Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

My grandfather smoked himself to death, not because the habit gave him joy, but because he was addicted to a drug. Simple as that, and he admitted it. He got addicted to tobacco when he was thirteen years old, and simply didn't have the will power to give it up. I don't blame him for that as much as I blame a society that allowed "legitimate businessmen" to addict people to a filthy poison for far too many years.

Interestingly, there was an extremely focused, motivated anti-tobacco movement in the United States from the 1870s up until World War I -- and had the war not addicted an entire generation of young men to cigarettes, public sentiment would likely have moved against tobacco far sooner than it actually did.

The person who takes the risk of, say, motorcycle riding without a helmet (or riding at all, for that matter) is unlikely to refuse the generosity of those who would provide him health care (provided, for the sake of illustration, that he doesn't have adequate coverage himself). So his freedom, in practice, becomes the freedom to expect others to be more responsible than he is.

Before anyone gets his dander up, please know that motorcycles were once my primary mode of transport. I maintain the motorcycle endorsement on my driver's license. I am in no way lobbying for their illegality. But motorcycling is much more dangerous than automobile driving. The chances of a motorcyclist surviving to old age, and moving about on his own two legs, increase dramatically if he keeps that simple truth in mind.

LizzieMaine said:

My grandfather smoked himself to death, not because the habit gave him joy, but because he was addicted to a drug. Simple as that, and he admitted it. He got addicted to tobacco when he was thirteen years old, and simply didn't have the will power to give it up. I don't blame him for that as much as I blame a society that allowed "legitimate businessmen" to addict people to a filthy poison for far too many years. ...

Click to expand...

Yup. When I was a two-plus pack a day smoker I enjoyed maybe two or three of those 40 or more cigarettes. The rest I smoked because, well, I smoked. It's been eight years since I gave 'em up, and I still occasionally get an urge for a smoke. Addictive? Hell yes, it's addictive.

LizzieMaine said:

My grandfather smoked himself to death, not because the habit gave him joy, but because he was addicted to a drug. Simple as that, and he admitted it. He got addicted to tobacco when he was thirteen years old, and simply didn't have the will power to give it up. I don't blame him for that as much as I blame a society that allowed "legitimate businessmen" to addict people to a filthy poison for far too many years.

Interestingly, there was an extremely focused, motivated anti-tobacco movement in the United States from the 1870s up until World War I -- and had the war not addicted an entire generation of young men to cigarettes, public sentiment would likely have moved against tobacco far sooner than it actually did.

Click to expand...

Same with my father - started smoking at 12 in the 1930s, but I still don't blame corporate America - people are responsible for their own actions, even if they have to fight their own inclinations. And from 1964 on (which is why I highlighted that date), the individual knew. We all have to fight our inner deamonds.

So, to be consistent then, FF, you would put no restrictions on the use, sale and promotion of ANY substance? Heroin? Cocaine? Methamphetamine?

I'm not necessarily arguing against that position, by the way. But then, I fully expect that usage would increase if legal penalties were removed. Sure, Prohibition fostered organized crime, but people did indeed drink less than they did before and after.

I'm not saying he is right, but I am currently reading "Supreme City" by Donald Miller and he says that drinking in NYC increased under prohibition versus before. Making it illegal made it more attractive. Again - his argument.

As to your bigger question - we should absolutely regulate the use by minors, but as to adults, I'm fine with adults making their own choices on drugs. They do anyway, only today, they have to make the choice without any regulation providing the basic protections against fraud (i.e., drugs laced with bad ingredients). One could argue, it would be safer to buy drugs if legal and regulated against fraud.

All right, at least you're consistent. Problem is, though, that too many people will impose the consequences of their individual choices upon the rest of us. As I noted earlier, when things go bad, they'll depend on the more responsible among us to clean up after them.

There are good arguments to be made for legalization, some of which you have already enumerated. But there are also good arguments to be made against. Me, I'm not so absolutist about these things as I once was.

LizzieMaine said:

Interestingly, there was an extremely focused, motivated anti-tobacco movement in the United States from the 1870s up until World War I -- and had the war not addicted an entire generation of young men to cigarettes, public sentiment would likely have moved against tobacco far sooner than it actually did.

Click to expand...

Those "Legitimate Businessmen" really pulled out all of the stops during the Great War.

[video=youtube;Cshwl0rneMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cshwl0rneMI&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

One of my fav Great War pics! "Mutt" hauling smokes to the doughboys at the front!



Also real lots of accounts of the fellas packing their bacon tins full of tobacco before shipping out! They were generally issued two such tins.

