Talk:Prohibition

This is the Talk page for discussing changes to the Prohibition article
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia. You're encouraged to create an account and look at the Tutorial, but feel free to just jump in and be bold, if you don't have any frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

I call a foul

I call a foul on the editing of this article, and it appears to me that the editors of several related articles have their own agenda and are not being "neutral". I could give many examples, and have in other articles on related topics, but let's just take this one.

I posted the links to the prohibition results page as well as the links to the Wickersham Commission Report and the transcripts of the Senate Judiciary committee hearings of 1926. All three were labeled "POV". Apparently, the editor didn't look at them well enough to tell what they were. On the prohibition results page a POV warning is perfectly fair because that is one person's collection of relevant quotes and info.

However, the Wickersham Commission Report is the OFFICIAL US government report on alcohol prohibition. The Senate Judiciary committee hearings are (why do I even have to explain this to "editors"?) the transcripts of congressional hearings. You know, the same as other transcripts of congressional hearings that have been linked for years on Wikipedia without a POV warning. In both cases, the books are presented in full text (or as much as I could manage) without editing or editorial comment. They are the same books you would find in any good university research library - which is where I found them.

In addition, let me state that I have never seen any occasion on which a POV warning has been placed on any US Government link on these topics. If anyone thinks the US Government doesn't have a POV on these issues then, quite frankly, they don't know enough about the subject to edit it. The US Government has had an official, and openly stated, policy of lying about drugs, prohibition, and related topics since at least 1925. That's not my opinion. I can give you the references.

So how about some changes here? How about removing the POV warning from places it doesn't belong, and how about placing a POV warning on a few more of the US Goverment links?

I would like to get these poor editing problems resolved because there are many things that could be expanded, corrected, or improved in these articles and, at the moment, the editing leaves much to be desired.

The POV rules apply to Wiki editors. They do NOT apply to original sources--practically all of which support one position or another. So I removed the POV tags. Rjensen 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. To me it indicates that some of your editors have an agenda. Thank you again.

Older talk

I don't know enough to write it, but somebody should add a section to this article that talks about how doctors could write their patients prescriptions ("scrips") for alcohol, sometimes called "drug store rye". For a personal account, check out:

http://www.virtualnewarknj.com/memories/downneck/keeganshalit.htm

--68.80.78.97 16:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since 1920s Prohibition is one of my pet subjects, I'll do that some time if I remember. I've also got bookmarked a (seemingly non-copyrighted) hi-res scan of the Medicinal Alcohol form used in this procedure. It was fully legal(!) and prescriptions were written and filled without question, would certainly never happen today! Master Thief Garrett 06:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but how come drinks are also sold now, why did drink stop solding.

-This entry gives the illusion that both the US and Canada had the same law (the Volstead Act) enforcing prohibition during the same period (1919-1933) - whereas this is only true for the United States. Canadian prohibition was a provincial law that was passed by the various provinces during the first twenty years of the 1900s (1st was PEI-1900, Last was Quebec-1919); the provinces then repealed their prohibition laws mostly during the twenties (1st was Quebec-1920, the shortest amount of time with prohibition enforced; Last was PEI-1948).

If I get around to it on my vacation, I may update the main Prohibition entry properly to reflect this.

Also some mention needs to be added of the huge business of smuggling alcohol from Canada to the US during Prohibition. Rmhermen 21:09, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I added a mention of how in certain situations stills could explode in this article. It happened to my great-uncle once, where the equipment he was using to make beer exploded (but I think it was after prohibition, he was homebrewing.) Fortunately he wasn't hurt in the explosion.

Probably many of us have people in our family histories who had turned to making their own. My great-grandpa had made his own beverages during this time.

Where my uncle's family lives in Louisiana, the town where they live is dry. It doesn't mean too much other than that there are no bars or stores selling alcoholic beverages where they live. They just have to go a couple miles to get to a store that can sell beer, and there's no real enforcement of the actual dry rules. The only thing the police care about is underage and drunk driving. Kind of makes me wonder why the town even still has the dry rule on the books, unless it's just the principle of the thing.

JesseG 01:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not only are some towns dry across the country (my parents live in a dry town in upstate NY), but in many states, especially in the south, entire counties are dry. I know in some parts of Arkansas and Alabama you have to drive a long ways to get a drink, because multiple adjacent counties are dry. --ntk 20 Jul 2004

Dry Towns

I live in a "dry" town in Louisiana. They sell beer, but no other alcoholic beverages. Can someone explain that one for me. I always assumed that dry ment none.

