He has a fascinating comment on "distaff drinking." A distaff is a tool used in spinning yarn, a rod which holds the unspun yarn and keeps it from tangling. Used here, it is metonymous for female. Wiktionary offers this definition: "anything traditionally done or considered of importance to women only; women considered as a group."
Here is what Felten has to say about distaff drinking before and after Prohibition:
Since speakeasies might be raided, most Americans did their drinking at home. Not only did this turn the cocktail party into an American institution, but it encouraged distaff drinking. Before Prohibition, reputable women didn't step into saloons. But once cocktails migrated to hearth and home, women joined in the fun. And for some women, a willingness to entertain cocktails coincided with a willingness to entertain other illicit pleasures. Lois Long -- who wrote the "Lipstick" column on nightlife for the New Yorker -- described her speakeasy days bluntly: "You never knew what you were drinking or who you'd wake up with."Recognizing that this is only a snapshot of the period, what might this phenomenon have to say about the attempt to legislate morality? Does it place limits on legislation or just illustrate the need for better tactics? Should teetotallers try again? Or should we go the opposite direction and legalize marijuana?
EDIT: Here's one editorial encouraging the end of drug prohibition in the same way we ended alcohol prohibition. Good points are made, but I think he glosses over many of the difficulties. Here's a second editorial supporting the current drug policies of the United States, as effective and necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment