Pubdate: Wed, 14 Nov 2012
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
Copyright: 2012 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc
Contact:  http://www.philly.com/inquirer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/340
Author: Daniel Okrent
Page: A18

RUMRUNNERS REVISITED

When Colorado and Washington voters passed measures legalizing
recreational marijuana last week, they demonstrated - probably
unknowingly - a rueful familiarity with the failure of
Prohibition.

Guess whether I'm describing the 2010s (before last week, at least) or
the 1920s: Government strictures make it impossible for people to
legally acquire a substance they want. However, anyone who really
wants it has no trouble getting it. As a direct result, large criminal
enterprises create a vast underground - and not-so-underground -
market. The federal prison system is forced to expand.

Also: The amount of money on the table is so great that these
criminal enterprises engage in outright warfare with each other to
get their hands on it. The flow of contraband across one of our
international borders becomes a flood. Government spending on
enforcement grows and grows, but the market isn't curtailed. All the
while, local, state, and federal governments in desperate need of
revenue watch helplessly as hundreds of millions of dollars in
illegal profits remain beyond the tax man's reach.

Of course, I'm speaking of both then and now.

Another parallel: In the 1920s, one of the few ways to get liquor
legally was to purchase a prescription from your physician - the going
rate was $3 each - and take it to the local pharmacy. Today, Southern
Californians can go to Venice Beach and find doctors advertising the
on-the-spot availability of prescriptions, which can be filled at
licensed dispensaries.

The only difference? As with everything else, the price has gone
up.

Personally, I carry no brief for marijuana. I never liked the stuff
myself, and when my now-grown kids were indulging, it filled me with
anxious concern (and introduced a great deal of lying into the
child-parent relationship).

But after spending five years researching and writing Last Call, my
history of Prohibition, I could not ignore the reality confronting me:
Prohibition didn't work then, and for exactly the same reasons, it
doesn't work now. If people want something badly enough, they will
find a way to get it. Every known society has tried to get rid of
prostitution, and that hasn't worked, either.

Now Colorado and Washington can help us find out whether modern
prohibition mirrors its predecessor in another way. Of all the
anomalies and ironies of the original Prohibition, the most startling
one I discovered was this: It was harder to limit liquor consumption
during Prohibition than afterward.

Before Prohibition was repealed, anyone capable of bribing the local
cops - and in Philadelphia, that appeared to be almost everybody -
could sell liquor anytime, anyplace, to anybody. Fifteen-year-old kid
wants a double shot at 4 a.m. on a Sunday morning? No problem.

But when repeal arrived, suddenly there was regulation. In
Pennsylvania and many other states after repeal, only the state itself
could sell liquor; in others, strictly licensed retailers controlled
the market. Age limits took effect. Blue laws put liquor out of reach
on Sundays. Bars were compelled to close during certain hours, and
those that violated regulations lost their licenses.

Bootleggers had to find new businesses, and the vast majority of them
ended up in legal enterprises. Per-capita alcohol consumption didn't
return to pre-Prohibition levels for years.

And this is especially important, given the condition of our modern
state and federal treasuries: Governments began collecting taxes on
alcohol. In 1934, the first post-Prohibition year, taxes on potable
alcohol accounted for fully 9 percent of federal revenue. State taxes
were similarly bountiful.

The short answer? Tax, regulate, and legalize. What we're doing now
isn't working, and it's costing us an awful lot.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt