_Mr. MacCurrie lived in Thomaston, Connecticut, when he was interviewed by the WPA in December 1938. The following excerpt from that interview is from American Life Histories, 1936-1940. MacCurrie used prohibition as an example of the ineffectiveness of government during the Progressive Era. What is MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition?  How can you relate this to other reform issues during this time? What about present-day issues?

"It's a funny thing, they got everything in this country they need. Enough for everybody. Why can't they work out some system where everybody has enough? Look at the . . . money that's been wasted. "Look at the money that was poured out in the gutter, you might say, tryin' to enforce prohibition. Nobody will ever know how much. The money spent on enforcement, and the money lost in license fees and the money taken in and never accounted for by bootleggers. Man, it's a cryin' shame.

"And the dam fool things they did. Arrestin' a man for 'reputation!' I wonder was that ever fought out in the courts. Seems to me it was illegal.

"I remember one time I was over to the hotel havin' a nip and a bunch of cops came in to raid it. They was all Thomaston fellas, Charley What'sis-Name and Dan Sanger and some more. They searched the place from top to bottom, couldn't find a thing. They was all ready to go out, and Dan says 'Wait a minute.' He walked in the back room and when he came out he had a half pint. Now by God, you can't tell me he didn't have that half pint when he went in there.

"That was the way of it," sighs Mr. MacCurrie. "It was a horrible mistake. Accomplished nothin' and did a lot of harm.

"Sometimes I think they run things better in the old country. There was a lot of poverty and discontent, but things went along a bit steadier. Over there, now, they're way ahead of us when it comes to socialized medicine."
 


Emily Arnold
01/23/2012 10:25

To start off, I have studied the prohibiton before and have never really supported it. I know why it was issued, but to me it seemed to do more harm than good. This intreview is exactly why this prohibiton went wrong. There was obviously lots of corruption and bootlegging going on during this time. After, I read this it brought to a new light all that was wrong during this time. It seemed as though he mostly hated the corrpution that was going on. This showed a problem in social structure, poltics, and even economics. Even today, there is till corrpution in the things that I mentioned. Gov't will never be perfect. That is just the way it is and always will be. It is the sad, sad truth.

Reply
Jack Perkins
01/23/2012 10:53

His examples on the prohibition I think are valid and I think that some of them are reasonable quotes. He was right about all the corruption that was going on it was kind of a bad issue going on. But I mean no body is perfect were still not perfect and I doubt that we ever will be so I do have to somewhat agree with the statement that he is makeing about the prohibition.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:27

Jack, what other types of reform issues can you relate this to? What about issues from today?

Claire Purvis
01/23/2012 20:57

Emily, I agree that prohibition was probably never a good idea. When you prohibit something, people break laws and turn against the government. There was a lot of corruption and bootlegging going on at this time. Perhaps it would better to model the ways of the gospel teachings because they went to the source of the corrupted behavior rather then just prohibiting it. In doing this, it would prevent abuse and future problems. When you regulate rather than prohibit something, the government can profit from the item that there regulating while having some control over that behavior or product. It was clear that MacCurrie’s observations were right, the government was wasting money and ineffective during the prohibition. When looking at the social aspects of people’s behavior it is very difficult for the government to regulate the people’s actions. Controlling people with such immoral values and unwholesome vices is virtually impossible because humans make bad choices.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:18

Claire, you make great points in the last two sentences in your response. Nice job!

Alex Gastelum
01/25/2012 18:05

I agree with Claire and Emily that prohibition was probably never a good idea and i agree with Mrs. Moore that Claire's last two sentences have really good points

nick beall
01/26/2012 19:09

I agree with Claire that when you prohibit something, people will break laws to get around it. Prohibition creates corruption and illegal acts become profitbale. It opens the door for criminals to make big profits. On the other hand, people should control themselves and not over due things like drinking. Even in church people drink wine but they should not abuse this. Once people start to abuse things, it becomes a problem for them and society. I think the government should control people and their actions and this is the reason for laws but they cannot control everything in a persons life. The government must choose the most important issues and the most dangerous and concentrate on these.

Kristen Beck
01/27/2012 16:50

I agree with Claire and Emily, the prohibition did more harm than good for the country. Because the government tried to control the way people behaved/acted, people started to rebel. We don't like being controlled, we want our freedom and people will do what they think has to be done to get it. Government should've tried to manage instead of completely banning it. That would've gone way more smoothly.

Chase Fischer
01/27/2012 22:40

I completely agree. The goverment was focusing on such a tiny insignificant aspect of daily life, why was that such a big deal? im sure there are and always will be more pressing matters that HAVE to be attended to. Like some people say, dont sweat the small stuff. Everyone needs to sort out their prorities. If you focus on something practically meaningless, the thing that needed changing might already be destructive. I agree with evereything you said. Why take away alcohol if it wont stop the production of it? making it illegal doesnt eliminate it...

jack perkins
02/26/2012 23:25

Claire you make some strong and wholesome points. I think that you analyzed the quote very well and i agree with the point of people make bad desisions and actions and for the government to step in to try to regulate the situation was stupid and really just wnded up being a bad idea. I feel that the prohibiton took a toll on many people and turned alot of people kind of nutty and crazy.

Jasmyne Miller
01/24/2012 16:54

I agree with Emily, prohibition never did much good for the country. It came out of good meaning, and does make sense at the time, once people are drunk they make bad decisions so it only makes sense to outlaw it, but it just caused greed, corruption, and desire. Alcohol is a drug and it is addictive. If there is a demand for something like this, then there will be a supply no matter what law is passed. Government will never be perfect, but it can get pretty close. What it needs to reach this level of almost perfection though, is time. We really haven't had enough time to learn from mistakes like prohibition, bad economies, and belittling minorities. We need more time to learn from history to make sure it won't repeat itself. It is the sad truth but you can’t say we haven’t improved since the 1800s, we will only continue to improve more.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:22

Jasmyne, I like your comment about not having enough time to learn from our mistakes. We can continue to make improvements, but it will take a lot of time to learn enough to be able to fully fix the problems we've created or let happen.

Heidi Garbers
01/27/2012 09:19

I agree with jasmyne and Emily and that prohibition might have sounded good at the time but that it was just an uneccesary law and that their could have been a better way to settle things then to take alcohol away. Also the government outlaws marijuana but people everywhere will always smoke it not saying I do but people will always want what they can't have. So outlawing alcohol just made people want it more or make their own.

Jocelyn Melendez
01/24/2012 21:15

I strongly agreed with Emily’s post that the prohibition did more harm than good. And from Mr. MacCurrie’s interview it is clear that, as usual, it harmed the working and lower classes. The upper classes could have benefited with this because of the abundant corruption of law enforcers during this time, which would have been easy to bribe, and I’m sure they did benefit. I also agreed with Emily when she said that this interview showed exactly what was wrong with the prohibition. But I also agreed that I never supported the prohibition but I see why it was done. The people who began it had the right idea of trying to rid the city and society of vices and immorality, but they went about it very wrong in my opinion. They began the process very aggressively which made people stubborn to change, and its not like they were being helped in any way, they were being told to stop, like a mother might scold her child. And when someone is treated like a child, they will most likely react like a child.

Reply
Megan Galloway
01/25/2012 22:14

I'd like to agree both with Emily, as well as Jocelyn's response to Emily. They both bring up really good points in the truth that, as Jocelyn says, is usual that the laws we create mostly harm the lower and working classes. We're not able to always create laws that benefit everyone, but most of our laws that we do put in place we start enforcing them somewhat harshly, and happen to affect the working and lower classes greater than the upper class. I believe a lot of this can be, because of what Jocelyn stated- corruption and bribery. We, as well as the government, aren't perfect. No one is. We can fall for schemes or bribes just as easily as anyone else, and it causes differences in the way we live. It's just like the small differences we can see through the prohibition laws- the upper class didn't mind them because they could corrupt the gov't and end up getting away with it, which the poor didn't have as much choice besides having to follow Prohibition, because they had nothing to protect themselves if they were caught. It's really what you've been brought up with that helps you to determine how you can act; if you were brought up rich, you have "full rights" backed by your money to act like a child and beg for that freedom from something like prohibition, whereas the poor just have to 'take it like a man'.

Emily Arnold
01/26/2012 10:12

Thank you Jocelyn and Megan for responding to my post=) It is well known that beer and other forms of alcohol have been a very large part of society. I believe that's also another reason why this prohibition was such a bad idea. Many people turn to beer when they feel down or want to escape. Even gov't officals turned to illegal means to get their fix( like the police officers above). This just shows how unesscary and impossible this law was.

Anthony Rue
01/26/2012 10:28

I agree, Mr. MacCurrie did hate the corruption. However when you spoke about the problems of prohibition you placed the above problem and bootlegging together. Bootlegging was not a problem, it was a solution to the prohibition laws, which were (in a minor sense) corrupt.

Reply
Matt Bond
01/27/2012 16:14

While I agree with a majority of you're statement I disagree with it being the government today that is corrupt. In modern day society government is too public to allow for corruption (risk out ways benefits). No, in this era the corruption of our country is generally within corporations and organizations.

Reply
Matt Bond
01/27/2012 21:54

As well I must say that I disagree immensely with the statement, "That is just the way it is and always will be." Anything can be changed with enough determination and persistence. The world can be changed, for better or for worse, if one puts their heart into the effort of doing so.

Montana
03/05/2012 22:23

i completely agree with matt. he makes some very valid points on emilys' statement. i think the issues and most the items being discussed within our government have been made so public that corruption would be hard to hide. and about corporations? well i say america is just one giant greedy country. how else would we have become america though.

01/23/2012 11:37

You can relate to modern life with the old life by comparing. We, in 2012, are in a depression or at least starting too. Money and jobs are out of the question. People without jobs are suffering and money is just a huge deflation. Our government is trying to help with laws and all but, if you think about, they are just making it harder for us and easier for them. Soon, our society will be destroyed and will fall, we're the top dog, you can say, when it comes to money and job handling. Harm and confusion doesn't have to be performed but it does because our people are so desprate for money or something that is wealthy. If we can change or start over our jobs and money ways, we could make a better society.

Reply
Anthony Rue
01/23/2012 12:19

The grounds upon which Mr. MacCurrie's disapproval was less on the act of prohibition than it was the means of arrest and conviction. Specifically pointing out that many people were arrested based on their 'Reputation' in the stead of an actual infringement on the Prohibition laws. When juxtaposed against the modern United States we notice that much of the old laws are gone, erased from our society. Closer inspection reveals the government attempt to, not destroy this 'vice', but conceal it and back it by federal laws. No doubt every person who attends this site and reads these responses has known of some person who has been drunk in public.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:28

Anthony, what other types of reform issues can you relate this to? What about issues from today?

Reply
Carson Cavner
01/23/2012 14:03

Mr MacCurrie's disaproval was primarily on the fact the prohibition did more harm than good, which is true. Our government defintely spent tons money on the enforcement of prohibition, and not only that, but they lost even more money in taxes and such from liqour distributors and from manufactures. Plus many people were arrested because of a reputation they had as apposed to actuallly being caught possesing or manufacturing achohol.

Reply
cory noonan
01/24/2012 18:57

I completely agree with you. Government tries so hard and spends too much money on something that no one in society wants. That would be prohibition. So many people like liquor it would be hard to make something like that illegal

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:24

Carson, what other types of reform issues can you relate this to? What about issues from today?

Reply
Anthony Rue
01/26/2012 10:24

I agree. The government made a foolish move when they attempted to completely ban liquor, losing money from the consumers and manufacturers and even more on enforcing it. Their attempts at a dystopian society would have succeeded if they focused on some other problem in the society.

Reply
Bailey Waitley
01/26/2012 13:30

In response to Carson, I agree. The government had good intentions for trying to enforce the prohibition law, but unfortunately only brought harm instead of good. And he makes a good point when he said the police only arrested people because of their 'reputation'. Not because they were caught red-handed breaking the prohibition law.

Reply
Kenneth Jacobson
02/24/2012 12:19

I completely agree with you, the Government spends too much money on troops, military stuff and getting ready for war, but they need to spend it on better things.

Reply
carson cavner
02/26/2012 14:02

we don't spend the money on getting ready for war, we spend it because we are in one and just left one.

Carson Cavner (Redo)
02/26/2012 14:01

I agree with Mr. MacCurrie because prohibition had done far more harm than good, which is absolutely true. Our government had definitely spend massive amounts of money trying enforce a law that was started because some people had good intentions. But in reality, prohibition was wildly impractical because as i mentioned before, we spend a massive amount of money trying to enforce prohibition, but we also lost tons of money for alcohol taxes for the manufacturing of it, but also for the selling\distributing of it. I can kind of see a relation between this and the california assault weapon ban, we loose money on it because of a firearms tax, just like we lost money on prohibition and we spend quite a sum of money enforcing it. And if one is used in a crime it is destroyed, when if they we legal, we could resell it and make money. And in both cases, if someone was motivated to get one case liquor or in the other and assault rifle, they could get it. Plus in the assault weapon ban their is some terrible wording, at one point an assault weapon was described as black and menacing looking, and i would imagine with prohibition some people referred to booze as the work of the devil, as some uneducated liberal hippies referred to assault weapons as.

Reply
David Bodkin
02/27/2012 09:07

I agree wqith carson. It was a stupid idea and only did harm. It cost the governemnt tons of money in a time when we needed it right after a war. it wasnt even hard to obtain liqour if u wanted it, people where drinking all the time. If we had taxed it we could have made a good amount of money.

colton cavner
01/23/2012 15:42

i agree with Mr Mac Currie about prohibition. i think that the government was fighting a losing war with prohibition because of all the moonshining and smuggling that was going on. all in all prohibition did more harm that good. the government would have been better off not banning liquor and raising taxes on it. i dont know the government's logic behind prohibition but i doubt they took moonshiners into consideration when they ban alcohol. also there were many people who were arrested because of there reputation and not because there was evidence that the had or made alcohol

Reply
Jack Perkins
01/24/2012 13:15

I agree with your insite on prohibition I think that the government was fighting a loseing war with the prohibition an I don't think it was going to work to the effect that the government thought it was. But I think that the moonshiners didn't have so much to do with the things that government were fighting for

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:29

Colton, what other types of reform issues can you relate this to? What about issues from today?

Reply
Carlos Montes
01/23/2012 16:38

Mr. MacCurrie was dissappointed in the sense that prohibition was created for a good purpose, but ultimately failed to recieve a good response and effect. The government enforced prohibition as an attempt to clean up the crime and corruption in the streets. However people viewed prohibition as an act that restricted the freedom in the country. Prohibition only convinced citizens of the United States, like Mr. MacCurrie, that the government was corrupt and innefective.

I agree with Mr. MacCurrie; prohibition was not a smart move on the government's behalf. It only recieved a negative response from the majority of the public, only pleased a handfull of artiscratic-esque people, and ultimately was viewed as a corrupt action.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:30

Carlos, what other types of reform issues can you relate this to? What about issues from today?

Reply
Carlos Montes
01/26/2012 19:55

Well, throughout history, there have been many bazaar reforms, like the abolishment of practicing any religion other than catholicism in Spain during the time of Queen Isabella. As for the issues of today: there are constantly small groups of radicals in the United States that criticize the way we live and want to incorporate similar laws in comparison to prohibition, but they ultimately fail.

Brittany Shumate
01/23/2012 16:54

Mr. MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition was all the money that was being wasted and it was just a big waste of time. Other reforms of this time were trying to change the way that our country was, to better it and prohibition was just another reform that didn't work out so well because a majority of the people didn't like them. I don't think that having this law passed was a good idea because so many people rebelled against it and a lot of the raids usually came up empty. So why waste tax dollars on something like that? Honestly it was a dumb law to pass.Today, many people dislike how our government is and they are able to change that with voting. But even after voting there are still going to be people who are dissatisfied with the outcome.

Reply
Vanessa Schnurer
01/23/2012 21:32

I agree with Brittany Shumate when she said that prohibition wasted tax dollars, because it did! I dont think that anything good came out of prohibition. In fact, im sure that there were ten times more bad things than good things that came from prohibition. Prohibition angerd the tax-payers' by wasting there money. It angered more than thousands of people. It also created more crime within the nation. Organized crimes were being formed (many of us have heard of Al Capone.) Its obvious that by the governement trying to better the nation, they only helped to tareing it down! I also agree that voting rights dont fix everything. Although we have the right to vote, and declair laws just or unjust and many other rights that come along with voting. The government sill has its problems. For example, our presnt day president Barack Obama wanted to enforce progressive taxation, which is a silly idea to say the least. All this would do is “fix” one little problem by creating an even BIGER problem, by making MANY people unhappy! Although we have voting rights, it doesnt totally fix everything.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:31

Brittany, what other types of reform issues can you relate this to? What about issues from today?

Reply
Brittany Shumate
01/26/2012 23:51

Some other types of reforms I can relate this to would be the the way that the government tried to reform and make our country better when for example they passed the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented Asians (mostly Chinese) from entering the country. This was a waste of time because they came in anyways by finding loopholes and it was really racist in the first place. Some issues today would be the huge debt we have and the ever-extending deadline for it! Congress needs to get their business together and figure something out because I'm tired of hearing about it.

JT Strabala (Make Up)
02/26/2012 11:28

I agree with the oponion that Brittany has about prohibtion. I was a waste of money that could of been going to a better cause like ther persuit of education, but that is the state's buisness. But when you get down to it most major decisions made by the government is usualy not like by any other than whom made the law. And if those laws got passed congress today I, and probabaly the rest of America, would be outraged. But I have no doubt that some people try to pass those laws. I also agree with Brittany's ideas about how wasting tax payer's money is bad and i wish most people in government were like that.

