Several days ago I compared a disgusting group's support of prohibition to support for chattel slavery. You may have thought I was exaggerating. But was I? Let's look at the comparisons.
Pro-slavery people claimed that the slaves "needed" slavery. They were too childish and ignorant to survive without being "taken care of" and told what to do by paternalistic "owners". They claimed the slaves would die otherwise. In truth, many former slaves did die when slavery went away, because slavery had kept them from learning how to live in liberty. Abolishing slavery was still the right thing to do.
Prohibitionists claim that without prohibition, addicts would drug themselves to death-- they pretend prohibition is necessary, even helpful, to its victims. And, undoubtedly, when prohibition goes the way of chattel slavery, many addicts will die, having never learned self-control. Abolishing prohibition is still the right thing to do.
Pro-slavery people claimed a religious basis for their support for an evil institution- and could show you passages in the Bible to back up their claim. No one takes that argument seriously anymore.
Prohibitionists claim a religious basis for their support of an evil program, although I don't know of any who pretend to have Bible passages supporting their claims. (No one claims it is a good idea to overindulge to the point of hurting your health.) And no one will take this religious claim seriously either, in time.
Pro-slavers said it was the "law", and the "law" should be obeyed until or unless it is changed. Anyone who broke the "law" was a criminal and deserved whatever "justice" was brought down on their head.
Prohibitionists say the only thing that really matters is that it is the "law", and the "law" must be obeyed until or unless it is changed (although they stop supporting the "law" as soon as it does change; another strike against them). That the "law" destroys the lives of users looks like "justice" to these sick people.
Pro-slavers said the end of slavery would be economically devastating. How would the cotton be picked without slaves? What about all the new people looking for jobs and going into competition? Chaos! Disaster!
Prohibitionists often have ties to the prison industry or "law enforcement" and would suffer personal economic harm if prohibition were ended. What would all that prison space be used for, and what would all those "law enforcement" bullies do?
(I shudder to imagine! Evil statists can always find new ways to molest people with "laws" and cops.)
Pro-slavery people didn't like the enslaved people for "reasons"- cultural or racial. They didn't want to see the culture changed by treating former slaves like human beings.
Prohibitionists don't like "those people" who use drugs. They don't want to see them doing what they want, openly, even if they aren't harming anyone but themselves.
Angry slaves sometimes killed people. Former slaves might also hold grudges and kill people. Self defense from anyone is always a viable option, no matter their circumstances or justifications or excuses.
Sometimes drug users kill people. Self defense from anyone is still always a viable option, no matter their circumstances or justifications or excuses.
People didn't want former slaves to v*te or own guns.
Government's "laws" often forbid convicted prohibition violators from v*ting or owning guns.
I'm sure there are more comparisons which could be made, but you get the idea. Supporting prohibition is a completely unethical position to hold. Be better than that.
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.