The Neo-Prohibitionist Movement: A Contrary View
So much has been written on Substack about the current neo-prohibitionist movement that it hardly seems necessary to add more—until you realize certain key points have been ignored or overlooked.
The U.S. Surgeon General would like to place health warnings on beverage bottles that contain alcohol. According to his office, alcohol consumption is a risk for seven different types of cancer, with the danger increasing according to the amount consumed: men who have two drinks per day face a 13.1% risk, as opposed to 21.8% for women.
That’s what science says. Curiously, it also says several other things:
· ”Consuming processed meat has been linked to a 6% higher risk of breast cancer [mainly in postmenopausal women], an 18% higher risk of colorectal cancer, a 21% higher risk of colon cancer, and a 22% higher risk of rectal cancer. Red and processed meats are considered a hidden risk factor for stomach cancer” (from a comprehensive study published by the National Library of Medicine).
· According to the CDC, the obesity rate among U.S. adults is 41.9% and climbing. In addition, “58% of U.S. adults with obesity have high blood pressure, a risk factor for heart disease…approximately 23% of U.S. adults with obesity have diabetes.”
· The CDC also reports that nearly two-thirds of adults consume at least one sugar-sweetened beverage per day, and these drinks are “associated with weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney diseases, non-alcoholic liver disease, tooth decay and cavities, and gout, a type of arthritis.”
So why are neo-prohibitionists only concerned about alcohol, while ignoring the science behind other dangerous substances?
Today’s neo-prohibitionists are descendants of the original temperance movement, which flourished during the 19th and early 20th century, and eventually culminated in the passage of Prohibition in 1919. Temperance advocates largely focused on the working poor and believed that alcohol was the major cause of spousal abuse and family neglect. From the beginning, the temperance movement had a strong religious connection; it was preached from the pulpit by pastors of all denominations and supported by groups such as the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America.
Of course, factory workers in 19th century America had other problems. They frequently worked 14 or 16 hours each day in dangerous conditions, exposed to toxic substances and hazardous, faulty equipment. Wages were ridiculously low, and workers had little or no rights—but none of this seemed to bother temperance advocates, who were only concerned about how much alcohol they were drinking. Nearly a century after Repeal, we still have restrictions against purchasing alcohol on Sundays in some states, and there are jurisdictions that forbid alcohol sales entirely.
It's time to state the obvious: Because alcohol consumption violates the religious beliefs of some people in this country, those people don’t want others to drink it.
In legal terms, this is a violation of the separation between church and state (see the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights as a reference), and it also negates the reason why Pilgrims came to the U.S. in the first place. In the realm of common sense, it is an outrage. Joe Blow’s religion forbids alcohol, therefore you can’t have it. What’s next? Should we ban dancing, working on Sundays, and vile, impure thoughts? We’ve already allowed a coalition of fundamentalist groups to practically outlaw abortion in parts of the country, and now they’re coming for people who want to enjoy a glass of wine.
This isn’t an attack against Christians. I was born Jewish, and I can attest that Judaism has its fair share of fundamentalist lunatics. Islam is another discussion entirely. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and they don’t need me to tell them that. They also shouldn’t need me to tell them to mind their own business.
If you want to preserve the right to consume alcohol, don’t take the bait when arguing with neo-prohibitionists. Don’t debate science: It’s a trap. The science is beside the point, as long as we allow a majority of the population to eat themselves to death. Frame the debate on the Constitution, on common sense, on religious freedom, on the right of people to live their own lives. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then marry someone of the opposite sex. If you think alcohol is evil, don’t drink it. But above all else, don’t tread on us.
