I did a PhD on the Australian WCTU which was very similar to the American body – many of its branches were founded by American women and they regularly used American literature. It is important to realise that the WCTU (and indeed much of the temperance movement) was primarily against the liquor sellers – particularly the saloon keepers. The drinkers they saw as the saloon’s poor victims who would be “rescued” tough laws against manufacture and sale of liquor. And it was the manufacture and sale which they wanted to outlaw – not the consumption as such. That is why the temperance women saw prohibition as a religious duty – they believed that it was part of the Christian principle of protecting the suffering. It is not enough to say that the WCTU was “religious” in motivation – you must understand why they saw temperance/prohibition as a religious duty. It was not because of biblical literalism (as some mistakenly believe) or out of blind duty to any religous authority. Also the WCTU could not be said to be particularly nationalist – despite their slogan. Through the World WCTU it was one of the early international organisations!

Don’t get me wrong – I would never support alcohol prohibition and am not that keen on drug prohibition either. But if you misrepresent the motives of those who introduced bad policies then you are not learning the full lessons. The idea of drinkers (and smokers for that matter) as victims of big business is making a comeback. I think that shows that we still haven’t learnt from the mistakes of WCTU and prohibition.

Also, to confirm a link between the temperance movement and the rise of drug use you would need to see whether drug use was highest in “dry” counties and towns. I would have thought that drug use was highest in the cities and they were least likely to be “dry” in the late 19th/early 20th century. If you have any information to the contrary let me know.

Can we get a taste of the chapter on south america?

….interesting argument that anti-prohibition people used, though, that has some resonance today: With the economy in the crapper through the ’30s and the government in need of revenue for its expansion, folks argued that alcohol should be legalized and taxed as a way to create jobs and help ease out of the depression.

I don’t think that argument would get any traction with the ruling class today, law enforcement and the prison industry have hugely benefitted from the war. Ending prohibition really just displaced the lawless treasury agents (the Untouchables). Ending the War on Drugs would displace a massive domestic war economy.

Side note, finding something for those treasury agents to do has had terrible consequences. The NFA act of 1934 was passed Federally to create instant massive non-compliance (nobody paid the $200 taxes on their very common $20 machineguns) giving those treasury agents something to enforce. They’ve become the ATF who still enforce the tax, but will incarcerate or kill Americans for suspected non-payment. The lawless booze-police have become the lawless gun-police.

Masshole — I’ve got a chapter on something along those lines. I’ll post excerpts over the next few days. I’m glad you guys are enjoying it and am grateful for the feedback, both the good and the bad.