Reply
Paloma Estrada
01/23/2012 18:14

MacCurrie’s primary objection to prohibition was that it was unnecessary and a waste of time. He thought that there were much better things the government and law enforcers could be spending their time and money on instead of this ridiculous cause. There was such a gap between the rich and the poor back then that he was also addressing this by saying the government should do something to fix that instead of caring about the “reputation” of people. He states that no one will ever know how much money was spent on trying to reform this issue and that it’s a shame because it was probably so much that was just gone to waste.

This can be related to other reform issues at this time easily because of all the changes the government was trying to enforce and improve the society but in all actuality, they were not needed. For example, the law that prohibited Japanese from owning farm land and all the other immigration laws that were there to improve but all they did was spend money on things like that and in the end it didn’t help much at all. Some present day issues related to this could include a school spending money on redoing the campus instead of much needed textbooks.

Reply
Scott Smith
01/24/2012 20:06

I agree with Paloma because it seems as though Mr. MacCurrie thinks that prohibition is a waste of time and money plus it is unnecessary. Also it seems like he wants the money that is being put into law enforcement and stopping the bootleggers to go to something that really needs it like helping the less fortunate. Furthermore I like the point of the school spending money on the campus rather than its students it is almost the same thing as the government spending money on bootleggers and not the people.

Reply
Brad Power
01/25/2012 19:32

I thought that you and i had a lot of similar points, but i liked how you brought the immigration issue at the time into view. Most of your arguments were based around the government wasting money, and i would have liked to see some of the positive things that came from prohibition. If prohibition was such a waste of time and money, then why did the government enforce it in the first place? I also thought your example of a modern day waste of money was very clever and true.

Reply
Lauren Curtis
01/25/2012 20:41

I agree with Paloma when she says that MacCurries primary objection was that prohibition in general was a waste of time, for many reasons. One main reason being that no matter how many laws were placed banning alcohol it would still be produced and consumed just as much as it was before prohibition. So much money was wasted trying to reform this issue. The government thought that they were doing everything they could to better society, when the reality was that almost none of these changes or so called "improvements" were needed.

Reply
Ashley Engelman
01/23/2012 18:17

MacCurrie's primary objection to the prohibition is that it wastes money and most people are not even convicted on the primary rules of the prohibition, only on their "reputation." I can't really think of a modern example to relate this to but I definitely agree with Mr. MacCurrie's disdain for the prohibition. It seems ridiculous to me that the government actually wasted such a large amount of money on making sure that people didn't consume alcohol. The only thing I can think of that is relatively close to this example is the government's attempts to regulate the internet, which, like alcohol, is a right of citizens to use. The true ridiculousness of the article however was the fact that people were arrested due to their reputations, which is both insulting and prejudiced.

Reply
Margarita Navarro
01/23/2012 19:27

I think prohibition was a great thing, I know many people don’t agree with that because they think it’s stupid or whatever. A kid coming from a child of an alcoholic father, grandmother, aunt and uncle, prohibition was the best thing ever invented. I’m sure it was a waste of money but it was an effort to save the urban area from getting too destructive. The government was whack back in the day and had no idea what they were doing but they still tried to save the immigrants and the urban areas. Mr. MacCurrie didn’t like prohibition because the government was just wasting money on enforcement. This relates to today’s issues (wasting money on “enforcement”)… Coronado Police. What do they do? Where does our money go?

Reply
Lexy Perez
01/24/2012 16:15

I believe that the overall idea of prohibition is a great thing. But like Mac Currie said, it was a waste of money and it did end up being a little bit corrupt. But it was to make this a better and safer place by getting rid of something dangerous and that is what the government is suppose to do. As to your question about the coronado police, they do make this place a little bit safer by enforcing laws but not so much by giving tickets to kids without helmets.

Reply
Erin FItzgerald
01/24/2012 23:21

Oh my god Margarita I absolutely and completely loved the last part of your comment response thing!!! It was the part where you questioned about the Coronado police and what they are even doing and where our money is going that caught my eye and that prompted me to respond. Let me just say-GOOD QUESTION. I recently read an article on where our money has been going in the Coronado police force. The Coronado Police are spending thousands of dollars on little bitty cameras to install on their helmets. Woooow, right?? It’s absolutely unnecessary, isn’t it? Plus, as if half of the things the Coronado Police Department do aren’t unnecessary enough already! Now let us put little spy cameras on our pretty plastic helmets. Weee! Ugh. Plus I don’t see why the City of Coronado feels the need to repave every single dang road in Coronado, practically every 30 seconds. It’s not like we have these horrendous potholes all over the place, ruining cars and angering citizens. Sometimes, I am able to notice all too easily, how absolutely and absurdly pampered the city and citizens of Coronado are.

Reply
michael beeson
01/25/2012 00:21

I love how you put the Coronado police in your post. I don't live in Coronado so I don't reserve the right to say that my parents tax money is being wasted on cops that are too up tight and hand out a ticket if you breath too many times in a five second period but I totaly agree with you. Why do you guys spend so much money on them you definatly are wasting money on enforcement.

Reply
Michael Beeson (REDOING MY RESPONSE)
01/25/2012 21:42

I love how you put the Coronado police in your post. I don't live in Coronado, so I don't reserve the right to say that my parents’ tax money is being wasted on policemen and women that are much too up-tight; and officers whom hand out tickets if you breath too many times in a five-second period; but I absolutely agree with you. Why does the city of Coronado spend so much money on its police force? I feel that the city is definitely wasting money on its law enforcement. I know that it is good to have cops who are tough; because if you have hard police, the place where they work/are stationed in is bound to be nicer then a place where the police force is less attentive and much more lenient. Regardless, think that the cops in Coronado seem to get a little too serious about their job. A healthy balance between the Coronado Police Department could and would be great for the city of Coronado, because then the citizens would be able to live more comfortably, not having to be wondering why they are paying so much for police who will give them a ticket for just about anything.

Reply
Aurora Roberts
01/26/2012 20:04

I agree with Margarita about thats the Prohibition was a good thing and that it was also stupid. I think it was a waste though and it might be a good thing for alcohol to be banned, but i mean the parents would do it because it was an addiction to them. So basically it wont stop the parents or it just might stop them from drinking.

Reply
01/27/2012 11:10

I agree with you margarita because I also agree with prohibition. I think that it prevents children from becoming alcoholics just like their family memebers. I believe when the gov't tries every possible way to ban alcohol it will minize the use of alcohol. Therefore, I feel like its a good thing. It doesn't matter what the cost; it matters how the gov't is trying to prevent alcohol use. Reasons why I agree with margarita are how alcohol affects people. I've witnessed the behavior of the use of alcohol and seen people do crazy things like hurt other people, drink and drive, fight, say mean things and their not in their rational thoughts. This is completely negative behavior!!! Therefore, by banning alcohol and by having the gov't interfere it might be less likely for those behaviors.

Reply
michael beeson
01/23/2012 20:26

I think that this is awesome. Its just a man talking about what he thinks is wrong. I don't think that a cop should be able to walk in your house without a worrent, and just off of susspision, and have that be ok. And also when the cop doesn't find anything have him just pull a bottle out of his shirt or wherever and pin it on the man, that's unjust and not fair. I'm glad that now a days we have a little more rules and regulations so that this kind of stuff does not happen.

Reply
Josh Kessell
01/24/2012 09:55

Yes I agree. MacCurrie was pinned for blame just so they could fine him and or arrest him. Its clear that he didnt have any alcohol in his hotel room and that the officer pulled it from nowhere. I dont think that was right. Im also glad we have more rules and regulations otherwise who knows, maybe this kind of stuff would still be happening? the govermnet may do anything to make a buck or two from a fine if they can make it happen.

Reply
Thomas Bryans
01/31/2012 08:00

Josh, you're face is funny and you're not goo at using apostrophies.

Michael, uhh yeah I agree and all that. I'm glad we have moore (see what I did there?) rules. Although I don't think that in an ideal would rules against what protects you (police and whatever) should be neccesary. However, because they are, I'm glad that the rules are... favoring the people, that being said, sometimes I feel like the laws and rules just get in the way of timeliness crimes. What I mean is, sometimes the police suspect something, but they don't have the information to check and see if they're right because they can't get a warrant. I don't see why a police officer needs a warrant once something has the possibility of threatening national security or another human life. I'm glad for the protection of our privacy, but I think that like all rules, there should be exceptions, as extreme as they may be.

Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:39

Michael, what other types of reform issues can you relate this to? What about issues from today?

Reply
Claire Purvis
01/23/2012 20:35

MacCurrie’s primary objection to prohibition was how the government wasted money in trying to achieve the elimination of alcohol in our society. He also objected to the corruption that existed within the police force that enforced the laws. He hoped that the money that was spent by the government in implementing prohibition laws could be fairly distributed to those people in our society who were struggling. This was a common complaint during the Progressive Era about the distribution of government money and services in order to achieve positive social change. Other reform issues failed because they directed their resources in ridding the behavior rather then the root cause. An example would be the purity crusaders who tried to rid society of their unwholesome behaviors such as drinking, gambling and other vices.

Today, many people object to how the government wastes money in funding programs that try to help people who drink, and have other vices. It is very difficult to help people who engage in destructive behaviors. One example would be the creation of a national health care system that provides health care services to people who act in unhealthy ways. People, who drink too much, smoke too much and eat too much tax the system while others are making healthy choices and costing the system less. MacCurrie is right, “Man, it’s a cryin’ shame.”

Reply
Ashley Cotten
01/24/2012 17:10

I’m glad that you addressed the corruption in the police force at that time, because we still deal with this today. Government at that time was distributed poorly and often got in the hands of the wrong people. It’s funny how history repeats itself. Government will never be perfect and I don’t think we will ever achieve a “Utopian Society.” I love how you quoted MacCurrie because it really is a shame! People who make good and healthy decisions shouldn’t have to have their money go to people who aren’t responsible. Nobody’s perfect but that doesn’t mean we can’t be fair with each other.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:39

Great response to Claire's post, Ashley!

Mariana
01/26/2012 23:10

I agree with Claire on how MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition was that the government was wasting too much money on the implementation of this reform. I liked Claire post because it incorporated real life struggles that many individuals face now a day, and how the government tries to help but doesn't quite fix the problem. Also talking about a national health care system is a good way to catch peoples attention, since its a sensitive/difficult topic regarding politics, that many people want a solution/plan for. Overall I believe Claire does a nice job relating MacCurries point of view, with now-a day points that we can relate to.

Reply
nick beall
01/23/2012 20:51

MacCurrie’s primary objective to prohibition is that it was a waste and time of money. Money was lost in pouring out the alcohol in the streets and money was lost in trying to enforce prohibition. He felt that the old country had a lot of problems but certain things were better. His objective is mostly the cost to enforce the law.
Today we have the same with healthcare. The insurance companies charge a fortune because doctors charge too much. The public wants to make healthcare prices lower. They would rather pay a tax on it than to pay lots of money for insurance.

Reply
chantilly Otto-smith
01/24/2012 20:45

I agree with Nick that his main dissappointment of prohibition is the wasted money and also how it was pointless to put money into stopping alcohol consumption and selling, where they could be using that money to help the poor or other economic problems. In society today, yes healthcare is an issue, but to better relate to his main disappointment, the unnecessary enforcement of "minute maids" or parking police would be a better current example of the gratuitous government jobs that tax payers must pay for

Reply
sean franks
02/15/2012 21:22

I agree with nick that MacCurrie’s primary objective to prohibition was to let it be known that it was a waste of time and money. I also believe that his main objective was to show how nothing has progressed since the prohibition and that it is going nowhere except a loss in money. Tax payers needed to know what they're money is being used for, and im sure they would much rather it be used in lowering healthcare prices instead of banning alcohol. Good points nick!

Reply
Sydney Waitley
01/23/2012 20:55

I think MacCurrie's main objection ti prohibition was that he thought how the government was waisting time and money, and how people are based off of their reputation. He also talks about the corruption within the police force and how their laws were enforced. A current modern example of today's problem's would be the Coronado Police, I personally think that they do not have much to do around the Island, except for the recent incidents that have happened. I feel like there is not alot enforcing for the citizens of Coronado. Besides the fact they give tickets to kids riding aroound the island with no protective head gear on. Anyway Mr.MacCurrie disagreed with prohibition because he felt that the government was waisting money, time, and enforcement.

Reply
margarita Navarro p.2
01/26/2012 15:37

BOOM! said the same thing!(:

anyways, back then people were based off their reputaion and i dont think it was cool of the citizens to do so. Prohibition didnt really help anything, it kind of just hurt peopel more, right?

Reply
Vanessa Schnurer
01/23/2012 21:13

MacCurrie highly dislikes the fact that the money spent to get rid of alcohol consumption was put to waste. Too much money was spent on police enforcement and other things to put prohibition into action. All of that money came from the tax payers, even when some of them were against prohibition. Even with enforcement, the government couldn't possibly stop the consumption of alcoholic beverages within the nation. Especially because people were extremely angered by prohibition in action. All this did was waste the tax-payer's money, when this money could of been put into better use. Why waste my money because the government wants to make the whole country stop drinking? Sure that would be the ideal nation (getting rid of alcohol consumption), but you cant force a group of people to do something that they don't want to do, especially if your doing it by wasting MY money for a cause that will end up in the dirt. I can relate this reform to other reforms during this time when the Bland-Allison Act was put into action. This was when more silver was put into circulation, which led to inflation; amount of the dollar reduces. Present day issues include the fact that welfare money is being given out too easily! It's is extremely unacceptable that the tax-payers support those who sit at home all day watching T.V., not contributing anything to our country!

Reply
Ashley Aucoin
01/25/2012 23:43

I agree with what you said the government basically fighting a losing war for prohibition. I cant see how it was set up for the good, but it only brought greed and corruption. People weren't going to give up that habit. If anything they should have put a limit on it instead of wiping it out completely. Another thing that would have bugged me as well is how they are wasting money that could be used for better causes is being wasted on silly things-they just wanted to win so badly, show their power that it was all they were able to focus on.

Reply
Paloma Estrada
01/27/2012 17:53

I agree with Vanessa when she talks about how MacCurrie didn't agree with all the money being spent on getting rid of alcohol consumption. Especially since that money was coming from all the tax payers who mostly greatly opposed that ban. It wasn't fair because shouldn't the people paying for the money to fund programs like these decide at least where part of the money goes? There was so many other issues that actually mattered in assisting the American citizens other than paying for more ridiculous regulations.

Reply
Ashley Engelman
02/26/2012 13:19

I agree with Vanessa that McCury mostly didn't like that there was such a ridiculous amount of money being put into stopping the production of alcohol. Although I don't support legalizing marijuana many people who do would say that that's the same thing that the Prohibition was trying to do. I feel that there's always going to be something that people aren't going to be happy with the government about whether that's high taxes, alcohol or marijuana bans, or helmet restrictions. It does seem to be ridiculous to force citizens to pay for the government's moral crusade against alcohol but we don't live in this time period so we can't really understand the exact circumstances that prompted it. It was a rather extreme step that didn't end up working at all but if it had we would probably have a rather healthier society today.

Carelen Camero
01/23/2012 21:29

The issue here is that the government was spending unknown amounts of money on a cause that was already lost. Sure, drinking does cause bad judgement and vices and all the things that the Purity Crusaders were attempting to erradicate, but the fact remains that prohibition was largely unsuccessful. In a time full of rampant poverty, didn't the government have anything more pressing to worry about?

That's actually kind of the same way I feel about Abortion. It is a personal choice and, here's a thought: How about, instead of flooding Pro-Life money into Pro-Life campaigning, you take some of that money and invest it in the foster care system in order to help the children you fight for?
It's money that is trying to be used in order to help people, like prohibition enforcement money, just being gone about in an unhelpful way.

Reply
Hannah Liska
01/24/2012 17:10

I agree with your opinion that abortion should not be a matter subject to being banned by the government. Scientists cannot find an agreeable answer as to when it is in life, whether it is before the baby is born or not, when the child has it's only rights and is considered to be its own person. Though I will not state my view on abortion itself, I will say that my views on government interfering too much with the daily life of citizens is not what this government was made for.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:44

Carelen, I love how you offered an alternative to the issue of pro-life campaigning. When you want something to change, it's important to offer up an alternative.

Reply
Luke Kullberg
01/23/2012 21:45

MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition was that it never really accomplished anything, and that it was a big waste of time. He believed the government had many other important things they should have been focusing on instead of raiding homes looking for alcohol. He thinks its shameful how much money has been wasted on pointless things such as enforcing prohibition. A reform issue I can relate this to is the purity crusaders.

I relate this to them their main goal was to stop bad things from going around (Vices). I can relate this to the present day issue of playing park football at Pomona Park in the rain. The cops say we can play because it ruins the grass and turns it into mud... This is ridiculous because it’s a public park, and our tax money is going to keeping the park nice anyways, so why not be able to use when we please.

Reply
Josh Kessell
01/24/2012 09:45

MacCurrie seems pretty upset with good reason. It seemed like the law enforcement of prohibition did things pretty messed up. If they went into his hotel and pulled a pint of alcohol, and he knows it wasnt there, It makes sense that they set him up so they could fine him and get money or arrest him. I can imagine how many other people they did that to. I agree that it probably wasted a lot of money. I feel like maybe it made people's Vice behavior even worse. I would be upset if I got fined for something I knew I didnt do.

I think People paid more than what they should have with prohibition. There were probably people that deserved to get punished and didnt get punished, and there were probably people that didnt ever do anything wrong and got punished anyway. I liked what he said at the end about going back to the old country and how he thought that would be best. You know its bad when someone is complaining to go back in time rather than forward in time.

Reply
Carlos Montes
01/26/2012 20:23

I agree with Josh Kessel; governments from all over the world have committed some action of corruption in which the common and innocent are affected by it. These practices are so inhumane and unconstitutional, MacCurie had the right to say whatever he wanted and the Declaration of Independence itself states that if a government becomes violent and turns against its people, the people have the right to overthrow the government.

Every government is unfair, no matter how much it hides the truth, it is impossible for a government to be fair, just, and completely trustworthy. That is honestly a fool's dream.

Reply
Josh Kessell
01/24/2012 09:52

This relates to issues today such as wasting money on the occupy wallstreet things etc. I feel like its a bunch of idiots wasting time and money on something that is ass backwards.
as well as coronado police. Who the hell cares if I J walk or ride without a helmet. Who cares if my windows are too tinted and you cant see in. thats how I like them...

Reply
01/24/2012 13:35

I disagree with you, Josh. Sure, it's silly to get a ticket for J-walking or no helment. It's for safety though. If we didn't have these types of rules, we could get hurt by a car or if we crash on our bike; our head is one of the most precious things on our body to protect. When it comes to having tinted windows, I agree. But however, if it's too tinted then how are people in cars and pedestrians going to see you? They won't know if you're going or passing.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:46

Julianne, you make some good points in your argument. I like to see differing opinions, especially when done so respectfully.

Carelen Camero
01/24/2012 21:05

I'm going to try to simultaneously respond to Josh and Julianne's response to Josh.
So Josh, I do agree with you that it does kind of seem like a waste of time. Julianne is right about some things, such as JayWalking and helmet laws being for our safety.
As for the tinted windows thing, though, my dad once got pulled over for having his windows tinted because the dealer sold him his truck like that. My dad had no idea that was illegal, but he got a ticket. How about, for those silly instances, the police instead say "Hey, this is illegal, but most people don't know that. So just get them fixed, okay?"

Jordan Roth
01/25/2012 21:15

Julianne, I get what your saying with those laws being there for our safety. But in my opinion, I have to disagree with you. Because america goes by the saying, we are free people. So I don't think they should have the right to decide if we want to be safe or not. I think if people want to take the risk and not wear a helment, then let them. It's their health and choice, not really anyone elses. To what others do and how they want to live. But I do agree about the J-walking, because they are putting others in danger. And if a person J-walks and causes an accident, that one person could ruin the life of millions. Just by stepping off the curb where their not supposed to. But again that's just my opinion

Lyle Heidenfelder
01/24/2012 18:46




I agree that MacCurrie had a good reason to be upset about the cops setting people up by planning alcohol. This would make people resent the police and the government because the government is almost acting illegally. However, I think that Mr. MacCurrie’s main objection is wasted money and missed tax money. I agree it made people’s vice behavior worse because people were tempted to go against the government and drink more. The cops were definitely corrupt because they busted people who weren’t really drinking. Bootleggers should have been the ones who got punished the most. People were used to purchasing alcohol and drinking alcohol because it used to be legal so it almost didn’t make sense when it was banned.

I’m sure a bunch of people feel the same about the Coronado Police. They are just like policemen back then, spending too much time on laws that shouldn’t even be a big deal.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:47

Lyle, good points. What other types of reform issues can you relate this to?

Alexis Perez
01/24/2012 15:19

MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition is that it is a waste of money. He also points out that it wasn't done right. He points out how his constitutional rights were thrown out. Unwarranted search and seizure is just one of them. Most reform issues during this time had to do with drinking, voting or some other form of politics. Being a minor none of those things directly affect me so I can't really relate to them. But I guess the women's suffrage would relate to me the most because next year I will be able to vote due to that reform. As well as the other ways women have more rights affect me. Today there are many issues in the world today. All over the world there are wars and violence but here in the US it’s mostly economic and discrimination issues. These issues affect the world around me in many ways and make it relevant to my life by the issues coming up in everyday conversation as well as in class.

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/24/2012 19:54

Lexy, great connections to other reform issues and how the reform movements of the past affect us all today.

Reply
José Antonio
01/24/2012 16:25

Prohibition for me is something government doesn't want to deal with because they can't control people with their decisions. If you prohibit something people will be more curious about it, they will be asking them selves "Why does the government want to prohibit something without importance" and the curiosity wins over them. Im against prohibition because it only causes more problems. Now the government is only wasting money in an issue that can cause mayor problems if there is interference. So the point of Mr. MacCurrie's is to make people understand that prohibition is just a waste of money and time by the gov. and without attention people will not be curious about that issue any more.

Reply
Hannah Liska
01/24/2012 17:02

What is MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition? How can you relate this to other reform issues during this time? What about present-day issues?
MacCurrie's primary objection to the prohibition had nothing to do with his view on alcohol and what the prohibition sought for, but rather uses this act as an example of how the government has flaws. The only objection to prohibition was all the waste it caused to the country. As MacCurrie reminds us, the prohibition cost the US a large, unestimatable of money. It also wasted time of everyone involved, caused petitions and rebellion, ect,. MacCurrie does not object the prohibition itself whatsoever, but that's not his point. He is just using this piece of history to prove to us that there are some things that are in need of change in our government that just won't work the way they are anymore.
Another issue in this time that had the same affect on the US during this time of history would be the the purity crusaders. They spent so much time and effort trying to make all of these different groups act the same. After all the work they put in, still today people aren't expected of the same things in society when it comes to culture. Now we even glorify diversity. So was their reform plan a failed attempt? In my opinion, yes it was.
The best example of this issue occurring again in modern day events would most likely be the banning of marijuana. This is a substance that is deemed illegal to obtain by our government, but even though they put a lot of effort toward enforcing the substance, they look past the Licences to grow and buy weed for medical purposes being given out loosely. Just as it is for alcohol today, the usage of weed should be decided by the people using it, not the government.

Reply
Frank McNeill
01/27/2012 19:33

I agree that MacCurrie did not have a problem with the idea of banning alcohol but his problem was how the government enforced it. I do agree with the fact that the prohibition era was a waste of government money because the enforcement costs were very high. I like your example about the reform issues during that time period with purity crusaders. Purity crusaders also wanted Americans to become pure and alcohol made people immoral. In my post I also put the current situation on legalization of marijuana. The two situations have the same problems with government enforcement. Also both situations cause the government to lose money.

Reply
Ashley Cotten
01/24/2012 17:03

I never agreed with prohibition, I believe that by putting so much time and effort into ending something that people use at their own risk and own will, your only going to get worse results. By making something illegal, especially alcohol, people will continue to obtain it. MacCurrie objects prohibition because he believed the government should of been focusing on the bigger picture. Also, instead of wasting so much money on it, he thought the government should have been dealing with the nations real issues. A government that tries to control people’s vices is bound to have trouble in return. People aren't perfect, and it's not necessarily the government’s issue.

This relates to issues today and back then. If we invest money into making social services that help people with their issues, we don’t always help society as a whole. I think this article can also relate to welfare programs today because we invest money into people who don't always make the best decisions and it ends up being a waste to people who actually need the help. No matter how much money is spent on enforcing laws like prohibition, people will still find a way to drink or participate in other vices. In the end prohibition was just a huge waste of taxpayers money, and did more bad then good.

Reply
Jasmyne Miller
01/24/2012 17:31

MacCurrie’s primary objection to prohibition is that it’s causing a lot more damage getting rid of alcohol than it even caused having it, also that they have been wasting so much money trying to rid the alcohol that it’s doing no good and causing corruption to the country. It had caused so many problems and drove so many people to deceive others, over a simple law, trying to cause purity when it really just drove people to do other sins, wrath and greed. Other reform issues were people trying to bring value to the rights of African Americans by allowing them to vote, making their facilities “separate but equal”, but it really just brought people to find loop holes in limiting their rights. People trying to do the right thing by giving African American rights, were just overridden by the people doing whatever it takes to take away their rights. The creation of Grandfather clauses, voting restrictions, literacy tests and many more ways to restrict African Americans from voting. Both of these reforms did nothing but harm. A present day issue that relates to this topic is the controversy of the drinking age. Drinking alcohol is only allowed if you’re 21, which some haven’t been too happy about considering 18 is old enough to be considered an adult, to smoke cigarettes, to get a medical marijuana card, and serve our country.

Reply
Lyle Heidenfelder
01/24/2012 18:33

Mr. MacCurrie was interviewed in 1938 about prohibition. The discussion about prohibition was an example of government ineffectiveness during the Progressive Era. Mr. MacCurrie’s primary objection was money and having enough for everyone. He felt as if money was spent inappropriately because the government police would search homes and businesses looking for alcohol. This took a lot of police hours and a lot of government money. Taxes also played a big role in Mr. McCurrie’s opinion. When people sold alcohol illegally, they wouldn’t charge any tax, so the government wouldn’t get any tax revenue. So, Mr. McCurrie saw a lot of missed opportunities for taxes. He had an additional objection about enforcing the law because cops would raid people and almost set them up.

I can relate this to other reform issues during the Progressive Era, specifically the women’s suffrage. Women’s suffrage allowed women to vote, which was supposed to introduce a “pure” female vote into “impure” politics. This is related to prohibition because alcohol was seen as impure, and prohibition was seen as “purifying”.

The same issue is not significant today. Purity is not as popular right now. Republicans have “family values” which have to do with purity, but it’s not a really big issue for most of us.

Reply
cory noonan
01/24/2012 18:44

Mr. MacCurries words about this situation are very clear and simple. He just simply felt every single dollar was being thrown down the drain. Some people can be immature with money. From kids, to adults. Anybody can have money issues. He claims that government was spending money on unnecesary things. I completely agree with him. Government sometimes still does that.

Reply
cory noonan
01/25/2012 21:54

Mr. MacCurries words about this situation are very clear and simple. He just simply felt every single dollar was being thrown down the drain. Some people can be immature with money. From kids, to adults. Anybody can have money issues. He claims that government was spending money on unnecesary things. I completely agree with him. Government sometimes still does that. the same issues still happen in different ways. I dont know exactly what they are because i try not to pay attention to government because its extremely complicated but my parents do say that there are places government is waisting the money and is going to somewhere that it is not needed sometimes. Its sad that government cant think smarter on money.

Reply
Liz Studdard
01/24/2012 18:52

In this article MacCurrie's main objection to prohibition was the harm that it did to the country and the money wasted instead of the good it was supposed to do. People did not listen to prohibition and just went in secret and did thesamething anyways except worse because it was now illegal. The government wasted a bunch of money trying to shut down speakeasies and bootleggers that would not have been an issue in the first place if prohibition had not been put into place. This was also the case for sme other reforms during this time because there were people trying to reform African American's rights and make them equal but instead they were separate but "equal". Today there are still issues that need to be reformed but some that would better be left alone to to waste time and money. This article's historical themes are politics, economy, and social structure because of the reform that was made and it's financial effects and it's overall effectiveness on society and how the government should done better at making prohibition work or just not have worried so much about it in the first place.

Reply
cory noonan
01/26/2012 18:04

I agree with what you said about people and how they didn't listen to prohibition. That is completely true. I also agree that the government did and still does waste a lot of money. the whole point of government is to make the country run smooth, but they in this case decided to do the opposite of that. Sometimes I worry what the country will be like after all the money wasted. If they did the same thing with prohibition a long time ago, then we are doomed to repeat history unless we do something about it.

Reply
Liz Studdard
01/24/2012 19:03

I agree with what Josh Kessel is saying about some of the laws today. I think that certain things are an individual's decision and if they make the wrong choice then that is there fault. People should be allowed to make their own mature decisioins about things like whether to wear a helmet or not and as long as it does to put other people in danger the government should not be allowed to decide those things for you.

Reply
JT Strabala
01/24/2012 19:15

I believe that the government shouldn't spend money on independent projects to help get rid of alcohol. It is a journey which will just lead to more corruption. also the more the government payed attention to the fact that a normal person is not responcible enough to decide when it is or isn't a good time to go drinking is hipicritical. Just think about it if you turned to your best friend and told him/her you can't drink water because you have some divine power over them they will just laugh at you. This act to try and take control goes directly against our Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created equal. The laws that were put down to "protect" the public were the thing that were unfolding it, and deterating the american dream.

Reply
Sydney Waitley
01/30/2012 13:55

I agree with what you are saying about how the government is being hypocritical. You make some very good points when you mention that those acts are going directly against the Declaration of Independece. I liked the example you used on, " If it were to be your best friend in the situation" that was good. I thought you did a good job on summarizing it.

Reply
Maddy Williamson
01/24/2012 19:45

The main thing that MacCurrie did not like about prohibition was the amount of money it wasted. The government wasted so much money for a pointless cause. People would continue to drink no matter what the government says. The government practically threw away money by trying to enforce prohibition. During this time i understand that reforms were trying to be made for the bettering of the country, but the government should have used the money to reform other things that actually needed true fixing. This is relatable to the issue with wearing bike helmets in Coronado. Teens feel that they should be able to make the decision to protect themselves. The police should not be able to make the decisions about their well beings. The law was made to reform the safety issue, yet teens still continue to not wear helmets. They are wasting their time! Trying to get a teen to wear a helmet is like trying to teach a peach how to tie a shoe.

Reply
Brittany Withouski
01/25/2012 18:27

I agree with you Maddy because the police are trying to enforce something that will never be changed. As hard as they try (they've been trying for ever) the teenagers of Coronado wont wear a helmet. As silly as this sounds its very true! I also agree that the government should have used the money to reform the things that really were in need of being fixed. It not fair to be spending reckless amounts of money on things that wont "make or break" our country.

Reply
Scott Smith
01/24/2012 19:52

Mr. MacCurrie’s primary objection to prohibition is how much money is poured into all the law enforcement. Also he talks about how it is practically useless to try and stop bootleggers because thee bootleggers don’t care and the money spent on trying to stop them could be used to help the less accomplished and the needy. He also mentions the corruption and how the law enforcement was so desperate to stop bootleggers they would set them up if they didn’t find any evidence. Around this time period America was just ending the industrialization movement and now starting to focus on society. Mr. MacCurrie states that America’s society at that time was worse than were he came from even though there was more “poverty and disconnect”. Reformers at this time wanted to fix what was wrong with society and daily life in American. For example women’s suffrage, African American rights, education, improved standard of living, helping the needy, and working conditions were all big issues at the time that had to do with social structure and politics. There are still some of these problems today. We are not economically in a “depression” but that doesn’t mean that our society is good. Almost everywhere you go you will see homeless people and the needy. People are still losing jobs, losing houses and becoming homeless every day and there isn’t much we can do because our government will never be perfect and not everyone can have a wealthy life because everyone makes mistakes.

Reply
Carmela Yannaccone
01/24/2012 20:17

Mr. MacCurries obvious issue with prohibition is how much money was wasted on it. Having the police raid the hotels for alchohol and stuff was just nonsensical; it wasn't needed when other, much more serious things were going on around them, like the poverty and rapid income of immigrants. During this time, there were good reforms and pointless reforms. Those based on fixing the sins of the people were pretty much the latter. You can't change people. You can help them, I suppose, but you can't change them. Let them wallow in their sins. It's basically relatable to how stupid most of the reforms were, when there were more serious problems in America happening. In today's government, I just want to end the corruption. The way the Congress can think they basically can control us. That we're a nation without brains. It's stupid. SOPA, especially. You can't just censor our internet without people taking action.

Reply
Chantilly Otto-Smith
01/24/2012 20:21

Mr. MacCurries primary objection to prohibition was the poor usage of the money that was conviscated from society, wheather it be from taxes, fines, or illegal seizes. His first main point goes to talk about why the governtment is having such a hard time with its economy and money because they are the ones who not only produce money, but they recieve money from society in multiple ways. He asks how they can be in debt if they have such a copies amount of money flowing in. He argues that he preferred being in the "Old World" because even though their was inequality within the classes, it seemed that the money collected was being used in a more sufficient way. Todays economy and government seem to be dealing with the same types of problems. our economy is suffweing and their is a good amount of inequality in paying taxes and other social class issues. Corruption was a huge issue during the prohibition, many "political machines" were considered a form of corruption, along with unequal payment of taxes and rates for items depending on the different social clases.

Reply
Sarah Perkins
01/24/2012 20:38

I believe MacCurrie's main objection to prohibition is that it cost way to much money. When you take away the things that make people happy those people end up taking away all the things right that you have tried to create. When you take an alcoholics booze, what do they do but go out and buy more. What can you do but ban alcohol completely which would cause a lot worse things then just locking up that alcoholic and getting them treatment. Prohibition just like segregation was something that wasn't needed but was put into place by the wealthy that can get around the law. Also the reform that made you take a test to prove that you can vote and again the wealthy found a way to get around it. Present day we have reform issues that are more about health care and taxes since those are the two things our country is struggling with right now. These reforms are to help the economy to help us and right now that isn't working so well with the people of America.

Reply
aaron galindo
01/24/2012 20:54

I believe his standpoint and argument is that the government does not know what it is doing, that they are on an impossible quest throwing away money left and right and arresting people with little ground. All this together is showing an incompetent government failing at executing prohibition correctly

The idea of prohibition makes sense and I agree with it. The cause is noble and just, the only flaw being that it was approached incorrectly and nothing went according to plan. The whole point was to cleanse society which would have been a worth while cause but unfortunately people decide to intoxicate themselves frequently and enjoy it so much that they are willing to fight it. Even today if alcohol leads to car accidents, then why is it not banned? Back then they wanted to stop it because of public behavior, but with the introduction of the massive highways and roads the existence of the substance is worse than it was back then regardless of the advertisement and precautions taken to prevent this it still happens. So then can u truly blame the government for trying to ban alcohol? Having a substances that impairs judgment and can possible kill you with poisoning or others with reckless behavior that can harm others does not pass.

Reply
Jocelyn Melendez
01/24/2012 20:59

Mr. MacCurrie’s primary objection to the prohibition is the misuse of money by the government. He thought that trying to enforce prohibition was like pouring the people’s tax money into the gutter because of the corruption within the government. Especially since this led to framing and bootlegging, so the prohibition did more harm to people than it helped. Which made Mr. MacCurrie wondered why they couldn’t figure out a system to make sure everyone has the necessities of life instead of wasting time on trying to enforce this unpopular law. Another issue during that time period which I relate to the prohibition, was the issue of having more blue laws, which the Republicans wanted. Both these issues began restricting private affairs in people’s lives which did not have to do with the overall good but for their own good, which made them very invasive laws. The most obvious present-day issue this reminds me of is the SOPA and PIPA issue because the government wanted to pass it because they thought it would be for the best but it was very unpopular among the people. Unlike the government in the past, our current government has taken the people’s wants into consideration and have decided not even to vote on the issue because it is very unlikely to pass.

