ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE, PROHIBITION NOT ANSWER

To the Editor:

In response to the author's article titled, "It's time to bring back
prohibition," I would like to refute many of her statements. She seems
to imply that alcohol use is something new, that instead of being made
almost 9,000 years ago in China out of rice and honey, it is something
only recently discovered. The effects of alcohol are widely known and
widely documented; excessive alcohol, like many things, can be
detrimental to your health.

First of all, alcoholism is a disease, something not to be bunched in
with the run-of-the-mill caffeine addict, who, instead of sleeping
enough on a regular basis, has become physically addicted to a
stimulant. Second, not everyone who drinks becomes an alcoholic. In
fact, the great majority of individuals do not become alcoholics.

The second point in the article is the recommendation that the
government should control morality. Now without exposing my own morals
for all to see, how exactly would government enact "strict
preventative measures â?| to maintain a moral society?"

How is morality defined? Is the implication simply that drinking is
immoral?

My point is simply this: If you make the government the morality
police, where is the line drawn? Even more basic than that, how do you
define morality?

Here is one point where our opinions overlap -- drunk driving is bad!
Luckily, this has been well documented and is well regulated.

The simple truth is, drinking responsibly has been a human right for
the last 9,000 years. It only becomes an issue when it is abused.

Prohibition was a failure, and would be a failure if enacted today.
The 1920s and '30s gave birth to some of the most notorious organized
crime figures in U.S. history.

When I open up my first beer tonight, I'll toast to the great freedom
that our society entrusts us with. When I get ready to sleep, I'll
offer a word of thanks for the great responsibility we are entrusted
with.

Adam Lawrence

Undeclared Business '09