terms "civil forfeiture" - you'll discover that prohibition is still fucking up the states, only with even (surprisingly) less regard for the law by the government.

...but, yes... "what the flying fuck were you guys thinking" pretty much sums it up.

[godfry n. glad]

Alcohol was a demonstrably destructive force in American society at the time.

To understand it, you'd need to acquaint yourself with the temperance movement within the context of the United States history. Liquor interests also had inordinate power within the political system of many states and municipalities.

I find your connection of the woman sufferage movement to the temperance movement to be a mite ironic, considering that the 18th Amendment preceded the 19th, meaning that women voters had very little to do with it. However, woman sufferage was repeatedly denied in multiple states throughout the nation because of the influence of the liquor interests, who maintained that if women were given the vote, they would pass prohibition. This is because the strongest, best organized and most prolific adherents to prohibition were the women of the American Women's Christian Temperance Union....many pulled into the struggle by either being subject to, or witnessing, beatings by drunken husbands (an all too common event in a society where women were basically second-class citizens).

[Dingfod]

We wuzn't the onlyiest ones:

Alkyhall Prohibition (according to Wikipedia)
* 1920 to 1933 in the United States
* 1914 to 1925 in Russia (called "sukhoy zakon", also transcribed as "Sukhoi zakon" what translates to "Dry Law")
* 1915 to 1922 in Iceland (though beer was still prohibited until 1989)
* 1916 to 1927 in Norway (wine and beer also included in 1917)
* 1919 to 1932 in Finland (called kieltolaki)
* 1901 to 1948 in Prince Edward Island, and for shorter periods in other locations in Canada

What a bunch of nutjobs, eh?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

We wuzn't the onlyiest ones:

Alkyhall Prohibition (according to Wikipedia)
* 1920 to 1933 in the United States
* 1914 to 1925 in Russia (called "sukhoy zakon", also transcribed as "Sukhoi zakon" what translates to "Dry Law")
* 1915 to 1922 in Iceland (though beer was still prohibited until 1989)
* 1916 to 1927 in Norway (wine and beer also included in 1917)
* 1919 to 1932 in Finland (called kieltolaki)
* 1901 to 1948 in Prince Edward Island, and for shorter periods in other locations in Canada

What a bunch of nutjobs, eh?

Wow....Looka that willya? Four of those six societies have historic problems with chronic alcoholism. I'd bet that the US and Canada do as well.

[Dingfod]

BTW, I was alive when Oklahoma ended Prohibition of alcohol, 1959. I was a little unaware of it, being only four years old that year.

[JackDog]

And don't forget that there are still dry counties* in the U.S. including 1/3 of the counties in my state.



* = A "dry county" is a county in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages.

[godfry n. glad]

Locally, we had 'Blue Laws' that allowed municipalities to ban or limit alcohol sales within their boundaries. The last vestige of that died some six years back when the last dry town in the state voted it out.

'Blue Laws' are basically attempts at legislating morality.

[Javaman]

"Blue Laws" are only an annoyance as well. My county has no restrictions but there are laws in Omaha and Bellevue that restrict sales on Sunday to after noon. Sometimes we do our shopping early on Sunday and make our way to those cities to do it. It sucks to put back your bottles of wine that we're not even going to drink until evening. We can buy whatever we want in our own small town any time. Those up north merely need to drive a few minutes more to get their stuff and then the money goes to another municipality. It's stupid from an economic perspective.

[IRON MAN]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Capone got gaoled for tax evasion because that's what they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt ... The court system, along with everything else in Chicago, was so corrupt that they were lucky to pin even that on him.

That's a good point. And at the end of the day everyone was better off with Capone behind bars, but still it's a pity it came to that.

But again, where is the bigger problem, Al Capone evading taxes, or the people taking his bribes? There's something just not right in there somewhere.

The 18th Amendment was ridiculous, but it's not the only ridiculous offense perpetrated on the Constitution. Check out the Three-Fifths Compromise. I would argue that was even worse, counting a slave who can't vote as 3/5 of a person for purposes of congressional representation.

Whoa. Nasty.

Yes, the word 'compromise' probably doesn't belong in a document like that in the first place, and I can well understand the practical considerations involved at the time that would force a person to grit their teeth and sign off on something like that. But again kudos for the later amendments that fixed that fuck up also.

And I know you realize this, but "we guys" weren't thinking anything re: the 18th Amendment, most of us having not been fucking born yet.

Well I guess what I am really asking is how do you, living in your culture, and presumably believing in freedom and the other principles associated with the US figure something like this managed to gain sufficient support to pass?

From my point of view, it just seems so incongruous that I can't see exactly how they managed to spin such a crap idea in such a way as to gain the support it required to reach the status of federal law.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

Okay, I'm doing an in depth study of the US constitution.

