It would be a mistake the believe that Prohibition of Alcohol (and Tobacco) in the USA in the 1920s was sudden. It was not. It was ‘salami sliced’ The ‘salami slicing’ was different, but was not dissimilar to today’s ‘anti-tobacco league’.

I was reading something today about how alcohol prohibition came about. Very, very roughly, there were political factions. Some factions said ban ALL products which were alcoholic; some said only prohibit ‘liqueur’, being, generally, spirits like whiskey, burbon, etc. Some said only to prohibit THE SALE of ‘liqueur’, but not beer and such. But, according to what I read, what the politicians at the time wanted was to preserve their positions. They said what they thought that their voters wanted them to say.

Has anything changed? Why did Cameron allow PP and car bans go through? In view of the lack of proper discussion, it can only be that ‘early in the 5 year term is the best time to bury bad news’.

I used the word ‘Cameron’. I did not say “David Cameron” or “Mr Cameron”. The reason is that I do not see ‘Cameron’ as a person. He may be a person in his personal life, but he is not ‘a human being’ in his office as Prime Minister. He is a characture. His public persona does not really exist. His brave and belligerent pronouncements about Syria are advertising.

I was listening this evening to a video which discussed Jihadist violence. The consensus was that there is no alternative but to meet violence with violence, and that Western violence must be ten times more violent that the Jihadists. The consensus was that Fundamental Doctrines, such as conquering the world by physical force, should not be the objectives of modern day Islam, and that such doctrines should be expurgated.


Cameron allowed PP for no reason other than appeasement. But who was he appeasing?



6 Responses to “Prohibition”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Of course in America in the 1920’s they never tried to prohibit tobacco !!

  2. Frank Davis Says:

    I think Cameron just goes in whichever direction the wind happens to be blowing. He’s what Tony Benn would have called a ‘weathervane’ (as opposed to a ‘signpost’). He has no principles, or beliefs.

    But in this respect he’s really no different from almost every other politician. And it might be said that, since politicians are supposed to represent their electorates, they actually ought to be weathervanes, sensitive to every zephyr or breeze or shift in opinion. But in fact they actually seem to be only sensitive to each other, and to the media. They live in a curious sort of bubble.

    • junican Says:

      The problem with ‘represent their electorates’ is the possibility of persecution of minorities. We are supposed to be electing people of integrity, who, even though they have party allegiances, protect us all against tyranny.

      • Frank Davis Says:

        Really? Do they solemnly promise to protect us from tyranny? And what do they define ‘tyranny’ to be?

      • junican Says:

        I was thinking of the history of Parliament. Of how Parliament was introduced to combat the autocratic power of The King. I define ‘tyranny’ as laws imposed by ‘a tyrant’, no matter how beneficent those laws might be.
        In recent times, Tobacco Control has introduced tyranny by back door, using the very institution which is supposed to protect us against tyranny to impose the tyranny.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: