Critical Thinking On Debating The Issue
View point 1
Taxing a commodity that is tied to social practices and moral beliefs of self regulation would do grater good than harm in the society. Considering alcohol products as indicated in this view point, the distribution of tax-free alcohol products would mean low process. This would encourage high levels of consumption or even overconsumption. For such products, this would endanger lives and even encourage reduced productivity towards economy building activities within the society. Sin tax is of course fair. This has partial capacity to reduce crimes and immoral practices which are associated with such. Taxing soda pop or coffee would mount pressure on citizens so that only the well up will be able to consume (The making of a republic 89). Thus, to enable all to consume, it is good not to tax. It is important for government to tax pleasure –seeking drinks since mood change does not necessarily mean a change from the reality of the situation.
If mother and/or father do not spend most of their time drunk, this has a better effect on children. Children normally learn most social behaviors and character from their parent. In most cases, they tend to like and copy what their parents do. Drunkenness would only impart a wrong approach to living life upon the children. Therefore, children would be able to learn positive social behaviors and character from their parents. If wages are spent on pursuit of drunkenness, this would mean scaling on essential household needs which may strain the family members with regard to necessities. For some men, a saloon would be preferred since this gives men opportunities to learn about new economic opportunities and give the wife and children time to prepare within the household rather than engaging them in merry making talks which may not necessarily yield much. However, they would claim to have many responsibilities which stress them so that they visit drinking establishments frequently.
The government should regulate personal behavior where evidence clearly shows that engaging in practices such as drinking only affects the society negatively like for example increase in the rate of crime related to such social engagements. Still, the government can regulate personal behavior where certain social behavior tendencies do not propel economic growth even within the nation. Essentially, where cases of social immorality are related to irresponsible personal behaviors emanating from pleasure-seeking commercial products, the government should chip in to regulate personal behavior.
After realizing the focus of the Volstead Act, I would have indeed supported it. Manufacture, transportation and sale of beverages containing alcohol has man disadvantages to the economy, individuals and nation compared to advantages. Such beverages tend to draw the attention of productive individual, almost reducing the productive capacity. They also cause deaths due to overdrinking. Crime rate may rise due to violence associated with intoxication. Besides, the beverages may affect families in a number of ways like poor child upbringing by drunken parents. It may also affect social relations within the family and neighborhood. Without doubt, where I lived in America in the 1920s and what I did for a living would influence my response. For instance, the fact that there was increased consumption of sprits implies high possibility of irresponsibility and increased violence. The living environment also would not be as appropriate as desirable since the economy was only starting to pick. Consumption of such would only worsen the situation since the effects of alcohol include illusions that give a false hope, progress and achievement which victims could live on for their lifetime, among other profound effects.
The making of a republic: post war America: prohibition and disillusionment. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2007.