THE PRESS
National Public Radio
Michael Wood Interviewed by NPR's Scott Simon
"Not your grandfather's prohibition party"
The media covers the two major party candidates more or less daily. But do we cover third-party and independent candidates mostly just to ask, “From which major party nominee will they take the most votes?” Do we cover their ideas and proposals, so voters can make informed choices?
And would those candidates poll better if they were covered more completely? Those questions prompted me to contact Michael Wood, the 2024 presidential nominee of the Prohibition Party of the United States.
“The party’s name is a bit of a misnomer,” he told me. “But it’s steeped in history.” The Prohibition Party was founded in 1869, and still warns about the dangers of alcohol. “But many of our current platform planks are far more libertarian than the ‘bible-thumping’ image that many people have,” explains Mr. Wood. Their party platform also supports making abortion a personal choice, restrictions on assault weapons, term limits for members of congress, and access to affordable health care for every citizen. “We are not your grandfather’s Prohibition Party,” Michael Wood emphasized. He is a retired tech executive, and volunteers at a local California food bank.
“The Prohibition Party today is not looking to bring back national prohibition, nor take away anyone's beer,” he said. “But we would certainly prefer that people make healthier choices. Alcohol abuse killed 178,000 Americans in the most recent annual data provided by the CDC. These are preventable deaths.”
He said his party believes the federal government should ban alcohol advertising, as they did with tobacco, increase taxes on alcohol to fund recovery programs, and pass stricter laws against driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Their party is also outspoken on cigarette smoking. “Although much progress has been made,” Michael Wood pointed out, “smoking is still the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S., killing 480,000 Americans annually. Tobacco advertisers are now using social media and ‘influencers’ to promote their products, including vaping. We need to aggressively push back on the tobacco industry's grooming of our youth to become the next generation of users.”
I raised the obvious question. Does Michael Wood think he really has any chance to be elected president?
“Realistically, of course not,” he told me. “We simply do not currently have sufficient funding to gain nationwide ballot access. We expect to appear on the official printed ballots in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and gain write-in access in some others.”
And when I asked, “Then why run?” Michael Wood’s reply reminded me that even losing campaigns can enrich a democracy. “Third parties can be a catalyst for change,” he told us. “Did you know that 100 years ago, in the election of 1924, the Prohibition Party ran the first national ticket to include a female candidate for Vice President? Third parties can help open doors that the traditional two-party system refuses to even see.”
The media covers the two major party candidates more or less daily. But do we cover third-party and independent candidates mostly just to ask, “From which major party nominee will they take the most votes?” Do we cover their ideas and proposals, so voters can make informed choices?
And would those candidates poll better if they were covered more completely? Those questions prompted me to contact Michael Wood, the 2024 presidential nominee of the Prohibition Party of the United States.
“The party’s name is a bit of a misnomer,” he told me. “But it’s steeped in history.” The Prohibition Party was founded in 1869, and still warns about the dangers of alcohol. “But many of our current platform planks are far more libertarian than the ‘bible-thumping’ image that many people have,” explains Mr. Wood. Their party platform also supports making abortion a personal choice, restrictions on assault weapons, term limits for members of congress, and access to affordable health care for every citizen. “We are not your grandfather’s Prohibition Party,” Michael Wood emphasized. He is a retired tech executive, and volunteers at a local California food bank.
“The Prohibition Party today is not looking to bring back national prohibition, nor take away anyone's beer,” he said. “But we would certainly prefer that people make healthier choices. Alcohol abuse killed 178,000 Americans in the most recent annual data provided by the CDC. These are preventable deaths.”
He said his party believes the federal government should ban alcohol advertising, as they did with tobacco, increase taxes on alcohol to fund recovery programs, and pass stricter laws against driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Their party is also outspoken on cigarette smoking. “Although much progress has been made,” Michael Wood pointed out, “smoking is still the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S., killing 480,000 Americans annually. Tobacco advertisers are now using social media and ‘influencers’ to promote their products, including vaping. We need to aggressively push back on the tobacco industry's grooming of our youth to become the next generation of users.”
I raised the obvious question. Does Michael Wood think he really has any chance to be elected president?
“Realistically, of course not,” he told me. “We simply do not currently have sufficient funding to gain nationwide ballot access. We expect to appear on the official printed ballots in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and gain write-in access in some others.”
And when I asked, “Then why run?” Michael Wood’s reply reminded me that even losing campaigns can enrich a democracy. “Third parties can be a catalyst for change,” he told us. “Did you know that 100 years ago, in the election of 1924, the Prohibition Party ran the first national ticket to include a female candidate for Vice President? Third parties can help open doors that the traditional two-party system refuses to even see.”
The American Conservative
The Other America First Party
Prohibition Party keeps up its 150-year fight for an older, more communal national vision.
Jude Russo
October 14, 2024
“Since one o’clock this morning Prohibition has been a fugitive in the remote quagmires of the Bible Belt,” wrote H.L. Mencken in June 1932 for Baltimore’s Evening Sun. In a matter of hours, the Democratic National Convention had torn from the party platform the compromise plank on prohibition (the “damp”) and replaced it with the “wet wet” position: full and immediate repeal of the 18th Amendment and the associated enforcement measures. This proved to be another nail in the coffin for the embattled Hoover-led Republicans, who had maintained a damp position, not expecting to be outflanked by the Southerner-heavy Democrats.
The popular image of the prohibitionist is embodied in the Kentucky-born temperance leader Carrie Nation, who described her armed raids on illegal liquor-dealers with a glorious Americanism, “hatchetations.” (You may infer Nation’s signature weapon of choice.) Nation was white, evangelical, and, at the perihelion of her influence, elderly—a perfect fanatic of uplift that Mencken would have struggled to invent. The prohibitionists were, in the popular memory, religious, nosy, and disagreeable, waging a one-sided war on fun; conveniently forgotten is the undeniable mass social dysfunction arising from the abuse of alcohol that stirred them up in the first place.
For most Americans, the prohibition story ends with repeal—Roosevelt won, the Amendment was appealed, and These States settled down for the Depression and the Second World War fortified with their preferred chemical aid. Lost in the shuffle: the oldest third party in America, the Prohibition Party (mascot: the camel), which had won and then lost its signature issue without ever elbowing its way into power in Washington.
Few Americans realize the Prohibition Party is still a going concern; the Prohibitionists have fielded a presidential candidate every year since 1872, and they are not about to break the streak now. The party is small and far from the levers of power, and is more modest in its aims than at the time of the movement’s zenith; yet in its current form it still preserves an older idiom of politics, crystallizing certain tensions that have bedeviled the American system since the beginning.
Michael Wood, a retired Californian tech CEO who is the party’s presidential nominee, is under no illusions about the party’s electoral prospects. “It is mathematically impossible for the Prohibition Party to win this election. Nonetheless, third parties play a critical role in American politics—raising important issues that the two major parties refuse to address, or in some cases refuse to even see,” he wrote in an email interview with The American Conservative.
This year has, in some respects, been more difficult than usual. Ballot access has received an unusual amount of attention in the 2024 cycle; tight and often ambiguous polling has put the fear of spoiler candidates into the major parties, so their legal apparatus—particularly that of the Democrats—has been working overtime to keep the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and the Prohibition Party off state slates.
“Indeed, this is a sore spot. We entered the campaign with sufficient funds and plans to get on the ballot in five states. Certainly not enough to win the Electoral College, but a platform to help us spread our message of a more healthy America,” wrote Wood. “Unfortunately, the rules allowing third parties to access the ballot, and to give Americians a real democratic choice, are determined by the duopoly. Those who are already in power have zero motivation to give voters additional choice, and the barriers to ballot entry become more difficult and complex with each passing election. As it stands, we have ballot access in our primary-focus state of Arkansas and in the preference election in Guam.”
Zach Kusnir, the national chairman of the Prohibition Party, seems unlikely to commit any hatchetations. A soft-spoken Californian, Kusnir was a USC defensive tackle and now lives in New York, where he works in finance. He also emphasized the theoretical and pragmatic importance of ballot access in an interview with TAC.
“It’s very difficult and very expensive and very impractical for third parties to get on the ballot. Now, I understand you have to have some kind of rules in place so the ballots aren’t being absolutely flooded and having all these ridiculous parties that are people doing something for comedy,” Kusnir said. “But when you have a party like the Prohibition Party, which is so historically important and has been on every presidential ballot since 1872 or you know, you have something like the Green Party, which is well established, and they don't have as much funding as these big parties. Why should they have to be so financially well off, or be so constrained and have to limit where they can get on the ballot?”
Fundamental divisions between third parties make it difficult to act as a bloc on ballot-access campaigns. “We were approached by some other third parties, but due to differences in our basic platform stances we chose to go it alone in 2024,” wrote Wood.
Per Wood and Kusnir, the party has roughly 5,000 registered voters and 70 dues-paying members. Per Wood, they are also unlikely candidates to participate in evangelist-led hatchetations.
“The idea of states’ rights—of local people being able to decide what is best for their communities—drives the party base more than the religious aspect you mention,” wrote Wood. “In fact, in 2024 the party voted to adopt a change to the issue of abortion; recognizing that this is a very personal issue, we call for every woman to have the right to decide based on her own conscience. The religious aspect still remains a factor in some southern states, where conservative faiths strongly discourage alcohol abuse.”
The candidate emphasized the party’s change in tactics since the failure of the national prohibition regime of the 1920s. “In regards to our signature issue of alcohol, it is important to note that we are not looking to bring back national prohibition or to take away anyone’s beer—this is not your grandfather’s Prohibition Party!” wrote Wood. The party instead has three core policies: heavy restrictions on alcohol advertising, similar to those on tobacco products; an excise tax, the proceeds of which will go to ameliorating the dysfunctions arising from alcohol abuse; and a zero-tolerance law for consuming intoxicants and driving.
The last of these touches on part of Wood’s personal political journey. “Two personal events in my early adulthood raised my awareness of the dangers of alcohol,” he wrote. “A cousin who died of alcohol poisoning at a frat party and a close relative who suffered life-changing injuries in an alcohol-related traffic accident. The combination of these factors drew me to the Prohibition Party.”
Kusnir echoed Wood’s articulation of the alcohol planks of the party platform while explaining his own path to the Prohibitionists. “While as a party, we’re not looking to go back to the 1920s I think that a lot of people and a lot of communities who may be uninformed or vulnerable or susceptible to the negatives that can be attributed to alcohol,” he said. “I’m big on health as well, so it really tied into that. And I just thought, hey, you know, like, I think this is the right party for me to join.”
Outside the alcohol-related planks, the party’s platform has much in common with Trump-era conservatism: a strong defense of the Second Amendment; a non-interventionist foreign policy outlook; a call for infrastructure renewal; closing the border and remedying the gross abuses of asylum law. (And, as mentioned by Wood, the Prohibition Party has softened its position on abortion, much like the Trump-era GOP.)
“I’m always America First, and I think Americans should be prioritized with everything that our government does. And the Prohibition Party has that outlook,” said Kusnir.
“We’re very anti-war as a party,” he explained. “You know, as I said, we’re America First, and we understand that we have our our allies that may need assistance, but there’s a lot of things that need to be done internally, and we shouldn’t be letting Americans suffer and prioritize others in other countries who have their own governments to take care of them for what it may be.”
Caring for the American people and their land is a through-line for Kusnir. “Something new that I actually decided to add myself to our platform is: I’m a big proponent of regenerative farming as it ties in with my health beliefs,” he said. “Reducing and eliminating GMOs and meat and animal products are a big part of the diets of many Americans, and provide plenty of health benefits. But if we’re going to be farming meat, I do believe the animals need to be treated very ethically, and that some of the industrial farming practices can be refined.”
Absent electoral success, what can the Prohibition Party accomplish in 2024?
“The best catalyst for change is to let your voice be heard. In a state like Arkansas, where the Republican candidate has taken more than 60 percent of the vote in each of the last three elections, voters can go unheard. If you care about one or more of the issues that the Prohibition Party represents, a vote for us can be a vote for change,” wrote Wood. “Perhaps that change will not come in November, but when enough people choose a third party this election the major parties will begin to ask themselves why and start to address some of the issues we stand for. As a small start, RFK Jr. has begun to use one of the Prohibition Party taglines, ‘Make America Healthy Again’—that goes to show that enough small voices can and will be heard!”
“Even our campaign, at least in my view, is a form of spreading our message which ties back to the signature issue, where we want to be that shining light provide a source of support and education for these specific communities and individuals that might be hurting from the implications of alcohol,” said Kusnir. “So we’re really around trying to promote healthier, safer, cleaner and informed America, in addition to preserving our history.”
Promoting a substantive message for something, rather than against someone, gets to the heart of Kusnir’s original affinity for the party.
“When I was in college and was able to register as a voter, I did not feel that either the Democrat or Republican Parties quite resonated with me,” he said. “They each had, you know, policies and sentiments that I liked. Each had ones that I disliked. But I was really turned off by a lot of the mudslinging, because I turned 18 right around an election. And I was like, you know, I don’t want to join in on either side of this.”
Kusnir never wants the Prohibition Party to go down that road. “You go on TV a lot of times, you don’t see an advertisement for why your party’s great. You see an advertisement for why the other party’s bad. And I totally despise that,” he said. “So I had said, that’s never something that you’re going to see me doing. And I don’t want the party to go that route. I want us to focus on our main objective, where we want to preserve American history by keeping the party as the oldest active third party in the country, as well as being there as a resource for people who need it, and spreading our message on our signature issue.”
The Prohibition Party lives at the strange crossroads of American political theory, the point of convergence whence all paths radiate: What is the true meaning of “freedom”? Are you personally free if you are under chemical domination? Are you politically free if you are under partisan domination?
“We support individual freedoms, but, you know, my personal view: When it comes to alcohol and drugs, are you really free when you’re under the influence? You can’t operate machinery, you can’t drive a car, you can’t think clearly,” said Kusnir. “And I don’t think a lot of people view it that way, which I do. So, you know, my concern is that people are free and they’re healthy, and that, you know, communities are productive, safe and happy.”
Dry or wet, who could disagree with that?
Jude Russo is the managing editor of The American Conservative and a contributing editor of The New York Sun. He is a 2024–25 James Madison Fellow at Hillsdale College and was named one of the ISI Top 20 Under 30 for 2024.
This article appears in the November/December 2024 issue
Prohibition Party keeps up its 150-year fight for an older, more communal national vision.
Jude Russo
October 14, 2024
“Since one o’clock this morning Prohibition has been a fugitive in the remote quagmires of the Bible Belt,” wrote H.L. Mencken in June 1932 for Baltimore’s Evening Sun. In a matter of hours, the Democratic National Convention had torn from the party platform the compromise plank on prohibition (the “damp”) and replaced it with the “wet wet” position: full and immediate repeal of the 18th Amendment and the associated enforcement measures. This proved to be another nail in the coffin for the embattled Hoover-led Republicans, who had maintained a damp position, not expecting to be outflanked by the Southerner-heavy Democrats.
The popular image of the prohibitionist is embodied in the Kentucky-born temperance leader Carrie Nation, who described her armed raids on illegal liquor-dealers with a glorious Americanism, “hatchetations.” (You may infer Nation’s signature weapon of choice.) Nation was white, evangelical, and, at the perihelion of her influence, elderly—a perfect fanatic of uplift that Mencken would have struggled to invent. The prohibitionists were, in the popular memory, religious, nosy, and disagreeable, waging a one-sided war on fun; conveniently forgotten is the undeniable mass social dysfunction arising from the abuse of alcohol that stirred them up in the first place.
For most Americans, the prohibition story ends with repeal—Roosevelt won, the Amendment was appealed, and These States settled down for the Depression and the Second World War fortified with their preferred chemical aid. Lost in the shuffle: the oldest third party in America, the Prohibition Party (mascot: the camel), which had won and then lost its signature issue without ever elbowing its way into power in Washington.
Few Americans realize the Prohibition Party is still a going concern; the Prohibitionists have fielded a presidential candidate every year since 1872, and they are not about to break the streak now. The party is small and far from the levers of power, and is more modest in its aims than at the time of the movement’s zenith; yet in its current form it still preserves an older idiom of politics, crystallizing certain tensions that have bedeviled the American system since the beginning.
Michael Wood, a retired Californian tech CEO who is the party’s presidential nominee, is under no illusions about the party’s electoral prospects. “It is mathematically impossible for the Prohibition Party to win this election. Nonetheless, third parties play a critical role in American politics—raising important issues that the two major parties refuse to address, or in some cases refuse to even see,” he wrote in an email interview with The American Conservative.
This year has, in some respects, been more difficult than usual. Ballot access has received an unusual amount of attention in the 2024 cycle; tight and often ambiguous polling has put the fear of spoiler candidates into the major parties, so their legal apparatus—particularly that of the Democrats—has been working overtime to keep the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and the Prohibition Party off state slates.
“Indeed, this is a sore spot. We entered the campaign with sufficient funds and plans to get on the ballot in five states. Certainly not enough to win the Electoral College, but a platform to help us spread our message of a more healthy America,” wrote Wood. “Unfortunately, the rules allowing third parties to access the ballot, and to give Americians a real democratic choice, are determined by the duopoly. Those who are already in power have zero motivation to give voters additional choice, and the barriers to ballot entry become more difficult and complex with each passing election. As it stands, we have ballot access in our primary-focus state of Arkansas and in the preference election in Guam.”
Zach Kusnir, the national chairman of the Prohibition Party, seems unlikely to commit any hatchetations. A soft-spoken Californian, Kusnir was a USC defensive tackle and now lives in New York, where he works in finance. He also emphasized the theoretical and pragmatic importance of ballot access in an interview with TAC.
“It’s very difficult and very expensive and very impractical for third parties to get on the ballot. Now, I understand you have to have some kind of rules in place so the ballots aren’t being absolutely flooded and having all these ridiculous parties that are people doing something for comedy,” Kusnir said. “But when you have a party like the Prohibition Party, which is so historically important and has been on every presidential ballot since 1872 or you know, you have something like the Green Party, which is well established, and they don't have as much funding as these big parties. Why should they have to be so financially well off, or be so constrained and have to limit where they can get on the ballot?”
Fundamental divisions between third parties make it difficult to act as a bloc on ballot-access campaigns. “We were approached by some other third parties, but due to differences in our basic platform stances we chose to go it alone in 2024,” wrote Wood.
Per Wood and Kusnir, the party has roughly 5,000 registered voters and 70 dues-paying members. Per Wood, they are also unlikely candidates to participate in evangelist-led hatchetations.
“The idea of states’ rights—of local people being able to decide what is best for their communities—drives the party base more than the religious aspect you mention,” wrote Wood. “In fact, in 2024 the party voted to adopt a change to the issue of abortion; recognizing that this is a very personal issue, we call for every woman to have the right to decide based on her own conscience. The religious aspect still remains a factor in some southern states, where conservative faiths strongly discourage alcohol abuse.”
The candidate emphasized the party’s change in tactics since the failure of the national prohibition regime of the 1920s. “In regards to our signature issue of alcohol, it is important to note that we are not looking to bring back national prohibition or to take away anyone’s beer—this is not your grandfather’s Prohibition Party!” wrote Wood. The party instead has three core policies: heavy restrictions on alcohol advertising, similar to those on tobacco products; an excise tax, the proceeds of which will go to ameliorating the dysfunctions arising from alcohol abuse; and a zero-tolerance law for consuming intoxicants and driving.
The last of these touches on part of Wood’s personal political journey. “Two personal events in my early adulthood raised my awareness of the dangers of alcohol,” he wrote. “A cousin who died of alcohol poisoning at a frat party and a close relative who suffered life-changing injuries in an alcohol-related traffic accident. The combination of these factors drew me to the Prohibition Party.”
Kusnir echoed Wood’s articulation of the alcohol planks of the party platform while explaining his own path to the Prohibitionists. “While as a party, we’re not looking to go back to the 1920s I think that a lot of people and a lot of communities who may be uninformed or vulnerable or susceptible to the negatives that can be attributed to alcohol,” he said. “I’m big on health as well, so it really tied into that. And I just thought, hey, you know, like, I think this is the right party for me to join.”
Outside the alcohol-related planks, the party’s platform has much in common with Trump-era conservatism: a strong defense of the Second Amendment; a non-interventionist foreign policy outlook; a call for infrastructure renewal; closing the border and remedying the gross abuses of asylum law. (And, as mentioned by Wood, the Prohibition Party has softened its position on abortion, much like the Trump-era GOP.)
“I’m always America First, and I think Americans should be prioritized with everything that our government does. And the Prohibition Party has that outlook,” said Kusnir.
“We’re very anti-war as a party,” he explained. “You know, as I said, we’re America First, and we understand that we have our our allies that may need assistance, but there’s a lot of things that need to be done internally, and we shouldn’t be letting Americans suffer and prioritize others in other countries who have their own governments to take care of them for what it may be.”
