Conservative columnist George Will ended a column last week with this: “In the fight between law and appetite, bet on appetite. And: Americans then were, and let us hope still are, magnificently ungovernable by elected nuisances.”

What is interesting about those lines is that Mr. Will’s column was on the failure of the first era of prohibition, the prohibition on alcohol. While he never drew a direct parallel with the current prohibition on some other drugs, everyone knows those parallels exist.

The column, “Another round of Prohibition, Anyone?” was in the July 8 issue of the Washington Post, It is a review of Daniel Okrent's "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition."

The book traces the history alcohol in the United States and the thoughts leading to both the enactment and, later, the repeal of the 18th Amendment.

Mr. Will calls the book “a timely tutorial on the law of unintended consequences.”

When John Winthrop came to Massachusetts in 1630, the ship also carried 10,000 gallons of wine and three times more beer than water. Virtually all of the founding fathers were beer and wine drinkers.

But some people didn’t like anyone drinking alcohol. Prohibitionists said it led to child and wife abuse and that putting an end to demon rum would bring about a more heavenly state of affairs. So prohibition was passed and “all hell broke loose,” as Mr. Will so eloquently said.

Bootlegging and rum running became a means to make good money. Just ask Joe Kennedy. It also gave rise to the likes of Al Capone and his crowd, two-bit thugs who rose to enormous power satisfying the natural human urge to become intoxicated. And they did so with violence and cruelty.

Beer and wine predate the Bible. So does the use of marijuana and other plant-based intoxicants.

The violence surrounding the first era of prohibition, along with the abject failure of the law to keep people sober led to the eventual repeal of the law.

Today’s drug warriors, while sipping the Scotch or martinis, or downing their six-packs of beer refuse to acknowledge those lessons. They claim that drugs today are so strong that legalization, even decriminalization, will lead to a huge jump in addiction. Bunk!

Members of LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, have an interesting statistic.

Before 1914 there were no laws against drug use. At the time, 1.3 percent of the population was addicted to drugs. The Harrison Narcotics Act was passed in 1914. In the 30s, 40s and 50s, more laws were added making marijuana use a federal offense. At the time, 1.3 percent of the population was addicted. When President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs, 1.3 percent of the population was addicted. When Nancy Reagan told kids to “Just say no,” 1.3 percent of the population was addicted. Today, 1.3 percent of the population is addicted to drugs. Despite laws and governmental pleas, the percentage has remained the same.

The level of gun violence dropped when alcohol prohibition was repealed. The same will happen when the federal government drops the insane war on some drugs.

Yes, everyone knows the parallels exist between both eras of prohibition, but most legislators are too arrogant to admit the mistake and, so, refuse to correct the situation.

The war on some drugs has cost at least $1 trillion and has given the United States the highest per capita incarceration rate in world.

Worse yet, there is no constitutional authority for the current era of prohibition. Legislators at least had enough respect for the Constitution to pass an amendment authorizing the prohibition of alcohol. Today’s legislators don’t have enough respect for the Constitution to do likewise.

We don’t advocate anyone being “ungovernable by elected nuisances,” but we do advocate the end of governmental stupidity. End this era of prohibition.