In a 1952 speech, Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat Jr. tackled the then-contentious issue of alcohol prohibition with a famous short If-By-Whiskey speech. I will simply quote the whole speech below. You can also listen to a commemorative recitation by Mississippi state representative Ed Perry from 2010 here.
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, this is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
Whether this speech is a lazy fence-sitting equivocation, or an escape from a false choice built on artificial absolutes, I leave to you. I would add that while alcohol prohibition is largely a thing of the past, the War on Drugs perpetuates the same false dilemmas today, and this will play a role in American politics as another national election cycle ramps up this year.
I don't drink a lot of alcohol, probably not even averaging a pint of beer per week. I enjoy a little alcohol occasionally, but prefer not to be drunk, or deal with hangovers after a party. That has happened once, and that was enough. I know many people who similarly consume alcohol in moderation. I can also say from personal experience with chronic pain that sometimes just one or two cocktails or beers can help take the edge off a spike in those symptoms.
There are people who struggle with serious alcoholism, and I can understand why those who routinely deal with drunkards would want it forbidden. I speak from some experience even in my extended family here, and I know I can't safely seek a remedy from my own suffering at the bottom of a bottle. Dulling pain, whether physical, spiritual, or psychological, isn't a cure or a long-term solution.
Prohibition is not a societal solution to individual alcoholics, either. This is a historical fact. Bootleggers and Baptists were unintended allies a century ago when the teetotalers demanded political force be used to compel a dry society, and black markets brought massive profits to those serving the underground speakeasies.
It may not be Three Tune Tuesday, but here are a trio of songs referencing moonshine anyway.
Grandpa Jones, Mountain Dew
Osborne Brothers, Rocky Top
Gillian Welch, Tear My Stillhouse Down
Alcohol prohibition may have ended in the 1930s when FDR fulfilled one worthwhile campaign promise, but many states maintained strict alcohol control for decades after. See Smokey and the Bandit for a pop culture depiction of "bootlegging" in the 1970s. The federal government also currently prohibits all distillation unless an excise tax is paid, so whiskey remains illegal outside the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives today. In short, anything labeled as "moonshine" in a commercial store is a fraudulent, compliant, taxed product masquerading as something illicit. I'm not sure if that's ironic, but it is amusing.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon launched the modern "War on Drugs," although federal prohibition laws date all the way back to a 1909 Smoking Opium Exclusion Act, and further laws prohibited heroin, cocaine, and cannabis over the following decades. As with alcohol prohibition, this led to black markets, gang violence, and adulterated or even poisonous products sold outside government control or basic consumer-driven market regulation. The government is still fighting, but I think it's safe to say that for all practical purposes, drugs won the war.
I presently live near the Idaho/Washington border in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The region is rife with controversy. Portland, Oregon is infamous for homeless vagrants, and drug prohibitionists like to place all the blame on lax drug laws, disregarding any and all bigger-picture issues. Washington has legalized and licensed marijuana dispensaries, as has Montana. Idaho is in the middle, and maintains a hard-line stance against consumption, possession, and sales. Federal laws also obviously threaten drug sales and consumption even where legal under state law, and wants to especially enforce "interstate commerce" laws. But I know many Idahoans cross the border to buy weed "legally," and then cross back where they would suddenly be "criminals" if caught.
Consuming any mind-altering substance is a vice, but is not a crime. Over 150 years ago, Lysander Spooner published an essay on this subject, and his arguments still hold up today. I recently tried to discuss this with someone who wanted even more strict punishment for substance abuse because of possible externalities. Here are a few arguments still popular today based on what I have seen in the wild recently.
Parents who abuse drugs or alcohol can adversely affect their children.
A spouse may be abusive when under the influence.
Drunkenness or drug use can result in job loss, leading to poverty, and making people wards of the state, so taxpayers have an interest in controlling such behavior.
Homeless drug users damage property, and leave used needles, defecation, and urine in public spaces.
Fentanyl, whether pure or as an adulterant, is killing users.
It should go without saying that even when I agree these can be problems, it does not lead to the conclusion of government prohibition and punishment. To repeat an excerpt from Spooner's old analysis:
In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting. [...] Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property [...] For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.
When people commit actual crimes under the influence of one substance or another, the issue is still the crime, not the substance. When someone is suffering from addiction, the real solution is found in community support, not punishment. Draconian instincts to coerce society into virtue can only fail because the impulse to rule another is the worst vice of all.
A healthy society cannot be imposed from above by authoritarians. It is a grassroots phenomenon, and politics can at best only be an astroturf counterfeit. Typically, intervention will be downright counterproductive, as demonstrated by bootleggers, mafias, drug gangs, and government corruption arising as a result throughout history and around the world. A free society includes freedom to err and to fail. We cannot build wisdom and responsibility without experiencing natural consequences, and the artificial legal impositions of government are not the same thing at all.
Organizations like St. Vincent de Paul and the Union Gospel Mission provide a real safety net without coercion. Churches could fund shelters for battered spouses and children, food for the needy, and job placement for the unemployed. Trade unions could likewise offer health care, addiction support, and unemployment benefits with job placement and retirement investment, We have all the pieces for decentralized solutions to addiction and so much more, but politics offers a lazy "solution" people continue to trust despite abysmal results.
Liberty requires taking responsibility and choosing actions before it is politically viable. We need to have answers at the ready. What can you do to solve the problems you see around you beyond just saying, "let the government handle that?"
If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through InLeo or PeakD. If you use either of my referral links, I'll even try to delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.