Caring for the American people and their land is a through-line for Kusnir. “Something new that I actually decided to add myself to our platform is: I’m a big proponent of regenerative farming as it ties in with my health beliefs,” he said. “Reducing and eliminating GMOs and meat and animal products are a big part of the diets of many Americans, and provide plenty of health benefits. But if we’re going to be farming meat, I do believe the animals need to be treated very ethically, and that some of the industrial farming practices can be refined.”
Absent electoral success, what can the Prohibition Party accomplish in 2024?
“The best catalyst for change is to let your voice be heard. In a state like Arkansas, where the Republican candidate has taken more than 60 percent of the vote in each of the last three elections, voters can go unheard. If you care about one or more of the issues that the Prohibition Party represents, a vote for us can be a vote for change,” wrote Wood. “Perhaps that change will not come in November, but when enough people choose a third party this election the major parties will begin to ask themselves why and start to address some of the issues we stand for. As a small start, RFK Jr. has begun to use one of the Prohibition Party taglines, ‘Make America Healthy Again’—that goes to show that enough small voices can and will be heard!”
“Even our campaign, at least in my view, is a form of spreading our message which ties back to the signature issue, where we want to be that shining light provide a source of support and education for these specific communities and individuals that might be hurting from the implications of alcohol,” said Kusnir. “So we’re really around trying to promote healthier, safer, cleaner and informed America, in addition to preserving our history.”
Promoting a substantive message for something, rather than against someone, gets to the heart of Kusnir’s original affinity for the party.
“When I was in college and was able to register as a voter, I did not feel that either the Democrat or Republican Parties quite resonated with me,” he said. “They each had, you know, policies and sentiments that I liked. Each had ones that I disliked. But I was really turned off by a lot of the mudslinging, because I turned 18 right around an election. And I was like, you know, I don’t want to join in on either side of this.”
Kusnir never wants the Prohibition Party to go down that road. “You go on TV a lot of times, you don’t see an advertisement for why your party’s great. You see an advertisement for why the other party’s bad. And I totally despise that,” he said. “So I had said, that’s never something that you’re going to see me doing. And I don’t want the party to go that route. I want us to focus on our main objective, where we want to preserve American history by keeping the party as the oldest active third party in the country, as well as being there as a resource for people who need it, and spreading our message on our signature issue.”
The Prohibition Party lives at the strange crossroads of American political theory, the point of convergence whence all paths radiate: What is the true meaning of “freedom”? Are you personally free if you are under chemical domination? Are you politically free if you are under partisan domination?
“We support individual freedoms, but, you know, my personal view: When it comes to alcohol and drugs, are you really free when you’re under the influence? You can’t operate machinery, you can’t drive a car, you can’t think clearly,” said Kusnir. “And I don’t think a lot of people view it that way, which I do. So, you know, my concern is that people are free and they’re healthy, and that, you know, communities are productive, safe and happy.”
Dry or wet, who could disagree with that?
Jude Russo is the managing editor of The American Conservative and a contributing editor of The New York Sun. He is a 2024–25 James Madison Fellow at Hillsdale College and was named one of the ISI Top 20 Under 30 for 2024.
This article appears in the November/December 2024 issue
Magnolia Reporter
Early tragedies led Wood to Prohibition Party
Steve Brawner, syndicated columnist published in 17 outlets in Arkansas
September 13, 2024
Why would Michael Wood, 66, a former head of an e-commerce company and married father of two, run for president as the nominee of the anti-alcohol Prohibition Party?
It’s partly because when he was a young man, one cousin drank himself to death at a college fraternity party, while another family member was injured by a drunk driver.
The Prohibition Party has existed since 1869, making it the nation’s oldest third party. It has fielded a presidential candidate in every election since 1872. It is best known historically for supporting a national ban on alcohol sales, a stance it does not take today.
Wood will be one of five non-major party presidential candidates on the Arkansas ballot, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has dropped out of the race. The others are Chase Oliver with the Libertarian Party, Peter Sonski with the American Solidarity Party, and Jill Stein with the Green Party. Wood’s vice presidential running mate is John Pietrowski.
Wood, a Silicon Valley native, was president and CEO of Virtual Chip Exchange, an industrial semiconductor trading company.
“After I retired, I found myself with time on my hands to pursue some issues that are close to my heart – one of them being politics, and the other being the issue of drugs and alcohol,” he said in an interview.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 178,000 Americans die from excessive drinking each year – two-thirds from chronic conditions and the rest from motor vehicle crashes, overdoses like Wood’s cousin, suicide, and other causes.
Wood explained what he would like to see happen. First, he would ban television advertising, as the United States did with tobacco. He also would ban social media advertising for both alcohol and cigarettes.
“If you take away the social media influencer aspect of saying, ‘Hey, look here. Alcohol is cool; start drinking,’ then perhaps that next generation will not be so inclined to drink themselves to death at a frat party,” he said.
Second, he would increase the excise tax on alcohol and use the proceeds for education and recovery programs.
Third, he would change drunk driving laws to make it illegal to drink, period, before getting behind the wheel. He says current laws defining “drunk” as a 0.08 blood alcohol content are too vague for the average person.
“So if we just said, look, let’s make drunk driving not a guessing game anymore, and say, ‘If you want a drink, that’s fine, but don’t put other people’s lives at risk by getting on the road,’” he said. “Zero-point-zero.”
Wood and the Prohibition Party take other stances on issues related to drugs and alcohol. He supports maintaining a strong southern border to prevent drugs from coming across. He opposes legalizing recreational marijuana and opposes the citizen-led proposed amendment that could appear on the Arkansas ballot this election cycle. However, he does see a place for medical marijuana as long as it’s prescribed by a doctor for a legitimate need, such as for a cancer patient. He would like to ban all pharmaceutical drug ads on TV and online, adding, “I’m not sick, and I don’t want to ask my doctor.”
The party and the candidate have stances on issues that aren’t related to drugs and alcohol. Wood favors preserving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He supports legalized abortion. He supports the Second Amendment but favors an assault weapons restriction, though not a complete ban. He supports requiring voters to present a photo identification.
The closest times the Prohibition Party has come to winning a presidential election were in 1888 and 1892. Both times its candidate won 2.2% of the popular vote, according to Britannica. Its presidential candidate in 2020, Phil Collins, received 2,812 votes in Arkansas in 2020, or 0.23% of the state’s total.
Wood acknowledges the party mathematically cannot win in 2024. He says third parties play a role by calling attention to important issues, like alcohol and drug abuse.
“You need sometimes the smaller independent parties just to shake the tree,” he said.
That’s Michael Wood, Prohibition Party presidential candidate and the third non-major party candidate I’ve interviewed. To read about Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver or American Solidarity Party candidate Peter Sonski, check out this news site’s online archives or go to independentarkansas.com.
Steve Brawner is a syndicated columnist published in 17 outlets in Arkansas.
Steve Brawner, syndicated columnist published in 17 outlets in Arkansas
September 13, 2024
Why would Michael Wood, 66, a former head of an e-commerce company and married father of two, run for president as the nominee of the anti-alcohol Prohibition Party?
It’s partly because when he was a young man, one cousin drank himself to death at a college fraternity party, while another family member was injured by a drunk driver.
The Prohibition Party has existed since 1869, making it the nation’s oldest third party. It has fielded a presidential candidate in every election since 1872. It is best known historically for supporting a national ban on alcohol sales, a stance it does not take today.
Wood will be one of five non-major party presidential candidates on the Arkansas ballot, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has dropped out of the race. The others are Chase Oliver with the Libertarian Party, Peter Sonski with the American Solidarity Party, and Jill Stein with the Green Party. Wood’s vice presidential running mate is John Pietrowski.
Wood, a Silicon Valley native, was president and CEO of Virtual Chip Exchange, an industrial semiconductor trading company.
“After I retired, I found myself with time on my hands to pursue some issues that are close to my heart – one of them being politics, and the other being the issue of drugs and alcohol,” he said in an interview.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 178,000 Americans die from excessive drinking each year – two-thirds from chronic conditions and the rest from motor vehicle crashes, overdoses like Wood’s cousin, suicide, and other causes.
Wood explained what he would like to see happen. First, he would ban television advertising, as the United States did with tobacco. He also would ban social media advertising for both alcohol and cigarettes.
“If you take away the social media influencer aspect of saying, ‘Hey, look here. Alcohol is cool; start drinking,’ then perhaps that next generation will not be so inclined to drink themselves to death at a frat party,” he said.
Second, he would increase the excise tax on alcohol and use the proceeds for education and recovery programs.
Third, he would change drunk driving laws to make it illegal to drink, period, before getting behind the wheel. He says current laws defining “drunk” as a 0.08 blood alcohol content are too vague for the average person.
“So if we just said, look, let’s make drunk driving not a guessing game anymore, and say, ‘If you want a drink, that’s fine, but don’t put other people’s lives at risk by getting on the road,’” he said. “Zero-point-zero.”
Wood and the Prohibition Party take other stances on issues related to drugs and alcohol. He supports maintaining a strong southern border to prevent drugs from coming across. He opposes legalizing recreational marijuana and opposes the citizen-led proposed amendment that could appear on the Arkansas ballot this election cycle. However, he does see a place for medical marijuana as long as it’s prescribed by a doctor for a legitimate need, such as for a cancer patient. He would like to ban all pharmaceutical drug ads on TV and online, adding, “I’m not sick, and I don’t want to ask my doctor.”
The party and the candidate have stances on issues that aren’t related to drugs and alcohol. Wood favors preserving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He supports legalized abortion. He supports the Second Amendment but favors an assault weapons restriction, though not a complete ban. He supports requiring voters to present a photo identification.
The closest times the Prohibition Party has come to winning a presidential election were in 1888 and 1892. Both times its candidate won 2.2% of the popular vote, according to Britannica. Its presidential candidate in 2020, Phil Collins, received 2,812 votes in Arkansas in 2020, or 0.23% of the state’s total.
Wood acknowledges the party mathematically cannot win in 2024. He says third parties play a role by calling attention to important issues, like alcohol and drug abuse.
“You need sometimes the smaller independent parties just to shake the tree,” he said.
That’s Michael Wood, Prohibition Party presidential candidate and the third non-major party candidate I’ve interviewed. To read about Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver or American Solidarity Party candidate Peter Sonski, check out this news site’s online archives or go to independentarkansas.com.
Steve Brawner is a syndicated columnist published in 17 outlets in Arkansas.
