Review: Scarface Shows How Prohibition Leads to Violence
Tony Montana has a bloody rags-to-riches story.

In 1983, Scarface updated the Al Capone gangster story for the modern era. Director Brian De Palma and screenwriter Oliver Stone transplanted the story to Miami and swapped out booze for blow, but prohibition still played a major role.
Tony Montana (Al Pacino) makes his way to America in the 1980 Mariel boatlift, scrounging out a living in Miami before gaining entry to the city's burgeoning cocaine trade. He achieves unfathomable success within a few short years but is ultimately undone by his own hubris and paranoia.
The film was poorly received at the time but became a cult classic. For viewers who grew up poor, the story of one man's rise from poverty to kingpin proved resonant; the film has long been a hip-hop touchstone. But Tony's status as a rags-to-riches folk hero is complicated by the violence that runs throughout his story.
Every step of the way, Tony's ascent is enabled by his proclivity for bloodshed. In the film's opening minutes, he murders a former Cuban official in exchange for a green card, and every further step up the ladder involves ruthlessly cutting down a competitor. In the end, that carnage blows back onto Tony and his loved ones. Violence is inherent to the war on drugs, not only at the hands of drug dealers fighting for their territory but at the hands of the authorities who prosecute it, leaving casualties on both sides of the law.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In the original version, when Pacino says, “Say hehlo to my little friend” he was referring to a properly made Cuban sandwich. True story.
In the actual original version (released in 1932 and starring Paul Muni), Tony Montana was a gangster during alcohol prohibition.
Might even be a better version of making the point the author of this article is referring to since in the DePalma version, Tony was largely excluded from much of "legitimate" society due to the time and cicumstances he started in; compare that to the mob in Chicago, made up of native-born and publicly educated men who had as much opportunity in nearly any field of endeavor as the next guy.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023427
? And the purpose of this article, other than a keyboard exercise, is exactly what?
Review: Scarface Shows How Prohibition Leads to Violence
Now do open borders.
Is there any question that the prohibition on migration leads to a more violent border?
Now do a different Reason article.
Fair point. The article, by virtue of the film, already does a decent job of tying the two together and doesn't critically need rewritten. Simply fixing the headline to "Review: Scarface Shows How The Combination Of Open Borders And Prohibition Leads To Violence" would be completely sufficient. Thanks for pointing out that a completely different article isn't needed.
I'm just happy someone is finally telling people that history prior to prohibition was non violent.
Look at you, the dishonest shithead with idiotic binary black/white thinking.
No, the world was not nonviolent before Prohibition. But Prohibition made it worse.
The other day he said something similar about tariffs in response to criticism of the anti-free trade policies he endorses.
He just makes shit up, arguments of convenience depending on the moment. Because his point of view is shaped not by logic or reason, but by people. He supports Trump the person, not because of his policies. He supports Republicans because he identifies with Republican voters, not because of the policies per se. At least that is my hypothesis.
He's a tribal animal. A caveman with a bunch of shiny toys.
Did you ever define alt right yesterday without using a behavioral argument of what you were doing?
I always forget how you two can call everyone else tribalist but don't dare point out your own biases. Lol.
Hypocrisy and projection already your strongest traits.
I mean jeff calls every source that isn't left leaning conservative so he can ignore it as he posts from dailybeast and salon. Sarc calls everyone alt right. Then you both scream only others are tribalists.
Two of the dumbest hypocrites on the internet.
Screaming "No you're tribal!" at someone for pointing out your tribal behavior doesn't make you right or them wrong. It just makes you look like a child.
Sarc. Buddy. Dumbass. Go look at yesterday's roundup. You were the first person in there calling everyone far right.
Again. Hypocritical projection. Lol.
I will point out it was you and Jeff to be the first two to do it in this thread as well. Lol.
None of that refutes jeffs observations about your behavior. You're just creaming "No you" like a child. I know that impresses Dlam, R Mac and ICP, but people with functioning brains are not fooled.
jeff calls every source that isn’t left leaning conservative so he can ignore it
I call explicitly right-wing sources right-wing. It is not my fault if their journalistic standards are sub-par.
Jesse begs four sources, then dismisses any that say something he doesn't like as part of the "leftist narrative."
That way the only information out there that is credible is what he agrees with.
Here's a reminder of sarc's idea of a definition:
“Far-right is people like you who see politics as a left-right paradigm, and align themselves with what they perceive to be the right.”
People on the right are on the right because they say they're aligned with the right, which means they're on the right.
Yikes. Do you two get up together and start commenting from bed in the morning, all warm and cozy? Seems to be a trend lately. I'd say get a room but it appears you may already be an item.
Look at the two lefties give each other back massages. Lol.
The funniest part is watching you two scream at others being tribalist yet you two put people into tribes more than anyone. The fact is I criticize the right more than you two criticize the left combined. I have even said who I'm voting for in the primaries and it isnt trump. But you two are too dumb to realize it. This is you justifying state attacks on someone you hate. Thats all it is. Lol.
The fact is I criticize the right more than you two criticize the left combined.
HAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA!
This is what we call delusiom buddy. Another example of intentional ignorance. I can find statements from just yesterday I criticized them. I can then go to any thread labeled with Biden and show you deflecting away all criticism of him. You even get mad at fuck Joe biden posts lol.
Cite?
The fact is I criticize the right more than you two criticize the left combined.
The fact that you are even attempting to keep score in this manner only proves our point that you care more about tribes than ideas.
Here is a clue. An idea is either a good idea or a bad idea regardless of the speaker of the idea.
Is it a good idea to raise taxes? Yes or no?
The libertarian (and, until recently, conservative) answer was that, *in general*, the answer is "no".
But because TRUMP said "hey, let's raise taxes, and we'll call them tariffs, and we'll pretend that Americans won't pay the taxes, the Chinese do, and I have the best of intentions for these taxes, they are to help Make America Great Again!", you support them, because they provide your tribe with a helpful narrative.
And because BIDEN said "hey, let's raise taxes, and we'll call them tariffs, and even though I said I don't like Trump, I'm going to have basically the same tariff policy that Trump had", you oppose them, because they are from BIDEN and they don't help your tribe.
And to pretend that your motivations aren't really about tribe, you bring in these weak-ass rationalizations citing this one single paragraph from Adam Smith that kinda-sorta rationalizes tariffs as a reason for why they might be good (ignoring all of the rest of free-market free trade economic research and philosophy that has transpired since the late 18th century), but then suddenly forget that paragraph once Biden starts supporting those tariffs. Huh. Funny that.
But because TRUMP said “hey, let’s raise taxes, and we’ll call them tariffs, and we’ll pretend that Americans won’t pay the taxes, the Chinese do, and I have the best of intentions for these taxes, they are to help Make America Great Again!”, you support them, because they provide your tribe with a helpful narrative.
And because BIDEN said “hey, let’s raise taxes, and we’ll call them tariffs, and even though I said I don’t like Trump, I’m going to have basically the same tariff policy that Trump had”, you oppose them, because they are from BIDEN and they don’t help your tribe.
Jesse accused anyone who opposed Trump's tariffs of being a leftist. Now that the left supports those same tariffs, HE'S the leftist. Too funny.
Of course. As noted below, he is a leftist who blindly accepts politicians' reasoning at face value, who thinks government should punish the accused before there has been a trial, and thinks liberty should be subjected to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.
And then tomorrow, he will think all politicians are liars, he will demand an absolute right to do whatever he pleases despite the costs, or some such.
He has no principles. He has only desired outcomes, and motivated reasoning to achieve those outcomes.
And he's not above spreading lies to get his way.
Cite? What is your drunk ass trying to say now?
Do you mean how you were ignorant about the original funding source of government?
Just like Tony, you can't see the difference between taxation to fund government and taxation as punishment.
