--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > I am enjoying the documentary. It is a complex story worthy > of the time spent. For me it seems to be a story of women's > empowerment in this country.
It sure was. The temperance movement and the movement for women's suffrage were very closely intertwined. The temperance movement came first, of course (the earliest members were men!), but many of the women who came to lead the temperance movement also became leaders of the movement for women's suffrage and women's rights in general. At first in the temperance movement, women participated as guardians of the home and family values while political activism was left to men. But it became apparent that women could achieve their social goals only if they could vote and influence legislation. So one movement fed naturally into the other, and it all ultimately became a movement for women's rights (divorce, birth control, equal pay for equal work--still not achieved!--etc.). <snip> > The parallels to today's drug war is important. How can a > government be so clear about the impossibility of banning > alcohol which must be fermented and or distilled then > believe that it can ban a plant that grows like a weed? Not only that, alcohol as a recrational drug is significantly more harmful than marijuana. And they're now discovering any number of extremely positive medical uses for marijuana. Question is, why were we so quick to repeal Prohibition, but prohibition of marijuana is still in effect? Did the documentary address any of this? > And do we have to realize that we can't always legislate > our way out of human problems caused by our nature? Not always, but it's often worth a try. We need to be careful about assuming a given problem is caused by our nature rather than social conditioning. Male chauvinism and homophobia, for example, aren't dead yet, but legislation has surely hastened their eventual demise.