KLEK Radio
COMMUNITY CONVERSIONS, September 10, 2024
https://www.klekfm.org/show/community-conversations/
Ballotpedia News
Seven presidential tickets will appear on the ballot in Arkansas this November
Ellen Morrissey
October 18, 2024 at 4:36 PM
Arkansas’ Nov. 5, 2024, general election ballot will feature seven presidential candidates and their running mates. They are:
Kamala Harris / Tim Walz (D)
Donald Trump / J.D. Vance (R)
Peter Sonski / Lauren Onak (American Solidarity Party)
Jill Stein / Butch Ware (G)
Chase Oliver / Mike ter Maat (L)
Michael Wood / John G. Pietrowski (Prohibition Party)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. / Nicole Shanahan (Independent)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew from the presidential election in August, but will still appear on Arkansas’ ballot.
There are six fewer candidates on Arkansas’ presidential ballot compared to 2020. In 2020, Arkansas’ ballot had 13 candidates: Donald Trump (R), Joe Biden (D), Jo Jorgensen (L), Ye (Independent), and nine other independent and minor party candidates. Trump won Arkansas that year with 62.4% of the vote, followed by Biden with 34.8%, Jorgensen with 1.1%, and Ye with 0.3%. No other candidate received more than 0.2% of the vote.
As of Oct. 16, The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball all rated the state as solid Republican. The Republican presidential candidate won Arkansas in nine of the 11 elections between 1980 and 2020, while the Democratic presidential candidate won the state in 1992 and 1996.
Arkansas has six electoral votes, tied with five other states for the 30th most electoral votes. Arkansas neither gained nor lost electoral votes following the 2020 census.
Arkansas’ general election ballot will also feature two ballot measures, and elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, other Arkansas state executive offices, and the Arkansas State Senate, among others. Click here to use Ballotpedia’s Sample Ballot Lookup Tool to read more about the races on your ballot this November.
Ellen Morrissey
October 18, 2024 at 4:36 PM
Arkansas’ Nov. 5, 2024, general election ballot will feature seven presidential candidates and their running mates. They are:
Kamala Harris / Tim Walz (D)
Donald Trump / J.D. Vance (R)
Peter Sonski / Lauren Onak (American Solidarity Party)
Jill Stein / Butch Ware (G)
Chase Oliver / Mike ter Maat (L)
Michael Wood / John G. Pietrowski (Prohibition Party)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. / Nicole Shanahan (Independent)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew from the presidential election in August, but will still appear on Arkansas’ ballot.
There are six fewer candidates on Arkansas’ presidential ballot compared to 2020. In 2020, Arkansas’ ballot had 13 candidates: Donald Trump (R), Joe Biden (D), Jo Jorgensen (L), Ye (Independent), and nine other independent and minor party candidates. Trump won Arkansas that year with 62.4% of the vote, followed by Biden with 34.8%, Jorgensen with 1.1%, and Ye with 0.3%. No other candidate received more than 0.2% of the vote.
As of Oct. 16, The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball all rated the state as solid Republican. The Republican presidential candidate won Arkansas in nine of the 11 elections between 1980 and 2020, while the Democratic presidential candidate won the state in 1992 and 1996.
Arkansas has six electoral votes, tied with five other states for the 30th most electoral votes. Arkansas neither gained nor lost electoral votes following the 2020 census.
Arkansas’ general election ballot will also feature two ballot measures, and elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, other Arkansas state executive offices, and the Arkansas State Senate, among others. Click here to use Ballotpedia’s Sample Ballot Lookup Tool to read more about the races on your ballot this November.
The Santa Fe New Mexican
OPINION: Party of teetotalers takes aim at cigarettes
MILAN SIMONICH, THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN
Apr. 2—The Prohibition Party is in the midst of an unwanted dry spell that seems endless.
Many residents of modern America have never heard of the party of teetotalers, established in 1869. The reason is its greatest victories occurred more than a century ago.
Sidney Johnston Catts was the Prohibition Party's most successful candidate, winning election as governor of Florida. That was in 1916.
Catts called himself the "Cracker Messiah," and he spoke of burning books in libraries, as well as banning booze.
The Prohibition Party's influence on public policy peaked as Catts' four-year term wound to a close. The nationwide ban on alcohol began in 1920 and lasted until 1933.
Prohibition's end didn't kill the political party, but it's barely alive.
Not since 1992 has the Prohibition Party fielded a presidential candidate in New Mexico. Its nominee that year was Earl Dodge of Colorado.
He was the Prohibition Party's sociable national chairman and perennial candidate, running for president six times from 1984 to 2004. When Dodge wasn't campaigning for the nation's highest office, he ran for governor of Colorado, U.S. senator from Kansas and regent of the University of Colorado.
He never came close to winning, but he was a relentless advocate for a dry country. Dodge said America was better during Prohibition because alcoholism and jail populations decreased. He considered bootlegging gangsters less dangerous than alcohol being readily available in stores and restaurants.
Dodge, who died in 2007, wouldn't approve of today's pervasive cannabis stores any more than he did of neighborhood taverns. He might also be sullen over the Prohibition Party's head-hurting statements about drinking.
"The alcohol question is the Prohibition Party's unique, signature issue," the platform states. "We recognize that the use of alcohol and other recreational drugs is not only a personal but a broader social issue. The individual, and their right to drink if they wish, is not the cause — rather, the cause is the underlying organized liquor traffic and the subordination of uniformed Americans for profit."
Whatever that's supposed to mean is open to guesses. Another section of the party's position is less muddy.
Prohibitionists are calling for a ban on advertising of alcohol, similar to the restriction on cigarettes. Party members say cutting off advertising would reduce alcohol consumption.
But tobacco is the substance today's Prohibition Party seems intent on stamping out. "We oppose tobacco in all its forms, including vaping," its platform reads.
Californian Michael Wood, this year's presidential nominee of the Prohibition Party, wrote an essay applauding New Zealand for banning cigarette sales to people born after 2008. Tobacco producers had nothing to fear. New Zealand's newly elected government repealed the ban in February to help pay for tax cuts.
Still, the possibility of banning tobacco takes up a sizable portion of the 2,600-word platform of the Prohibition Party. It calls tobacco use the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States.
Wood in a separate essay cited the short-lived New Zealand ban as a model for what the United States could do to reduce smoking. But with cannabis legal in most of the United States, odds are the Prohibition Party won't make headway on curbing tobacco or alcohol use.
Dodge knew his party was in trouble during his 1992 campaign for president. He made the ballot in New Mexico, but received only 120 votes.
He fared worse in his adopted state of Colorado, where he had 21 votes after being relegated to write-in status.
His successors in leading the Prohibition Party have tried to broaden its reach in hopes of gaining relevancy. They have taken positions on agriculture policy, ballot access, environmental concerns, health care, ethics in government and many other subjects.
On abortion, the Prohibition Party isn't as restrictive as its name. "We believe that each woman should have the right to decide based on her own conscience," its platform states.
Sidney Johnston Catts didn't have to concern himself with many issues during his campaign for governor of Florida.
He railed against alcohol, Catholics and literature he claimed was distasteful. His approach proved to be a winning formula in what then was a mostly rural state of 925,000 residents.
Today's candidates of the Prohibition Party have almost nothing in common with Catts. But they're in a bad spot — unelectable regardless of whether voters discover them or not.
MILAN SIMONICH, THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN
Apr. 2—The Prohibition Party is in the midst of an unwanted dry spell that seems endless.
Many residents of modern America have never heard of the party of teetotalers, established in 1869. The reason is its greatest victories occurred more than a century ago.
Sidney Johnston Catts was the Prohibition Party's most successful candidate, winning election as governor of Florida. That was in 1916.
Catts called himself the "Cracker Messiah," and he spoke of burning books in libraries, as well as banning booze.
The Prohibition Party's influence on public policy peaked as Catts' four-year term wound to a close. The nationwide ban on alcohol began in 1920 and lasted until 1933.
Prohibition's end didn't kill the political party, but it's barely alive.
Not since 1992 has the Prohibition Party fielded a presidential candidate in New Mexico. Its nominee that year was Earl Dodge of Colorado.
He was the Prohibition Party's sociable national chairman and perennial candidate, running for president six times from 1984 to 2004. When Dodge wasn't campaigning for the nation's highest office, he ran for governor of Colorado, U.S. senator from Kansas and regent of the University of Colorado.
He never came close to winning, but he was a relentless advocate for a dry country. Dodge said America was better during Prohibition because alcoholism and jail populations decreased. He considered bootlegging gangsters less dangerous than alcohol being readily available in stores and restaurants.
Dodge, who died in 2007, wouldn't approve of today's pervasive cannabis stores any more than he did of neighborhood taverns. He might also be sullen over the Prohibition Party's head-hurting statements about drinking.
"The alcohol question is the Prohibition Party's unique, signature issue," the platform states. "We recognize that the use of alcohol and other recreational drugs is not only a personal but a broader social issue. The individual, and their right to drink if they wish, is not the cause — rather, the cause is the underlying organized liquor traffic and the subordination of uniformed Americans for profit."
Whatever that's supposed to mean is open to guesses. Another section of the party's position is less muddy.
Prohibitionists are calling for a ban on advertising of alcohol, similar to the restriction on cigarettes. Party members say cutting off advertising would reduce alcohol consumption.
But tobacco is the substance today's Prohibition Party seems intent on stamping out. "We oppose tobacco in all its forms, including vaping," its platform reads.
Californian Michael Wood, this year's presidential nominee of the Prohibition Party, wrote an essay applauding New Zealand for banning cigarette sales to people born after 2008. Tobacco producers had nothing to fear. New Zealand's newly elected government repealed the ban in February to help pay for tax cuts.
Still, the possibility of banning tobacco takes up a sizable portion of the 2,600-word platform of the Prohibition Party. It calls tobacco use the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States.
Wood in a separate essay cited the short-lived New Zealand ban as a model for what the United States could do to reduce smoking. But with cannabis legal in most of the United States, odds are the Prohibition Party won't make headway on curbing tobacco or alcohol use.
Dodge knew his party was in trouble during his 1992 campaign for president. He made the ballot in New Mexico, but received only 120 votes.
He fared worse in his adopted state of Colorado, where he had 21 votes after being relegated to write-in status.
His successors in leading the Prohibition Party have tried to broaden its reach in hopes of gaining relevancy. They have taken positions on agriculture policy, ballot access, environmental concerns, health care, ethics in government and many other subjects.
On abortion, the Prohibition Party isn't as restrictive as its name. "We believe that each woman should have the right to decide based on her own conscience," its platform states.
