In PEI History, we looked at Prohibition (yeah, the picture is from Western Canada but I didn't want to incriminate anyone here on the Island). So, it brought women into politics and the vote, focused continental attention on a social problem, and ....

Can law prohibit human activity? Well, yes it can, but can it control it? It seems that Prohibition is one of those social issues that neatly demonstrated the power of tacit resistance - what people do when they just don't agree or just don't want to obey. It would be difficult to profile as criminal all those who nipped a drink or got too many scripts from the druggist or perhaps even who used the fishing boat to bring in a few loads from the Nellie J. Banks. But, legally, they were criminals. Al Capone types aside, the focus on alcohol may actually have become a more important focus on the idea of law and the concept that behind every civil or criminal law there needs to be some moral or ethical law that makes sense. Did banning alcohol consumption make sense? I suspect a lot of male legislators did not think so but were not willing to take the heat from rather well organized and vocal pressure groups (sound familiar?), so they worked out a way of duplicity. It is hard to take a stand that might get you into big hot water.

My musings lead me to the consideration that law only works and is enforceable when it reflects the meaning of the human person. Alcohol consumption isn't bad. Excessive alcohol consumption is destructive. By calling something bad that is not intrinsically bad, and then by legislating against it, Prohibition created an untenable tension between the meaning of being human and the law. We should think about that.

Mr. P