Not starting with the 18th Amendment, I hope.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by jd420

If you read through the "all powers not herein enumerated" and compare it with the mere existance of federal drug law, or the "...from unreasonable search and seizure..." against a quick google search of the terms "civil forfeiture" - you'll discover that prohibition is still fucking up the states, only with even (surprisingly) less regard for the law by the government.

Er ... what?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Wow....Looka that willya? Four of those six societies have historic problems with chronic alcoholism. I'd bet that the US and Canada do as well.

Some of the Scandinavian countries still have ridiculously high alcohol taxes as well.

At a bar in Sweden, a shot of vodka costs like $10. Which is why I mostly limited my drinking to the bar/clubs run by the Student Nations, which as non-profit organizations don't have to pay any sales tax, which actually brought their prices to below that of your typical American bar/club.

And that's why if you are in Denmark or the far north of Germany, you will find many drunken Swedes who have come for the cheap alcohol.

[IRON MAN]

Originally Posted by JackDog

That's what I keep thinking when Republicans start crowing about a Flag-Burning Amendment or a Marriage Amendment or other amendments that take rights away from Americans. For me, the Constitution should only give rights to citizens, not take them away.

Ooh! Flag burning amendment! Nice comparison.

This is exactly the kind of shit I am talking about. I mean there is no fucking way you can justify a law so obviously shitty. And it's obvious to a fucking two year old.

If they pass that law over there I suggest all the yanks move to Canada or something - because the US will have well and truly gone down the gurgler.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Alcohol was a demonstrably destructive force in American society at the time.

Still is. So are cigarettes, cars, cocaine and X-Box, but I thought you guys always knew that was not really the point, summed up so eloquently in the phrase, "You have the right to be wrong, (and/or stupid)."

To understand it, you'd need to acquaint yourself with the temperance movement within the context of the United States history. Liquor interests also had inordinate power within the political system of many states and municipalities.

That exceeded other industries to such a degree that it seemed reasonable to a sufficient number of people to pass a constitutional amendment specifically for alcohol? Sounds like only part of the story at best.

I find your connection of the woman sufferage movement to the temperance movement to be a mite ironic, considering that the 18th Amendment preceded the 19th, meaning that women voters had very little to do with it.

Preceded by one year - I'm assuming the women's movement was very strong one year before getting the vote, I'm guessing the idea that women should vote wasn't just an overnight brainstorm.

However, woman sufferage was repeatedly denied in multiple states throughout the nation because of the influence of the liquor interests, who maintained that if women were given the vote, they would pass prohibition.

To be fair, they were probably right because as you say ...

This is because the strongest, best organized and most prolific adherents to prohibition were the women of the American Women's Temperance Union....many pulled into the struggle by either being subject to, or witnessing, beatings by drunken husbands (an all too common event in a society where women were basically second-class citizens).

But that's still doesn't explain why a sector of the population actively engaged in fighting for their own freedom at the time were so busy trying to wrest it from others and why the clear irony of the situation was not directly apparent to everyone outside that movement.

I mean the flag burning bullshit is a perfect example - you have a bunch of hard-core nationalist whack-jobs trying to push it, (as hugely represented as they are), but nobody else with half a brain is buying it for a second.

'Blue Laws' are basically attempts at legislating morality.

And they always obviously were - right? So how did it happen?

Then again, the flag burning amendment is an attempt at legislating nationalism and that's been making [I]some[i] progress - you guys are really starting to scare me.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Originally Posted by IRON MAN
Okay, I'm doing an in depth study of the US constitution.

Not starting with the 18th Amendment, I hope.

Why not? I figure it's no good reading the original document if it needed to be amended so much anyway, and the first bunch of amendments are probably some out-dated shit like, "Thalt shalt not covet thy neighbours ass", or something, so I figured I could skip at least the first ten. I mean how important could those possibly be?

[The Lone Ranger]

I think that any proper analysis of United States history must incorporate the fact of our Puritan heritage. From the very beginning of this country's history, a fairly large percentage of the population has felt that it was their divinely-appointed duty to ensure that everyone else behaves "properly."

U.S. history doesn't make any sense at all unless you take that into account.

Cheers,

Michael

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

Why not? I figure it's no good reading the original document if it needed to be amended so much anyway, and the first bunch of amendments are probably some out-dated shit like, "Thalt shalt not covet thy neighbours ass", or something, so I figured I could skip at least the first ten. I mean how important could those possibly be?

I realize you're probably just messing around, but the 18th Amendment doesn't have a thing to with anything else in the Constitution. Neither does the proposed marriage amendment (I refuse to capitalize it), aside from the ongoing general struggle between state and federal power.