Sidney Johnston Catts didn't have to concern himself with many issues during his campaign for governor of Florida.
He railed against alcohol, Catholics and literature he claimed was distasteful. His approach proved to be a winning formula in what then was a mostly rural state of 925,000 residents.
Today's candidates of the Prohibition Party have almost nothing in common with Catts. But they're in a bad spot — unelectable regardless of whether voters discover them or not.
Christian Post
2024 presidential election: 10 candidates running third-party campaigns
By Ryan Foley
Michael Wood is the Prohibition Party’s 2024 presidential nominee and John Pietrowski is the party’s vice presidential nominee. Wood elaborated on his party’s platform and his priorities should he win the presidency in a speech at the party’s National Convention last year.
“Far too many people associate the party with a nationwide ban on alcohol, when in fact the Prohibition Party defends your American right to drink privately, but not your right to do public harm,” he said. Wood’s remarks about the party name reflect the fact that the term Prohibition refers to the time in U.S. history when alcohol was banned.
At the same time, Wood views making awareness about the dangers of alcohol abuse an important part of his campaign: “If you wish to drink, that is each informed citizen’s right. We recognize however that many people are not well informed about the dangers of alcohol, a drug which contributes to 140,000 deaths in our country each year.”
“When private behavior has public consequences, such as drinking and driving or the $250 billion economic cost associated with excessive alcohol use, that becomes a legitimate governmental concern,” he added. “We hope to work closely with [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] and other organizations striving to raise awareness of the problem of alcohol and drug related deaths.”
By Ryan Foley
Michael Wood is the Prohibition Party’s 2024 presidential nominee and John Pietrowski is the party’s vice presidential nominee. Wood elaborated on his party’s platform and his priorities should he win the presidency in a speech at the party’s National Convention last year.
“Far too many people associate the party with a nationwide ban on alcohol, when in fact the Prohibition Party defends your American right to drink privately, but not your right to do public harm,” he said. Wood’s remarks about the party name reflect the fact that the term Prohibition refers to the time in U.S. history when alcohol was banned.
At the same time, Wood views making awareness about the dangers of alcohol abuse an important part of his campaign: “If you wish to drink, that is each informed citizen’s right. We recognize however that many people are not well informed about the dangers of alcohol, a drug which contributes to 140,000 deaths in our country each year.”
“When private behavior has public consequences, such as drinking and driving or the $250 billion economic cost associated with excessive alcohol use, that becomes a legitimate governmental concern,” he added. “We hope to work closely with [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] and other organizations striving to raise awareness of the problem of alcohol and drug related deaths.”
Clinton R. Siegle
Michael Wood Interviewed by Clinton R. Siegle, published on MINDS
1. The Prohibition Party has a historical focus on temperance and moral reform. How do you plan to modernize these values to address contemporary societal issues?
Yes, many people associate the party with the objective of forbidding the consumption of alcohol on moral grounds - but our platform has evolved significantly over time. Although alcohol remains our signature issue, the party has moved away from telling people what they should or should not do. We recognize an individual's right to drink if they wish, but by emphasizing personal responsibility and educating people on the dangers, we believe that people will inherently choose healthier lifestyles which do not include alcohol or tobacco.
Another example of modernization can be seen in our evolving position on abortion - a contemporary issue which often divides our country. The majority of Americans support access to abortion; under what terms is now up to the states to decide. As each state works to regulate this issue, we as a party have taken two positions: first, that women, and their opinions, must be included in the legislative process. Secondly, and this is a major change from the past, we believe that each woman should have the right to decide the issue of abortion based on her own conscience.
Although we are oldest third party in the USA, founded in 1869, the PRO party today has moved away from the century old image of preaching moral reform and is today a modern party focused on improving the quality of life for all Americans.
2. Given the evolving landscape of drug policies and the legalization of marijuana in various states, how does the Prohibition Party position itself regarding drug enforcement and substance regulation?
Recreational drug use, including alcohol, nicotine and opiates, kills far to many of us. Alcohol abuse and smoking are two of the leading preventable causes of death in the United States, taking the lives of more than 600,000 American's every year. Ten million people misused opioids in the past year alone: nearly 70,000 dying from synthetic opioids like fentanyl.
The party opposes recreational drug use, including cannabis, and supports a sustained program of education to help people understand the risks. We advocate a ban on cannabis, vaping, and alcohol advertising - especially those ads targeted at America's youth. The UK is leading the way in creating a tobacco-free generation by proposing a forever ban on the sale of tobacco to anyone who is today 14 years or younger. Such actions, together with our proposal to increase the alcohol excise tax with proceeds earmarked for education and addiction-rehabilitation programs, are the best way to encourage community disapproval of recreational drug use.
3. The Prohibition Party historically focused on alcohol prohibition. How do you plan to address current concerns related to alcohol abuse and its impact on society?
Our approach to alcohol abuse is three-fold; education, taxation and a ban on advertising. Since cigarette advertising was banned in 1971, the nation has seen a consistent reduction in the number of smokers. This same approach should be taken with alcohol. Alco-pops and other flavored alcoholic drinks are being mass-marketed to America's youth - this needs to stop. A broad education campaign, coupled with an excise tax increase, with tax revenues being invested in education and addition-treatment, will reduce the number of unnecessary deaths from alcohol abuse. If people understand the risks and health impacts, they will instinctively chose healthier lifestyle options.
4. What specific steps do you propose to reduce gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights?
Our objective is to balance Second Amendment rights and public safety. There have been more than 130 mass shootings in the USA this year: something needs to change. We as a party firmly support the right of citizens to own and carry firearms for personal defense and recreational purposes. The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, and it must be upheld.
At the same time, we believe that it is crucial to differentiate between firearms meant for self-defense, hunting or sport and weapons of war - namely rapid-fire assault rifles. Existing laws do not allow the general public to purchase weapons of war; these restrictions should be expanded to prohibit the purchase of semi-automatic assault rifles. These weapons have no place in civilian hands and have been tragically instrumental in multiple mass shootings. This, coupled with a system of stringent background checks for all guns, and proper education and gun training are steps in the right direction.
It is simultaneously imperative to recognize mental health issues as a significant part of the problem of gun violence. According to the CDC, more than half of gun deaths in the USA were suicides. Rather than solely focusing on restricting access to firearms, we should also allocate substantial funding to public mental health programs. Adequate mental health services can help identify individuals in crisis and provide the support they need, potentially averting violent incidents before they occur.
Tightly controlling access to assault rifles, implementing stringent background checks and investing in mental health programs are just three steps towards addressing gun violence in America - but they are steps we could take today. Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in our country.
5. The Prohibition Party advocates for stricter immigration policies. Could you elaborate on your stance regarding immigration reform and border security?
Protecting our borders is a duty to the citizens of the United States. To ensure only lawful entry, those agencies protecting our borders must be sufficiently funded. Videos taken at the border show that a wall, in and of itself, will not solve the problem; we need to reform our immigration system.
I commend the contributions of immigrants to our culture, economy, and national identity, but must insist that immigration and naturalization be done through an orderly legal process. Existing asylum laws rightly protect those facing persecution, however asylum should only be granted to those arriving directly from a country where they are at risk. Refugees already present in a safe-haven country should be able to apply for legal immigration to the United States at a U.S. Embassy in that country, but may not claim asylum simply by virtue of their physical presence in the USA or at the border.
6. How does the Prohibition Party aim to address environmental challenges and promote sustainability in an ever-changing world?
Pollution does have an impact on our planet. At the same time, abatement projects must balance costs with benefits. We support cooperation with other nations in mitigating the effects of climate change. We should however strive for energy independence and as a nation should not surrender our sovereignty in making energy decisions.
We advocate increased research into the development of non-fossil fuel resources, including tax breaks for companies and subsidies for consumers willing to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
7. Healthcare is a pressing issue. What are your proposals to improve access to healthcare and address rising healthcare costs?
In a country with our resources, access to affordable, quality health care should be the right of every American. If this is achieved through a federal program, participation in such must remain an individual choice. Medicare and Medicaid are good programs, but no one should be forced to participate in a federal program if a private program provides them with equal or better coverage. The bottom line is that no one who needs a medicine or treatment prescribed by a doctor should be denied such due to their personal financial limitations.
8. The Prohibition Party emphasizes the importance of family values. How do you plan to support family structures and address societal changes that impact families today?
Strong families make for a strong country. The values which one gains from family are important, and we recognize that religious values have played a positive role in the founding of the United States.
Food insecurity destabilizes families. Ensuring access to fresh, healthy food is a good basis from which to help build strong families. To help achieve this objective we believe that food banks should be supported through programs which incentivize donations.
9. Education is a cornerstone of societal progress. What measures do you propose to improve the educational system and ensure equal opportunities for all students?
In addition to our belief that educational curriculums should inform our youth about the dangers of alcohol and drugs, we feel strongly that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture must take a leading role in education. In 2025 these departments will publish an update to the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" - an educational tool for both children and adults. Imagine for a moment if the Surgeon General recommended smoking two cigarettes a day... outrageous you say? Under the current dietary guidelines these departments suggest that consuming two alcoholic drinks per day is part of a healthy diet. With 140,000 deaths each year due to alcohol, I sincerely hope that these guidelines will be revised.
Our understanding of the meaning of equality begins as children. As a party, we abhor all forms of racism, discrimination, harassment, hatred, structural inequality and violence directed at any group - especially in our schools, where early education helps form the opinions we carry into adulthood. We support a just and inclusive society with equal opportunities for all. To this end, public schools must be sufficiently funded. At the same time we support the right of families to choose the method for educating their children, and programs that allow families to make choices for alternate schooling.
We approve of the federal Department of Education setting minimum standards for education and advocate for stronger emphasis on science, technology, engineering, math, history and languages. We advocate free community colleges with 4-year degree programs, as well as for vocational education. Student debt relief must be applied equally to all; including those who through personal responsibility have already repaid their original debts. We support free educational programs to retrain displaced workers and those who become disabled.
10. In a polarized political climate, how will you navigate bipartisan cooperation to advance the Prohibition Party's agenda while working with diverse ideologies in government?
This is not going to happen overnight: our nation is almost as polarized now as it was in the late 1850s. Bipartisan cooperation is in great part stymied by strongly entrenched political interests. The Prohibition Party believes in federalism, emphasizing that many issues are better regulated by state and local jurisdictions - resulting in a leaner, more efficient federal government. Within this smaller federal government, we support the expansion of term limits to both houses of Congress. Representing other citizens in Congress should be an honor, not a career. Enacting term limits will help to reduce the influence of special interest groups, provide a more accurate representation of the public in Congress and by regularly bringing fresh ideas into the system, enhancing bipartisan cooperation.Next....