Reply
Kyle Cottrell
01/24/2012 21:17

Mr. MacCurrie has some very good points. He talks about how even though it was a good cause the outcome is not worth it, Because of the government's spending on trying to enforce the prohibition. I agree with him because they spent a lot more money than they needed to. If they had let people drink as they used to, they would have saved alot of money. In today's world i think that this would relate to how much the government is spending for some things in certain schools while other schools can barley get by on what they have.

Reply
Heidi Garbers
01/24/2012 21:38

I have to say i don't believe in prohibition. The reason is, is that it was just a stupid way to think that people would work harder and do things better then they would without prohibition. It was just another law that people passed so they could just say we banned this or we banned that. All prohibition did was spark some boot leggers to get more money for what they thought was the okay thing or get people in trouble for having a drink. I just feel like the government ran out of thing to blame and thought taking away alcohol would solve everyones problems. Also i just feel like the government shouldn't waste their time and money on independent projects like having a drink and focus on more of what they need to do to make a better country.

Reply
Mollie Privett
01/24/2012 21:49

MacCurie's primary objection to prohibition is that he feels that the government is wasting money on trying to ban alcohol all together. In reality, banning alcohol completely will never happen. Yes, today you have to be of legal age to purchase or consume alcohol, but the government has never successfully completely gotten rid of it. I think that MacCurie expressed major concern about the government doing things for the nation that are simply not needed. The government was focusing so much on things like banning alcohol and arresting people for their reputations, that the government simply seemed to forget about the major issues arising. In fact, MacCurie expressed that the government was actually putting the nation in crisis by wasting money on things that were sort of irrelevant. Instead of spending so much money on things that will simply never change, the government should have been more wise about their decisions about what they were doing with their money. This prohibition issue can relate to other reform eras of this time by relating to the purity crusaders which was when many residents fought to rid their communities of unwholesome and illegal activities. The purity crusaders also sought to exterminate vice among society, just the way that the government tried to ban alcohol. It seems that people put in a lot of effort to change their society for the better, but the reality of it is that there will never be a perfect, ideal society. People will always rebel or go against what is expected of them. I think that society back then just wasn't used to corrupt behavior. Nowadays we see this kind of behavior every single day. However, I can see how this can relate to some present day issues because in society today, government continues to regulate strictly, all the time. I'm not saying it's a bad thing but I feel like, at least in Coronado, cops literally go out of their way to see if someone is doing the slightest thing wrong. Just like MacCurie said, how people came in his hotel room to search him and find if he was doing anything wrong, I have witnessed cops all the time hiding out to see if someone doesn't have their helmet completely buckled. It's stuff like that which makes me think about all of the wasted energy that is put into our society. I see this article overall relating to the historical themes politics and economics because the political value of it is the government making these decisions to do what they think is right. The economic value of it is that the government wastes so much money on things that seem to never change. So it makes me see that a lot has changed since the Progressive Era, but then again a lot has stayed the same.

Reply
Mollie Privett
01/24/2012 21:59

In response to Carmela Yannaccone, I definitely agree with your post. I really liked how you stated that you can't change people, but you can help them. You are spot on with this statement because it's completely true. If there was an alcoholic, you could definitely send them to rehab which would monitor hem and try to help them. But that alcoholic would most likely never fully change as a person. I mean everyone changes, but you can't force someone to change the person they are. I also agree with her when she said that there were more serious problems in America happening at that time. It's true, if the government could have spent half the time they did on prohibition instead on equal taxing and women suffrage, then America could have been a much better country back then.

Reply
Brian Keith
01/24/2012 22:00

In this article, the speaker’s main point was about how money was basically thrown away by the government when they were trying to enforce prohibition. Instead of prohibition being good for America, like it was supposed to, it was a waste. People did not listen to officials and police drink secretly and did they were doing the same thing as they usually did only it was worse because drinking was now illegal. The government threw a bunch of money “down the gutter” when they tried to shut down bootleggers who would never have been an issue if not for prohibition. This was also the case for some other reforms that were trying to be put into act at that time, like immigrant’s rights and how they couldn’t celebrate their own customs until the one act was passed.

Reply
Laura Williams
01/25/2012 20:28

I agree with Brian about prohibition being a waste. What he said about secret drinking I agree with completely. People's lifestyles did not necessarily change, they just became illegal. Just because it was illegal to drink alcohol didn't mean people were going to stop doing it. It just meant people were going to start doing it secretly and sneaking around more. As Brian said, the money was basically being thrown away instead of being put towards something useful.

Reply
Jake Finley
01/24/2012 22:35

MacCurrie says that prohibition doesn't really solve problems but it creates more and costs more money. When you prohibit something, theres going to be people that rebel it and it creates more problems for the government and society. He thought the government should have been focusing on bigger national problems than smaller prohibiton problems. I think if you legalize things instead of prohibit them, you could make a lot more money off it and tax it and make a profit out of it. It could help our government and society with the money that you could make. A problem that there is today is the debate on weather to legalize marijuana or not because some people think its a big waste of money with the government trying to stop something that really can't be stopped. Some other people thing we should just legalize it and the governemnt could tax it and make money off it.

Just like what Luke said, when we would play park football at Pomona Park when it rains we actually got kicked off one time because they said it ruins the grass. I think thats retarded because the grass will grow back and I think they are bigger problems than kicking people out of a public park because it hurts the grass.

Reply
Luke Kullberg
01/25/2012 20:26

J-Fin,

I'm glad to know you agree with me on the fact about playing football and that you think it’s ridiculous. I've noticed a lot of the people have showed anger toward the CPD. I do agree their principles are kind of wack, but.... in the end, they are just trying to do their job and when they don’t give out tickets, they don’t receive as much money to support their families. I do agree they don’t have be jerks about it though. We are also stereotyping all the CPD as "one", but there are a few really cool cops that are in it to really make a difference in peoples lives. It just so happens they get stuck in Coronado where not much goes on.

Reply
Jack Alldredge
03/17/2012 08:19

I agree with finley for the fact that Prohibition caused more problems than there would have been if the ammendment was never put in place. Alot more mone could have been made during this era off of alcohol rather than using unec

Reply
jack
03/17/2012 08:24

cisary expendetures to try to prohibit it. Funding would eventually run out for the ammendment so i dont understand why it would be ratified in the first place if it was just a loss of money for the government. Bootlegging and illigal consumption still occured and corruption spread through political figures even though alcohol became illigal so the amendment failed all together.

Chrissy Taylor
01/24/2012 22:43

What is MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition?
Mac Currie's primary objection to prohibition is the amount of money wasted enforcing it when the concept seems stupid or unhelpful. He also thinks that prohibition lead to a lot of unjust arrests and pointless accusations/prosecutions.
How can you relate this to other reform issues during this time?
This is the exact opposite of gathering houses or the first homeless shelters or inbetween houses where poverty-relief efforts began. They were a worthwhile cause that attempted useful, progressive goals (alleviating the strain of underprivileged life for poor urban populations,) and yet they were massively UNDER-funded and unrespected on the whole by most of the conservative capital-wielding people who would instead back a less effective form of progress such as Prohibition.
What about present-day issues?
Present day issues that are pointless and over-funded in my opinion include certain wars abroad that our wonderful president has recently ended. They consumed massive amounts of money for an unclear and honestly probably unworthy cause of the thousands of lost American lives. I, for one, am glad that war had concluded and the money we were burning there can be used elsewhere. Say, for example, on repaying our vast abyss of a deficit and on programs that will help our country grow, such as education, healthcare, and energy research and development.
Did anyone else see the State of the Union address tonight? Because it was awesome. :) I <3 Obama!

Reply
Erin Fitzgerald period 3
01/24/2012 23:10

There definitely are several differences between life now and life in earlier times. Right now, we are heading closer and closer to another great depression, at an alarming speed. Earning more money is already a hard enough challenge, but available jobs are extremely scarce. Sure, the government is trying to assist us, and they are trying to ease our troubles with new systems and programs. Sooner or later our social structure will be demolished and plummet to the bottom. MacCurrie’s main objection to prohibition was that it was a horrible mistake, that just accomplished nothing, but it did too much bad. A reform issue that was similar to prohibition during that time was eugenics. I am actually a pro-choice person, but birth control back then was unsafe and just absolutely frightening. Performing abortions back in those times definitely involved more risks than results. Also, I don’t really believe it was something that reformers should have been focusing any attention on. A reform issue in today’s society is this whole internet reform crap like SOPA and that other one. It will have the same problem and effect as MacCurrie believed prohibition had. It will anger a lot of people, fill up many prisons unnecessarily, and ruin privacy and rights that we deserve online.

Reply
kourtni litzenberg
02/26/2012 20:52

I agree with Erin, life is definatly different these days, and the Gov is trying to help, but we really are not getting anywhere with I forgot to mention a reform that was similar but like Erin, i was thinking about birth control, and the book we read in English The Bell Jar talks about it a bit. It was definatly something new, but not safe at the least bit. But if it midly benifited that particular person, they went for it.

Reply
alexmoon
01/24/2012 23:23

What is MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition?
His primary reason for being against prohibition is that it wastes money without really accomplishing things, since people would usually still drink anyways.
How can you relate this to other reform issues during this time?
While most of the reforms during this time period were actually helpful and useful to the general public, prohibition was completely unnecessary and was a complete waste of money.
What about present-day issues?
My opinion is that the present day government is much like the one that enacted prohibition, since it's attempting to pass laws that are as useless as prohibition(SOPA, PIPA, and PCIP) and just take away our rights, while ignoring necessary things such as job availability and free health care. Our government itself is a complete mess, with one branch trying to pass important social reforms while another has a majority of people that oppose the reforms regardless of whether it's right or not and accepts bribes from major companies.

Reply
zach carlson
01/25/2012 11:25

I think for the most part me and alex have the same views on this topic. How that back then they disliked prohbiton it is like me and him where thinking the same thing,but me and him have the exxcat same view at how stupid the government is being with the laws of sopa and pipa. I mean trying to get rid of haveng the ablitiy to use the inetnet for what ever you want is really stupid in my opinion but other then that i think alex did a really good job and i agree with him on this topic.

Reply
zach carlson
01/25/2012 09:15

MacCurrie objects prohabtion because he is saying that it causes more problems then good. It wastes peoples money while nothing is being accomplished and for the most part people are were still drinking. This instance relates to the other examples of prohabtion because for the most part all the other reforms where good for the people and most people did not object them while prohbtion was rejected by a lot of the people.

The present day issues are in government theya re trying to get SOPA Pipa and PCIP passed which would make the government have complete control over the internet and censor everything which goes against our amendments. The government is corrupted the branches are all messed up one trying to pass social refoms while the other branch is against it the government really needs to get it's act together.

Reply
Fred Schlichtholz
01/25/2012 16:13

i do agree with zach but the last paragragh. i dont think our government is all corrupt i just think that we have some not so sharp tool in the government. things are all just screwed up in this world all because of 2 things power and money. with the accomplishment of having one you recieve the other and you seem you think you can rule the world so yeah haha.

Reply
zach carlson
01/26/2012 12:56

I strongly agree with you when you say money and power those 2 thigns can make or break a person if you take the moeny and power you do evil with it whats the point while thier are people who have the money and power and use it for good.

Thomas Bryans
01/25/2012 12:20

To be honest, I really didn't understand what was going on. Or rather, I didn't understand the big deal. Mr. Maccurrie seemed against prihibition, or he at least saw it as a problem.

"Look at the . . . money that's been wasted. Look at the money that was poured out in the gutter, you might say, tryin' to enforce prohibition"

I don't think the idea of prohibition is such a bad idea, but taking anything out of society completely is difficult, burdening, and a waste of time a recources if it's not worth it. Honestly I don't think complete prohibition is a good cause to put money into because it seems ultimately impossible to ride America of alcohol and such completely. Now a days though, I see the government wasting money and trying too hard at all the wrong things. I don't want to start an argument (well... kinda) but I think all the the 'No Child Left Behind' funds are... not really a waste of money but it could be put ot better use. I've heard (never seen for myself though) that American kid's test scores are lower than they're ever been, when compared to the past and other countries, meanwhile politicians and 'I love everybody' thinkers are trying to spend millions on helping students in school when it's clearly NOT WORKING. I think the Government's become too much of a power, trying censor the internet, regulating alcohol and drugs, and spending more and more money trying to fix those small minute problems when there are bigger fish to be caught, killed, and eaten :P Foreign affairs, America's huge debt, our horrible economy and immigrants. While all these crippling things are happening, some still insist on spending thousands of dollars to stop bullying or make some huge problem out of kids praying in school. And even still, there are many people who realize the problems or see injustices and go about fixing them the wrong way. Giving soldiers as much money as professional football players? Or lowering professional atheletes pay? That's rediculous. To be professional is to be THE best. To be a soldier is to love your country, regardless of what that means or the pay you get. I have no disrespect for soldiers, everyone in my family was in the military, and I have countless friends who are in the military currently serving overseas or here. I think American's need to get their priorities straight. Instead of worrying if the next president will be black or white, male or female, or pointing fingers at all the bad the 'other party' has done, and just try and fix it.

So I realize I jumped around a bit on what I was talking about, and somewhere in there I started ranting, so I aplogize. I don't even know if I answered the question.

Reply
Bailee Davis
01/25/2012 13:47

I agree with most of what MacCurrie is saying in this interview. It's true that back then there was enough of everything to be spread around but the issue of money made things more complicated. He thought that the prohibition was a bad idea, obviously, and it made people angry. His idea that things ran better in the old country is definitely true. Even though many people were poor, life went on and was very simple. So basically he is trying to say that the government is the corruption.

The prohibition era was all about “purifying” the government and we can all relate to this right now in our lives because of the recent Stop Online Piracy Act also called SOPA. These two things are so similar because they both are sought out ways to stop corruption. In this day and age, we couldn’t fix this problem how the government tried to fix it back then by barding into public places and arresting whoever they wanted because of suspicion, that would not turn out very well. I think that if the government dropped a lot of the silly issues, they could work on the larger ones and save a lot more money.

Reply
Fred Schlichtholz
01/25/2012 16:10

these quotes are stating how much he thinks they wasted on prohibition and how there was no good cause and effect to come out of it. he also states the corruption that he thinks was going on. this relates to the reforms of this time cause many reforms we made to fix corruption or in acts of corruption in order to gain money. he says that he much more enjoyed the old days when people were broke cause things ran more smoothly and with everyone wanting money its causing more problem. in relation to todays issues i can onl connect the money problem. there isnt much corruption now adays as there was before due to the fact that you can get away with it as easy and people arent dumb/uneducated or being discriminated against in court. money just seems to be the source of all problems now a days and even back in the days

Reply
Aurora Roberts
01/25/2012 18:10

I agree with what Mr. MacCurrie is saying that the prohibition era was a waste of time. I don't think the idea of prohibition is a bad idea, but taking anything out of society completely is difficult and a waste of time. What is happening today with the government is that it is to powerful. I think it was a waste to for alcohol to be banned because people still drink it till this day and so forth. What is happening right now with the censoring the internet is in my case really not needed. They are taking away our own freedom. The government is a mess by trying to pass laws that are pointless.

Reply
James McCluskey
01/25/2012 18:18

I can relate very well to the words used by Mr MacCurrie and i know for a fact i am one with my fellow classmates agreeing that Prohibition in itself doesn't work and the government should not take take it into account. The government does what it feels is best for its people and a richer economy, thats how the world keeps spinning. Money, politics, and laws...Mr MacCurrie makes a very good point on this one particular affair that these types of reforms dont help the American people or bring alot of positive change. During the progressive Era America wanted to push itself and show its true colors and make it the best it can be. The only problem is the world will never be perfect and so too will countries such as the United States. Today the Government is trying everything it can to be the best and stay competitive and allow the american people to thrive. As seeing that we are in a recession the U.S government is cutting back and passing new laws to somehow change and better the future and our economy. Take SOPA for example rightly mentioned by Erin Fitzgerald. They feel it is necessary to pass this new law so that copyrighted material and internet use can actually benefit us and keep us progressing but in the end it never works in my opinion because when you forcibly enact something you have to stop it spreading and make sure everybody abides by your rules. With several hundred Million Americans living in this country not all laws like these will be accepted. The U.S government should be putting their money into businesses and the to the Troops that Defend this country.
Thank you

Reply
Brittany Withouski
01/25/2012 18:22

MacCurrie makes a wonderful persuasion in his statements. His primary objection to prohibition is the fact that it is causing more money, time, stress and damage to get rid of all the alcohol than actually just letting people have it. When people are not allowed to have something it makes them want that “thing” even more. They spend more money of getting people to go through hotels and confiscating alcohol from people when they could have just supplied the demand that people wanted. This can relate to the rights of African Americans. Just because some people don’t agree wit it doesn’t make it wrong. Everyone should be treated equal and the laws should be treated equal as well, if just some people think alcohol should be banned doesn’t mean they HAVE to enforce it. Something present day that reminds me of prohibition is our law about drinking, smoking and driving. You have to be 21 in order to drink, 18 in order to smoke, and 16 in order to drive. Does everyone obey those laws? No, there are many teenagers these days drinking and smoking “underage.” Just because you are not “allowed” to be doing something and its’ against the “law” people just want to do it even more. They want to see how far they can go by being rebellious. It’s a main part of growing up and its something most everyone goes through. In the end everyone learns from it. Prohibition its something our country went through, it failed, but we learned from it.

