Lauren T. asks:
In class today we talked about Prohibition and how the government stopped the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of alcohol. Do you think it was right of the government to pass all of these laws to stop alcohol consumption? Do you think they should have done what they did, (passing the 18th Amendment and all that came along with it), or should they have just tried to reduce the amount of alcohol you consumed, or put a limit on how much you drank?
Also, do you think it was right for civilians to import alcohol illegally?
"After a hard day's work diggin' up the sod, we're ready for chow."
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I believe that the whole ordeal of prohibition was not thought out well enough, and clearly not enforced. I blieve it was a valid move to restrict the alcohal but the way it was done was not effective. The 18th amendment leaving out the crucial point of making it actually illegal to drink alcohal. People could have had alcohal saved up or could easily go about getting some. Personally, I think that bootleggers were smart. Although the morality of their actions in clearly questionable, they took advantage of a good way to make money. Overall, I think that the law in the first place was a bad idea, and its execution was terrible.
I'm not sure that it was right or wrong exactly. I think the majority of the problems came from the wide boundaries that the 18th amendment created. Although it outlawed that sale, and transportation, it did not make drinking or purchasing alcohol illegal. I think that the government was rather lazy in creating and enforcing this law as well. I think that if it were better thought out and they had more enforcement methods it may have worked, but there is no way to outlaw alcohol altogether. Also, no matter what law you make or what you say, there is always that one guy who sees that it gets broken. Its not right, and people should be able to follow a rule, but some requests, such as this, one that changes a way of life, is quite hard to get followers and supporters. Overall, I think that the whole event was rather useless, and in a way, made alcohol a bigger deal and a more sought after item. Hopefully congress has straightened things out and realizes that 1500 people is not enough to patrol a whole country, especially one the size of the U.S.
-Jordan H-
I think that the 18th amendment was not thorough enough to be effective. It left room for people to get their hands on alcohol and led to bootleggers. It would be hard not to resist taking advantage of such a situation. The drinking definately needed to be stopped but the 18th amendment did no good. I think it was wrong for people to import alcohol illegally because they were the source of the problem.
Phil Streeter
In my perspective, the government did not enforce the 18th amendment to its fullest potential. The U.S. government was not prepared for their actions when they outlawed the right to sell alcohol. Specifically, policeman did not enforce the 18th amendment. I believe the 18th amendment only refueled American citizens to drink and sell more alcohol. People drinking or selling alcohol may have felt that they had a lot of power because they were breaking the laws without getting caught.
In believe the U.S. government should have put a limit on alcohol use instead of passing the 18th amendment. By putting a limit on alcohol use the thrill to sell or drink alcohol would be lost.
I do not think it was right for civilians to import alcohol illegally. I do feel this was an easy way for bootleggers to get money, but a law is a law, bootleggers took this opportunity to make as much money as possible, no matter the “cost”.
Chase R.
(This might be an extra comment)
Post a Comment