1. The Prohibition Party has a historical focus on temperance and moral reform. How do you plan to modernize these values to address contemporary societal issues?
Yes, many people associate the party with the objective of forbidding the consumption of alcohol on moral grounds - but our platform has evolved significantly over time. Although alcohol remains our signature issue, the party has moved away from telling people what they should or should not do. We recognize an individual's right to drink if they wish, but by emphasizing personal responsibility and educating people on the dangers, we believe that people will inherently choose healthier lifestyles which do not include alcohol or tobacco.
Another example of modernization can be seen in our evolving position on abortion - a contemporary issue which often divides our country. The majority of Americans support access to abortion; under what terms is now up to the states to decide. As each state works to regulate this issue, we as a party have taken two positions: first, that women, and their opinions, must be included in the legislative process. Secondly, and this is a major change from the past, we believe that each woman should have the right to decide the issue of abortion based on her own conscience.
Although we are oldest third party in the USA, founded in 1869, the PRO party today has moved away from the century old image of preaching moral reform and is today a modern party focused on improving the quality of life for all Americans.
2. Given the evolving landscape of drug policies and the legalization of marijuana in various states, how does the Prohibition Party position itself regarding drug enforcement and substance regulation?
Recreational drug use, including alcohol, nicotine and opiates, kills far to many of us. Alcohol abuse and smoking are two of the leading preventable causes of death in the United States, taking the lives of more than 600,000 American's every year. Ten million people misused opioids in the past year alone: nearly 70,000 dying from synthetic opioids like fentanyl.
The party opposes recreational drug use, including cannabis, and supports a sustained program of education to help people understand the risks. We advocate a ban on cannabis, vaping, and alcohol advertising - especially those ads targeted at America's youth. The UK is leading the way in creating a tobacco-free generation by proposing a forever ban on the sale of tobacco to anyone who is today 14 years or younger. Such actions, together with our proposal to increase the alcohol excise tax with proceeds earmarked for education and addiction-rehabilitation programs, are the best way to encourage community disapproval of recreational drug use.
3. The Prohibition Party historically focused on alcohol prohibition. How do you plan to address current concerns related to alcohol abuse and its impact on society?
Our approach to alcohol abuse is three-fold; education, taxation and a ban on advertising. Since cigarette advertising was banned in 1971, the nation has seen a consistent reduction in the number of smokers. This same approach should be taken with alcohol. Alco-pops and other flavored alcoholic drinks are being mass-marketed to America's youth - this needs to stop. A broad education campaign, coupled with an excise tax increase, with tax revenues being invested in education and addition-treatment, will reduce the number of unnecessary deaths from alcohol abuse. If people understand the risks and health impacts, they will instinctively chose healthier lifestyle options.
4. What specific steps do you propose to reduce gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights?
Our objective is to balance Second Amendment rights and public safety. There have been more than 130 mass shootings in the USA this year: something needs to change. We as a party firmly support the right of citizens to own and carry firearms for personal defense and recreational purposes. The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, and it must be upheld.
At the same time, we believe that it is crucial to differentiate between firearms meant for self-defense, hunting or sport and weapons of war - namely rapid-fire assault rifles. Existing laws do not allow the general public to purchase weapons of war; these restrictions should be expanded to prohibit the purchase of semi-automatic assault rifles. These weapons have no place in civilian hands and have been tragically instrumental in multiple mass shootings. This, coupled with a system of stringent background checks for all guns, and proper education and gun training are steps in the right direction.
It is simultaneously imperative to recognize mental health issues as a significant part of the problem of gun violence. According to the CDC, more than half of gun deaths in the USA were suicides. Rather than solely focusing on restricting access to firearms, we should also allocate substantial funding to public mental health programs. Adequate mental health services can help identify individuals in crisis and provide the support they need, potentially averting violent incidents before they occur.
Tightly controlling access to assault rifles, implementing stringent background checks and investing in mental health programs are just three steps towards addressing gun violence in America - but they are steps we could take today. Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in our country.
5. The Prohibition Party advocates for stricter immigration policies. Could you elaborate on your stance regarding immigration reform and border security?
Protecting our borders is a duty to the citizens of the United States. To ensure only lawful entry, those agencies protecting our borders must be sufficiently funded. Videos taken at the border show that a wall, in and of itself, will not solve the problem; we need to reform our immigration system.
I commend the contributions of immigrants to our culture, economy, and national identity, but must insist that immigration and naturalization be done through an orderly legal process. Existing asylum laws rightly protect those facing persecution, however asylum should only be granted to those arriving directly from a country where they are at risk. Refugees already present in a safe-haven country should be able to apply for legal immigration to the United States at a U.S. Embassy in that country, but may not claim asylum simply by virtue of their physical presence in the USA or at the border.
6. How does the Prohibition Party aim to address environmental challenges and promote sustainability in an ever-changing world?
Pollution does have an impact on our planet. At the same time, abatement projects must balance costs with benefits. We support cooperation with other nations in mitigating the effects of climate change. We should however strive for energy independence and as a nation should not surrender our sovereignty in making energy decisions.
We advocate increased research into the development of non-fossil fuel resources, including tax breaks for companies and subsidies for consumers willing to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
7. Healthcare is a pressing issue. What are your proposals to improve access to healthcare and address rising healthcare costs?
In a country with our resources, access to affordable, quality health care should be the right of every American. If this is achieved through a federal program, participation in such must remain an individual choice. Medicare and Medicaid are good programs, but no one should be forced to participate in a federal program if a private program provides them with equal or better coverage. The bottom line is that no one who needs a medicine or treatment prescribed by a doctor should be denied such due to their personal financial limitations.
8. The Prohibition Party emphasizes the importance of family values. How do you plan to support family structures and address societal changes that impact families today?
Strong families make for a strong country. The values which one gains from family are important, and we recognize that religious values have played a positive role in the founding of the United States.
Food insecurity destabilizes families. Ensuring access to fresh, healthy food is a good basis from which to help build strong families. To help achieve this objective we believe that food banks should be supported through programs which incentivize donations.
9. Education is a cornerstone of societal progress. What measures do you propose to improve the educational system and ensure equal opportunities for all students?
In addition to our belief that educational curriculums should inform our youth about the dangers of alcohol and drugs, we feel strongly that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture must take a leading role in education. In 2025 these departments will publish an update to the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" - an educational tool for both children and adults. Imagine for a moment if the Surgeon General recommended smoking two cigarettes a day... outrageous you say? Under the current dietary guidelines these departments suggest that consuming two alcoholic drinks per day is part of a healthy diet. With 140,000 deaths each year due to alcohol, I sincerely hope that these guidelines will be revised.
Our understanding of the meaning of equality begins as children. As a party, we abhor all forms of racism, discrimination, harassment, hatred, structural inequality and violence directed at any group - especially in our schools, where early education helps form the opinions we carry into adulthood. We support a just and inclusive society with equal opportunities for all. To this end, public schools must be sufficiently funded. At the same time we support the right of families to choose the method for educating their children, and programs that allow families to make choices for alternate schooling.
We approve of the federal Department of Education setting minimum standards for education and advocate for stronger emphasis on science, technology, engineering, math, history and languages. We advocate free community colleges with 4-year degree programs, as well as for vocational education. Student debt relief must be applied equally to all; including those who through personal responsibility have already repaid their original debts. We support free educational programs to retrain displaced workers and those who become disabled.
10. In a polarized political climate, how will you navigate bipartisan cooperation to advance the Prohibition Party's agenda while working with diverse ideologies in government?
This is not going to happen overnight: our nation is almost as polarized now as it was in the late 1850s. Bipartisan cooperation is in great part stymied by strongly entrenched political interests. The Prohibition Party believes in federalism, emphasizing that many issues are better regulated by state and local jurisdictions - resulting in a leaner, more efficient federal government. Within this smaller federal government, we support the expansion of term limits to both houses of Congress. Representing other citizens in Congress should be an honor, not a career. Enacting term limits will help to reduce the influence of special interest groups, provide a more accurate representation of the public in Congress and by regularly bringing fresh ideas into the system, enhancing bipartisan cooperation.Next....
Independent Political Report
Prohibition Party Selects 2024 Presidential Ticket, New National Leadership
BY JORDAN WILLOW EVANS
Members of the Prohibition Party met last weekend in Buffalo, New York, for their 2023 quadrennial convention. Delegates selected new leaders and nominated their presidential ticket for the 2024 election cycle, in addition to adopting a new party platform.
Convening at the Holiday Inn Express and Suites Buffalo-Airport, delegates selected Michael Wood, a retired technology executive, to head the presidential ticket. For a running mate, they chose John Pietrowski.
Two predominant candidates sought the Prohibition Party presidential nod in the months leading up to the convention. Besides Wood, former Division I football player and health and fitness coach Zack “Strength” Kusnir also sought the presidential nomination. Both prospective nominees held leadership roles within the Prohibition National Committee at one point.
While not their preference to lead the presidential ticket, delegates did elect Kusnir to lead the Prohibition National Committee as the new Chair and Treasurer. Joining him is James Hedges, the party’s 2016 nominee and former Prohibition elected official, who delegates elected as Vice Chair, and Jonathan Makeley as Secretary.
Supporters of the Prohibition Party also approved a new party platform. The new platform has been updated to reflect a more modern political reality and addresses multiple critical issues for the party. Examples of positions among them include:
- adequate funding of public schools,
- opposing the expansion of the Supreme Court,
- the belief that each woman should have the right to decide based on her own conscience in regard to the issue of abortion,
- retaining both Medicare and Medicaid,
- a just and inclusive society with equal opportunities for all, and
- an agricultural policy that focuses on regenerative farming practices.
However, the most comprehensive issue outlined in the platform is the Prohibition Party’s signature issue of opposing alcohol, tobacco, and opioids. To that end, the party supports a ban on alcohol and tobacco advertising, an increase in the alcohol excise tax, a ban on cannabis and vaping, and a “sustained program of education” on the dangers of recreational substances.
Readers can view the entire party platform approved at the 2023 convention here.
BY JORDAN WILLOW EVANS
Members of the Prohibition Party met last weekend in Buffalo, New York, for their 2023 quadrennial convention. Delegates selected new leaders and nominated their presidential ticket for the 2024 election cycle, in addition to adopting a new party platform.
Convening at the Holiday Inn Express and Suites Buffalo-Airport, delegates selected Michael Wood, a retired technology executive, to head the presidential ticket. For a running mate, they chose John Pietrowski.
Two predominant candidates sought the Prohibition Party presidential nod in the months leading up to the convention. Besides Wood, former Division I football player and health and fitness coach Zack “Strength” Kusnir also sought the presidential nomination. Both prospective nominees held leadership roles within the Prohibition National Committee at one point.
While not their preference to lead the presidential ticket, delegates did elect Kusnir to lead the Prohibition National Committee as the new Chair and Treasurer. Joining him is James Hedges, the party’s 2016 nominee and former Prohibition elected official, who delegates elected as Vice Chair, and Jonathan Makeley as Secretary.
Supporters of the Prohibition Party also approved a new party platform. The new platform has been updated to reflect a more modern political reality and addresses multiple critical issues for the party. Examples of positions among them include:
- adequate funding of public schools,
- opposing the expansion of the Supreme Court,
- the belief that each woman should have the right to decide based on her own conscience in regard to the issue of abortion,
- retaining both Medicare and Medicaid,
- a just and inclusive society with equal opportunities for all, and
- an agricultural policy that focuses on regenerative farming practices.
However, the most comprehensive issue outlined in the platform is the Prohibition Party’s signature issue of opposing alcohol, tobacco, and opioids. To that end, the party supports a ban on alcohol and tobacco advertising, an increase in the alcohol excise tax, a ban on cannabis and vaping, and a “sustained program of education” on the dangers of recreational substances.
Readers can view the entire party platform approved at the 2023 convention here.
SOCIAL MEDIA
Balancing Second Amendment Rights and Public Safety
BY MICHAEL WOOD
We mourn the victims of the mass shooting in Lewiston. Thoughts and prayers are important, but are simply not enough.
There have been more than 130 mass shootings in the USA this year. 35,000 people have died from gun violence in the first nine months of this year: 1400 of those killed were teens or younger. These are harrowing statistics.
In the United States, mass shootings have repeatedly sparked heated debates about the delicate balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety. It is a conversation that needs a nuanced and thoughtful approach to address the underlying causes while respecting individual freedoms.
We as a party firmly support the right of citizens to own and carry firearms for personal defense and recreational purposes. The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, and it must be upheld.
At the same time, we believe that it is crucial to differentiate between firearms meant for self-defense, hunting or sport and weapons of war - namely rapid-fire assault rifles. Existing laws do not allow the general public to purchase weapons of war; these restrictions should be expanded to prohibit the purchase of semi-automatic assault rifles. These weapons have no place in civilian hands and have been tragically instrumental in multiple mass shootings. Ownership of assault rifles needs to be tightly controlled.
We support responsible firearm ownership and commend private organizations that promote and teach the safe usage of guns. Proper education and training play a vital role in reducing accidents involving firearms. Ensuring responsible gun ownership is an essential step toward a safer society.
Another critical component is a system of stringent background checks. Functional background checks help strike a balance between individual rights and public safety. Such pre-purchase screening ensures that those who should not have access to firearms may not legally purchase a gun. Those persons with a felony criminal record or a history of mental health issues should be prevented from obtaining guns. To this end, we support stringent background checks for the purchase of any firearm.
This is but one measure to help minimize the risk of firearms ending up in the wrong hands. It is simultaneously imperative to recognize mental health issues as a significant part of the problem of gun violence. According to the CDC, more than half of gun deaths in the USA were suicides. Rather than solely focusing on restricting access to firearms, we should also allocate substantial funding to public mental health programs. Adequate mental health services can help identify individuals in crisis and provide the support they need, potentially averting violent incidents before they occur.
Finding a balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety is a complex challenge. It is however possible to preserve our constitutional freedom to keep and bear arms while supporting responsible gun ownership. Tightly controlling access to assault rifles, implementing stringent background checks and investing in mental health programs are just three steps towards addressing gun violence in America - but they are steps we could take today.
Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in our country.
Position on Alcohol
BY MICHAEL WOOD
https://www.facebook.com/Prohibition2024/videos/314643344602907
Position on Tobacco
BY MICHAEL WOOD
The use of tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the USA; the CDC reports that cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in our country. Cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses have been directly linked to tobacco use.
The platform of the 2024 Prohibition Party underscores the urgency of addressing this crisis by highlighting the severe health consequences and advocating for stronger regulatory measures, including addressing the growing problem of vaping. Vaping, or e-cigarettes are not safe because they contain nicotine and other chemicals. The long-term health effects of vaping, and increasing legalized cannabis use, are still not fully understood - short-term studies however indicate that both are unhealthy choices which will inevitably lead to higher health care costs in the United States.
Most alarmingly, tobacco companies are actively grooming the next generation of addicts by targeting younger demographics with candy and fruit flavored vapes. Let's be real here - a vape flavored like bubble gum is not being marketed to adults. Sales trends show that flavored vapes are driving youth users; per a 2023 survey; more than 2 million children in the USA use e-cigarettes, and nearly 90% of youth users prefer flavored products.
While significant strides have been made, including the ban on cigarette advertising through traditional media, these efforts must extend to the influential realm of social media. Although most social media platforms restrict direct tobacco advertising, many do not clearly prohibit sponsored and promoted content. By implementing a comprehensive ban on tobacco, vaping and cannabis advertising across all media, we can reduce the appeal and accessibility of these products to vulnerable populations, particularly America's youth.
The movement towards a tobacco-free society necessitates bold actions - and other countries are leading the way. In April, King Charles confirmed that the UK Government will introduce legislation to raise the age of sale for tobacco, ensuring that no one currently aged 14 or under can EVER legally be sold cigarettes or other tobacco products in the United Kingdom. New Zealand lawmakers offered the "Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act"; the law banning the next generation of New Zealanders from EVER BUYING CIGARETTES in that country.
The Prohibition Party has taken a clear stance on this issue; we oppose tobacco in all its forms, including vaping. Together with alcohol, tobacco and opiates are responsible for a significant percentage of America's public health care bill. We disapprove of government subsidies to the tobacco industry, and would end business expense deductions for advertising tobacco, cannabis and alcohol products. More importantly, we should join other developed nations in taking steps to create the next tobacco free generation.
As we watch these other countries break new ground in the fight against tobacco, 480,000 preventable tobacco related deaths each year demand that the U.S. take a leading role in banning tobacco and vaping... or do we sit back and watch other nations create a smoke-free future for their children, while ours become the next generation of addicts?
Position on Dietary Guidelines
BY MICHAEL WOOD
If you will indulge me for a moment, please imagine this headline:
Surgeon General suggests Americans smoke two cigarettes a day. Absurd, you say? The idea that our government would actively set a guideline for the consumption of a substance known to cause disease and death would be ridiculous, correct? The public would be up in arms if our government set health guidelines that included smoking two cigarettes a day!
So, we must ask, why does the opposite hold true when the government considers reducing the guidelines on how much alcohol one should consume in a healthy diet? In the case of tobacco, the Surgeon General has, in fact, emphasized that one of the most important actions people can take to improve their health is to quit smoking altogether. When it comes to
guidelines on the consumption of alcohol, the issue takes on a different level of complexity.
Despite the fact that the Surgeon General reports that 66 million individuals (nearly a quarter of the adult and adolescent population) reported binge drinking in the past month, and that the yearly economic impact of alcohol misuse results in a yearly economic impact of $249 billion for our country, the government still considers two alcoholic drinks a day to be part of a healthy diet!
Some experts are finally speaking up. Recent comments by George F. Koob PhD, Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have triggered a fervent debate that highlights both health concerns and political divisions. His comments regarding the scheduled 2025 review of the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans," and within these, the government's recommendations on alcohol consumption, have brought the issue to a head.
Dr. Koob is an internationally-recognized expert on alcohol, and in his role at the NIAAA, he provides leadership in the national effort to reduce the public health burden associated with alcohol misuse. Dr. Koob has suggested that the government reconsider the current guideline of limiting alcohol consumption to two drinks per day, suggesting instead a possible pivot towards the Canadian guideline of limiting alcohol consumption to two drinks per week.
Conservative critics are raising eyebrows at potential changes that could introduce stricter guidelines - these changes being seen as impacting the choices of Americans in their daily lives. Texas Republican Rep. Troy Nehls criticizes these potential changes, framing them as an overreach of government control. This perspective underscores the larger political division on the issue, with criticism pointing towards the Democrats' alleged desire to regulate personal choices.
Amidst this debate, the role of alcohol as a social and recreational component of society comes under scrutiny, further fueling ideological disputes. The controversy takes an intriguing turn as the Prohibition Party platform for 2024 advocates for more stringent guidelines on alcohol consumption, while striking a balance by recognizing each individual's right to make their own decision to drink or not. The party's stance, encouraging the education of Americans about the risks associated with alcohol, closely aligns with experts who fear lenient dietary guidelines might undermine public health.
The larger question of the role of alcohol in society highlights the tension between individual freedoms and collective health concerns. Current guidelines caution that even small amounts of alcohol can pose health risks, especially for certain cancers and for cardiovascular health - yet there is strong political resistance to lowering alcohol consumption guidelines as part of a healthy diet. This perplexing gap between the recommended alcohol consumption guidelines and the recognized health risks of consuming alcohol underscores the challenges public health officials face in striking a balance between scientific evidence and social norms.
So why has the government taken such a different course with alcohol when compared with tobacco? Perhaps it is only a question of time until the dangers of alcohol are placed on par with the dangers of tobacco, and the government guidelines are amended. It is no secret that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to serious health complications; the potential for addiction, negative impacts on both mental and physical health, liver problems, cardiovascular issues, and certain types of cancer are well-documented. These studies underscore the need for careful consideration when recommending alcohol intake.
Nonetheless, the current USDA dietary guidelines recommend up to two alcoholic drinks per day as part of a healthy diet. This seems counterintuitive given the well-documented health risks associated with alcohol consumption. The disparity between the government's dietary guidelines and the known risks of alcohol consumption highlights a larger issue in public health guidelines. Striking a balance between social norms, individual preferences, corporate interests, and scientific evidence does pose challenges; challenges which were, however, successfully overcome in recognizing and limiting the dangers of tobacco use.
In a time when health-consciousness is increasing, it's crucial for dietary guidelines to reflect the most up-to-date and evidence-based information. The apparent incongruity between the current alcohol consumption guidelines and the associated health risks of alcohol calls for a deeper examination of the decision-making process behind such guidelines. Ultimately, public health officials must consider the broader impact of their recommendations, especially when it
comes to substances known to pose harm. The aim should always be to provide clear and accurate guidance that empowers individuals to make informed decisions for their own wellbeing.
