Article: Does Prohibition Prove the Failure of Morality Laws?

Controversy swirls around many so-called moral laws today. Should we permit or outlaw same-sex marriage? Should we legalize marijuana? What about abortion? Gender-based legislation? Should euthanasia be banned?

Spirited debates ring loud, especially in a college town like Nacogdoches.

Every debate differs, but almost with certainty, if the debate lingers, you can count on someone bringing up the subject of prohibition. If you do not know, prohibition refers to the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This constitutional amendment banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. Passed in 1919, this amendment was a shock to the system for America. For thirteen years, law enforcement fought illegal bars, bootlegging, and a spike in organized crime as many people worked overtime to find ways around the law. Finally, in 1933, the nation had enough. The 21st Amendment was passed, and that amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, and America was free to buy a beer!

Today, many who oppose anything that looks to them like a morality based law fly high the banner of the failed experiment of prohibition. They contend that the failure of prohibition proves the foolishness of morality based laws.

Honestly, it is a sloppy argument. It assumes two things that are not necessarily true. One is that prohibition was an abject failure. While it is not the focus of this article, there is more to know about the history of prohibition than the person who waves that flag likely knows. The second faulty assumption is that prohibition or even a ban on same-sex marriage is somehow more of a moral law than "do not murder" or "do not speed in a school zone." All laws are moral laws, but we will save that for another day.

Ignoring those two unsubstantiated claims, is it true that the apparent failure of prohibition proves the futility and wrongheadedness of morality laws?

No.

Perhaps prohibition failed because it was the wrong law to fight the right problem.

No one who knows their history can deny that the consumption of alcohol had gotten out of hand in America prior to prohibition. Crime, domestic violence, child abuse, workplace accidents, and women's poverty all spiked due to the extreme abuse of alcohol. There seemed to be no slowing for this ever increasing problem. And the most innocent people were suffering the most.

Something had to be done.

Perhaps other measures could have been taken. Some experts suggested a one year or two year ban on the sale of alcohol. Other authorities suggested various mechanisms and laws that would limit alcohol consumption. Some advocates asserted that the problems could be curtailed with limits on where, what days, and at what time alcohol could be served. Some cities and jurisdictions found success in curbing the worst aspects of the problem simply by banning and punishing public drunkenness. Perhaps a more vigorous education campaign along with one of the previously mentioned forms of legislation might have been helpful.

I really don't know.

Maybe prohibition was the right approach and would have succeeded were it not hampered by poor enforcement and corruption.

I really don't know.

My point is that the situation is not as simple as "prohibition failed so all morality based laws are flawed and dangerous."

In the case of early 20th century America, alcohol was a national problem. Innocent people were getting hurt in great numbers. The moral value the country sought to uphold was clear: Life is dear. Life is valuable. It was important that the country pass legislation to protect life, especially the lives of so many innocent and vulnerable people. Just because the details of the 1933 legislation did not work out does not mean they should not have legislated around this moral value. Maybe it just means they should have legislated differently.

We must not let one past failure to protect lives and values prevent us from trying to protect lives and values in the future.

When we face questions of morality today, we face the same question lawmakers faced in the 1930s. The question is about what we value. It is about what we view as universally right or wrong. The question is about the flourishing of society so that people are safe and have the freedom to benefit from a flourishing society.

Let's talk about same-sex marriage, legalizing marijuana, abortion, gender-based issues, euthanasia, and a hundred more issues. Let's talk about these in terms of right and wrong, respecting or disrespecting life, safe or dangerous, promoting the flourishing of society or poisoning our future.

Let's come to a consensus on what we should value.

And if it takes more than one stab at the details of the legislation to get things right, then that is better than ignoring the problem.

Pastor Noel