Reply
Maddy Waitley
01/27/2012 20:51

I agree with Brittany because she gives a different point of view. I like how she keeps it short and sweet. She makes a very good argument and sticks with her statement. Also to give the "peoples" point of view. Often in blogs people/ students make their case and leave. But she makes her point goes into detail just enough to get her point across. Also adding questions and answering them is a great way to get your point across, and that's what she did. good job :)

Reply
Alisha Keeter
01/25/2012 18:34

One of the big things that MacCurrie hated about probation was how much money it took. No matter what the government did or tried to do they were just wasting a lot of money. There was no way that the government was going to get people to stop drinking. It was a waste of their time and money by trying to. And yes they were trying to build reforms for the better but I think that they could have put the money to a better use. Something that would benefit all and something that would actually work. For example African American rights,standard of living, helping the poor, working conditions, and education would have been a much better way of using the money. Those things actually matter and people would have actually benefited from. And even today some of these things are still going on.

Just like what Maddy said, with the law with bike helmets in Coronado. Its one of those laws that no matter what the police do we are still not going to wear them. We should have the choice to wear them and if you fall and hurt yourself then that is our fault and we will learn from our mistakes. But to have the police there getting on to us for not wearing them is just a waste of their time and effort.

Reply
Jasmine Espindola
01/27/2012 22:18

I totally agree with what you said about how the helmet rule in Coronado is pointless because it's a waste of effort to pay cops to do this since that is basically the worst that happens in Coronado. Because we don't ever see much that needs fixing in Coronado, the cops focus on the little things like helmets which is a waste because we don't really need the cops here in the frst place since they only enforce small laws like helmets, parking, etc. so I do think that Coronado should re-evaluate the focus of cops on island. I also think that the drinking until you're 21 is pointless because you can be drafted and sacrifice your life for this country when you're 18 but you don't have all the rights? This is another thing I personally think should be changed because people still drink and if they want to do so legally, a drive 20 minutes South to T.J. gives them that privilege once they are 18.

Reply
Kendall Brienna
01/25/2012 18:40

Mrs. Moore I don't get it

Reply
me again
01/25/2012 18:41

and why is everyone writing so much?!

Reply
Mrs. Moore
01/25/2012 18:46

Kendall, read the excerpt from the interview at the top and answer the questions at the beginning of the interview. Read some of the other posts and re-read the instructions to get an idea of what to write about

Reply
Christian Molenaar
01/25/2012 19:11

Had I lived in the time period I would have opposed Prohibition much as I oppose our current criminalization of drugs. In a supposedly free society punishment for consensual crimes is just ridiculous. I'm speaking here specifically about drug users now as well as alcohol drinkers then. There is no justification for the incarceration of an individual whose actions have no demonstrable repercussions on anyone else. Were someone else's rights were infringed I could understand locking them up. Murder, rape, theft, any actions that would harm another person would justify jail time or another suitable punishment. Voluntarily choosing to use drugs or drink alcohol, however, is no business of the state. I don't use drugs (believe it or not) and I understand they can be terribly dangerous and destructive, but if an adult knows fully well what they are getting themselves into and still decides to do that to their body, where does the government come in? Many of us find drug use/abuse, suicide, abortion and self-mutilation abhorrent, but we have no right to make criminals of those who choose to do things to their own body just because we don't agree with their choices. So long as they aren't compromising anyone else's rights, I can't imagine where a problem could possibly arise. My body is not the jurisdiction of the government. I don't want anyone telling me what I can and can't put into my body. What we find distasteful isn't the same thing as what should be criminal.

Reply
Bri Wade
01/25/2012 20:36

I totally agree with : "My body is not the jurisdiction of the government. I don't want anyone telling me what I can and can't put into my body. What we find distasteful isn't the same thing as what should be criminal." I think that was worded perfectly and is totally straightforward. People (adults) that know what theyre "getting themselves into" have a right i think, because afterall it is THEIR body.

Reply
Sarah rigoli
01/25/2012 22:47

Christian I really liked your response and completely agree with you of the fact that thegovernment should have no control over what you choose to do with your body when it comes to choices because unless it harms someone else. It seems so logical but life was different then and I guess they werent used to seeing people acting immorally before. It was a more innocent time and they were trying to stop alcohol consumption in order to keep their nation in line. I think it was a good learning eperience for our country and helped the gov realize we are our own people and shouldn't be told what to do and that was made clear by the peoples response to this law.

Reply
Carmela Yannaccone
01/26/2012 18:45

I agree with basically everything Christian said; Prohibiton is mirrored in the war against drugs. The government should not dictate those aspects of people's lifes; it is none of there concerns. There are many more things that are harmful, that need more help. You cannot stop people from doing things, even if it's illegal. Your body is yours. The government's need to control us privately is ridiculous. Haven't their parents told them they can't control anyone?

Reply
alexmoon
01/26/2012 23:06

christian molenaaar is sooo right, the government should have guidelines but no specific rules banning things we do to our body, especially the issue of abortion. Of course, violent crimes that physically or mentally wound a person should definitely land the perpetrator some time in prison, but the government should have no jurisdiction over what cannot go into our bodies.
u go girl!

Reply
Marissa Gray
01/27/2012 22:05

I agree with what Christian said. The government should have no control over what we do to our bodies, unless if it harms others in any way. Those who decide to drink should already know that there could/would be consequences regardless if you're drinking underage or are legal. We can do whatever we want to our bodies, let us learn from our own mistakes if we hurt ourselves.

Reply
Brad Power
01/25/2012 19:20

The prohibition movement really didn't accomplish anything, but it did end up angering most of the country. Instead of the government making money from the sale of alcohol, they just wasted a lot of it, trying to get rid of alcohol. This is just another example of the government trying to control something that honestly didn't need to be controlled. The prohibition movement is kind of like the federal governments issue with legalizing marijuana. The government could be making a lot of money from it, but at the same time legalizing a drug or even alcohol always has consequences. Money has always been a problem throughout history, but the issue of the government wasting money is something that should not happen at all.

Reply
Dylan Gouthro
01/25/2012 20:04

I agree with your statement of "instead of the governemnt making money from the sale of alcohol, they just wasted a lot of it, trying to get rid of alcohol." This is true. They lost money in the lack of purchasing of alcohol, and they lost money enforcing the law. It was a ridiculous law that brought no reform, just anger. You also make a good point and example of the legalizing of marijuana. You lose money by not selling it, but selling it could cause problem. With the debt the US is in, might as well legally sell it. Hope to get some damn money circulating again.

Reply
Lucas Broyles
01/25/2012 19:21

This dude is right on the money, prohibition seemed to do a lot more harm than good. drinking should be put into moderation just like everything else, because you can abuse anything in life. Like you shouldnt drink everyday nor should you eat cheeseburgers everyday, but i digress. You cant keep track of all the bootleggers so enforcing the laws for prohibition and putting money into it seems like a complete waste, its very similar to our war on drugs now, its illegal and cops crack down on stuff like meth labs but i can walk outside and see my buddy jive slinging that rock for 40 a g. just kidding mrs. moore, but anyway how can you regulate the drug trade or alcohol prohibition when its being sold on the streets everywhere

Reply
Braden Crabb
01/25/2012 21:40

I agree with you man, it was a complete waste of money because those bootleggers got it around. And how you said you can abuse anything in life is a good point too, so why didn't the government start outlawing everything that is bad for your body and for society? I know they couldn't have gotten away with that, but you get my point.

Reply
Victor Vela
01/25/2012 19:29

Mr. MacCurrie's objection to prohibition mainly focused on the point that even though we had materials to better ourselves, the government wastes alot of money to use on laws or campaigns. With the money they spent, they could have made more jobs or fixed the economy up more. And during that time, because someone was famous; they were targeted to be arrested or other things without having solid evidence of them doing any wrongdoings.

Reply
Lucas Broyles
01/25/2012 19:30

@ christian molenaar

Im right with you there buddy. we live in a country that is supposedly free and if someone should choose to use a drug or drink alcohol isnt that not their own choice and their right to freedom, as long as they arent hurting anyone else i dont judge people on what they do and dont do. Its a free country and people are the captains of their own ships and should be able to choose for themselves and dictate their own actions and own lives. Believe it or not i dont use drugs either, similar to you christian, but i dont frown about someone who uses drugs or drinks alcohol. I believe that theyre are much safer drugs than others such as marijuana compared to cigarettes, alcohol, blow, etc. I believe people should know the facts about a drug or drink and it seems a lot of people are ignorant about that because america has a lot of preconceived notions about which drugs are safe and which ones arent, we live in a pretty messed up society if you think about it. In america there are 400,000 tobacco related deaths each year and also 100,000 alcohol related deaths each year, yet both of those are legal and are sold at every liqiour store in america. wheres as marijuana is illegal yet has 0 recorded deaths, and hemp has been around since the colonial days and was a major cash crop, the declaration of independence is written on hemp! I dont care if people want to smoke cigarettes, marijuana, pcp, crack, you name it, i just think everyone should know the truth about it. peace

Reply
Karly Holthaus
01/25/2012 19:40

I think you could easily argue both sides of whether or not you believed prohibition was right or wrong. I completely understand where they were coming from and why they decided to do it, but at the same time it seemed to complicate things more then help them. On the other hand though I think it could of been beneficial. Alcohol leads to so varies problems and can have many negative effects, but at the same time they couldn’t have really thought that taking it away from people would be easy. If they were really passionate about making it prohibited they probably should have come up with a better idea to execute.

I don’t know if I agree with Mr. MacCurrie’s idea that prohibition was not a bad idea though, but I agree that it turned out being a waste of money. I strongly believe that if the government had a really well thought idea about how they were going to do this, it would have been more beneficial. Everyone was outraged I’m sure, but it could have been helpful for future generations so they wouldn’t have to suffer with problems from alcohol abuse. The government clearly got a lot of hate for this, but I think they were doing it with the people’s best interest, we learn from our mistakes.

Reply
Brian Keith
01/27/2012 23:55

I agree with Karly about how you could easily argue both sides of whether or not you believed prohibition was right or wrong. I diffinitely can under stand how the got to the conclusion of what they were coming to and why they decided to do it, but at the same time it seemed to complicate things more then help them. That definitly made me agree with Karly.

Reply
Karly Holthaus
01/25/2012 19:58

I also completely agree with Ashley’s statement, “By making something illegal, especially alcohol, people will continue to obtain it.” I don’t think the government really thought that out when they decided to prohibit alcohol. Stopping things cold turkey is hard enough, but then if you consider the idea that so many people are addicted to it, do you really think that everyone is going to stop just because the government says so? I still think that they had the people’s best interest in mind, but it’s hard for me to fathom that they government really thought that people would just be able to stop like that especially after having alcohol available for so many years. This really relates to today so much with the SOPA law that they were trying to pass. They give people the internet, but then they turn around and say that their going to censor it so people can’t use it. I mean obviously it’s illegal to use copyright information, but realistically a huge amount of information on the internet is copyright, so does the government really think that everyones just going to stop what they’ve been doing for so many years prior. I also agree when she said that there were more important issues to be focusing on. Banning alcohol, to me, should have been on the last of their list.

Reply
Dylan Gouthro
01/25/2012 20:01

MacCurrie is strongly disagreeing with prohibition, as do i. Ridding people of minor illegal things, is ridiculous. The banning of alcahol is ridiculous. People use it to have a good time / rid themselves of their problems (temporarily). What destruction is it causing as long as you don't drive. If you are not putting anyone's life in danger, then no reason for it to be prohibited. In MacCurrie's case they were causing more harm than help. People became frustrated with the prohibition law, and did not like the way they were enforcing it. Who are they to take away what could have been there only temporary escape route of problems. Prohibition was unnecessary. I strongly agree with MacCurrie, and he had a right to be upset. People can't just barge into your home.

Reply
Anna Bill
01/25/2012 20:15

MacCurrie’s primary objection to prohibition was the fact that the government did more damage trying to monitor alcohol than actually making progress in society. It seems as though MacCurrie is calling society out in saying that they really aren't being as progressive as they might assume. He insists that there are bigger problems and other places that the government could focus their energy in order to make America a better place to live (even if that was a morally reformed society). I cannot speak for the people of that generation, but I'm sure that they were not thrilled to have such restrictions on their personal lives. It was Mr. MacCurrie's true belief that the government was wasting its time, efforts and especially money in places it didn't need to. I suppose he would have thought that many of the government's other little reforms were also unnecessary.

As for today, I think that we come across many people with similar perspectives as MacCurrie. With Obama as our president, several people feel that he doesn't put his efforts in the right places. I don't see it the same way, but at times I think the government overexercises legislative powers when it is unnecessary. Perhaps, if we didn't spend as much, we wouldn't be in as great of debt or financial turmoil. So when is the right place to make an action such as the Prohibition? Or is there any?

Reply
Justin Smith
01/25/2012 20:16

Prohibition was a terrible idea that the government had thought up. Although the government at the time had their principles straight, the entire employment of prohibition was a disaster. Many cops went rogue and were able to arrest people just by hearing about alcohol and things like that. Neighbors were turning on each other and the entire country went into distress. Not only was the government in a miss position during this but politics were also because many politicians, because they had power in government, were able to break the new laws and regulations that were set by the prohibition and were able to sneak their way through this. Although there were many issues with the prohibition, there is an underlying part of this that many people fail to consider. That would be the fact that the amount of money that was being earned by bootleggers was enourmass and because of this they were able to stimulate many parts of the country simply by reinvesting a lot of this money in the companies and industries that were up and coming during this period of time. The down side to this was that the money was most of the time going into a few rich pockets and through the prohibition they were gaining more and more money. Now many of these people have lost a lot of this money, through the generations, that they made then but a few of the families still pass down the "highlife" or wealthy, lavish living style that they are so lucky to have. These are some of the reasons for why i dissagree with the prohibition and government during this time period.

Reply
Matt Bond (Publius Atlas)
01/25/2012 20:18

Mr. MacCurrie though out this is arguing how prohibition, ironic as it is, is corrupt. Not only this but its ineffective. Nothing worthwhile or decent has come of it. In his interview, Mr. MacCurrie spoke of an incident he witnessed in which the police searched a building for drugs and planted evidence when they couldn’t find any. As well he talks about how in the US there’s so much wealth and resources but instead of distributing it to those who need it, the government spends it on things such as enforcing prohibition. Even as its spent on prohibition most of the money doesn’t even go to the prohibition enforces but instead mostly either being siphoned off or lost in the process. This relates into the problems of corruption in businesses and government in this time, where business owners would take large cuts for themselves and government officials taking out a bit of money for themselves or accepting bribes. The same problem happens today in terms of charity, people have no idea what their money is actually being spent on, a majority of it goes to advertising and paying employes rather than to the effort itself, as well money sometimes goes missing, like the billion lost by the Red Cross organization during the recent incidents in Japan. Use money to create solutions for problems rather than just shoving money at the problem and hoping it goes away.

Reply
Sean Franks
01/25/2012 20:26

MacCurrie's main objection to prohibition was that the era did not accomplish much, people were still drinking, the government was still corrupt and above all that it wasted money. The end result of this attempt put the economy even farther down the wrong path, when they should have been using the money for something more useful like helping the needy. This is related to the purity crusaders who tried to end VICE. They were a reform group that believed all unlawful and immoral behavior such as drinking should be prohibited. This would relate to a few present day issues such as the fight on marijuana. The State of California law says that its LEGAL and have cannabis dispensaries but yet the Federal government overrules it and still busts people for growing. I think this is a very big waste of money that could be used for something more helpful and productive such as the research towards a new reliable energy.

Reply
Tyree Johnson
01/25/2012 20:27

The prohibition was in all a horrible idea. As Americans everyone who is of legal age should have the right to consume what they want. Of course there are some people who can’t handle some responsibilities that comes with drinking alcohol, but that doesn’t mean everyone should be punished. Even if they can’t, there is of course should be a legal practical way of handling them. It is very clear in MacCurrie's interview that the he did not support the prohibition and the way it was carried out was illegal and immoral. In present times I feel there a lot of changes in the government and how they handle problems but the truth is the government is full of different people with different opinions about handling certain situations so there will never be a "right way" to handle problems. I feel like now there’s always an equal solution that makes everyone somewhat satisfied.

Reply
chuckie Eaton
01/27/2012 13:27

I agree with Tyree completely, prohibition was a terrible idea and a law that created more problems than good. Americans should have the right to consume what they want, except some gnarly drugs then people might be going a little too crazy. I also agree that the interview was very unsupportive of the ideas of alcohol being illegal. I do also agree with that there is a right way to everything and ma everyone happy. This law was just too big of an order to make illegal.

Reply
Sean Franks
02/01/2012 19:22

I agree with tyree that prohibition was not the greatest idea considering it did very little to effect the way people went around drinking. The corrupt govt back in those days is somewhat like todays govt in such ways as handling certain situations the "right way". People may not always agree with one another but as long as they are somewhat satisfied with the conclusion it works out positively.

Reply
John Scales
01/25/2012 20:27

MacCurrie is basically disagreeing with prohibition, so do I. Having people not have minor things. The banning of alcohol is pretty weird because people drink alcohol to have a good time and not worry about the things that are going on in there life at the time. People became angered at the fact because of the way the government was enforcing the law. I Think he has a right to be angered with the government because they are making these laws so unrealalistic, the only thing they could have an argument about is when people are driving when they had a couple of ones in there system.

Reply
Bri Wade
01/25/2012 20:32

MacCurrie's main objection to prohibition was the damage it was doing to our country and how all the money was going down the toilet and how unconstitutional rights were taken away when people had unwarranted searches performed in ones' homes. If i were MacCurrie i'd be upset aswell. Prohibition is a joke honestly. I mean you still see people today with possesion of marajuwana even though its illegal and same goes with underage drinking...yeah i mean some get caught and busted but honestly its all around us and no matter how illegal or how bad it is for you people will still use it.