The paradox of government guidelines that suggest two alcoholic drinks a day are part of a healthy diet and the alignment of such guidelines with established medical knowledge raises questions about the motivation of the politicians making these decisions. These intricacies illuminate the complexity of policy-making, where the tension between personal choices,
corporate interests, and public health outcomes remains palpable.
The Prohibition Party has taken a stance on the issue and welcomes a revision of the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans." As these discussions unfold over the next two years, our hope is for guidelines that genuinely prioritize citizens' health and well-being, offering a clear and informed path forward for individuals seeking to responsibly navigate their health choices.
BY MICHAEL WOOD
We mourn the victims of the mass shooting in Lewiston. Thoughts and prayers are important, but are simply not enough.
There have been more than 130 mass shootings in the USA this year. 35,000 people have died from gun violence in the first nine months of this year: 1400 of those killed were teens or younger. These are harrowing statistics.
In the United States, mass shootings have repeatedly sparked heated debates about the delicate balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety. It is a conversation that needs a nuanced and thoughtful approach to address the underlying causes while respecting individual freedoms.
We as a party firmly support the right of citizens to own and carry firearms for personal defense and recreational purposes. The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, and it must be upheld.
At the same time, we believe that it is crucial to differentiate between firearms meant for self-defense, hunting or sport and weapons of war - namely rapid-fire assault rifles. Existing laws do not allow the general public to purchase weapons of war; these restrictions should be expanded to prohibit the purchase of semi-automatic assault rifles. These weapons have no place in civilian hands and have been tragically instrumental in multiple mass shootings. Ownership of assault rifles needs to be tightly controlled.
We support responsible firearm ownership and commend private organizations that promote and teach the safe usage of guns. Proper education and training play a vital role in reducing accidents involving firearms. Ensuring responsible gun ownership is an essential step toward a safer society.
Another critical component is a system of stringent background checks. Functional background checks help strike a balance between individual rights and public safety. Such pre-purchase screening ensures that those who should not have access to firearms may not legally purchase a gun. Those persons with a felony criminal record or a history of mental health issues should be prevented from obtaining guns. To this end, we support stringent background checks for the purchase of any firearm.
This is but one measure to help minimize the risk of firearms ending up in the wrong hands. It is simultaneously imperative to recognize mental health issues as a significant part of the problem of gun violence. According to the CDC, more than half of gun deaths in the USA were suicides. Rather than solely focusing on restricting access to firearms, we should also allocate substantial funding to public mental health programs. Adequate mental health services can help identify individuals in crisis and provide the support they need, potentially averting violent incidents before they occur.
Finding a balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety is a complex challenge. It is however possible to preserve our constitutional freedom to keep and bear arms while supporting responsible gun ownership. Tightly controlling access to assault rifles, implementing stringent background checks and investing in mental health programs are just three steps towards addressing gun violence in America - but they are steps we could take today.
Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in our country.
Position on Alcohol
BY MICHAEL WOOD
https://www.facebook.com/Prohibition2024/videos/314643344602907
Position on Tobacco
BY MICHAEL WOOD
The use of tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the USA; the CDC reports that cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in our country. Cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses have been directly linked to tobacco use.
The platform of the 2024 Prohibition Party underscores the urgency of addressing this crisis by highlighting the severe health consequences and advocating for stronger regulatory measures, including addressing the growing problem of vaping. Vaping, or e-cigarettes are not safe because they contain nicotine and other chemicals. The long-term health effects of vaping, and increasing legalized cannabis use, are still not fully understood - short-term studies however indicate that both are unhealthy choices which will inevitably lead to higher health care costs in the United States.
Most alarmingly, tobacco companies are actively grooming the next generation of addicts by targeting younger demographics with candy and fruit flavored vapes. Let's be real here - a vape flavored like bubble gum is not being marketed to adults. Sales trends show that flavored vapes are driving youth users; per a 2023 survey; more than 2 million children in the USA use e-cigarettes, and nearly 90% of youth users prefer flavored products.
While significant strides have been made, including the ban on cigarette advertising through traditional media, these efforts must extend to the influential realm of social media. Although most social media platforms restrict direct tobacco advertising, many do not clearly prohibit sponsored and promoted content. By implementing a comprehensive ban on tobacco, vaping and cannabis advertising across all media, we can reduce the appeal and accessibility of these products to vulnerable populations, particularly America's youth.
The movement towards a tobacco-free society necessitates bold actions - and other countries are leading the way. In April, King Charles confirmed that the UK Government will introduce legislation to raise the age of sale for tobacco, ensuring that no one currently aged 14 or under can EVER legally be sold cigarettes or other tobacco products in the United Kingdom. New Zealand lawmakers offered the "Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act"; the law banning the next generation of New Zealanders from EVER BUYING CIGARETTES in that country.
The Prohibition Party has taken a clear stance on this issue; we oppose tobacco in all its forms, including vaping. Together with alcohol, tobacco and opiates are responsible for a significant percentage of America's public health care bill. We disapprove of government subsidies to the tobacco industry, and would end business expense deductions for advertising tobacco, cannabis and alcohol products. More importantly, we should join other developed nations in taking steps to create the next tobacco free generation.
As we watch these other countries break new ground in the fight against tobacco, 480,000 preventable tobacco related deaths each year demand that the U.S. take a leading role in banning tobacco and vaping... or do we sit back and watch other nations create a smoke-free future for their children, while ours become the next generation of addicts?
Position on Dietary Guidelines
BY MICHAEL WOOD
If you will indulge me for a moment, please imagine this headline:
Surgeon General suggests Americans smoke two cigarettes a day. Absurd, you say? The idea that our government would actively set a guideline for the consumption of a substance known to cause disease and death would be ridiculous, correct? The public would be up in arms if our government set health guidelines that included smoking two cigarettes a day!
So, we must ask, why does the opposite hold true when the government considers reducing the guidelines on how much alcohol one should consume in a healthy diet? In the case of tobacco, the Surgeon General has, in fact, emphasized that one of the most important actions people can take to improve their health is to quit smoking altogether. When it comes to
guidelines on the consumption of alcohol, the issue takes on a different level of complexity.
Despite the fact that the Surgeon General reports that 66 million individuals (nearly a quarter of the adult and adolescent population) reported binge drinking in the past month, and that the yearly economic impact of alcohol misuse results in a yearly economic impact of $249 billion for our country, the government still considers two alcoholic drinks a day to be part of a healthy diet!
Some experts are finally speaking up. Recent comments by George F. Koob PhD, Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have triggered a fervent debate that highlights both health concerns and political divisions. His comments regarding the scheduled 2025 review of the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans," and within these, the government's recommendations on alcohol consumption, have brought the issue to a head.
Dr. Koob is an internationally-recognized expert on alcohol, and in his role at the NIAAA, he provides leadership in the national effort to reduce the public health burden associated with alcohol misuse. Dr. Koob has suggested that the government reconsider the current guideline of limiting alcohol consumption to two drinks per day, suggesting instead a possible pivot towards the Canadian guideline of limiting alcohol consumption to two drinks per week.
Conservative critics are raising eyebrows at potential changes that could introduce stricter guidelines - these changes being seen as impacting the choices of Americans in their daily lives. Texas Republican Rep. Troy Nehls criticizes these potential changes, framing them as an overreach of government control. This perspective underscores the larger political division on the issue, with criticism pointing towards the Democrats' alleged desire to regulate personal choices.
Amidst this debate, the role of alcohol as a social and recreational component of society comes under scrutiny, further fueling ideological disputes. The controversy takes an intriguing turn as the Prohibition Party platform for 2024 advocates for more stringent guidelines on alcohol consumption, while striking a balance by recognizing each individual's right to make their own decision to drink or not. The party's stance, encouraging the education of Americans about the risks associated with alcohol, closely aligns with experts who fear lenient dietary guidelines might undermine public health.
The larger question of the role of alcohol in society highlights the tension between individual freedoms and collective health concerns. Current guidelines caution that even small amounts of alcohol can pose health risks, especially for certain cancers and for cardiovascular health - yet there is strong political resistance to lowering alcohol consumption guidelines as part of a healthy diet. This perplexing gap between the recommended alcohol consumption guidelines and the recognized health risks of consuming alcohol underscores the challenges public health officials face in striking a balance between scientific evidence and social norms.
So why has the government taken such a different course with alcohol when compared with tobacco? Perhaps it is only a question of time until the dangers of alcohol are placed on par with the dangers of tobacco, and the government guidelines are amended. It is no secret that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to serious health complications; the potential for addiction, negative impacts on both mental and physical health, liver problems, cardiovascular issues, and certain types of cancer are well-documented. These studies underscore the need for careful consideration when recommending alcohol intake.
Nonetheless, the current USDA dietary guidelines recommend up to two alcoholic drinks per day as part of a healthy diet. This seems counterintuitive given the well-documented health risks associated with alcohol consumption. The disparity between the government's dietary guidelines and the known risks of alcohol consumption highlights a larger issue in public health guidelines. Striking a balance between social norms, individual preferences, corporate interests, and scientific evidence does pose challenges; challenges which were, however, successfully overcome in recognizing and limiting the dangers of tobacco use.
In a time when health-consciousness is increasing, it's crucial for dietary guidelines to reflect the most up-to-date and evidence-based information. The apparent incongruity between the current alcohol consumption guidelines and the associated health risks of alcohol calls for a deeper examination of the decision-making process behind such guidelines. Ultimately, public health officials must consider the broader impact of their recommendations, especially when it
comes to substances known to pose harm. The aim should always be to provide clear and accurate guidance that empowers individuals to make informed decisions for their own wellbeing.
The paradox of government guidelines that suggest two alcoholic drinks a day are part of a healthy diet and the alignment of such guidelines with established medical knowledge raises questions about the motivation of the politicians making these decisions. These intricacies illuminate the complexity of policy-making, where the tension between personal choices,
corporate interests, and public health outcomes remains palpable.
The Prohibition Party has taken a stance on the issue and welcomes a revision of the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans." As these discussions unfold over the next two years, our hope is for guidelines that genuinely prioritize citizens' health and well-being, offering a clear and informed path forward for individuals seeking to responsibly navigate their health choices.
This website and it's content, unless otherwise noted, are © 2023 Michael Wood
External logos are copyrighted by the respective organizations.
External logos are copyrighted by the respective organizations.
