At Any Cost

One of the ideas floating around in my head lately has been the idea of “…at any cost” and how we have, collectively, largely forgotten the lessons of our own history – specifically, all that lead to the implementation of the 18^th Amendment and the Volstead Act.

Efforts to curb the over-enthusiastic consumption of alcohol began early as 1826 with the American Temperance Society and other progressive moments seeking to rectify the social and economic problems of the times. By the beginning of the 20^th century, various states had enacted laws restricting the production and distribution of alcohol with the overall goal to “elevate morality through national legislation.”

With the ratification of the 18^th Amendment on January 16, 1919 and the National Prohibition Enforcement Act – or Volstead Act – on October 28, 1919, the specific language of these laws left little leeway for those who sought to exploit any such weaknesses. The unpopularity of Prohibition with many Americans became painfully and quickly obvious:

Temperance advocates, having badly underestimated the extent of popular resistance to Prohibition would eventually discover that Prohibition created more social and political problems than it solved.

As favor continued to fail, the difficulties in finding local and federal resources required for enforcement of the Volstead Act strained the credibility and authority of the state and national government. Most importantly, however, was the growing influence and ability for organized crime to provide that which was desired and actively sought out by many Americans. By the time the 21^st Amendment was ratified in 1933, the end of Prohibition proved to be an example of a costly mistake born from good intentions. By 1930, enforcement of Prohibition had reached $13.4 million from $6.3 million nine years earlier, not including the annual loss of over $483 million in taxes collected on liquors and spirits. Interestingly, the creation of the income tax in 1914 set the conditions for the eventual acceptance of the loss of revenue in alcohol taxes and were instrumental in the repeal of Prohibition as the Depression reduced tax revenues.

The “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018” follows a similar theme thus far: legislation via emotion with little attention given to the potential outcomes in enforcement, economic costs, and political stability of the nation. With the purpose “to regulate the importation, manufacture, possession, sale or transfer of assault weapons, and for other purposes,” it encompasses a wider selection of firearm types than indicated in the title and, like the “morality elevating” legislation of nearly a century ago, is comprehensively worded.

Enforcement of such a ban would be an interesting spectacle to behold for the U.S. Department of Justice. Generating the infrastructure and personnel will tax the resources already stretched thin when it comes to the enforcement of current firearms laws already in place. Speculating, I would come to the conclusion that the prosecution for violations under this proposed ban would necessitate the diversions of funding from programs already placed in jeopardy from the ongoing campaigns against terror, unresolved health care issues, Social Security, and educational programs.

The economic costs of dismantling the firearms and associated industries are significant. In 2016, as much as $51.3 billion was generated by these industries with over $7.4 billion in business and excise taxes collected by the government. Accompanying this revenue is the political reality of maintaining voters’ employment in many states and the possible backlash when, once again, the desires are left unfulfilled by legal means.

What are the possible results of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 becoming ratified?

There are entirely too many possibilities, none of which are ideal and the topic of a later post. However, at some point, there will be a price to pay. The only question, then, would be whether it will be “at any cost” in terms of yielding to emotion or investing in prudence? I can only hope that the lesson of the 18^th Amendment and the Volstead Act are taken into consideration as we work towards a better solution.