Reply
Laura Williams
01/25/2012 20:34

This article is basically saying how prohibition was just a giant waste of money and effort. The government spent money and time trying to stop drinking when it wasn't even a huge issue. There were much bigger problems that needed dealing with. This article also touches on how police were so desperate to feel like they were doing something effective (because they probably knew they weren't). This also relates to the reforms that the purity crusaders were trying to deal with, getting rid of vice and all. Corrupt behavior is to be expected but the government shouldn't be using their money to try and stop it because more crucial issues were at hand. Like Margarita said, the Coronado Police are a pretty good comparison to this. They spend their time giving out pointless tickets to kids not wearing bike helmets when it seems like they could be spending their efforts elsewhere more productively.

Reply
patrick powell
01/25/2012 20:37

I think that his argument is a very good one. Why must the government let all of this potential money go to waste. They way that he stated his argument made it sound like a no brainer. After reading this I would have to say why would the government even want prohibition. More money or a bunch of illegal usage of alcohol? Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. But I guess America eventually figured that one out themselves.

Reply
Ryan Zeller
01/25/2012 20:49

Im going to have to diagree with what MacCurrie thinks i think proibition was a great think for this time period. There are many reasons why it was good for this time period. One of the most important reasons why proibition was good is the United States of America was in a time period where people were out of work and need a job. If you outlaw something there will be a higher demand for that product and prices will skyrocket. That why the drug cartels are so rich. Basicly what im trying to get at is proibtion spead the wealth around from the moonshiner that produced it to the speackeasy owners who sold it. So i think it was agreat thing.

Reply
Kristen Beck
01/25/2012 20:51

MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition was the large amount of money being wasted. Money was being used for purposeless reasons. This can be related to unions. They are paid to help workers fight for their rights, but here are teachers fighting the same fight they have been fighting for who knows how long. Unions aren't needed anymore. It's just a waste of money now. We needed them back then when workers were being abused and children were working instead of going to school, but now the government has taken that over. Unions aren't doing any good for workers these days.

Reply
Maddy Waitley
01/25/2012 21:07

This article was basically about how the government wasted a lot of money and time and effort of trying to get drinking to stop, when it wasn't even a problem. The reforms today is the Health Care reform where the government is making everyone have Health Care. This creates an issue, if people do not have Health Care they can get fined, and if they don not pay the fine by a certain date, then you could keep getting more and more fines. Like in the article we just read there were other reforms like vice that the purity crusaders kept having to deal with.

Reply
Connor Morse
01/25/2012 21:10

McCurrries argument is that if it's too expensive then it's worthless. He is saying that because it's going to happen anyway then they should make alcohol legal again. The argument is so invalid that it's comical. Whether or not prohibition helped or hurt society, just because something is expensive to enforce does not mean that it should be legalized. The same issue has resurfaced only with pot. Some people have the opinion that because pot is expensive to enforce that it might be better to legalize and so the government can tax it.



Reply
Jasmine Espindola
01/25/2012 21:14

Maccurrie’s primary objection to prohibition was that it cost a lot of money to enforce and it didn’t really help people with a lot of the issues they had to face every day. It showed that government was trying to fix the small problems with society first without first taking note of the more important issues like social aid and the economy. Other reform issues at the time are like this because the government focused on things like passing racist laws and laws that discriminated against immigrants without doing things like passing a law that limits immigration or establishes a policy on immigration. This is like what is happening today in our country with Obama and how he said that if he was elected he would pass a law to help immigrants and have a national policy. He promised Latinos this and once the majority of Hispanic people voted for him because he promised change, he never really addressed the issue. This led to many states taking an issue that should be handled by federal government to be handled by states like Arizona passing the SB1070 and I think 12 other states up to this point passing similar racist laws. This is what happened back then to with states like California passing laws against Asians but then the president finally stepped in and passed the “Gentlemen’s Agreement”.

Reply
Lauren Curtis
01/25/2012 21:17

I completely agree with MacCurries main point, which was that he disagrees entirely with prohibition. So much money went into every aspect of prohibition and i think that it was a complete waste. The government spent so much time on something that wasnt an issue in the first place.
He states that the government is the true source of the corruption and i also agree with that statement. The government wasted away their valuable time on issues that are simply going to anger the people. After reading what he wrote, his side of the issue makes so much sense to me, the way he expresses his opinions makes me want to do nothing more than agree with him. There were so many other problems that should have been dealt with long before. It almost seems that the government today still doesnt have their priorities straight.

Reply
Jordan Kelley (3rd P)
01/25/2012 21:18

MacCurrie stated that prohibition doesn't really solve problems but it creates more and costs more money. When you prohibit something, theres going to be people that rebel it and it creates more problems for the government and society. He thought the government should have been focusing on bigger national problems than smaller prohibition problems. I think if you legalize things instead of prohibit them, you could make a lot more money off it and tax it and make a profit out of it. It could help our government and society with the money that you could make. A problem that there is today is the debate on weather to legalize marijuana or not because some people think its a big waste of money with the government trying to stop something that really can't be stopped, and I believe it will only keep growing.

Reply
Arlo
01/25/2012 21:20

So, to start off I'd like to say that I completely disagree with the whole prohibition act. It was never thoroughly thought out. If you take away alcohol from an alcoholic, they will find a way to get more regardless. If you refuse to stop importing alcohol from a company, the company will still manufacture alcohol regardless and end up selling it to the alcoholics that were and always have been buying it, just not through the same middle man. To have all of this money spent on enforcing something that is inevitable truly shows how poorly the government then was constructed. Through the economic downfall caused simply by a prohibition, does the government finally see it's ineffectiveness toward saving money and trying to help advance society. People will be people just like alcoholics will be alcoholics. There is no point in wasting money to try and prohibit alcohol from the nation which can only make things worse, when there are more important matters on hand, such as actually improving economy and "everyone having enough." This relates to the legalization of pot today. Seeing as legalizing it would greatly improve the economy being a massive cash crop and all, there are still feds closing down dispensaries left and right. The government, yet again, is wasting its precious time and money enforcing people to not smoke pot. Stoners will find or grow pot regardless so they might as well just save themselves the trouble.

Reply
Anna Bongiovanni
01/26/2012 20:50

I agree with Arlo for the line: "People will be people." Because when you sit back and think about it, as simple as it is, it's true. As much as the government would like to put restrictions on society as far as prohibiting certain things and making substances illegal, it will never completely get rid of the problem. Just as he said above, Marijuana currently is an illegal substance. Does that stop people from smoking it? No. Not at all. There are so many people going to jail for possession of it, but does that stop people from wanting to use this substance? No. As much as the government feels like they can control our lives, they really can't. To a certain extent, yes. But, as far as the over all picture and what we decide to do with our personal lives, no, the government has no say. Wasting all this time and money on prohibition back then didn't reform in positive ways nor benefit society at all, considering: "people will be people."

Reply
Carly Cutright
01/25/2012 21:23

I'd say that the fact that America spends so much money on something that won't ever make a difference is MacCurrie's primary objection. The government put their time, money and efforts into spreading the word of the prohibition movement and the outcome had no glory. MacCurrie understands that alcohol is one of those things that has been around for so long that there is no getting around the fact that it will be included in human life. This related to the social reform with the social gospel because these people reached out for those with immoral behavior. The social reformers wanted to help these hurting people and spread the word of God to help them gain spiritual guidence. Religion and spirituality has been around forever but so has hostile behavior. There is no way to change human nature. I think that the "depression" America is in shows that there is still corruption flowing in the government. I get the impression that MacCurrie believes that the police that raided the hotel completely planted that alcohol so that the corruption continues.

Reply
Braden Crabb
01/25/2012 21:28

MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition is that the government wasted their money on trying to enforce it when it really didn't even work. Sure, people weren't selling it in shops or stores, but in the black market, bootleggers got alcohol around. He is also saying that instead of trying to enforce prohibition, because it won't work, why doesn't the government just use that money to provide people with basic necessities for living if they feel like they have to spend it? He also says that it causes more harm than good to society. You can relate this to how muckrakers exposed corruption and waste in America through magazines, which was the first big access for American citizens in to the real world of politics. In present day, you can relate it directly to our current government. I and many other Americans think we waste a lot of money on things that we don't need and that we don't have the money for, and which we could use on more important things like paying back our national debt, or military expenses.

Reply
Isabella Araujo
01/25/2012 21:30

MacCurrie’s biggest point that stood out to me was the fact that the government was wasting money on pointless and unnecessary things. His primary objections to prohibition was that things were definitely getting out of hand and being unfair, and money was being wasted.Many reforms were causing issues for the people because government officials and officers were taking their power to an advantage and being unfair with it, which still happens today. The fact that the prohibition was causing so many problems, many people began to act up and become angry with the government which ended up causing more problems. Although there was a lot of gospel and faith teachings going on at the moment people were still acting in a rebellious manor and causing a corrupt society. I believe that in a lot of cases the reforms and prohibitions ended up hurting society instead of helping society. I agree with the fact that even nowadays money is still being wasted in wars and government plans that we are unaware of. Our country is so in debt because of such things are I believe it really is hurting our economy. I agree with the fact that MacCurrie was upset with the way things were being handled.


response:
I agree with Mollie Privetts statements on the issue. I really liked how she pointed out that the government should have been spending more time on fixing its economy and businesses instead of trying to ban things and causing chaos. The government wasted so much time and energy on trying to change people when instead of trying to change them they should have been trying to make living in America better so that people could have support. I also agree with Mollie’s point about how a lot has changed since those times but yet a lot of things are still the same even after so many years have past.

Reply
Michael Beeson (REDO)
01/25/2012 21:33

I think that this is awesome. Its just a man talking about what he thinks is wrong. I don't think that a cop should be able to walk in your house without a warrant, and just off of suspicion, and have that be ok. And also when the cop doesn't find anything, have him just pull a bottle out of his shirt or wherever and pin it on the man, that's unjust and not fair. I'm glad that now a day we have a little more rules, more regulations, and especially more rights, so that this kind of stuff does not happen any more. Another corrupt issue that this reminds me of back in that time period were trusts. Trusts were bad, because of several reasons. First of all, forming a trust would form an all too powerful company, full of corruption, and greed. This company would then put the other companies, the GOOD companies out of business, and therefore totally screwing up the economy. Our government is pretty much just as corrupt right now as it was back then. The only difference is that the government is more secretive about it. All the time, I hear rumors and exposure about how our government is taking money out of our taxes, which they do not use to help us by building things like roads and schools. Instead our taxes are going towards getting this country out of the horrible debt, which our government created and put us in in the first place! To me, that is pretty messed up. It seems like if we make money, we should be able to put it towards things that will help us like schools and roads Exc., instead of have it taken away without our say.

Reply
Ryan Zeller
01/26/2012 20:18

in response to michael

i think he is totaly right in saying this proibition was a big failure. The reason why it failed was because of corruption and greed. But i do have to say this problem did not only happen in this era it is still happening today so we cant really blame it on proibition. Also i wonder how the citizens contitutional right were protected in this era and how the courts delt with this problem did they press charges against the police to or did they just let them off free.

Reply
Summer Anderson
01/25/2012 21:35

MacCurrie's main objection about the prohibition reform was that it was a waste of time and money. He believed it did a lot more harm than good. He also talks about the corruption of the police force. I agree with what he says in the interview because the money spent on the prohibition could have been spent on poverty. Alcohol is bad for you and it can be abused but when there are bigger issues to be dealt with it wasn’t really needed. Prohibition relates to the reforms about trying to get rid of the bad vices of people. A present day issue is what the government is doing with our tax dollars. On the news recently it said the government spent a lot of money of tax money on food for their meetings. What else are they wasting it on?

Reply
Zavier Verbick
01/25/2012 21:39

MacCurrie's primary objection towards prohibition is the waste of time and resources only to wrongly accuse people for measly crimes. My evidence for this conclusion is what he states in the quote below:
"It was a horrible mistake. Accomplished nothin' and did a lot of harm".
If you asked me, I'd say that he brings up some good points. Not only is this act futile in lowering crime rates but people on the frontier needed alcohol at the time. Alcohol could be used to sanitize things as well as it was the only thing that was 100% percent guaranteed to be free of harmful parasites, toxins, and harmful bacteria unlike certain rivers. Not to mention that it's also a catalyst for a good time.
I think a good comparison to prohibition is Marijuana and how the Gov't is going about it. Taking away alcohol raised the crime rate because people were smuggling and drinking it illegally. Just because marijuana is illegal in other states doesn't mean that people aren't smoking it. If marijuana was legalized then drug dealers wouldn't be inclined to sell the stuff because it could be bought at a local liquor store. Nobody would be sent to prison for possession of this drug. It's a win/win. Just because cigarettes are legal doesn't mean that everybody smokes them.

Reply
Summer Anderson
01/26/2012 16:11

I agree with what you said about the marijuana issue. Many dont see how it is the same as alcohol being legal as well as ciggarettes they are both just as bad for you if not worse and yet there legal. I also liked how you pointed out just because cigaretts are legal doesnt mean everyone smokes them. Which is a good point that a lot of people dont see. I also liked how you explained the other ways alcohol was being used and not all of them bad. I didnt know they used it in different ways other than drinking it.

Reply
Chase Fischer
01/25/2012 21:40

I feel like her primary objection isnt exactly to prohibition its self, its that people were focusing on all of the wrong things. So much time and energy was wasted by something pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. America had a lot going on that was much more important and relevant. I was a pretty backwards way of thinking anyways to begin with. If you make something illegal, who says thats stopping anybody from doing it? Booker T. Washington was a brilliant man. He knew that gaining equal rights was important but he knew that they just had to focus on being successful and getting money because it would be a while before they acheived their rights. As for reforms nowadays that relate? I think people are focusing on things that are big deals like saving the enviornment, but there still are bigger issues. Things that will affect us NOW. We need to reform wellfare and lower the amount of spending in this country. Time is money, lets not waste it. Like what she said, there is nothing wrong with trying to change something that should be changed, but is it the appropriate time for that change and is there something more important we should be focusing on? People have different veiws of what is important and what is not, but i think we can all agree that lowering the huge amount of dept and spending in this country is at the top of that list, not a Fern tree in northern Alaska.

Reply
Quinn Waitley
01/25/2012 21:42

In the 1930’s, a man named Mr. MacCurrie came up with a plan to solve everyone’s problem and the solution was prohibition of the sale or drinking of alcohol. The problem was that too many people were drinking, doing drugs and involved with prostitution. During these times Asians were being discriminated against because they were generally poorer and lonely foreigners in the United who didn’t have wives to tell them what to do. In my opinion, this started a whole entire demand for reforms that came in the future. Every human being on this planet has faults; there is no way around this fact. MacCurrie’s actions came from the belief that every time someone did something wrong, people during that age would just make a reform and say they would do something about it. Trying to make people stop doing something they want to do is very hard. The fault in MacCurrie’s actions was that he was unhappy with the country and wanted to make these huge rules for everyone that we never going to work. The truth is that prohibition couldn’t stop some men who are just no good, drinking, prostitution loving, drug piglets in the world.

Reply
Ralph Galvez
01/25/2012 21:47

Mr. MacCurrie seemed to view enforcement of prohibition as a waste of government spending. He thought that enforcing prohibition was wasted time and money that could have been put toward medical developments and other necessities for the time. It seems like he was focused more on government reform than the social problems of drinking. This sounds like he wants reform in areas like political machines (municipal reform) other than prohibition.

I agree with many other people who posted before the governments effort to put SOPA and PIPA into effect was another example of a waste of time. The copyright on the internet is like drinking to some degree. It takes a truly tremendous effort to censor the whole internet or stop a single country from drinking. Not to mention time, resources and a constant watch to maintain that stability. Corruption will always exist and eventually you just have to deal with the fact that it's out there and there's not much you can do to cover it up.

Reply
Kacie McBarron
01/25/2012 21:59

I believe that MacCurrie’s primary objection would be how prohibition cost a lot of money that they should not have spent. The government needed to pay the police to enforce the law even more than usual. In my opinion prohibition should not have become legal because all it did was cause discontent. I believe that prohibition caused more problems than the number of problems it was trying to solve. People would hide alcohol in cellars and secret storage places so police wouldn’t find it. But MacCurrie says that the police were rude enough to just storm into your house or business to search for it. I believe another thing that didn’t do too much good was the social welfare system; they made sure everyone had the basics to live. If it works we wouldn’t have impoverish people living in the street today, the social welfare system was supposed to give people places to live, things to eat, and maybe even a job, but its not like that today. I believe a big present-day issue right now is nutrition. Americans holds a stereotype for being “big” but all the commercials that are trying to get to kids on TV are about the right foods to eat and getting out and exercising. But what really needs to be on there too is talk about portion control because some people do eat health and exercise but can’t loose weight because they eat too much. Also they should talk about the effects of drugs, alcohol, and the food we eat too and talk about it at an early age so they get brainwashed into eating healthy. McDonalds does that to get little kids to go eat there so, why can’t we do that with health and loose that “big” reputation.

Reply
Megan Galloway
01/25/2012 22:01

I find that MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition is that in reality, it doesn't work. It really just does more harm than good, one could say. Prohibition seems to use up much of the gov't money without showing effectiveness, and causes even more issues then letting there be no prohibition and drinking as a freedom by choice. It's really like many things that the gov't had tried to support at this time. They just didn't work. Or, for a past example, when the gov't tried to reform the South after the war. Since the Reconstruction wasn't truly supported, money went to waste and many people just continued on as usual treating the blacks inferior to themselves. A present day issue this could be similar to is how we are constantly trying to fix our economy. We are sending lots of our money down the drain, by paying the government who's attempts are failing. They are not quite able to get the economy back on it's feet, and end up using our taxes to support some, who do try to support themselves and can't quite get there, as well as others, who aren't even trying to support themselves and are living off of food stamps received by the gov't. If most of us don't support a reform or something like Prohibition, we will see things similar to what MacCurrie had seen, our money just going down the drain.

Reply
Connor McGrath
01/25/2012 22:05

I think MacCurrie's main point was that prohibition was a complete waste of money. I think he had another point too about the corruption in the government. During this time there was a bunch of corruption in the government. The spoils system is an example of this. Only friends of major politicians were getting into government and they usually weren't well suited for the job. Many of the reforms the government tried to enforce during this time also failed to be carried out. Just because the government says something doesn't mean the people are just going to blindly follow it. There's always going to be people that oppose it. During this time there was also too much corruption in the government for them to really carry out any reforms.
You can relate this to the modern day drug problem in America. The government has been trying to stop the drug trade for years but there's just no way because of all the people that oppose the anti-drug campaign. Just because the government says to stop something doesn't mean everyone's going to. There's a lot less corruption in the government now than back then but it's still very hard for them to enforce reforms.

Reply
Rosa Flores
01/25/2012 22:07

I agree with what MacCurrie had to say about prohibition being a big waste of time. I think prohibition was a bad idea because it only angered the public and made them rebel, and they would still be drinking alcohol! It was pointless to even try and prohibit what people drink because since everyone is so accustomed to consuming alcohol, it would be pretty hard to stop. And plus, so much money was wasted on trying to enforce this and almost no one followed this, they just kept on drinking away! Today society is similar because back then drinking was frowned upon but now it’s the way we look or dress that people judge, if we don’t look a certain way people think there’s something wrong with us, which I think is absurd. I think people should be more considerate of other people’s values and morals and then maybe people will actually be willing to follow some of the rules that are being enforced.

Reply
Aaron Polk
01/25/2012 22:12

Based on what I have seen on t.v. and heard from family and occasionally glanced in a book concerning the prohibition was that the government spent a whole lot of money trying to stop the use and sale of alcohol. The first thing that pops into my mind when I found out that it didn't become permanent issue was that the people of the United States fought for, stole, and hid their alcohol in unity mostly. Now when I think of people coming together and really wanting something a specific way the people usually strive to get it their way like in the Declaration of Independence and freedom and equality for all. Large amounts of people didn't want the prohibition to last for very long and they took it into their own hands and overcame the government. Like my peers are also saying that the prohibition did about as much as the police are doing now with drugs and criminals. Mostly I think that if people really don't want something then they don't realize how much they can do to stop the government from totally controlling their lives like the government did with prohibition. Yes alcohol causes issues but without it it causes more so I deff. think the government should have thought about this before hand and have to deal with these issues they faced long ago.

Hope i did ok. Not totally sure if i did this how you wanted

Reply
Katie Salinda
01/25/2012 22:25

MacCurries main objection to prohibition is on how much money it wasted. The government wasted the people’s money on something so pointless. Just because the government found one guy with alcohol, they think that everyone else is just going to stop. In reality no one is going to. They basically threw away money on a pointless bust. Yeah sure this particular reform group wanted to help better America and its citizens but the government should really be investing its money in a reform group that would truly fix America. I can personally relate to this issue of pointlessness, with the helmet law in Coronado. It is our decision not to wear them. We understand the risks of getting hurt, but at the same time most of us have been riding a bike for most of our lives. I am glad they are concerned about our safety, but it shouldn’t be up to them to say we have to wear them. I can understand like ten year olds because they don’t have the “experience” that teenagers have. The police are taking enforcing the law to a whole new level; waiting for school to get out, so they can sit on the corners and stop every person who isn’t wearing a helmet. That’s just sad; do they not have anything better to do?

Reply
Sarah Rigoli
01/25/2012 22:33

MacCurrie seems to be extremely irritated on how the government regulated things back then and how unfairly they treated people and took away their freedoms as well. I can definitely see why he was irritated with prohibition because of all the money wasted and just all the things they did in order to ban alcohol consumption. Although maccurrie feel violated of his rights we have to think to outselves who's interest was the government trying to help. What things were they trying to prevent from happening. Imagine all the things that alcohol has lead to. The lowering of our moral standards and so forth. I can see where they were coming from and we learn from our mistakes and I don't look at them in a negative light for this.we can't expect of nation to be perfect we've messed up or had slips but now we have that right and without that fall we wouldn't have known what the outcome was.

Reply
Brittany T.
01/25/2012 22:41

I agree the police should be more productive when it comes to their jobs instead of worrying about sexual predators and thieves they sit at the corner of a street to stop kids and tell them they need to have helmets. If thats all they do then what point are the police they always seem to be screaming at people for the smallest thing but when something big comes up they're no where near what's going on.

Reply
Brittany Thomas
01/25/2012 22:35

I, as most people, never liked prohibition. People wanted to drink, it made them relax at the end of a work day. Why take that away when so many people want it? You are wasting money on a pointless matter, that people are going to do regardless if its against the law or not. People will do what they want, when they want. For example, Marijana, I am sure there are plenty of people that smoke and illegally use marijana, even though there are laws that say that you must have a medical card. Ordinary people have enough sense to know if they wanted to drink or not and when to drink or not why put a law on it saying no one can when a few people abuse alcohol. Not everyone is running around going crazy drinking and partying all day and night.

Reply
frank mcneill
01/25/2012 22:35

MacCurrie’s main objection to the idea of prohibition is that it’s a waste of money for the government to enforce and that the American Government is also losing money from it being sold to other citizens illegally. It’s hard for the government to enforce a law like prohibition with not much enforcement. The government would lose money from alcohol from being sold from licenses’ to sell alcohol. Also the government would lose money from the tax on alcohol. And since it was illegally sold to people then it was on the black market. MacCurrie’s also takes issue with the government trying make laws about morals or “reputation”. Another issue that was a problem during the progressive era was the government’s attempts to make people “pure” and make laws that were very hard and expensive to enforce.

An issue that may be compared to this in today’s society is the question of legalizing marijuana. Right now there are people profiting from the illegal sale of marijuana and the government spends tons of money trying to enforce the law. But if it was made legal then that money could be used for other things AND the government could regulate it’s use and make money from licensing and taxes.

Reply
Sarah rigoli
01/25/2012 22:39

You can relate this to a mother trying to protect her teen by telling him he can't drink. Shes only trying to do what is best for him and she thinks the more he drink the more immoral behavior he will do and more things that drinking will lead to. I feel like that's was the whole idea behind prohibition but people wanted their freedoms and they felt it was restraining their rights. For a current event that is related to this I guess could be marijuana and how the gov made it illegal and now the public is finding ways around it like medical clinics.

Reply
01/31/2012 20:46

Sarah, I agree with you. I loved it how you put what you thought about the government and illegal drugs for meds. Pure genius on thinking today's world. Exactly, you can totally relate to a mother protecting her teen from drugs or drinking becuase she doesn't want anything to happen to him or her. She's trying to do what's best for him or her, not ruining the fun or life. Great job. :)

Reply
Anna Bongiovanni
01/25/2012 22:40

In the article above, the quotes by Mr. MacCurrie helped establish that he clearly was against prohibition. His primary objection to prohibition seemed to be the fact that the government was wasting their money on pointless things as opposed to things that would actually help reform the country and better the life for it's citizens. It seems as though he understands the effect of prohibition and thinks that in a sense it is necessary to an extent, but at the same time too much money and effort is going towards a cause that over all isn't going to reform the country in a positive manor. Prohibition, meaning the banning of manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages, at this time to many people sounded like a good idea. Our country was trying to reform in so many different ways and prohibition was a big solution to a lot of our country's problems at the time. Alcoholics, or just people who consumed large doses of alcohol in a public setting, were seen as drains on society and even dangers to society. Alcohol, although to some people may seem like a simple and even fun substance to mess around with, actually has some serious side effects. Not only is alcohol bad for your personal, internal health, but socially, it's not good either. The chemicals in alcohol can cause one to become angry and even violent, causing the crime rates in the streets to go up. Consuming alcohol in large quantities can result in ultimate laziness, leading to incredibly in-productivity in the work force. Thus, also leading to higher poverty rates. At the time our country's main concern was essentially creating jobs for all these new immigrants, for new people to immigrate and come over to our country to work and make a life for themselves, adding a decrease in production because of widespread alcohol consumption was not on the agenda.

At the time, although prohibition seemed like a good idea, personally I don't believe in it. I'm only 16, so it's not like I'm even allowed to legally drink, but considering the time period I don't think it was right blaming a lot of their problems on drinking. Although it may have been the source or root of a lot of their social problems, I don't think the manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages should have been banned. Yes, it definitely should have been structured under a set of laws, but not completely banned. Laws banning the consumption of alcohol in certain areas, publicly during certain hours, and also banning the consumption of alcohol when you are currently at work or showing up to your job intoxicated, would all be very beneficial at the time.

Today, we have set laws as far as drinking ages (21 in the U.S.). We have certain states that have dry counties, meaning they don't serve alcohol at restaurants and there are no bars, and you have to drive out of your county to buy alcoholic beverages in bulk. I feel that today, we have a fairly good grasp on our country's consumption of alcohol. Although there is still the occasional man who wasted all his money on booze and is currently living on the streets, or the alcoholic in her home, drinking her sorrows away, that is not the majority. There's always going to be downsides to anything, but as of right now, I don't believe the production and existence of alcohol in our society is necessarily doing incredible damage to our country.

Reply
Cody Laconte
01/25/2012 22:42

What is MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition?
To start it off he's just using a perfect example of the old days crime. In the quotations where he told a story about how he got caught up in it and he ended up regreting it. This prohibition story sounds like the stock market crash of 1929. They both caused sadness and many peoples lifes were just living on the street as if it was normal because it was. Now for modern day times the drug wars across the mexican border with the U.S. it causing alot of money just to keep drugs from being in our supposively pure country, and thats exactly like what they did in the prohibition time where the government payed so much and wasted so much money just so they can enforce one law against which happens to be the most loved thing universally. And now we wait for the next generation to show and see what wars they go through.

Reply
Emma Rudolph
01/25/2012 22:58

I think MacCurrie's major objection to prohibition is the fact that a lot of money was lost in the cause. Not only that, but people were being framed of possessing alcohol. He said that when these police came to search the hotel, they couldn't find anything, but suddenly one of them goes in and comes back out with half a pint, and that what was happening wasn't right.

I often think that prohibition is similar to today's issue of the legalization of marijuana. Many people want it to be illegal because it's a drug and it can be the source of "immoral conduct," like alcohol. People can get into trouble when they smoke marijuana, but they also can get into trouble when drinking alcohol. It impairs your judgement and reflexes. Yet people wanted to drink alcohol anyway during prohibition, because it's their business what they did in their private lives. This can be compared to why some people want marijuana to be legal in the U.S.. This is just proof that history can repeat itself.

Reply
kevin fahey
01/25/2012 23:05

Mr. MacCurrie belived that the prohibition hurt rather than helped the country and that it cost a lot of money. He also thought that the prohibition was very unsuccessful and didnt accomplish anything. you can also tell from the interview that even with the prohibition in place people were still drinking and that corruption was present. "They was all ready to go out, and Dan says 'Wait a minute.' He walked in the back room and when he came out he had a half pint. Now by God, you can't tell me he didn't have that half pint when he went in there", from this quote you can see that even the police force were corrupt because they went and took alcohol during their raid.

Another reform you can compare this to is the purity cursaders and them trying to clear cities of vice. These reforms are similar because they both want to help the people by clearing society of the "bad things".

Reply
Amarilli Varesio
01/25/2012 23:07

I agree with MacCurrie. It was a totally waste of money and efford. I think that the government should have had to act in another way to "destroy the political corruption of the saloons", how they said. Alcohol was too popular and also never illegal, it was a too fast move, and it gave the input to a lot of criminal organizations to rise. And also the corrupted policemen that had to let other people follow the law but if the found some alcohol, they were the first to drink some.

Reply
andrea perez
01/25/2012 23:13

well from what i read from the other students i kind of understand what we are suppose to do here, the person saying the quotes doesnt like prohibition or yeah and they are against alcohol and doesnt trust the government or something like that. oh apparently prohibition is a big waste of time and money and made the people mad and go crazy, it does more harm than it does good.

Reply
andrea
01/25/2012 23:14

okay i know its a really short answer and its not really good but i dont really get the quotes and instructions im really confused

Reply
andrea
01/25/2012 23:18

so kind of adding to my thing up there..the legal age of drinking now is 21 and many young kids take advantage of that and make older people buy them alcohol i think that is a really bad thing, alcohol is #3 on the death chart or something like that under coke and meth, and under alcohol is acid and shrooms and all those crazy drugs so what im saying is that people now really are taking advantage of how much alcohol you can drink.

Marlee May
01/25/2012 23:15

The speakers main objection to prohibition is that it was a great waste of time and money. They are saying that the govt. placed its priorities on prohibition when they could be focusing on more important things like helping people get jobs, homes, and standard living necessities. Personally, I find prohibition to be a waste of time. I am sure people could have guessed that it would have caused issues and then later go on to be repealed. Someone, somehow would find a way to get alcohol and drink and sell it. So I think that it would be pointless to put so much effort on making prohibition so important, when it will eventually just...end. Prohibition and the efforts put into it, remind me of how much the government is trying to stop people from smoking marijuana and chewing tobacco. There are all of the ads on TV and people speaking out against it, but you (or well at least I think) know that not everyone is going to completely stop. So putting all this effort into substance abuse, while extremely important and a good cause, no matter how hard you try to keep people from smoking (etc.) they are still going to do it.

Reply
Jack Foley
01/25/2012 23:28

I agree Mr. MacCurrie he is simply stating that he thinks prohabition causes more problems than solves them, which it did it wasted alot of taxe payers money on a losing battle against bootleggin(moonshine running). there was to much corruption whithin the law enforcement tasked to enforce prohibition.
you can compare this reform to the purity crusaders on how they want to reform society by getting rid of things that arent moral are create bad ones

Reply
Jack Foley
01/25/2012 23:39

to touch on how this relates on issues today prohibition still exsist in some countys in the U.S. on certain days your not allowed to purchase alchohol mostly sundays and also you can relate this to the legaliztion of marujana even though its illegal in alot of states Cali being pretty lax about it doesnt stop people from doin it why not just legalize it marujana can bring in over 2 billion dollars of annual revenue its not that i smoke its that i think its practical

Reply
Johnny McCaull
01/25/2012 23:30

I agree to what Mr MacCurrie is saying about the prohibiton. I think he is a smart source to base facts on during this time because he was alive and expirnced the affects or reprocutions that this did to people in this time. I belive the prohibition was one of the dumbest things that America's goverment has ever done. I think that the prohibtion was inavective in the purpose that the goverment set out to and it hurt America more than it helped it. Mr. MacCurrie seems like a pretty averedge American during this time period. He expirnced the prohibiton first hand and he is saying that it was not a good thing. When America added the prohibtion act and made alchoal illegal theywere completly obblivous to the obvious curruption that would be going on. During this time period alchoal was a big part of society and when the goverment took that away everything went haywire in the country as i can see and as this man can see. Im not saying this because i like to drink now i am saying this because its the truth when the goverment tries to pull all off something this radical and extreme there is bound to be courpption. I think that what the goverment did is also unconstitonall they can not controll what i do to my body. I miss spelled a lot of stuff but who cares



















Reply
chuckie eaton
01/25/2012 23:37

This quote shows me that Mr. MacCurrie thought prohibition was very bad to the U.S. He said it would just make things worse than they were which truly happened. It also did a lot of harm and started a lot of mobsters to come about. This can be related to today’s drug cartel is the ways they need to sneak in illegal items to the U.S. for money. The prohibition was a way to try and improve the U.S. for the better but it only hurt it in more ways trying to reform. Mr. MacCurrie’s primary objection to prohibition was how much time and money it has wasted putting it into effect and enforcing it. It would be cheaper just have alcohol legal and not have this law.

Reply
Tyree Johnson
01/26/2012 13:12

I agree with Mr. Eaton when he says that the prohibition only made matters worse. Not only was society made about the ban of alcohol, they were also were angered by the way the gov. chose to enforce it. This just gave society a reason to rebel and cause more problems.

Reply
patrick powell
01/27/2012 18:10

I would also have to agree with chuck. The prohibition only made matters worse than they needed to be. The government just lost money by enforcing this law. This whole thing just did not make very much sense.

Mariana Magdaleno
01/25/2012 23:40

MacCurrie’s primary objection to prohibition is that the law being enforced by government was not showcasing any productivity, thus resulting ineffective. But what also angered Mr. MacCurrie was the determination and time the government was taking on imposing this law, when in fact they should have been worrying about trusts, monopolies, and other government corruption. So I believe MacCurrie disapproved the enforcement of prohibition since no one followed it, and the only thing that the law revealed to do is to take civil pleasures away. I can relate prohibition to other reform issues like women suffrage movements. Women suffrage was also a very controversial topic because many men or strong political leaders did not approve it. Because of this inequality women had to step up and create women suffrage movements like NAWSA and CU. However looking on present-day issues reminds me of the sensitive “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” military policy that was previously inflicted on all enrolling members. This policy use to be a subject to reform because it discriminated someone because of their sexual preference. As for prohibition, women suffrage, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” are all types of reforms that citizens of the United States wanted to change because they didn’t meet their expectation, in one way or the other.

Reply
Jordan Roth
01/25/2012 23:42

I agree with MacCurrie and how things were run better in the old country. Because it just seems like now a days the government trys to find anyway to start a rebell, and how they just suckk us dry of our own money, just to waste it. And cops setting people up by planning slcohol is just an example of how screwed up our government is run, that they thought it was perfectly okay. The government is breaking their own laws and is acting illegally, farther more, I think that MacCurrie's main objection is wasted money and missed tax money.
I agree it made people angry and want to rebell against the government for their wrong doings and drink more. The cops were corrupt, because they punished people who weren't even really drinking. I think bootleggers should have got punished the most.

