PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

Taranaki Daily News, 26 June 1928, Page 14

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

A GREAT SOCIAL EXPERIMENT, AN IMPARTIAL REVIEW. (By the New York Correspondent of the Manchester Guardian.) Eight years after th© Prohibition Law came into effect the debate on the desirability of the experiment continues with hardly diminished vigour. Day after day the newspapers devote columns to reports of speeches, pamphlets, and books on the subject. Each broadside from one camp is promptly followed by a reply from the other, in which statistical statements are attacked and generalisations are denied. No psychologist could ask a better example of “wishful thinking” than is to be found in 05 per cent, of this material, which seemingly never persuades anyone not already persuaded. I have just returned from a 7,000mile journey through the South and Middle West, in the course of which I made a careful attempt to find out what is happening under prohibition; and as a result I am strongly impressed by the fact that no single generalisation can possibly cover “the truth” about prohibition. There is not one truth, but a score of them. Conditions along any of the four borders of the United States differ from those in the interior. The large cities have one attitude and the small towns another. There are notable variations as between the classes in the samo community. It seems clear that the average working man is drinking much less than formerly. The great improvement in his material prosperity (real wages have increased about 30 per cent, since 1914) is du© to several factors, among which prohibition is perhaps third oi fourth in importance. It must be remembered that beer and wine are practically non-existent in the United States to-day. The state commodities of the bootleggers are gin and whisky, and these are so expensive that the working man, even with extra money in his pocket, simply cannot afford them in large quantities. While there are numbers of “speakeasies” (illicit saloons) most of these do not encourage the working man’s trade, since he has not enough money to interest their proprietors. Boisterous conduct, of the kind once habitual in low-grade saloons, is instantly halted in the “speakeasy” because it is likely to bring the unwelcome attentions of the police or, in eases where the police have been bribed, those of indignant citizens making public complaints of an awkward character. The vicious system of treating, requiring each man in a group to buy In his turn a round of drinks, has also been discouraged;, the average drinking-place does not welcome the entrance of more than two or three patrons at a time. In consequence, fewer men go on a Saturday night debauch and spend all their week’s earnings. The percentage of factory employees who miss work on Monday because of drunkenness is enormously decreased. Members of the middle class In large cities are probably drinking more than before prohibition came into effect. This is the result of a social change which van only partially be laid at the door of the eighteenth amendment, since it is seen also in other countries where the sale of liquor is openly permitted. The emancipation of women, which has made such rapid strides in America in recent years, has resulted in their demanding the right to share the recreations of the male, including the consumption of alcoholic beverages. In innumerable home cocktails before dinner are now a matter of daily routine, though they were hardly ever served in old days. As to whether the men in this class drink more or less than before it is almost impossible to obtain reliable data. My own surmise would be that they are more temperate than formerly. One reason for this, almost never referred to, is the universal use of the automobile. Only an exceptionally foolish individual will risk his life by driving in congested traffic when he is befuddled. For many years, moreover, the typical American has been moving away from the habit of indulging to excess either in food or drink The daily consumption of brandy or rum habitual to our great-grandfathers is hardly known at present, just as no Ame/ean gorges himself with the vast quantities of food which were once consumed

As for persons of wealth, the evidence seems to indicate that they drink about as much as they ever did These are the homes in which visiting British novelists are entertained, and it is on the basis of such visits that they send back their wholly unreliable reports on the prohibition question. The man of wealth is still able to serve wine either from his pre-prohibition cellar or purchases at high prices. The much-discussed drinking on the part of young people seems to be an over-advertised phenomenon. It is true that young women now claim their brothers’ privilege of occasionally drinking too much and making an unpleasant public exhibition of themselves; but those who behave in this way are a small minority, probably not more than five per cent., and are the modern equivalent for the similar proportion of every generation which misbehaves. For a few years after the war there was a recklessness in the air which affected young people as well as their elders; and the situation was complicated by tho fact that American youth is definitely entering upon an era of altered sexual standards. But hard drinking was never so important as we were led to believe; and it passed its peak not later than the year 1925. Returning to the geographical distribution of varying degrees of “wetness,” we may note that the small towns of the Middle West, where the movement for prohibitory legislation had its beginning, have been comparatively successful in fighting the illegal traffic. The church-going protestants, who constitute 80 per cent, of the population in these communities, are largely total abstainers, and even when they are not, they support a vigorous enforcement of the law on tho ground that they can still get all they want, and that abolition of the open saloon is good for young people and for the working class. What I have said above about the situation of young people in the middle classes in the great cities applies as well to those in these smaller towns. There is some drinking, certainly; it is shared by the young women; there is less than there was three or four years ago; drunkenness is a serious problem only with a small percentage.

Tha' quality of tho liquor which is being consumed in America to-day varies inversely with the degree of enforcement of the prohibition law. The harder it is to obtain, the worse is its character. There is much talk in the newspapers about “poison liquor,” and occasional deaths duo to this are recorded; but most of these occur among people so ignorant and incompetent that persons of their sort could —and did—poison themselves similarly with furniture polish or rubbing alcohol long before prohibition had ever been heard of. In such a city as New York, where there is little real attempt at enforcement, whisky and gin of fair quality can be purchased at prices about twice as high as those which prevailed before 1920. Solicition by bootleggers -is as frequent, and almost as open, as that by life insurance agents. “Speakeasies” abound in certain districts of the . city, and only tho flimsiest identification is necessary to establish one’s self ns a customer. If one does not care for their rather depressing atmosphere, and has mislaid th© telephone number of one’s bootlegger, innumerable grocery stores and drug stores are to be found which are willing to come to one's rescue. Much of the liquor they offer is “cut” with water; more of it is not smuggled across tho border but is industrial alcohol which has been redistilled to make it potable, and some of it is crude synthetic compounds; but on tho whole it seems fairly satisfactory to those who buy it. After seven years of prohibition tho American death-rate is still about eight per cent below the British, and does not increase. New York and several other commonwealths have abandoned their State prohibition laws, so that the only restriction on alcoholic activities comes from agents . of the Federal Government. Though vast sums ar© appropriated every vear for prohibition enforcement, everyone knows that many millions of additional dollars would be necessary to make any real impression on the “wet” districts along the borders, and particularly the Atlantic coast. The authorities are unwilling to ask Congress for any such sums, and for political reasons do not dare attempt rigid enforcement in the districts where it would be unpopular. They therefore wink at virtual nullification in these sections of the country, though they would deny this with the utmost indignation if they were asked to comment on the statement in public. For a time, under a vigorous Federal district attorney, efforts werq made in New York to reach and punish the big men at the top of the bootlegging organisation (which is now a vast, well-organised business with investments of millions). These efforts seem to have withered away since the retirement of this gentleman, Mr. Emory R. Buckner, into private life. To-day there is an occasional raid on a night club, which does spectacular damage to the club and no harm at all to the bootleggers, and once in a while a shipment of liquor is seized in transit and publicly destroyed while the motion-picture cameras Click out tho sorrowful story. Such efforts, and, indeed, all others, have no appreciable effect on the industry, which charges them into its normal overhead expense account and shows a handsome profit at the end of the year in any case.

Since tho Federal amendment cannot be repealed, the future is likely to see one of two courses. Either the States will redefine the word “intoxicating” in a hypocritical way so as to permit the manufacture of wine and beer on the pretext that they do not produce drunkenness, or the present situation will .continue, with nullification in those districts where the majority sentiment is “wet” and fairly successful enforcement in those which were “dry” before the national law came into effect.