[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.This was especially true of the casualdrinker, the person who had always been able to take or leave his liquor;why run the risk of a fine or jail term, he now asked himself, for so smalla pleasure? A law, no matter how unpopular it is or how unreasonableit seems, will always discourage some people from the proscribed be-havior; others will be fined or incarcerated and for that reason, some ofthem, too, will begin to act in a different manner.It is, to repeat, a mystery that so many analysts of the period couldsuppose for so long a time that a nationwide ban on alcoholic beverages,however absurd in conception, however inefficiently imposed, couldsomehow make them more attainable for more people.Yes, what is pro-hibited takes on a cachet that it did not have when it was allowed, butonly to certain people, and the same law that giveth the cachet takethaway the ease of access.Drys, of course, greatly exaggerated the new American dryness.Theyundercounted speakeasies, scoffed at home brewing, minimized crime.On at least one occasion, the absurdity of their optimism led them to 282 Chapter 10do something that would later have to be undone.Within a week ortwo of the start of Prohibition, a mere fourteen days or less, the NewYork commissioner of public charities was crowing, There are so fewpatients in the alcoholic ward of Bellevue Hospital.that the Hospi-tal Committee has just approved its abandonment. As journalist MarkSullivan comments, The action was premature.Long before prohibi-tion was ended Bellevue again had need for an alcoholic ward. The Anti-Saloon League also touted the Eighteenth Amendment sripple effects.It claimed that people were putting more money than everbefore into savings accounts, as well as spending a higher percentage oftheir disposable income on the necessities: food, shelter, and clothing.In many cases it was true, although there were other factors involved,the most notable of which was the general American prosperity of the1920s.There was, in other words, more money available for people tospend and save wisely than there had been before the dry law took effect.In addition, the league declared that Prohibition lessened the amountof strife in American households, something it had no possible way ofmeasuring or even intuiting.And then it got completely carried awayand insisted that the Noble Experiment, because it took such a highmoral ground against such deeply entrenched opposition, actually in-creased respect for the law in America.If ever there were a time to sus-pect the dry forces of sneaking a nip or two on the side, thereby scram-bling their perceptions irredeemably, this was it.On the other hand, it is important to point out that quantity of drink-ing is not the same thing as quality, and the nobility of the experimentcannot be measured in terms of the former alone.A friend of WinstonChurchill visited the United States during its dry years and Churchilllater wrote that the man was not impressed. There is less drinking, henoted, summing up his friend s position perfectly, but there is worsedrinking. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran against Herbert Hoover forthe presidency of the United States.Prohibition was not an issue.Theincumbent did his best to avoid the subject and the challenger broughtit up rarely, and then only to denounce it.At one point, in an open letter to New York Senator Robert Wag-ner, Roosevelt quoted in part from a declaration of the American Le-gion, writing that the Eighteenth Amendment has not furthered thecause of a greater temperance in our population, but on the other it has The Hummingbird Beats the Odds 283 fostered excessive drinking of strong intoxicants, and has led to cor-ruption and hypocrisy, has brought about disregard for law and orderand has flooded the country with untaxed and illicit liquor. Later, at a campaign stop in St [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.This was especially true of the casualdrinker, the person who had always been able to take or leave his liquor;why run the risk of a fine or jail term, he now asked himself, for so smalla pleasure? A law, no matter how unpopular it is or how unreasonableit seems, will always discourage some people from the proscribed be-havior; others will be fined or incarcerated and for that reason, some ofthem, too, will begin to act in a different manner.It is, to repeat, a mystery that so many analysts of the period couldsuppose for so long a time that a nationwide ban on alcoholic beverages,however absurd in conception, however inefficiently imposed, couldsomehow make them more attainable for more people.Yes, what is pro-hibited takes on a cachet that it did not have when it was allowed, butonly to certain people, and the same law that giveth the cachet takethaway the ease of access.Drys, of course, greatly exaggerated the new American dryness.Theyundercounted speakeasies, scoffed at home brewing, minimized crime.On at least one occasion, the absurdity of their optimism led them to 282 Chapter 10do something that would later have to be undone.Within a week ortwo of the start of Prohibition, a mere fourteen days or less, the NewYork commissioner of public charities was crowing, There are so fewpatients in the alcoholic ward of Bellevue Hospital.that the Hospi-tal Committee has just approved its abandonment. As journalist MarkSullivan comments, The action was premature.Long before prohibi-tion was ended Bellevue again had need for an alcoholic ward. The Anti-Saloon League also touted the Eighteenth Amendment sripple effects.It claimed that people were putting more money than everbefore into savings accounts, as well as spending a higher percentage oftheir disposable income on the necessities: food, shelter, and clothing.In many cases it was true, although there were other factors involved,the most notable of which was the general American prosperity of the1920s.There was, in other words, more money available for people tospend and save wisely than there had been before the dry law took effect.In addition, the league declared that Prohibition lessened the amountof strife in American households, something it had no possible way ofmeasuring or even intuiting.And then it got completely carried awayand insisted that the Noble Experiment, because it took such a highmoral ground against such deeply entrenched opposition, actually in-creased respect for the law in America.If ever there were a time to sus-pect the dry forces of sneaking a nip or two on the side, thereby scram-bling their perceptions irredeemably, this was it.On the other hand, it is important to point out that quantity of drink-ing is not the same thing as quality, and the nobility of the experimentcannot be measured in terms of the former alone.A friend of WinstonChurchill visited the United States during its dry years and Churchilllater wrote that the man was not impressed. There is less drinking, henoted, summing up his friend s position perfectly, but there is worsedrinking. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran against Herbert Hoover forthe presidency of the United States.Prohibition was not an issue.Theincumbent did his best to avoid the subject and the challenger broughtit up rarely, and then only to denounce it.At one point, in an open letter to New York Senator Robert Wag-ner, Roosevelt quoted in part from a declaration of the American Le-gion, writing that the Eighteenth Amendment has not furthered thecause of a greater temperance in our population, but on the other it has The Hummingbird Beats the Odds 283 fostered excessive drinking of strong intoxicants, and has led to cor-ruption and hypocrisy, has brought about disregard for law and orderand has flooded the country with untaxed and illicit liquor. Later, at a campaign stop in St [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