Reply
Jack Alldredge
01/25/2012 23:43

Prohibition ultimately failed as a whole for the prohibition era did not create any further respect for the law, but diminished it entirely. MacCurrie was spot on in describing the ineffectiveness of prohibition for it was true; it created more drunkenness in the republic than there had ever been. Many of us know that when an abundance of an item is within easy reach there is not much to be noticed, but when an item is taken away and forbade there becomes a certain lust for it. The repeal of alcohol only lead to corruption and to more funds spent to enforce the law. Even the famous Rockefeller we studied was known as a lifelong nondrinker yet he still supported the repeal of Prohibition for he believed the law had created more widespread problems and destruction to society.
Even so during Prohibition, wealthy political figures such as certain town treasures and governors could sit comfortably enjoying an alcoholic beverage at the Ritz virtually unaffected by Prohibition while most of them were in favor of the 18th amendment in the first place. This corruption is backed by MacCurrie when he is explaining the situation at the hotel when the police searched the hotel for illegal beverages and when they found nothing ,most likely planted a pint which had already been in their possession previous to the search. After realizing the more harm than help the 18th amendment had put on society and the economy, Congress ratified the 21st amendment to the Constitution, repealing the failed act of Prohibition.

Reply
Bailey Waitley
01/25/2012 23:44

I think MacCurrie’s objection against prohibition was that, the point of prohibition was to stop the usage of alcohol. But to his disappointment the police would arrest people for their ‘reputation’. We are human beings, and human beings make mistakes. MacCurrie’s whole argument is that the government tried to enforce a law, but failed. And the prohibition law failed because the vices that was present during this time was very addicting to people. As humans, we can’t help but make mistakes; hopefully we will try our best to learn from them. But in MacCurrie’s opinion, we as citizens make mistakes; but our government made an even bigger mistake trying to enforce a law, which they probably knew would pass.
I think the prohibition law can relate to the purity crusaders because the main objective or reason for enforcement on these laws is because they wanted to rid themselves of bad influences and try and hopefully become better human beings. And the main reason for the enforcement of prohibition was to stop alcohol use and rid themselves of all the evil and vices surrounding and tempting them. And in return government hoped to make man and their country better.
This can relate to Coronado’s ridiculous law of wearing a helmet until your 18 years old. And yes I know they enforce this law because they want to prevent major head injury and to keep us safe if we fall and hit our head or get hit by a car. But really 18 years old? If you can be 16 years old and you are able to drive a car, I don’t think you should have to wear a helmet while riding a bike in CORONADO! Everything is so close together. Anyway this can relate to the prohibition law because just like the government tried and failed to enforce no alcohol on Sunday, the Coronado Police Department failed at enforcing the helmet law.

Reply
Bailey Waitley
01/25/2012 23:48

*would not pass (sentence 6)

Reply
Bailee Davis
01/26/2012 18:54

I think this does a really great job at explaining the whole interview! It's true that the government tried to enforce a law and spent a lot of money doing it, but in the end failed at enforcing it.
You made a valid point about the law that is not only enforced in Coronado, but pretty much everywhere that you have to wear a helmet if you're under the age of 18. Yes, it's a hassle to wear a helmet but it's for your safety. The idea about no alcohol use and wearing a helmet were both laws made by the government during two different time periods to keep people safe and out of danger. Yes, the idea of "purifying" the government is way more extreme than wearing a helmet, but they were just made to keep everyone safe and out of danger.

Reply
Christian Molenaar
02/26/2012 14:44

I agree with you that Prohibition was a poorly thought-out idea. Your explanation for for why was clear and made sense, but I feel like bringing in the helmet law was a strange point. I'm not sure what that has to do with Prohibition. I understand you think both are meaningless laws, but other than that I can't see any connection.
Bailee, you connected the two pretty well. While one may be against both, they are pretty disparate laws. You pointed out that both are hassles but were put in place for the safety of the people. I agree with you, while they may seem like a waste of time, at some point or another they were necessary evils.

Reply
Marissa Gray
01/25/2012 23:58

MacCurrie’s primary objection towards prohibition was that it caused more harm than what was anticipated. The money that was put towards those attempts at change had been wasted, and could’ve been used to improve other situations that would’ve made a bigger difference. Trying to get rid of alcohol all together was an extremely ridiculous attempt that would’ve caused more havoc than justice. I can see that they were trying to do what they thought was right, but it would’ve made things worse. If there were to be another attempt in our time for prohibition to start up again, it would’ve been shut down in a heartbeat. When the government has all this control, it could really affect our way of living, especially if they try to demolish something that’s a big part of the culture. With the whole SOPA bill, it too was also pointless and similar to the whole prohibition stuff. It wouldn’t have been smart to pass, other than the push to get rid of piracy. The government can’t abuse their power in this way, trying to take away our freedom and rights. They need to make attempts at changing other things that need it to make the country a better and more content place.

Reply
Cody Laconte
01/27/2012 23:36

I agree the prohibition did cause more harm than needed, and mass amounts of money were spent just to keep this as a law. The prohibition didn't even stop this crime it only made people sneakier in finding ways to get drunk. It also was a ridiculous thing to do just for the simple fact many people are alcoholics especially back in that time, and it only made people get madder when the government took away the things they loved. The ending in your writing was a very good point that i agree on government should stop focusing on taking things away, but should be focusing more on the real problems of our society and helping the poverty of our nation, and the discontent in our nation. Times may have changed but the government seems to be the same in some ways such as in today's world our own president and fellow commissioners of our country even the famous rich people who are held up with them would rather go help other countries and get caught up in business that's not ours just to look good world wide rather than boost our economy and helping our own people.

Reply
Ashley Aucoin
01/26/2012 00:00

MacCurrie was right- the government wasted tons and tons of money on silly things- at least it seems like it now. I admit I can see why they would want to wipe out alcohol completely. It doesn’t usually lead to anything good. The problem is that just so many people(especially men) would go out, have a drink with some buddies- their relaxing time. When you try to take away something that everyone is completely against, you should know that you’re going to lose. Maybe what they could have tried was to have a limit on how much a person consumed, although I’m not too sure how well that would have worked. Anyways, I mean they should have known what they were getting into before they wasted so much money. I think they just wanted things to go their way- show their power and do whatever they could, like paying cops to go around to keep people from drinking alcohol. It just bothers me that the government could be so blind at a time like this, when they should’ve been worried about more important things like unemployment, corruption, and safety. Who knows? Maybe they thought the end of drinking would be end of that, too.

Reply
Sam Everett
01/26/2012 00:12

MacCurrie is upset that the government has wasted so much money on something like the prohibition which almost seems asinine when compared to some of the more prominent needs in those times like medical care and basic necessities such as food and running water. Because of the sudden influx in the population there were changes that needed to be made. The majority of immigrants moved to the city for work which made living conditions despicable for the poor immigrants. MacCurrie objected the prohibition because of the massive waste of money going down the metaphorical toilet even though there was a major need for pecuniary relief in the cities. People were being framed and there was nothing anyone could do about it because the government controlled practically everything at this time. He alludes to socialism saying that it would almost be a better alternative to what was going on in America. He wonders how there can be so many people in need in a country that has more than enough for everyone to flourish on. This is something that many people wonder today. How can this country have so much but still have millions of impoverished people living in it? It was a problem then and it is a problem now. In MacCurrie’s time they had a lot of problems and they decided to blame it all on alcohol. I can see where they were coming from because alcohol consumption can lead to people doing very bad things but prohibiting it was too extreme. Obviously it did not go over so well.

Reply
Aaron Polk
01/26/2012 17:48

I agree with Jack Foley about how the prohibition just causes more problems then it solved. I also agree with Ryan Zeller and saying it also helped prices skyrocket and create more jobs for people and give people the chance to really make something of themselves now without the influence of alcohol. Like I said in my post recently how the government should have really thought about all this before hand so many of the issues they had would never have happened and maybe we would be in a different place then we are now...

Reply
kevin fahey
01/26/2012 18:37

In reponse to J Alldrege:

I agree with what you said about how prohibtion failed and also what you said about MacCurrie describing it prefectly in his interview. what you said about how people gain a lust for things they cant have is very true. At this time alocholic drinks were so popular that when it was taken away people would go to almost any length to obtain them. This then led to even more corruption and money spending. I also agree with you on how accuratley MacCurrie describes the prohibition. He bacically said how upset he was with all the money being spent and the corruption that took place throughout that era, which he decribes in a first hand expirence.

Reply
Kyle Cottrell
01/26/2012 20:18

I like what Jack said about political people who would drink even though they supported the prohibition. They would drink in public places (classy public places of courseNot only was this unfair, but it was loosing the votes for them in the next political election. Also this showed how corrupt the government was when political figures could openly break the law. This can relate to what we just learned about when we saw the political machines corrupt the government by hiring people for their votes.

Reply
Zavier Verbick
01/27/2012 13:10

I agree with Claire, Emily, and Alex that prohibition was detrimental to society because it was a waste of time and resources. Innocent people got in trouble and crime rates rose. There was tons of corruption and nothing was done about it.

Reply
Justin Smith
01/27/2012 14:48

I agree with Claire, Emily, and Zavier with the statement that prohibition was never going to help society. The reason for this is because, in the end, most of the results that had come from prohibition were negative. Why they were negative is because most of the time when you tell someone that they aren't aloud to do something then im many cases that is going to make them do those things because they aren't aloud to. Another reason for why it didn't work because the changes that they had made were so large and they occured in such a short amount of time. These are the reasons for why i agree with all of those people that the prohibition was detrimental to society.

Reply
Jake Finley
01/27/2012 18:59

I agree with Luke Kullberg because he has some strong views and just because its Luke Kullberg. I like when he also agree when he says that we waste a lot of money on trying to prevent things when you can't really ever stop it. I also like the example he uses when he talks about the park football situation because I experienced it with him. The cops here have nothing better to do besides tell us to stop playing football at the park.

Reply
Quinn Waitley
01/27/2012 22:36

I for one totally agree with Justin because if it wasn’t the main cause of prohibition that would end up causing for future dysfunction in our government during this time period. As Justin said early in his response "when you tell someone they aren't allowed to do something it makes them do it even more ". Although come to think of it every human being on the planet! Is like this. No matter a human being tries there’s no possible way you can get and this fact. The hard truth about the world is that there has always been dysfunction in government and the world since the beginning of mankind.

Reply
01/31/2012 20:34

I think that the era could have still have occurred if the muckrakers were not in the time period. I think this because sure thye told the truth about jobs and working conditions but people would eventually learn and figure out that the conditions would need work. I wouldn't nessicary would want to live in the time period of the progressive era because women didn't get the rights they deserved. Without rights, people can't feel like they truely free. If I was a muckraker, I would talk about the laws for children and how children should work at a certain age and if they should go to school or not. In all, the progressive era seems pretty good to be in but you would have to live in the era of change and rebell.

Reply
Jose Antonio Partida
02/01/2012 08:26

I think that the muckrakers, were aq important part for the progressive era but not a key for it. The reform in a republic always comes to present in any circunstances, so the progressive era could have appear without the help of the muckrakers.
For the Hot Dog one. I'm happy I was having an orange with me. Buy really that was discusting, a really important issue about meat care. Thousands of people could have died without no one knowing the cause. The owner of that meat was a crazy man that I'm sure he was living in Europe.
By my part this Jungle was an important part in the proggressive era, that help people to take part in government against this problems. In my opinion I will be against the government administration with these issues, and call for an investigation. Because I love meet and I will be ill just by reading this if I was living in those days.
Government has always been full of corruption and problems since the cave man decided to rule over the weak ones, In other world there can be change but nothing will be perfect with the gov., Because power changes people.

Reply
Bailey Stueve
02/01/2012 19:31

MacCurrie was upset by how the government has wasted more money on the prohibition then what seems like medical and house care along with the basics like food and running water. More of the immigrants came to the US for work, and ended up with poor living conditions. MacCurrie felt the need to respond back opinoin-wisely to the prohibition because of how much money was being thrown away even if there was a more important question to the cities. More officials like the cop went into the hotels to find alcohol but when he couldn't find any he went back and pulled out the booze that he had taken. Innocent people were being accused of how the government controlled almost everything. Like now-a-days people like to blame the country's problems on alcohol. But putting a law against it would only make it worse and that's where the rest of the country fell apart.

Reply
Jordan Roth
02/01/2012 23:49

I think that the progressive era occurred because of the muckrakers pressuring other to want a reform. The muckrakers notices how bad things started to get and pushed for a change with industries, government, and large companies. If I wasn't for the muckrakers a reform or the progressive era wouldn't have occurred and America wouldn't be more advanced as it is today.

If I lived in this time period I would have pushed for change and reform as soon as I found out about the unsanitary activities happening in the meatpacking industries. I would have urged others to join me and have them urge their friends and families. I would take a stand to insure the safety and protection of others health and well being. Also I wouldn't of just push this aside to let someone else take care of it because most people would do the sane and brush it off their shoulders.

As a female I would have pushed and pressured other females to join in to fight for woman's education. Any one has the right to be well educated and get a good career that requires an education. I would have gathered and information about this topic and started fundraisers for woman's education.

Reply
Chrissy Taylor
02/01/2012 23:55

I completely feel the same as Justin, Claire, and Zavier - I do not believe that prohibition would have ever helped society. Prohibition was like... trying to get rid of weeds for good by trimming the heads of dandelions off. Just treating symptoms won't get rid of the illness; just punishing people for the behavior resulting form poverty and conflict won't solve either of those issues. Prohibition WAS a huge waste of money and effort and large mess of unnecessary arrests and aggressiveness.

Reply
Kourtni Litzenberg
02/08/2012 15:07

In my opinion, this poem is obviously talking about how the white man is capable of anything . "Send forth ye best breed". Which means send your best white men to rule whatever it is they are trying to rule. The damn poem also talks about how the white man has no fear in the quote " To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride".
Nationalism is when you have pride for your own country
imperialism is when you spread your own patriotism throughout another country.
an example in the poen would be " To seek another’s profit And work another’s gain"

Reply
Jordan Kelley
02/08/2012 22:11

Mr MacCurrie's disaproval was primarily on the fact the prohibition did more harm than good, which is true. Our government defintely spent tons money on the enforcement of prohibition, and not only that, but they lost even more money in taxes and such from liqour distributors and from manufactures. Also, many people were arrested because of a reputation they had as apposed to actuallly being caught possesing or manufacturing achohol.

Reply
Kenneth Jacobson
02/24/2012 12:08

I know what prohibition means and all that and have never really supported it. I know why it was issued, but to me it seemed to do more harm than good. This intreview is exactly why this prohibiton went wrong. This letter or poem exactly tells that white men are more better than an other humans. Our Government is not perfect and will never be perfect. It will always have there problems...

Reply
colton cavner
02/24/2012 13:19

now that i know why the government started prohibition it seems to make sense. since the U.S. was involved in a war the grain needed to produce whiskey and other liqours it couldnt be made to produce food for the troops. i still think it was a waste of time and money but it made sense as an idea.

Reply
kourtni litzenberg
02/26/2012 20:48

I think Mr. MacCurrie was pretty much saying how Americans take things for granted.Back then, other countries looked up to us, and now other countries look down on us. We went from being on the top of the world, to basically nothing because of our greed. Making alcohol illeagle was not smart because of course people are going to drink it. Same will some illeagle substances these days, but back then their only logic was do what i say or else. Which in some cases were not always logical.

Reply
Jack Perkins
02/26/2012 23:19

I like how he uses funny smurk to put the point across that the prohibition was a bad idea. I agree with this. THe prohibition causes so many problem that it was just not smart. i think that there could have been so many othert ways to get the outcome they were looking for other that ban the use of alchoal. This then makes people corrupt and crooked when they break the law by buying or selling alchoal. The Fact of the matter is that alot of people just need there fix and to deny them that right is just a dumb idea for one but it also takes away from the Free thing in america.

Reply
David Bodkin
02/27/2012 09:04

I agree with mr MacCurrie, prohibiton only did harm. The government had to spend all this money on setting up groups to enforce theses laws and lost money in taxing the heavliy used product and form liceneseing fees. I dont see the point behind it, like what was the goal exactly? I feel it actually made more people drink and only helped gangs make money and become powerful. I don't even see anything morally wrong with the consumption of liquor. Prohibtion was just something that went completely wrong.

Reply
Montana
03/05/2012 22:18

What is MacCurrie's primary objection to prohibition? How can you relate this to other reform issues during this time? What about present-day issues?

He ( MacCurrie ) believe Prohibition caused more problems than good. He believed it was an excuse for cops to go around and arrest any person they like by*going into a back room and pulling out a half pint*. He thought it was another form of government corruption.
When it comes to modern-day issues i see where Marissa comes in with sopa its completely the same thing! just because you take it away and make it illegal it isn't going to stop people from doing it!

Reply
08/18/2012 01:13

Excellent! I admire all the helpful data you've shared in your articles. I'm looking forward for more helpful articles from you. :)

Joseph Aidan
www.arielmed.com

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Instructions

    Each Monday I will post a question, primary source document, or a discussion topic related to our current area of study.

    It is your responsibility to respond to each of the posts.  You will be required to submit one original post by 11:59pm every Wednesday. By 11:59pm every Friday, you must have also responded to a posting from another classmate.  Your original postings must be a minimum of 200 words and should include analysis and demonstrate critical thinking. Keep in mind the themes we study in history as you respond to each post: Geography, Religion, Art & Architecture, Politics, Economics, Social Structures (G.R.A.P.E.S.). Posts that earn full credit will identify and discuss the historical theme(s) present in the topic, article or other document.

    Your responses to postings from other students must be a minimum of 150 words and can question, challenge, expand upon, or affirm their post.  You may offer differing opinions, but please do so respectfully (I will be reading these!).

    Your initial post is worth 20 points and your response to another post is worth 15 points. Late posts will NOT be accepted unless approved by me in advance.

    Last thing, please make sure your display name or the signature at the end of your post will tell me who you are!  You will not get credit if I don't know who posted!

    Archives

    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed