Prohibition Does Not Prohibit

IF it were not for the fact that this statement is so often made in a defensive way by the opponents of prohibition it would scarcely seem as if any one could have controverted it. Of course, prohibition (in its usual sense of the forbidding of the liquor traffic) does not prohibit, any more than prohibition of anything else does. A very slight acquaintance with laws and their results will show the truth of this. Since the very earliest times there have been prohibitions based upon some external sanction, a command of God, an axiom of experience, a demand of the ruler or state, or a tribal custom. Of the Ten Commandments only two are positive injunctions — the others are all prohibitions. They came to the Hebrews with the highest possible sanction ; they have received every possible form of ecclesiastical approbation ever since; and yet, judged from the standpoint of the accomplishment of their prohibitory purpose, they are utter failures. On the supposition that because prohibition does not prohibit it is of no use, what a fine case could be made against them on the ground of the continued idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, and covetousness which still exist! In addition to the prohibition from the religious side, all but the first and the last of these sins are offenses punishable by civil law as well, yet they do not cease. These laws have been in existence a good while, too; still, they have not prohibited the things against which they were formulated. Is it reasonable, therefore, to say that the Commandments and the parts of the criminal code based on them shall be repealed, awaiting that far-off, happy day when education will have done away with the necessity for them? In these cases can we agree with the brewers’ statement that ‘prohibition applied from without is a farce?’

Another aspect of the case is the stress laid by the liquor advocates upon the distinction between prohibition and temperance. They tell us that prohibition is not temperance, but a form of extremeness which is in reality ‘intemperance,’ and that they are the real advocates of temperance because they are the ones who are trying to prove that a man can drink a moderate amount of liquor and be none the worse for it. Here we should note that there is a division in their ranks, for the brewers and the distillers disagree radically as to what promotes temperance. The former are as much opposed to distilled liquors as are the prohibitionists, urging as substitutes ale, beer, cider, and light wines; while the latter insist that moderation in all things — etymological temperance as it were — is the true solution and that one need not under those circumstances abjure the use of whiskey and brandy, only being careful not to run to excess in their use. Their slogan is the old saying, ‘It is not the use but the abuse which is harmful.’

The public has recently been treated to expert articles written by men who make claim to be scientific and careful investigators, and who publish an array of statistics to prove that the per-capita consumption of intoxicants increases proportionally with the adoption of prohibition; and not being in a position to verify or disprove their figures, I am constrained to allow their statements to stand. Perhaps they are all true, but if they are, why should the liquor interests be fighting prohibition? Should they not welcome it as an effective ally, rather than regard it as an enemy? Or are they philanthropically standing for civil liberties and man’s inalienable rights? Perhaps! But whatever their motive and their methods, they monotonously reiterate the statement that prohibition does not prohibit. This seems to be the one thing on which they can rely, and so they use it constantly. Its truth has already been admitted, and no one tries, so far as I am aware, to confute it. What, then, is the case for prohibition? If it does not prohibit, what does it do? and why do any of us think it worth while?

The State of Kansas probably furnishes the best example of what prohibition does, because of nearly thirty years’ continuous experience with it and because of the well-nigh unanimous sentiment of the population in favor of it. I select the effects of prohibition in Kansas because I live there and see them every day. The first thing that strikes one in crossing the line into Kansas is the absence of the licensed or open saloon. A trip on a street car from Kansas City, Missouri, to Kansas City, Kansas, will readily illustrate this; and as he goes from town to town within the state, the visitor notes the absence of corners bearing great brass signs advertising beer or whiskey, and the gayly lighted and gilded rooms beneath, where men are occupied in seeing how great a quantity of liquor they can hold and still keep on the move. If his nose is sensitive he will notice the absence of the smell which always pervades such places and is noticeable even on approaching them — that smell which is sickening and disgusting to those who do not care for liquor and yet is such a fertile source of temptation to those who have the craving. Even if the absence of the saloon does not reduce the consumption of liquor (though I doubt it), it assuredly does reduce the number of men and boys who are drawn into the drink-habit, by removing the invitation; and if it did no more than that prohibition would be worth while.

It does, however, much more. It certainly reduces the amount of public drunkenness. In more than four years in Kansas, traveling extensively over the state, I have seen only three men under the influence of liquor in public places. One of them was in a town then notorious for its persistent violation of the law; the others were transients in a railroad division town where naturally the floating population made its ‘change of cars,’ and therefore were probably not residents of Kansas at all. My experience in other states leads me to feel that this scarcity of drunken men is due to prohibition and nothing else. Again, it is a fact that in prohibition territory generally the people have more actual cash to spend, and are able to buy more of the comforts of life and have larger bank accounts than where the open saloon flourishes. In one of the southwestern counties of Kansas it is said that every second family owns an automobile. I do not believe that any ‘wet’ county in the country can make an equal showing.

The experiences of other parts of the world in regard to the moderate use of liquors are not at all pertinent to the question as it affects our own country; for it has been shown that in licensed territory there is no such thing, generally speaking, as moderate drinking; and even if it might exist in some cases, it is generally true that there is no mean between prohibition and drunkenness; for the average American who patronizes the open saloon drinks at least enough to be a detriment to him. The average American does not really desire to drink to excess, and the majority of them will not if ever-ready opportunity presented by the open saloon be removed. I have had men in Kansas tell me frankly that they do not dare even to go to Kansas City, Missouri, on business for fear of falling into temptation, but that they never touch a drop while in Kansas itself. Our opponents will jeer at their weakness, perhaps, and they know they are weak; but society is beginning to realize that the protection of the weak is one of its duties.

Prohibition is no longer an open question in Kansas. All our most prominent and influential citizens indorse it heartily. A few years ago a candidate for governor whose platform was the resubmission of the prohibition amendment received a very small vote, and a large proportion of the vote he did receive came from persons who believed that ‘resubmission’ would be a good thing for prohibition, on the ground that, if resubmitted, the amendment would receive such an overwhelming indorsement that no one would thereafter dare to bring the matter forward.

Liquor is sold in Kansas, but it is a crime to sell it, and ‘bootleggers’ furnish not a few occupants of our jails and penitentiaries. Druggists in many instances do not even keep it on hand, and physicians seldom prescribe it, feeling that it is not valuable as a medicine. A generation which has never seen a legalized saloon has grown to manhood, and it is a generation which cannot understand how there could be any question as to the wisdom of prohibition. We do not claim that prohibition absolutely prohibits, but it has made disreputable and outlawed a traffic which has never yet proved itself beneficial, and from which great evils are known to emanate. The saloon has yet to prove its usefulness, the opponents of prohibition have yet to show us a better method of curbing the curse of drunkenness with its attendant vices; and until they can bring forth such proof and show us such method, we in Kansas, at any rate, will rest content with what we firmly believe is the best and what we have already tried and proved. We wonder that the whole country cannot see it.