prohibition « The Feehery Theory

Posts Tagged ‘prohibition’

Fireworks and Freedom

July 5th, 2011 by John Feehery

I am writing this blog post as I watch the Capitol Fourth on public television. When I worked on the Hill, I used to have access to the Capitol building, and I could watch it in person. Believe me, it was a great way to watch the fireworks.

I was thinking about fireworks over the weekend for obvious reasons and because I saw a New York Times article about a trend going around small and big towns around America regarding fireworks. These municipalities are letting people use fireworks again. The reason? Because they need the money.

Instead of banning the use of fireworks, small town mayors and big town city councils have decided that they can get money from taxing the sale and use of fireworks. They are giving people back their freedom because they need the money. Perhaps that isn’t the most idealistic reason to give the American people their freedom, but what the hell, I will take it. And it got me thinking that this could start a real trend in government, more freedom through taxation and regulation.

I know. It sounds counter-intuitive. But hear me out. What if we take all kinds of things that are widely banned or severely limited and then say that we are going to tax and regulate it. Read more...

Tags: America, Congress, Economy, fireworks, freedom, Government, prohibition, reform, spending, taxes
Posted in Economy, Financial Crisis, Government, History, Politics, Promises, Theory, spending | No Comments »

Prohibition Revisited

January 14th, 2011 by John Feehery

Reading the Constitution out loud on the House floor in the opening days of the new Congress was a masterstroke by Republicans.

Had I had the chance, I would have advised them to read the whole thing, because it is useful to understand our nation’s history.

Much has been said about the decision to not read sections pertaining to slavery and I won’t revisit that debate.

Not enough has been said about the 18th Amendment and then about the 21st Amendment.

It has real ramifications for today’s public policy decisions.

I just got done reading Daniel Okrent’s brilliant book, “Last Call, the Rise and Fall of Prohibition” and for those who want to learn about the legislative process and how special interest groups really operate in Washington, you should read this book.

There are many very interesting vignettes in “Last Call”, but there are two main points that deserve special attention.

First, Prohibition got passed initially for good reason. People were drinking too much around the turn of the century, and it had a very negative impact on society. Women were quite often the victims of the nation’s obsession with alcohol, and they were the ones who successfully drove it to eventual passage. Read more...

Tags: alcohol, Gambling, Government, History, illegal, inernet, Laws, prohibition, Washington
Posted in Government, History, Laws, Theory | No Comments »

Proposition 19

October 26th, 2010 by John Feehery

It was William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon who first pushed Congress to enact a law to ban pot. Well, actually, they wanted to ban hemp, which they felt could be a threat to their personal fortunes. Hearst had massive timber holdings, and he thought hemp could compete effectively as a better kind of newsprint. He didn’t want the competition and neither did Mellon, who was invested up to his eyeballs in DuPont Corporation, wanted to protect its new product, nylon.

Pot use stretches back to prehistoric times. There is ample evidence that the Assyrians got stoned well after the Stone Age but long before the Greeks came around, that early Hindus (where the term ganja comes from) used it in religious ceremonies, that it was part of the mysticism of the Jewish and Christian faiths, and that various Sufi orders toked to commune with God.

In the early 20th century, progressives decided that “Reefer madness” had to stop. D.C. passed the first law to ban its use. This was the same era that gave us the 16th amendment (the income tax), the 17th amendment (allowing the direct election of Senators) and the hated (at least by me) 18th Amendment, which allowed the government to ban drinking. Read more...

Tags: Laws, marijuana, pot, prohibition, Proposition 19
Posted in Government, History, Laws, Politics, Theory | No Comments »

National Guard Or a New National Drug Policy

April 27th, 2010 by John Feehery

I turned on Fox News and watched Laura Ingraham interviewing a State Senator from Illinois. The State Senator wants to call out the National Guard to patrol the streets of Chicago, which has been enduring a running gun fight for months now in the city’s toughest neighborhoods. Laura asked a simple question: Why can’t the cops handle it? The answer: They are out-gunned and out-manned.

In Arizona, the news lately has been focused on the new law, aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants. Lost in the spotlight has been the plaintive cry for help from those who live near the border: Call out the national guard and help us patrol our streets. Our police force is outgunned and outmanned.

In Afghanistan, the National Guard is only part of the elements that are in theater, fighting the Taliban. But as they fight the Taliban, they are also fighting those who make a lot of money from heroin production.

In Washington, the Attorney General says that he won’t prosecute those who use marijuana. The President says little about the carnage in his home town of Chicago, and blames the people of Arizona for passing a tough law that he calls “misguided.” Read more...

Tags: Arizona, Attorney General, Chicago, George Bush, illegal immigrants, Iraq, marijuana, National Guard, police, prohibition, war on drugs
Posted in Drugs in America, Immigration, Laws, Politics, Theory, national security, war | 1 Comment »

Rational Drinking Policy

August 21st, 2008 by John Feehery

Several college Presidents are calling for a lower drinking age in a front-page story in the Washington Post (“Lower Drinking Age Is Criticized”):

“On the face of it, the notion seems counterintuitive, but to the Presidents of some of the nation’s most prestigious colleges, it makes a lot of sense: Lowering the legal drinking age might get students to drink less. But any chance for the academic leaders to begin a public discussion of their theory – that allowing people as young as 18 to drink legally might promote moderation – has been lost in a wave of criticism from health experts, transportation officials, government leaders and opponents of drunk driving.”

This is a debate that needs to happen. This country needs a rational drinking policy. And trying to keep 18 year olds – many of whom are giving weapons to kill bad guys in faraway places on behalf of the government –from having a beer, a glass of wine or a shot of tequila is insane, in my book.