It's a grey area. Some places pressed for full banning of anything even close to alcoholic, while others for banning of only strong liquor (wine, spirits, whiskey, etc.). The official rules were a bit clearer than that, but I forget what they said at the moment... Master Thief Garrett 06:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy Family

Joe Kennedy's father made the Kennedy family fortune bringing alcohol into the United States during the years of prohibition there. Perhaps this should be in this article. --McDogm 13:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's a sordid little detail... well, it makes sense, how *else* do you get rich when you're not an old established family? heheheh... but maybe save that up for a "noteworthy bootleggers" section. There's also conflicting stories of brewers (and some unrelated people too) that each "created" the term "the real McCoy", so those two brewers would similarly be worthy of mention. But I'd have to read up on it a bit more... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the story about the Kennedy family during prohibition is not true, according to the biographers. There were no illegal activities involved. (Kennedy bought rights to import Scotch before prohibition ended but did not bring in any until it was 100% legal to do so.) Rjensen 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any such addition would of course have to be covered by a citation of a reliable source--Arktos ^talk 12:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia lobby

Is idea that prohibition laws were caused by Mafia lobby considered not neutral point of view?

Unless there is a source for the information, it'd be considered original research. The conventional view is that the Mafia became a powerful force in the U.S. as a result of Prohibition. I've never heard of anyone saying that they helped pass it. But if you have a source that says so, then I'm sure we can add a note about it. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for prohibition

especially in the US, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the bringing in of prohibition in this article. Does anyone know anything about it?

I agree there should be something more here about it. The best Wikipedia place to look for answers before then though is Temperance movement. matturn 13:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan

Someone did an interesting edit to the Ku Klux Klan article today regarding its temperance activities. Although I reverted the edit because there were a lot of problems with it, I assume there is at least some truth to the claim that the Klan was heavily involved in temperance and prohibition.--Bcrowell 03:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "kieltolaki" link in the introduction links to the Finnish-language edition of Wikipedia. Sort of silly.—preceding unsigned comment by 195.148.0.59 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC+11 hours)

Prank

Someone changed the word "prohibition" to "prohibishon" in this article.—preceding unsigned comment by 67.98.18.66 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC+11 hours)

Globalise tag

The globalise tag was added by User:AzaToth on 8 December with the comment "The US specifc should not have a such prominent placing." I disagree. The most famous and discussed case of Prohibition is the US 20th century example, not least because it was the view of a minority imposing against cultural norms of the rest of society. The article covers a wide range of global examples. If more discussion is required, for example about Scandinavian countries, they should be added but the globalisation tag is inappropriate given the coverage of Australia, Canada and Muslim majority countries. I do not have the knowledge to add the Scandinavian experience, if any; I understand the sale of alcohol is restricted, I don't know if it is prohibited. I will allow time for discussion before removing the tag--A Y Arktos 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scandanavia, with the exception of Denmark, has had a long temperance tradition. Prohibition existed in Iceland from 1919 to 1932 and in Finland during the same period. Norway, for example, still has an active and apparently influential prohibition party. Scandanavian countries today, with the exception of Denmark, are characterized by neo-prohibitionism. Russia also imposed prohibition briefly, (1916-1917). Nevertheless, I agree that the globalize tag is unnecessary.David Justin 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Incidentally, it's not entirely clear that a minority imposed its will on the American public to bring about Prohibition. True, Prohibitionists were guilty of widespread deception, including leaders like Wayne Wheeler, William E. Johnson, Mary Hunt, and many others. On the other hand, many states had established prohibition at the state level long before the country did so nation-wide. Of course, we know from documentary evidence that some politicians were fooled into believing that many more people supported prohibition than really did. (Public opinion polls were unknown.) And many people, including politicians, probably believed that prohibition was good for other people but not themselves. This is a fascinating question about which people will argue for decades to come. [1] David Justin 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition in Russia - confliciting sources for dates

We have several different sources for Russian dates of Prohibition in WW1.

A source for the 1916-1917 date is: Ewing, John A. and Rouse, Beatrice A. Drinks, Drinkers and Drinking. In Ewing, John A. and Rouse, Beatrice A. (Eds.) Drinking Alcohol in American Society - Issues and Current Research. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1976, pp. 5-30.

There are a number of sources, however, for 1914 - 1924.

A (cached) reference for Russian prohibition from a site calling itself The Moscow News. Within it is an article on 'Perestroika 1985 - 1991', by Sergei Roy sub-titled 'COLLOQUIAL CHRONICLE' with a section: 1.09. The Vodka Mess (1)

Campaigns against drinking were not as old as drinking itself, but old enough - as old as they were hopeless. The Russian Orthodox Church did most of the campaigning. ....

The first state-initiated attempt at prohibition in Russia was made in 1914, at the outbreak of the Great War. The blessings that came from the move were dubious: The people simply switched from kazyonnaya ("treasury") vodka, that is, vodka sold under state monopoly, to homemade samogon, lit. "self-distilled," or to drinking in what Americans would later dub speakeasies. Another unpleasant consequence of the sukhoy zakon "dry law" was the spread of drug addiction, especially cocaine sniffing, so that some authors with a flair for flamboyant historical explanations have insisted even that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was carried out entirely by cocaine-sniffing Baltic Fleet seamen. Actually, there may be something in it.

Anyway, sukhoy zakon held in Russia until Stalin decided that he had to have money to industrialize Russia if he wanted state-of-the-art weapons and equipment for his armed forces - his only defense against a hostile capitalist environment, in view of the failure of the world revolution to materialize. So he abolished the "dry law" and proceeded to build up what later came to be known as pyany byudzhet "drunken budget," extracting capital from state monopoly on alcohol.

From a review in the International Association of Labour History Institutions news service of a 1999 book by C. S. Walton, Ivan Petrov: Russia Through a Shot Glass.

Alcohol's role in 1917 and 1991 go deeper than the relative sobriety of the victorious leaders. Nicholas II's precipitous decision in July 1914 to extend prohibition beyond mobilization -- and thereby deprive his government of a quarter of its annual revenues -- was the first spur to the galloping inflation that would eventually help bring down his regime. And the spread of samogon (moonshine) production in the Russian countryside during World War I gave peasants the means to hold onto their grain surpluses and sever the cities' food lifeline.

The review does not really deal with this period but the reviewer mentions it in the introduction and apparently has written an article on the subject.

At Alcohol and Drugs History Society there is mention of, but no link to, an article by David Christian, "Prohibition in Russia, 1914-1925," Australian Slavonic and East European Studies 9/2 (1995): 89-118.

This article gives the dates as 1914 - 1924 - imposed by the czar and lifted by the bolsheviks. Similarly this article talks about imposition by the tsar in 1914. Also this review states:

When war broke out in 1914, Nicholas II decreed a ban on alcohol sales for the duration of the war, a measure that proved suicidal for him and Russia's war effort by depriving the state of more than a quarter of its revenue.

I think on the basis of a number of sources the dates for Russia should be 1914 - 24.--A Y Arktos 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ship launched without champagne

In the case of :When the ship, Washington, was launched, a bottle of water rather than tradional champagne or wine, was ceremoniously broken across her bow. Was this the USS Washington (BB-47) launched in 1921?--A Y Arktos 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be the ship, although I need to confirm it. My reference was Behr, E. Prohibition. New York: Arcade, 1996. Will when I can get to the library.David Justin 03:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six Million Dollars

Says the article: "It had been estimated that six million dollars would be needed to enforce prohibition laws"

I'm guessing that that's $6M of the time - but I don't like having to guess, and I don't know for sure. Any chance of someone who does know either changing that to $USxx million 200x or $US6 million at 19xx rates.

template

Added template on progressivism series. --Northmeister 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why just alcohol

Why are we dealing just with Alcohol here? "prohibition" in India was when Hash was (And still is) banned, ditto Pakistan. Expand the scope methinks. I'm aware of the prohibition on drugs article, but, still. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I think this article should be renamed to "Alcohol Prohibition" because there are many other forms of drug prohibitions. Zachorious 00:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the standard term. Any other term would seriously confuse Wiki users. Rjensen 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Prohibition in the U.S.!

I know that it can succeed if we brought it back.--72.65.232.88 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Utah, my friend. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strange bedfellows

There is a very large literature on the connections between prohibition, religion, and reform movements. It was not "strange." The fundamentalist Protestants were only marginally involved--Prohibition was pushed mostly by the mainline Protestant denominations, especially the Methodists, Northern Baptists, Disciples, Presbyterians and Congregationalists (as well as the , Southern Baptists and Scandinavian Lutherans). They had multiple goals (see Social Gospel) Rjensen 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]