For most of us, Prohibition is little more than a history lesson*, but for American drinkers unfortunate enough to live in any of this country's dry counties--which, not surprisingly, are most densely located in the shittiest, most backwoods southern states; More than half of Mississippi's counties are dry, for example--this should-be relic of a concept remains a daily impediment in the quest for strong drink.
Whatever their reasons for it, and no matter the local laws regarding it, a certain percentage of people anywhere, at any given time, want to be drinking**. And why not? Booze is perfect for life's never-ending cycle of highs, lows, and the boring shit between highs and lows. This being the case (as observed by many, many generations of humans), it only makes sense that for the majority of us alcohol is readily accessible.
But, if the drinking mood strikes and you find yourself buried deep inside dry territory (probably because it's where your parents met, married, fucked, and you were born; all the more reason to drink I say), are you just going to say to yourself, "Well, in 1917 this county banned the manufacture, sale, and consumption of any beer, wine, distilled spirits or alcohol of any kind, a decision upheld by this county's voters in 1947 and 1992, so despite the fact that I want to get shitfaced drunk, which anyone my age can rightfully do in the vast majority of this country that I live in, I think I should probably just not?"
An exaggerated statement, yes, but the answer is no and the reason is simple. Those voters and what they thought a hundred years ago, or fifty, or ten or even if the vote had occurred the day before don't mean a thing to the individual looking for a nip to get him through the day (or really any other type of drinker), nor should they.
This is where--just like in the Prohibition era--the moonshiners come in. I applaud these brave souls in their effort to make a buck by taking advantage of an artificially created market, simultaneously providing people with a desirable product and saying fuck you to local authorities, the ATF and DEA. One of history's great moonshiners, Martin "Popcorn" Sutton, didn't run liquor during prohibition but rather was born in 1946 (13 years after the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th) and began his bootlegging career in the late 60s and early 70s.
Raised in Cocke County, Tennessee, Popcorn Sutton learned the family trade of moonshining from his father. Being of Scots-Irish descent, and having had in their family a long history of producing liquor, both Sutton and his father considered the craft a legitimate piece of their heritage and, as such, he was particularly unapologetic even in the face of his many run-ins with police and federal agents.
Popcorn even went so far as to have appeared in several documentaries about moonshining, as well as having written an unabashed autobiography, Me and My Likker. Sadly though, I have no choice but to believe that it was this high profile that in 2009 incited a reactionary judge to think that he could really "send a message" by sentencing Mr. Sutton to 18 months in federal prison on charges of brewing spirits and possessing a firearm (which was only illegal because of Popcorn's status as a felon for crimes related to moonshining). The sentence came despite the fact that these types of cases are rarely anymore tried at the federal level, and was especially harsh considering the 62-year-old Sutton's being diagnosed with cancer leading up to the trial.
Rather than serve his sentence or die in prison, Marvin Sutton, in the final act of a lifetime of defiance, committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning in March 2009. I don't know about you, but I like that the guy went out on his own terms. It's kind of like a final "fuck you" to the agents and judges who might have seen some satisfaction from his physical imprisonment.
In closing I'd like to, on Popcorn's behalf, renew that fuck you to those same judges and agents, and for my part extend that very same fuck you to anyone who would, for whatever personal reason they might have, attempt to deny others the ability to use substances to alter their body's chemistry while hurting no one else.
Jeff Neuman
*Inferred lesson: broad-based, zero-tolerance substance control policies forced on a people at large by vocal, politically-backed minorities (in this case, asshole teetotalers who thought they knew what other people should be putting in their body) do not work, instead having the negative effect of driving the behavior underground and creating black markets, thereby assuring eternal conflict.
**The same can be said of smoking weed or shooting heroin, of course, and though I thoroughly believe in any adult individual's right to be able to do that so long as they are not endangering anyone else, for the sake of space and time I'm sticking to the alcohol argument here.