There's nothing in the world I'm more absolute about than my views on drugs, after seeing what they've done to people I care about. I doubt there's anyone more hard-line on that subject than I am.

As for what happened with drinking under Prohibition, it's an absolute fact that nationally, alcohol consumption was dramatically lower all thru the Era compared to what it was before Prohibition, and in fact didn't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970's. Whatever went on in the metropolises, New York City wasn't ever representative of America as a whole.

Fading Fast said:

I'm not saying he is right, but I am currently reading "Supreme City" by Donald Miller and he says that drinking in NYC increased under prohibition versus before. Making it illegal made it more attractive. Again - his argument.

Click to expand...

Well, of course actual figures for alcohol consumption after the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment are not known, for Bootleg was not taxed, but the quantities consumed can be, I think estimad from the the effects of alcohol. Deaths from acute alcoholism actually fell in th City:

"Deaths from Alcoholism. In New York City, from 1900 through 1909, there was an average of 526 deaths annually attributable to alcoholism. From 1910 through 1917, the average number was 619. It plummeted to 183 for the years 1918 through 1922. Thereafter, the figure rose, averaging a new high of 639 for the years 1923 through 1927 (Rice, ed., 1930: 122).

Total deaths from alcoholism in the United States show a comparable trend, with the gradual increase resuming somewhat earlier, about 1922 (Brown, 1932: 61, 77; Feldman, 1927: 397; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1924: 55).

Year Deaths from all causes rate per 100,000 Deaths from alcoholism rate per 100,000
1910 1,496.1 5.4
1911 1,418.1 4.9
1912 1,388.8 5.3
1913 1,409.6 5.9
1914 1,364.6 4.9
1915 1,355.0 4.4
1916 1,404.3 5.8
1917 1,425.5 5.2
1918 1,809.1 2.7
1919 1,287.4 1.6
1920 1,306.0 1.0
1921 1,163.9 1.8
1922 1,181.7 2.6
1923 1,230.1 3.2
1924 1,183.5 3.2
1925 1,182.3 3.6
1926 1,222.7 3.9
1927 1,141.9 4.0
1928 1,204.1 4.0
1929 1,192.3 3.7
The highest death rates from alcoholism occurred during the decade prior to Prohibition as did the highest death rates from cirrhosis of the liver. These statistics should be qualified by the observations of Dr. Charles Morris, Chief Medical Examiner for New York City: "In making out death certificates (which are basic to Census Reports) private or family physicians commonly avoid entry of alcoholism as a cause of death whenever possible. This practice was more prevalent under the National Dry Law than it was in preprohibition time" (Tillitt, 1932: 114-115)."

Alcohol consumption increased in some social groups, particularly among Upper-Middle-Class women, but overall there were not a sufficient number of outlets to provide for consumption at the pre-Volstead levels.

Please everyone, I never meant to start an argument over personal liberty. I had written a lengthy counter point on the side of libertarianism, but remembered that this is a thread on things that weren't so great in the golden age... on a forum which is supposed to be a happy place. Normally the lounge is a nice place, but this is degenerating and some people are becoming rather cruel. Can we please all shake hands and get back to what we love: the golden age?

Another thing that wasn't so great in the golden age were total loss oil systems. While simple, it must of been rather inconvenient to have to keep filling up the engine with oil lest the engine seize.

The past couple of pages seem civil to me, VL. Whatever cruelty you've detected has escaped my notice.

Fading Fast presented his point of view in a civil manner, and the responses, while pointed in a case or two, haven't been belittling or insulting. I don't see anyone here calling names or saying "I'm right, you're wrong."

Too many people I've known are no longer with us. Heroin overdose will do that. And too many contracted HIV and Hep C.

I'm receptive to the argument that the drug's illegality may indeed be contributing to some of the damage associated with it, but I'm convinced that its outright legality would result in many more junkies. And, I suspect, more fatalities, if not directly, then indirectly. And junkies tend to make lousy workers.

But I'm only so righteous. Everyone who contributes to the health insurance coverage I have through my wife's employment is paying for the poor decisions I made earlier in my life. I'm one of those people who costs the insurer a helluva lot more than our small piece of the group's premium payments. So yeah, I, too, depended on people being more responsible than I've been myself.

Oh, and heroin was very much around during the "Golden Era." In light of that, I suppose the tangent we've gone down may still be considered consistent with the overall theme of this thread.

