The saying goes: History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Perhaps Mark Twain said it. That’s a small historic controversy; if he didn’t, he should have.
Need a Drink?
History has ample evidence that banning something makes it more popular. The generational example is the great early twentieth century experiment of the United States, the Eighteenth Amendment. The term that describes the 1920’s is “the era of Prohibition”. And while the law banned alcohol, society took an entirely different direction. It was the “Roaring Twenties”. Rather than “bars”, there were “speakeasys”. Instead of reducing alcohol use, by the end of the era drinking the United States was almost to 70% of pre-Amendment consumption.
What Prohibition did do was take a social behavior that most thought was acceptable, and make it illegal. But instead of stopping the behavior (though drinking did drop 70% in the beginning), it made “criminal” behavior acceptable. By 1933, when the Twenty-First Amendment passed to repeal Prohibition, many of the “heroes” of the era were the providers of illegal booze. As I used to teach in history class, America was in the depths of the Great Depression and needed a legal drink.
Prohibition gave us “rum runners” and “bootleggers”. The echoes of Prohibition still exist today, a century later. America’s most popular motorsport, NASCAR, traces it roots to the transport of “moonshine”. Drivers were able to outrun the “revenuers” with a trunk load of illegal booze.
Need a “hit”?
The “rhyme” in our history is the banning of marijuana. (A ban notably supported by the alcohol manufacturers: drink, but don’t get high!). Recreational use of marijuana was illegal in every state in the Nation until just thirteen years ago. But, like prohibition; criminalizing recreational use, didn’t reduce the amount of users. It simply made that “criminal behavior” acceptable. We are still in a difficult phase of legality when it comes to marijuana. Only twenty-four states allow recreational use, while ten still don’t even allow medical usage. And the Federal government maintains laws against marijuana.
But, we all know where the United States will ultimately “land” on marijuana use. We’re just not there yet. Someday history will teach about the end of this prohibition. Maybe the “joke” will be, “Donald Trump was President, and we all needed a ‘hit’”.
Need a Chat?
Many of my “media sources” are excited about the Australian experiment. This week, their Government banned social media sites from their citizens sixteen years old or under. They include: Facebook, Tik-Tok, Instagram, You-Tube, Snapchat, Reddit, Snap and Kick. The law doesn’t punish children for being on the sites, but it threatens the site-owners with massive fines if they are.
There is an enormous amount of talk about the “horrors” of social media, from bullying to body-shaming to fatalities caused by copying “Tik-Tok” videos. And all that is true, it really happens. But, as Joe Biden would say, “here’s the deal”. For the vast majority of teens, Australia took a legal, acceptable behavior and essentially criminalized it. It took the teens most common way of communicating with their peers, and made it “bad”, so “bad” that it had to be banned.
Smarter Than a Teenager
But the vast majority of those teens know their primary means of socialization isn’t “bad”. And, being teenagers, they are more likely to not only take risks, but to have a better understanding of how to get around the legal “bans” than those who are trying to enforce it. What it definitely does, is push the “horrors” of social media deeper, farther away from the adults who might be able to intervene and protect.
While the news from Australia currently is about kids complaining about the ban, there also is the quiet under-current of kids who already are finding ways around it. The new “risk taking” will become the draw, just like the risk taking of going to the speakeasy, or making a buy for that illegal joint.
I’m a “Boomer”, with all of the negatives that come from that term. I’m so old that video games weren’t part of my childhood. “Pong” came out when I was sixteen. And even I use social media, from Facebook to X to You-Tube. It seems to me the teen use ought to be more like the teen use of alcohol. Sure, no one really wants teens to drink. But we also recognize it’s going to happen. The decision then becomes, do we make teen drinking so “unacceptable” that a drunk child can’t call home for a ride? Or do we balance our desire to control, with the reality of teen risk-taking: please call and I’ll come get you.
History shows us that “prohibitions” are doomed to fail. When they do, the problems still remain. Without Prohibition, Al Capone doesn’t exist. Without the marijuana ban, Cheech and Chong were just bad comics.
What will the Australian ban create?
