A new call for Temperance?

As noted in the "My Story" tab, I have a personal bias ingrained within me largely in support of the Temperance ideals.  I believe after studying the Saskatoon experiment, one of the conclusions I've drawn is that the Saskatoon experiment was handicapped from the very beginning.  While government policy, the coming of the railroad, and over zealous land speculation policies contributed to the demise of the experiment, I am convinced that it was the awkward marriage of greed and ideology that ultimately destroyed the Utopian vision that the Temperance colony of Saskatoon could've embraced.  Apparently I am not the only one to come to this conclusion as well.

"There is probably more 'grab' than anything else..." pretty much sums up what this whole endeavour was about.

So was the Temperance ideology flawed?  I do not believe so.  Even in the musings of John Wesley it is clear that there is a 'temperant place' for alcohol within society.  I believe this is true also today.  While the medicinal benefits of alcohol are questionable, the full blow prohibition of alcohol is rarely discussed - and rightfully so.

As stated in the 'note on Prohibition', there is a distinct line I am unwilling to cross when it comes to alcohol.  I believe that society should generally stay out of the legislation of morality except in the case where one party is injured by another.  In this regard there are many laws on the books about alcohol use as it pertains to its impact on others.  On the other hand, Prohibition is far easier concept to embrace than Temperance.  Temperance requires a certain amount of self-control in the face of a society that does not practice it whereas Prohibition points to government-control.  From a theological perspective (from where both movements largely arise), Temperance is far more in-tune with biblical admonitions than Prohibition ever will be.  Jesus never enforced his will on anyone, but invites individuals (and I admit, communities as well) to embrace His teachings.  If a society should choose by consensus (or by creation) to embrace certain ideals, than so be it.  In this regard, the Temperance Colonization Society of Toronto should have found success as any member would heartily agree to the admonition for an internal Temperance (although many probably supported and external Prohibition as well - as we see later on in the 1910's-20's).

What about today then?  I still believe a "Temperance colony" idea could work - even as a community.  It would have to be a 'new' community or perhaps an existing community could embrace it if a strong sense of consensus could be found (In my opinion, northward of 80%).  Also if a vote was engaged in, a secret ballot process would need to be used so as people's true beliefs could be expressed.  

The plausibility of creating such a community in our North American society is low, but not impossible.  I believe the community I grew up in could embrace a "counter-cultural" identity and use communal temperance as one of its underpinnings.  I also believe that other unified communities (ethnic, micro-urban, isolated, native reserve) could bring the Temperance ideal into their existing world as well - but again, steps would need to be taken to ensure that Temperance was expressed, rather than Prohibition.

The Saskatoon experiment shows us a framework for setting up an alternative community, but greed ultimately destroyed the ideology as well.  It is my assertion that a neo-Temperance community could be established today in areas where a strong sense of community exists.  Steps would need to be taken to ensure the internal motivation of supporters, but a new call for Temperance could be both practical and plausible in specific contexts.