“After fifty years as a Prohibitionist, I am more convinced than ever that we need a good party, not just good men and good women. Most public officials are united in the war against terrorism. They, like we, are outraged at the deaths of some 3,000 Americans on September 11. Yet, most are willing to give unqualified support to the traffic in liquor and tobacco in exchange for campaign cash. Those products jointly claim at least 600,000 American lives each year. Two hundred die each year from use of alcohol and tobacco for every one who died in the September 11 attacks. Need another reason for being a Prohibitionist?”

Total lack of logic, total lack of respect for one's CHOICE. On Sept 11th people did NOT CHOOSE the crash, forgot it?!?!

This is actually a quote from Earl F. Dodge of the U.S. Prohibition Party. No matter what, it's stupid. Prohibition will always fail. It is failing right now.

The correction has been made. Thanks.

The excuse of trying to keep people from dying is stupid and futile. Shall we declare war on 'death', too? The attempt to control not only one's own life but millions of others 'for their own good' is as tyrannous as any despot. And at what price to our free nation will we pay in order to enforce an unenforceable and arbitrary regulation? (Illegal drugs are regulated under inter-state commerce laws because there is no other power given to government that allows them to prohibit what one can eat or breathe. I bet the founders never thought they would have to spell that out in the Bill of Rights...) Shall we all be put under the microscope for violations to our own bodies? And while we are there what else shall 'they' find and attempt to 'fix'? The real crime is the arrogance and the self-righteousness that fuels these domestic 'wars' on the People -- wars, I might add, that tend to focus on the lower ranks of the socioeconomic scale -- and mostly upon non-whites. Give it up -- it didn't work in the 20's, and it REALLY isn't working now. Hypocrisy is a worse vice.

The founders were not omnisicent and they had no way of foreseeing that drug abuse would become the major problem it has become, with a negative impact on all of society. If they had known, they would have included in the Constitution specific attention to that. As it stands, the preamble seems to present basis enough to justify absolute prohibition of most illicit drugs.

By trying to focus on his pet peeve, alcohol and tobacco, he misses the point. Those who died on 9/11 died as a result of a terrorist attack on America. Those who die from the use of alcohol and tobacco chose to use them, Mr Dodge needs to get a grip on real life.

I would expect no less from a Prohibitionist - and yes, Andy hit the nail on the head.

The sentiment here expressed flows from the same foundation of bigotry and prejudice that generates the rest of the victimless crime(s) and compelled compliance(s) rules.

If anything we need fewer laws, NOT more prohibitions. "Campaign cash" demonstrates the easy corruption of most politicians.

David, please refer us to the clause in the Preamble that would justify ANY 'absolute prohibition' on anything one can eat or drink -- if there was such a clause then why did Congress specifically amend the Constitution to make alcohol illegal in the 20's? And the only reason a drug is 'illicit' is because of the law that prohibits it -- so your argument is redundant. The power has not been given to the government to regulate what plants we may eat or use to make whatever recipes we want. The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate all inter-state commerce, but its jurisdiction does not include my body and my backyard. Prohibition is incompatible with Liberty. Pick one and know who you are.

Oh contraire. Its interesting to me that there is such a hub bub over 2nd hand smoke, and nothing over DUIs who are maiming and killing people daily...with that, some defend the right to choose.... There is a saying in EMS (for those of you in Reston VA that means Emergency Medical Services) that "If you make a motor vehicle accident after midnight and there is no drunk involved...keep looking because someone is missing." When I worked EMS I was always amazed at how many calls were alcohol related--accidents, shootings, domestic violence...over and over. Comparing the effect of smoking to that of alcohol is like comparing a pea shooter to a .50 caliber machine gun....

Get that man a drink! Hurry!

I guess you have not read the preamble, have you Archer? The preamble is short. Read it. It sets the premise for ANY law necessary to protect the people against harm from anyone, even fromundisciplined drinkers who take no responsibility for their addictions.

The preamble does not contain any authorizations or restrictions on the federal government. It is simply a synopsis of what the document is about and intends to accomplish. The nuts and bolts about what government can and cannot do are found in the Articles of the Constitution. As for the founders being ignorant of what substance abuse, remember colonial Americans consumed on average five times the hard liquor Americans today consume, most of that being rum. Hard cider was also a favorite. I'm sure Ben Franklin et. al. knew a few drunks in their day. They just chose to leave them alone.

The preamble exposes the purpose for the composition of the constitution and, therefor, allows for the reasonable addition to it of other articles that could better assure the achievement of that purposre.

The Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Now argue with it.)

