You have probably at some point in your life heard the term 'balancing act.' I think this term is particularly relevant to what we've been learning recently. What I'm talking about here is Prohibition.
If you think about Prohibition theoretically, there are practically no downsides. It would take away all the harmful medical side effects of drinking alcohol, as well as eliminate alcohol-related deaths by getting rid of things like drunk driving. It could help reduce domestic violence and even make our economy run more smoothly, not to mention create a much more efficient work force.
So why did so many people have enough of a problem with it to repeal it in 1933 — and why do people still have a problem with the idea today? The answer is in what Prohibition takes away. For all its benefits, and in spite of the fact that alcohol holds no useful place in society, Prohibition restricted rights that the government didn't have the right to restrict. The attempt at making alcohol illegal was a balancing act between increasing safety and restricting freedom, between benefitting society and controlling liberty. In this case, the balance didn't work out and freedom won out over safety.
But that doesn't mean that sometimes safety can't win out over freedom. For example, gun control. Is it too late to ban guns? If Pandora's box has been opened, is there a point in trying to close it? Or should we act based on the fact that taking away guns will still reduce gun-related deaths, even if we can't get rid of them all? Again, a balancing act. Does the government have the right to restrict our right to carry arms? Is our safety more important than an outdated Amendment? Is the Second Amendment outdated?
These questions are very similar to those that must have been asked when passing Prohibition in 1920. They balanced it one way. Would you balance it differently? Why?
