W.H.O. Recommends Bringing Back Alcohol Prohibition During Coronavirus Crisis
The World Health Organization (WHO) is recommending that governments institute alcohol prohibition in order to promote public health during the coronavirus crisis.
The bureaucrats at the WHO believe that restricting access to alcohol will help boost people’s immune systems and help them ward off the Chinese virus.
“Fear and misinformation have generated a dangerous myth that consuming high-strength alcohol can kill the COVID-19 virus. It does not. Consuming any alcohol poses health risks, but consuming high-strength ethyl alcohol (ethanol), particularly if it has been adulterated with methanol, can result in severe health consequences, including death,” WHO wrote in their press release in favor of prohibition.
“Alcohol consumption is associated with a range of communicable and noncommunicable diseases and mental health disorders, which can make a person more vulnerable to COVID-19. In particular, alcohol compromises the body’s immune system and increases the risk of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, people should minimize their alcohol consumption at any time, and particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic,” they added.
In true authoritarian fashion, they want governments to force individuals not to consume alcohol, and they are not concerned about the negative effects that prohibition would cause among the public.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, we should really ask ourselves what risks we are taking in leaving people under lockdown in their homes with a substance that is harmful both in terms of their health and the effects of their behaviour on others, including violence,” said Carina Ferreira-Borges, who manages the Alcohol and Illicit Drugs Program for the European chapter of WHO.
WHO is advocating for one of the worst policy experiments in human history. The negative impacts of alcohol prohibition are well-known:
Prohibition was billed, they point out, as the “one-size-fits-all” cure for the ills of American society.
“Prohibition was really sold as not just that it would solve the problem of alcoholism, it would solve poverty. It would solve child labor, it would solve prostitution, it would solve crime, it would get rid of slums,” said Novick.
With so many problems to address, it’s not surprising that the Dry coalition was dizzyingly diverse.
Suffragettes who originally wanted the vote so they could outlaw demon liquor … small town Protestants threatened by the wave of Catholic immigrants and their city saloons … the Ku Klux Klan, who exploited the pernicious stereotype of the dangerous black man with a bottle … even Broadway producers who wanted patrons out of bars (and in their theaters).
It was, Rocca noted, the epitome of strange bedfellows.
Okrent agreed: “If you can imagine a very large bed that accommodates, you know, some guy wearing a KKK uniform, somebody from the Industrial Workers of the World, Jane Addams, and J.J. Shubert of the theater chain, that’s a very strange set of bedfellows.”
“Is it true that the KKK supported women’s suffrage?” asked Rocca.
“The KKK supported it because they knew that women would support Prohibition,” Okrent said…
The Drys had the Wets over a barrel, and the 18th Amendment went into effect at midnight on January 17, 1920.
And how soon did it become clear that it was not going to work?
“One could say it didn’t work by around 2:00 a.m. on January 17th,” Okrent laughed. “I think that the general feeling was in the first year that it could work and that it was working. But as people found ways to exploit the loopholes, and criminality expanded, as the saloons were able to turn themselves into speakeasies and all you needed to do was bribe a local cop or judge, these things began to snowball as early as 1921, 1922.”
Legitimate enterprises were corrupted and respect for the law corroded. Drug stores – allowed to dispense medicinal alcohol – became virtual liquor stores.
The Walgreen’s chain went from 20 to 525.
But the ultimate buzzkill?
“It really is the Depression,’ said Novick, “this incredible crisis that, I think, made America kind of take another look and say, ‘Wait, what are our priorities? Is this really that important? We’re spending all this money to enforce a law that nobody wants?'”
The more WHO fails, the more they support policies that only exacerbate their failure. It may be best for the globalist institution to be de-funded and disbanded for good.