Prohibition1
As under a spell, the people had suffered this act to be brought to its fatal conclusion, but with the first touch of cold reality the charm was undone, and the law appeared in its true aspect. Brought about by the Eighteenth Amendment and enforced through the Volstead Act, lasted for over a decade. Despite a growing lack of public support for both Prohibition and restraint itself, the ban on alcohol continued throughout the United States-at least in the law books. In practice, however, National Prohibition was much less effective than restraint and Prohibition leaders had hoped, in the end causing more problems than it solved. Once passed, Prohibition directly led to the increase in crime and corruption during the twenties, the public health problems associated with bootleg liquor and alcohol substitutes, the irritated tensions between religious, racial, and social groups, and the political disturbance in response to its existence. Yet in the end, it was the discussion of the supreme public hatred of the Amendment, caused by all of these factors combined, which brought about Prohibition's repeal. Yet Prohibition did enjoy some success. Records reveal that alcohol consumption did initially drop after the onset of National Pro
Most of the period from 1920 to 1933 saw the Democrats and Republicans either fighting over the Prohibition issue or attempting to ignore it. No amendment to the Constitution had ever been repealed, and many were not even sure if such a thing was possible (Kyvig 137). And conflict did not occur exclusively between the two parties, but also within them, and wet and dry Republicans and Democrats battled over their stand on the issue, swaying each party back and forth, for and against Prohibition (Kyvig 137). The Democrats, for instance, tried to gain support in both the anti-Prohibition urban centers and the pro-Prohibition rural areas (Eaggles 533) effectively splitting the Democratic party to the point of near collapse in 1928 ("Volstead Act"). Roosevelt himself waffled on the issue while senator, following with the tide of political forces-as New York ran strongly for Prohibition, so did he, and as they changed their minds, he did so too (Kyvig 147). Few who depended on party support could afford to do anything but the same for fear of upsetting or alienating half of more of the party. Crime, however, was a problem throughout Prohibition. In his book The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton states that any prohibitive measures, whether on alcohol or other goods, inherently create a black market trading in those goods (4). For, since demand does not generally decrease, or at least not significantly, the prohibited good will continue to be traded even though laws exist to prevent such an occurrence. The presence of this black market, in turn, increases the criminal activity related to the manufacture and sale of that substance (Thornton, Economics 4-5). In short, "prohibition creates new profit opportunities for both criminals and non-criminals," especially for those previously involved in criminal activities (Thornton, "Failure" 116-117). Prohibition was originally meant to curtail the abuses thought to be related to alcohol, one of which was crime (Thornton, Economics 111). However, as more and more people began to disrespect Prohibition, new types of criminal activity associated with alcohol were created. In response, the effort needed to enforce the Act continued to rise throughout the twenties and early thirties (Thornton, Economics 100); prisons filled to capacity and beyond (Thornton, "Failure" 73) while money spent on enforcement more than doubled (Thornton, Economics 100). In this sense, it is not surprising then that crime dropped dramatically almost immediately after the repeal of prohibition (Thornton, "Failure" 73). As in the case of the New York City policemen, enforcing Prohibition meant bring charges upon themselves (Thornton, Economics 133). And policemen were no different than the general population-as general support for Prohibition faded, so too did the willingness of the police force to enforce it. Prohibition also made transporting lighter, less potent forms of alcohol more dangerous and difficult (Thornton, "Failure" 71). Beer, for instance, which had not been widely abused in pre-Prohibition years, was much too bulky than the more potent, more compact spirits available. Thus, while beer consumption decreased throughout Prohibition, consumption of harder liquor continually increased, it being the less expensive form of alcohol (Thornton, Economics 104). And as shipping alcohol became more difficult and prices rose, some turned to other substances, such as marijuana and heroine, as a substitute for alcohol (Monahan 10). It is not surprising then that drug and alcohol related illnesses and deaths rose on the whole during Prohibition (Thornton, "Failure" 71). The same was true in the case of National Prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's-crime continued to increase as fewer and fewer people were willing to give up alcohol or to respect Prohibition laws, as shown by the dramatic increase in fines levied for Prohibition violations throughout its existence (Thornton, Economics 100).
Some common words found in the essay are:
Thornton Failure, Thornton Economics, Catholics Monahan, Volstead Act, Clark Prohibitionists, National Prohibition, Anti-Saloon League, Act Roosevelt, Mark Thornton, Amendment AAPA, thornton economics, thornton failure, support prohibition, volstead act, throughout prohibition, thornton economics 100, national prohibition, crime corruption, failure 71, economics 100, thornton failure 71, bootleg liquor, thornton failure 70, prohibition thornton failure, bootleg liquor alcohol,
Approximate Word count = 2730
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
