Prohibition 2.0

Posted by on September 8, 2014
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Whisky

Satire Alert

Okay, I’ve had enough! I’m angry and think the government needs to do something drastic. Even though drunk driving fatalities are now below 10,000 a year, as celebrated by MADD, even nine thousand people dying is too many. The death toll above doesn’t include deaths due to cirrhosis of the liver and other physical maladies caused or exacerbated by alcohol. Alcohol also has a much broader impact on society. Although the link between alcohol consumption and domestic violence is convoluted and of questionable causality, it still plays a role in violence against women. Alcohol is often a factor in rape, when men use alcohol to diminish a woman’s judgment and the physical ability to resist them. Even though most people enjoy alcohol responsibly, the adverse impact it has on society makes it a substance that we cannot tolerate in our society. If we can save just one child, isn’t prohibition worth it?

When lobbying for prohibition at the beginning of the last century, the prohibitionists did not say that they wanted to control people, or force their morals on the entire country. They said that prohibition would protect women and children from violent men and from neglect when their husbands and fathers became too drunk to hold a steady jobs. To wit, it was for the children. Men (and women) were not capable of controlling their baser needs and the government needed to show them the enlightened way to live. We are, after all, just animals who are barely crawling out of the metaphorical, if not literal caves, and cannot be trusted to act in our own best interest. People will always act in a way to bring about quick, if not instant gratification- something related to that selfish gene. So people drink, do drugs, and elect populist politicians because they’re not capable of delayed gratification and refuse to act for the greater good of humanity, instead gravitating toward quick results and insubstantial policies that do little to address the greater problems facing society, but make them feel better because someone did something.

Obviously, people can’t be trusted… full stop. Just because prohibition didn’t work the first time doesn’t mean that it won’t work now! If implemented properly, prohibition will work and will save people from themselves. With a proper ad campaign, using hashtag badgering and celebrity spotlights on how alcohol has hurt them and their families, then the public will demand restriction on the sales of alcohol. Send out paid agitators to pickets bars and booze shops. You then pass legislation limiting the time and places for the sale of alcohol. Not the business of the federal government and should be left to the states? Have you been paying any attention to how government works now? If Congress is reluctant to pass such a bill, then the President should issue an Executive Order. Just think of the optics for such an event. The President surrounded by children, with a couple in wheelchairs up front who have been put in those chairs by drunk drivers.

When those measures don’t stop the problems caused by alcohol from plaguing society, then you increase the severity of the laws, because obviously what is needed is more laws. At the same time the government needs to pressure banks to cut off loans to places that sell alcohol, to choke off the funding to the industry. The government then announces that people obviously don’t like alcohol anymore because the places that sell alcohol are closing. At the same time there should be a media campaign with photos of supermodels in bikinis holding the old temperance sign saying, “Lips that touch alcohol shall not touch mine.” The news will cheerfully highlight accidents caused by drunk driving and deaths due to alcohol, along with scholarly articles about the evils of alcohol not just on health but on society as a whole.

Feminist scholars will point out that alcohol is a male invention created to keep the current patriarchy in place and continue the systematic abuse of women through macro and micro aggressions. Eventually the people will demand an end to alcohol entirely. The previous attempt at prohibition did not include wine for church services. This time it will include communion wine. Because of the division of church and state, the church should not be exempt from these laws. Some church leaders will object, the response to those hold-outs will be on several fronts. Some church leaders will come out saying that wine 2,000 years ago wasn’t really wine like we have now, just strong grape juice and so there is no Biblical basis for using wine. Atheists will bring forward stories of altar boys who had been molested by drunk priests. That should be enough to shut down anyone in favor of making an exception for the church.

You might argue that this will create a thriving underground market for alcohol, strengthening gangs and illegal activity. Here is the greatest part of that scenario. The ATF will then require increased funding as well as new laws to assist them in stomping out this scourge. There would be a crusade against these evil doers that would go on forever. No longer would an external threat be necessary to get the people to demand new laws to protect them, the evil doers would be walking their own street and could even be a friend, family, or neighbor. Now that’s an immediate and serious threat.
Now if only the gangs and cartels could be unionized.


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
The following two tabs change content below.
Lloyd Dodd was a PhD student in International Relations at the University of Aberdeen, from which he also received his Master’s in Strategic Study. He’s currently trying to finish his dissertation from his home in Texas where the weather is better. His area of research is Military Keynesianism in Europe but currently hates it, academics, furry animals and probably you.