For a different slant on the liquor question read Booze by James Gray. He was a boy when Prohibition came in and experienced the effects of alcoholism, and prohibition, in his own family. Years later he researched and wrote a factual history of the prohibition experiment in Western Canada that refutes a lot of popular myths. It is the only really honest, factual account of the era I have ever seen,

As for total loss oil systems, they worked off an oil tank. On my old 1930s Harley Davidson, oil was pumped to the engine bearings, flew around and lubricated the pistons, valves, cams, etc and finally dripped out of the engine onto the chain. Only a few drops per mile.

An old time motorcycle mechanic told me when properly set up, you should get a slight puff of blue smoke out the tailpipe when you opened the throttle suddenly, other than that, no noticeable smoke.

When driving hard, at wide open throttle, you could give the engine an extra half pump of oil every couple of miles.

To change oil you would pull over on a sandy shoulder, open a valve on the crankcase which would drain out about half a cup of oil, then replenish the crankcase with 2 pumps from the hand pump on the gas tank.

Some early cars and motorcycles had total loss systems, sealed systems burned and dripped so much oil there wasn't much difference in oil consumption but at least with total loss you always had clean oil going to the bearings.

I've stated my libertarian views on the drinking/drugs issue here before and don't feel the need to re-hash it as a whole. But I will say this: I think it is the height of disrespect to our young adults to tell them that at age eighteen (seventeen in some cases) they can be handed a gun, delivered into harm's way, and charged with the task of defending our National interests, with their life if necessary, yet at the same time are told they are not responsible enough to make the choice to drink or smoke until they are 21.

I for one feel there should be a single nationally-recognized age of majority that applies to everything.

As an example of the stupidity: In my state (Alabama) a person can legally star in an "adult" film at age 18, but cannot go into a video store and rent or purchase that same film until they are 21. Now, how much sense does that make?

tonyb said:

Should I ever find myself in need of an organ transplant, I'll relocate to a state where riding motorcycles without helmets is legal.

Click to expand...

What do Emergency Room doctors call motorcyclists? Organ donors.

LizzieMaine said:

...As for what happened with drinking under Prohibition, it's an absolute fact that nationally, alcohol consumption was dramatically lower all thru the Era compared to what it was before Prohibition, and in fact didn't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970's. Whatever went on in the metropolises, New York City wasn't ever representative of America as a whole.

Click to expand...

Los Angeles was another metropolis in which Prohibition was actually more profitable for the speakeasies. To this day there are 11 miles of service tunnels under the streets of downtown Los Angeles that were used during Prohibition to transport alcohol and allow patrons to move from one speakeasy to the next without attracting unwanted attention, all of which was supervised and run by the Mayor's office.

Stanley Doble said:

As for total loss oil systems, they worked off an oil tank. On my old 1930s Harley Davidson, oil was pumped to the engine bearings, flew around and lubricated the pistons, valves, cams, etc and finally dripped out of the engine onto the chain. Only a few drops per mile.

An old time motorcycle mechanic told me when properly set up, you should get a slight puff of blue smoke out the tailpipe when you opened the throttle suddenly, other than that, no noticeable smoke.

When driving hard, at wide open throttle, you could give the engine an extra half pump of oil every couple of miles.

To change oil you would pull over on a sandy shoulder, open a valve on the crankcase which would drain out about half a cup of oil, then replenish the crankcase with 2 pumps from the hand pump on the gas tank.

Some early cars and motorcycles had total loss systems, sealed systems burned and dripped so much oil there wasn't much difference in oil consumption but at least with total loss you always had clean oil going to the bearings.

Click to expand...

Yes, people have a lot of misconceptions with the term total loss! The best thing about the old motorcycles is, when you drain the oil and pump in 2 to 2 1/2 strokes, you are doing a total oil change after every ride, so the engine should last forever!

I, too, think this has been a civil and reasonably tied to the Golden Era discussion. To that last point, my father saw first hand is that drug use was going on in the Golden Era. His impression is that it was less prevalent in the middle class in his youth than after the 1960s (he died in 1990), but drugs were quite prevalent in the upper and lower classes even in his youth (the GE).

That said, he also said it was not discussed openly the way it was after the 1960s. So thinking about the thread, (1) if use was less prevalent in the middle classes in the GE, that is good, (2) it will always be available to the wealthy as money finds what it wants and (3) unfortunately, in the poorer communities (especially in wealthier societies) drug use is a cause and a result of many factors, but they always seem in the mix - in the GE and today.

Hence, the two differences seem to be, maybe, less use in the middle class and less open discussion of drug use overall.

I admit / acknowledge that all the above is only my informal impressions from anecdotes from my Dad and my general interest in reading about the period - I am not an expert nor holding myself out as one.

My caveat around the shop has always been "I dunno nuthin', and I can prove it!"