At least that is the theory behand a slightly controversial article published in the February Edition of the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH).
According to the author of the article, Jack S, Blocker PhD, the notion that the move to prohibit alcohol consumption in the USA was a failure rests on an “historically flimsy base.” Blocker maintains that there was a boom in alcohol consumption in the early 19th century that can be attributed to the failure of the existing series of alcohol control programs that were tried prior to the implementation of prohibition.
“The stringent prohibition imposed by the Volstead Act, however, represented a more drastic action than many Americans expected. Nevertheless, National Prohibition succeeded both in lowering consumption and in retaining political support until the onset of the Great Depression altered voters’ priorities. Repeal resulted more from this contextual shift than from characteristics of the innovation itself.”
Blocker’s arguments are sure to raise a few eyebrows.
The stringency of the prohibition laws would suggest a rather unique setting in which they could be enacted. Rather than stating that support for prohibition only dimished due to the unique socio economic circumstances of the Great Depression, is it equally plausible to argue that prohibition only worked and was supported due to the unique socio economic and political circumstances of its own time?
Certainly it would be difficult to see too many historical scenarios prior to or since the early 20th century in which prohibition would garner the support of the wider population and it’s certainly difficult to imagine prohibition having any significant support today.
Nevertheless, Blocker’s contribution to the debate will stimulate an issue that deserves endless investigation. You can view his abstract here.
Via DrugPolicy.org
Technorati Tags: alocohol, prohibition, health
