Prohibition Smugglers

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[CatherineM]

If you don't agree with a law, you lobby, you protest, you sign petitions, but you shouldn't violate the law unless the law itself violates church law.

[Aloysius]

you are obligated to follow all laws that the state has the authoirty to make. when a state makes tyrannical laws outside of its competence, you are not obligated to follow that law.

the state's authority is not absolute. it does not have authority to decide our diets, it does not have authority to decide how we tie our shoes... and I do not believe it has the authority to infringe upon a drink that is important to our culture like alcohol.

I've been through this debate before, of course; but I think it's an absolutely dismal view that we must obey the law as long as it doesn't cause us to do something immoral; we must obey the law only when the law is just, and part of it being a just law is that the state has just authority over that area.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm with al. i guess that explains the poll results so far.
most people's reaction is that those prohibition people were heroes,,, or that's what i perceive most people's reaction to be.
yet, they don't apply that very standard to other things.

i wonder how... they got so much of a vote that they coudl actually vote to ban it, even costitutionally... and a mere 13 or so years later, they got enough votes even constitutioaly to allow it.
i bet there was a lot of hypocrisy going on.
(not to mention... plus all the constrovery that it was costing a lot to fight the war etc, gave enough to swing the other way.

[dairygirl4u2c]

eg
[quote]Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers. When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption), because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores.[/quote]

seems familiar to a lot of things..

[nowak.chris]

Personally, I think many alcohol law are wrong, possibly unjust. But while I disagree with them and wish that they were changed, I do not have a moral right to ignore them.

If a law were to ban communion wine, then I would have a moral obligation to violate [i]that part[/i] of the law, but even that would not give me license to disobey the rest of the law, however draconian.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='nowak.chris' post='1609202' date='Jul 26 2008, 12:06 PM']Personally, I think many alcohol law are wrong, possibly unjust. But while I disagree with them and wish that they were changed, I do not have a moral right to ignore them.

If a law were to ban communion wine, then I would have a moral obligation to violate [i]that part[/i] of the law, but even that would not give me license to disobey the rest of the law, however draconian.[/quote]


This question was difficult for me to answer. If someone made liqueur for their own family's use, esp. during the holidays, I would not consider it sinful. Those who sold it on the black market were committing sins, IMO.

Edited July 26, 2008 by friendofJPII

[dairygirl4u2c]

Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes

[CatholicCid]

Bibo ergo sum.