The Daily Alaska empire., 1933-02-01
FACTS VS. PREJUDICE AND
 TRADITION.


 President Hoovers Committee on Social Tren l its report recently published, urged that sett lent of the leading questions of the times be on asis of fact rather than prejudice and traditi n his announcement of the Committees rep( 1T. Hoover strongly commended it and its work That approach declares Dr. Harry Elmer Barr ,riting in the New York World-Telegram, is ne that ought to be used on dealing with Prohi on which is approaching a final showdown The Economic Results of Prohibition" the lat le facts follows:
 Taking the three year periods, 1911-14 and 1927-30 as the basis for comparison, Prohibition has reduced our capita consump- tion of alcoholic beverages, in terms of pure alcohol, by nearly one-htird. But it has turned us towards strong spirits and away from beer, with its low alcoholic content. The per capita consumption of beer has been reduced 70 per cent. and that of spirits increased by ten per cent The great est increase in consumption has been in wine, about 65 per cent. This means that the legalization of light wines will help more than the legalization of beer to promote lawful consumption of alcoholic beverages.
 Most striking of all is the fact that since 1923 the per capita consumption of alcohol in the United States has been greater than it was during the World War under restricted production and sale and with high taxation Therefore if we had shown a little regard for fact back in 1918-19, we might have promoted temperance and avoid ed the Prohibition calamity simply by con- tinuing the wartime control and taxation of liquor. Moreover, this item makes it per- fectly clear that the proposed plans for ending Prohibition need not bring a tidal wave of alcohol in their wake They all propose restricted production and sale com- bined with high taxation, the very policies which cut down liquor consumption during the war.
 Dr. Warburton shatters completely other vigorous and vital contention of Pro- hibitionists. He holds that Prohibition has had no appreciabe effect on increased pur- chases of automobiles, radios, electrical ap- pliances, household equipment or other con- sumers goods. Neither did it, after the first year or so have any appreciable effect on increasing savings bank deposits, the amount of life insurance carried, or the amount of deposits in building and loan associa- tions and other forms of saving and in- vestment.
 Nor do the statistics offer any proof that Prohibition has increased industrial productivity or reduced industrial accidents On top of this is the demonstrable fact or vast waste of capital and labor in the out law production and distribution of alcoholic beverages since 1920.
 The farmers have lost markets on &C., count of Prohibition but they have probably gained slightly when the total effect is taken into consideration. The working class spends about billion dollars less on alcohol each year than it would if there were no re- strictions The business, professional and salaried classes are spending about a billion dollars year more on alcoholic beverages as result of Prohibition.
 The Federal Government could collect $1 250,000000 from the taxation of alcoholic liquors and $75o000000 from revenue on beer alone
 As for public hygiene, crime and automo- bile accidents, Prohibition "has not had a measurable effect upon the general health of the Nation: it has reduced crime but slightly, if at all, and has encouraged rackets and gangsters; and there is no statistical proof that it has reduced the number of automobile accidents
 The deductions from the above facts for statecraft are not obscure. Hardly any of the major alleged Prohibition benefits have actually been realized. Vast expense has been assumed in seudo-enforcement. sum exceeding the total original amount of the war debts, about $12,5o00o0Oo0. has been lost in Federal revenue alone And, before Prohibition, wartime restrictions on liquor production and sale produced, in spite of greater temptation to drink more marked temperance than the Eighteenth Amendment Therefore If we were ruled by fact, only a dry fanatic who also glories in the vision of Uncle Sam with his pockets turned inside out would today oppose repeal or modified ton.