"insure domestic tranquility" -- to be safe in one's own home without interference from neighbors or government, "to provide for the common defense" -- to make sure people's security is not compromised by religionists or other parties claiming moral superiority over others -- "secure the blessings of Liberty"!! -- does it need any further explanation? What is Liberty if it is not the freedom to eat or drink what one will? A more anti-prohibitionist statement I cannot imagine.

The Fourth Amendment comprehends invasive search of homes, where probable cause exists, such as neighbors reporting that the residents have been trafficking in illicit drugs. Certain drugs are illegal. Don't traffick in them. Freedom has never been the right to do as you please; and it never will be. "Secure the blessings of liberty" and "Insure domestic tranquility" by preventing drug addicts and traffickers from ruining the lives of the nation's families and children.

Utter nonsense, David.

David, what is your definition of liberty, you've read the Constitutionalists definition, what is yours?

Mike: I have given it on this site before: Liberty is the freedom to do whatever is right and good. And Archer: I agree that most of what you write is utter nonsense.

Prohibition has never worked and never will... keep these vices legal, and legalize most of the rest too (drugs, sex, etc)... and tax the hell out of them (just like we should with gasoline!).

You forgot why prohibition did not work in the first place.

Great representative quote from a position I don't support. It's important to have good, pithy quotes on all sides.

Prohibition won't work but if all the people who complain about taxes, property taxes, taxes to pay for prisons, police, courts, cost of insurance unafforable, & the disease itself don't have the good sense to tax it to help pay those expenses, you will pay them! Innocent people die fron drunk drivers just like innocent people died on 9/11. Alcohol companies contribute millions to the campaigns of your representatives & make billions while innocent people die & you buy, pennies on the dollar! You buy the booze & pay the taxes they evade & pay for representation you don't get. Ignorance doesn't discriminate! Tax alcohol companies but insist the price remains the same, less profit for alcohol companies but $ to help pay for the problems created.

Are you aware that the "tea" of Boston fame was OPIUM? and Jefferson spoke of it as "that odius cargo." Who said this? It was David Dodge, the archivist who found the original 13th amendment that provided penalties for accepting titles of nobility. Un- fortunately, that amendment ended up in Orwell's memory hole. I met Dodge in 1992 and have his book as well as tapes of his speech. I learned the spanish term for narcotics which is: estupifacientes (they make you stupid)

Bloody idiot

people dont always see the effect that alcohol has on them. many who are introduced as children are never told that they even have a choice, then by the time they are grown enough to know the difference it is too late to say no and too late for them to care about the stance that they are taking. by that time they see it as a way of life

Here's a great reason NOT to be a prohibitionist, IT DOESN"T WORK. For crying out loud , we tried that once and it was a total failure. When will they ever learn.

Jim, you're right. They're too stupid, too ignorant(by exuberant, rabid choice) and too brainwashed to learn. Teaching them how to think is like teaching a brick wall how to think. I'm referring to evangelical Christians who gave the United States two of it's most diastrous social programs of it's entire history. These two programs have, all by themselves, caused more harm, grief, death and the most enormous amount of crime the country has ever seen, than all the alcohol and drug abuse combined in all of the United States' entire history. In 1918 the Mafia was nothing but a bunch of Italian punks going around turning over apple carts to sell insurance to protect against Italian punks going around turning over apple carts. On a good day they had 50-60 bucks in their pockets. Then along came Wayne Wheeler and Andrew Volstead. With the passage of the Voltead Act of 1919 they gave the Mafia MILLIONS of dollars(billions in todays market) and the United States it's most crime ridden period it had ever seen. And Al Capone. Until Reagan. When Reagan created the DEA he gave a bunch of Columbian families a thousand times more profit from cocaine than they had previously been making. And that gave the United States the Medellin Cartel and Pablo Escobar. And all the Mexican border gangs in and out of this country with all the crime, corruption and violence it brings. Santayana said it best: "Those who forget the past, are condemned to repeat it."

The prohibition didn't work because the government started to crash because they depended to much on the taxes they got from alcohol. If you research it you would find that crime rate did indeed go down during prohibition. It made the substance harder to get, and in return many quit. All you who are against prohibition must not know an alcoholic and seen what it does to people. It destroys them and everyone around them. If it is something that can destroy one persons life, then why make it ok. During my studies I have found that the guidlines for making a drug illigal is that it much "put the public saftey at risk". Does alcohol not do that? the answer is that it does, the the government needs the money, there for dont care. If the gov. could tax cocaine and marijuana, im sure they would make that legal too. Dont get me wrong, I love america and my husband is a marine fighting for this country, I just don't like alcohol!

Interesting perspective... I never thought about smoking that way before. And I do think it should be more tightly restricted.