If tariffs were a major source of funding for the government then you would have a point. But it's not. It's a cudgel used to punish consumers who buy stuff from people you hate by virtue of the fact that they were born into an oppressive regime.
So once again you show that you and Tony are on equal intellectual footing.
And even your attempt at a non sequitur because you realize you're a retard is bad.
You still don't understand retaliatory vs protectionist.
Even when a politician gives you the literal reasoning behind an action you ignore it. The tariffs on China were retaliatory due to corporate theft estimated at 600B a year. Far greater costs to consumers than the cost of tariffs. And China agreed to a crack down after the tariffs, why the tariffs were executed.
You've been given these links a dozen times at this point.
When I mention your intentional ignorance this is what I'm talking about. You intentionally remain retarded. You stick to bald assertions and narratives because you're so uneducated. It is likely why you and Jeff are now best friends.
You would prefer consumers be harmed by open and rampant theft increasing costs to them than ever criticizing or trying to fix those costs. All because youre too dumb to understand the issue even when given the information.
Even this non sequitur shows your ignorance on the subject.
Blah, blah blah. Free trade is when your government doesn't punish you for buying things from people it hates, even if you hate them too. You can list off all the excuses that government uses to punish consumers, but it's still un-free trade.
Even when a politician gives you the literal reasoning behind an action you ignore it. The tariffs on China were retaliatory due to corporate theft estimated at 600B a year. Far greater costs to consumers than the cost of tariffs. And China agreed to a crack down after the tariffs, why the tariffs were executed.
So in this one statement, Jesse is demanding that (a) we take a politician's reasoning at face value, (b) that we should support tariffs (i.e. taxes) as a type of punishment for corporate theft that were never proven in a court of law, and (c) we should take a utilitarian approach to taxes, that taxes are justified if the benefits outweigh the costs.
And in other contexts, Jesse would never support those three claims.
Would Jesse EVER demand that we take a Democrat's stated reasoning at face value? No.
Would Jesse EVER demand that it is right and proper for the government to enact a punishment on an accused party before there has even been any trial? No.
Would Jesse EVER demand that on a matter that is directly connected with individual liberty, that it would be appropriate to take a utilitarian approach - that it is okay to curtail liberty if the benefits outweigh the costs? No.
But he will do it in this context, because he likes the outcome.
Would Jesse EVER demand that it is right and proper for the government to enact a punishment on an accused party before there has even been any trial? No.
Would Jesse EVER demand that on a matter that is directly connected with individual liberty, that it would be appropriate to take a utilitarian approach – that it is okay to curtail liberty if the benefits outweigh the costs? No.
Depends on if they have papers or not. If they don't, then his answer is an emphatic affirmative.
You and sarc are actually getting dumber by the day.
Yes. Prohibition was more violent than things like the crusades. Lol.
Why do you two rely on such terrible argumentation.
No. Prohibition wasn't justified. But making a terrible argument about why it wasn't is just stupid. Why you two support it.
Keep defending the strawman.
For a guy with "sarc" in his name, you don't really understand a lot of sarcasm.
Does Jesse swoon when you white knight for him?
Like you and Jeff above?
Once again I can't tell if you're stupid or dishonest. I wasn't white knighting, I was discussing with jeff how you're a piece of garbage. ICP was defending you, as in being a white knight. Jesus.
Keep believing you're not a hypocrite. Lol.
Is this where I imoroperly accuse you of a tubquoque?
Tu quoque is when you say someone is wrong because they're a hypocrite. It's one of your favorite fallacies.
What strawman?
Violenxe has always existed. It didn't LEAD to violence. You could claim it increased violence. But violence always existed. It is a retarded argument.
"Violence never existed before Prohibition."
"There weren't any tariffs before Trump's trade wars."
Those are strawman arguments that serve no purpose other than to show how you're stupid and dishonest.
Cite?
I actually know which discussion you are referencing now and your claim in the thread was tariffs started under Trump despite 200 years of tariffs prior to him. Lol.
That is what's called a strawman. When you accuse someone of an argument they never made, and then argue against it. You know, what you do every single day in these comments.
Oh, in that case.
Prohibition wasn't as violent as, say, the Second World War, so therefore Prohibition was no big deal and let's bring it back.
I think that is how "ridiculous and unfair comparisons" work, isn't it Jesse?
Prohibition wasn’t justified. But making a terrible argument about why it wasn’t is just stupid.
Counterproductive even. If I tell you prohibition was bad because it killed more dogs than National Lampoon's 'Cheeseface' cover and you discover that, in fact, the Cheeseface cover was more directly responsible for killing more dogs, then logically, and freely admitted narrowly, Cheeseface was worse than prohibition.
There's playing Devil's Advocate (I don't actually believe that Cheeseface was worse than Prohibition and no one should take it to heart that way because it would be ridiculous if they did) and then there's stupefying yourself and others to advocate for evil.
Sarcasm and snark truly do escape your vast and deep intellect.
Neither of then are intelligent enough to even understand it.
I'm still astounded at a magazine that advocates for open borders and against prohibition obliviously choosing Scarface as it's parable. I mean, of all the options like The Mule or Blow or Traffic or American Gangster or Sicario... they choose the *one* film that absolutely *and overtly* fucks their open borders narrative in *exactly* the way they universally perceive deplorables deriding it.
Said no one here or ever. Start again.
No no no. Banning immigration and building a wall is what would 100% end crime and violence.
No no no. Only Jesse is allowed to use black/white arguments.
Cite?
Is this your next 2 weeks of failed arguments?
You're asking for a cite? I'll just point out:
That was directed at you, dork.
I've never made that claim. Lol.
Man. You guys are getting bad at this.
I’ve never made that claim. Lol.
I know you didn’t. My point would make sense if I posted it in the correct place.
Man. You guys are getting bad at this.
Yeah, I deserve that.
Uggggh Edit!!! Meant to be a response to Jesse.
And I f'd that up too. That's meant to be a reply to myself. Here's going for 3 in a row.
Scarface is fiction.
"Tony's ascent is enabled by his proclivity for bloodshed. In the film's opening minutes, he murders a former Cuban official in exchange for a green card,..."
By the logic of the premise of the headline, illegal immigration leads to violence.
Illegal immigration isn't the "prohibition" discussed in the article.
Which was not my point.
A work of fiction does not and cannot prove anything. The writer controls what happens in the work, and what causes result in what effects, regardless of what would happen in reality. A work of fiction cam present a theory of reality, whether that theory reflects reality is another thing entirely.
Reason made this argument (prohibition leads to violence) 30 years ago when Scarface came out. I didn't particularly like the film myself, or Pacino's acting which I believe is way over rated.
What I don't like about this review, is the bit about getting a green card: Tony Montana killed a former Cuban General at the request of a Miami drug lord to get released from a Murial Boat Lift refugee camp and get a green card. The drug lord obviously had some corrupt government officials in his pocket, showing how some people take advantage of immigration laws. These aren't the kind of immigrants that are good for the country.
40 years, ackshuyally.
Scarface? What year is this?
My thoughts exactly.
I think it is unwise to draw policy lessons from any movie, especially one as over the top as Scarface.
I think it's adorable how it's 2023 and this is the first time Joe has seen Scarface.
This movie and it's following is a prime example of how Prohibition has warped our culture. Five generations now think there is something hip and chic about being a violent gangster.
Without Prohibition, maybe kids would have T-shirts of, say, Norbert Wiener or Norman Borlaug.
Jack Thompson, is that you?
I won't defend Prohibition, though it was a Catholic that most criticized, rightly, as a violation of freedom , a stigmatizing of what Psalm 104 calls "And wine which makes the heart of man glad"
But stopping Prohibition or forcing are the same.
It is the trampling of the Federalism that rightfully allows local communities to control liquor.