The oft-proposed flag burning amendment at least has some connection with it, since the Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is expressive speech protected by the First Amendment, so opponents of flag burning are attempting to invalidate a decision of the Court interpreting -- wrongly, in their view -- a separate provision of the Constitution.

But the 18th Amendment and the proposed marriage amendment have about as much to do with the Constitution itself as a ham sandwich. If you want an Amendment that you can really wrap your brain around in a purely constitutional context, the 14th Amendment is where it's at.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

And they always obviously were - right? So how did it happen?

It isn't obvious to people that laws against marijuana, same-sex unions and so forth are also attempts at legislating morality. Or, if they do realize it, they don't care.

So it doesn't seem to me that this would really prevent the laws from getting passed.

The only difference is that in this case, a large majority of people agree that drinking alcohol is acceptable... so the attempt to tell them what to do doesn't sit with them as well. When talking about the other things, however, the fact that it's legislating morality doesn't bother them - because it's imposing their morality.

[godfry n. glad]

Yet, Michael, the Puritans had no strictures banning alcohol. Indeed, beer arrived with them and their descendants became the producers of large amounts of alcohol in the form of rum made from Caribbean cane sugar and molasses (and, in turn, used for payment on slaves in west Africa ~ review your material on the 'Triangle Trade'.)

The English colonies owe their survival to alcohol (in the case of New England) and tobacco (in the case of Virginia and the southern colonies). And, yes, much like in Australia, distilled alcohol served at one time as a makeshift currency. Also, much of the new wealth flowing out of the newly acquired territories (the Ohio Valley) after independence was shipped in the form of corn liquor (aka bourbon whiskey). This trade formed a critical portion of the push for control of New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, which, along with its subsidiary, the Ohio, was the 'merchant road' out of the wilderness.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's certainly true that the Puritans never tried to ban alcohol. I think the general mindset fostered by Puritanical thinking though -- that the "enlightened" people have a duty to reign in "improper" behavior, by force of law, if necessary -- has been an important factor in shaping the American psyche.

Such is my impression, anyway.

Cheers,

Michael

[jd420]

Er ... what?

1) According to the US constitution, the federal government has no right to prosecute anything not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in each instance as relating to interstate commerce.

The constitution hasn't stopped them.

2) According to the US constitution, the federal government cannot confiscate cash or property without a finding of guilt of an actual crime in a court of law under full due process.

The constitution hasn't stopped them.

...the only conclusion I can draw is that prohibition has destroyed the legitimacy of the US government and the rule of law.

[IRON MAN]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I think that any proper analysis of United States history must incorporate the fact of our Puritan heritage. From the very beginning of this country's history, a fairly large percentage of the population has felt that it was their divinely-appointed duty to ensure that everyone else behaves "properly."

U.S. history doesn't make any sense at all unless you take that into account.

Cheers,

Michael

But see, you could say the same about any culture. You might not use the word, "puritan", in the same way, but take a look at the poms and their manners and Queen and country bullshit for example. And do I even have to start on the Asians and Muslims?

Looking back at your puritan beginnings only looks extreme to you because of who you are now - as a result of your departure then from what was a very common behaviour world-wide at the time.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's certainly true that the Puritans never tried to ban alcohol. I think the general mindset fostered by Puritanical thinking though -- that the "enlightened" people have a duty to reign in "improper" behavior, by force of law, if necessary -- has been an important factor in shaping the American psyche.

Such is my impression, anyway.

Cheers,

Michael

I think that the "general mindset fostered by Puritanical thinking" probably had a lot to do with attempts at legislating morality, particularly in the form the the 'Blue Laws', which originated in attempts to impose their morality upon the entire community, particularly on the Sabbath.

However, that is only one strand of American thought. The founders of Jamestown, and their cultural descendants form yet another strand. That strand is the one which reinforces the "get rich quick" schemes, greed, entrepeneurial activity, and "stay outta my face" attitudes. The founders of Jamestown were there to defraud the natives out of their gold. They were mostly adventurers and other younger (and thus dispossessed) progeny of the knights and aristocracy of the old world. They had no use for the Puritanical thinking of the New Englanders....and they were there first, anyway. Of course, there was little to no gold and the originals died like flies on a plastic turd. It was only the imposition of civilty from the outside and the discovery of an addictive, but easy to grow and process, product to ship to the home country to defray the cost of the effort: tobacco.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

But that's still doesn't explain why a sector of the population actively engaged in fighting for their own freedom at the time were so busy trying to wrest it from others and why the clear irony of the situation was not directly apparent to everyone outside that movement.

I have heard the argument that it was precisely because a significant proportion of that sector of the population (young men) most likely to oppose prohibition was off fighting in Europe, at the time most of the key votes were taken, that it managed to pass. Not having made any particular study of the question I can't comment on the accuracy of that explanation.