Absolut FailureEssay Preview: Absolut FailureReport this essayThe 1920s was a time of major social change in the United States. The social changes during this period are reflected in the laws and regulations that were implemented. One of the most prominent examples of this was prohibition. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution, or the Volsted act as it is also know, was implemented to eliminate the use of alcohol in the United States. In doing this, the advocates of prohibition hoped to also eradicate the social problems associated with alcohol. “It was an attempt to promote Protestant middle-class culture as a means of imposing order on a disorderly world”(Dumenil 226). However, this goal of keeping social order through not consuming alcohol, was not reached during the years of prohibition, or even the years following it. Alcohol use among Americans did decline, but it was not totally eliminated, and some of the social problems were even greater then before prohibition. Therefore prohibition was not successful in its original purpose. To best understand the reasons behind the failure of prohibition, we have to look at the years before, during, and after prohibition. This will give context to the implementation of the 18th Amendment, as well as show the trends of Americans alcohol use and the effects of alcohol on American society.
The early 1900s were a time of great prosperity in the United States. America was thriving economically, and big cities were booming. However, some Americans thought that this was not a good thing, because of the social problems that came with the urban culture. The “Drys”, as Prohibitionists were referred to, saw large cities as providing people with readily available alcohol. This in turn led to an increase in crime, poverty and immorality. During the period of 1911-1915 the average per-capita consumption of alcohol of each American was 2.56 gallons (Kyvig 24). The solution that was proposed was a national prohibition of alcohol. The goal of this was to eliminate drinking in America thus reducing all of the problems associated with it. “The Prohibitionists thought that the sale of liquor was a social crime, that the drinking of liquor was a racial crime, and that the results of liquor were criminal actions”(Sinclair 220). By making alcohol illegal nationally, such as it would be with prohibition, the social problems of America would be fixed.
On January 16, 1920 alcohol became illegal with the passing of the 18th Amendment. Under the Volsted Act, named after its author, the importing, exporting, transporting, and manufacturing of all intoxicating substances was outlawed. The government defined intoxicating liquor as anything having an alcoholic content of more then .5%. However this excluded alcohol used in religious or medical purposes. With the passing of this Amendment, the temperance movement in the United States had won a major victory. They saw the implementation of prohibition as the key to freeing American from the fiery vices of alcohol. So began the prohibition era.
At the onset of prohibition, alcohol use in the United States did decline. “It did cut alcohol consumption, perhaps by as much as thirty percent, and was more effective in the early years (1919-1922)” (Dumenil 233). However, this reduction in consumption was not long lasting. “Seldom has a law been more flagrantly violated. Not only did Americans continue to manufacture, barter, and possess alcohol; they drank more of it”(Bowen 154). One of the reasons for this was because prohibition was so hard to enforce. Partly this was because of the poor wording of the Amendment. The 18th Amendment prohibited the sale, import, export, manufacture, and transport of alcohol, but it failed to specifically make purchasing alcohol or its use a crime. According to David E. Kyvig, “This allowed continued possession of intoxicants obtained prior to prohibition, provided that such beverages were only for personal use in ones own home”(22). This loophole in the Amendment was not on the side of the Prohibitionists, and ultimately led to a decline in prohibitions effectiveness.
Another reason that the decline in alcohol sale and usage was not permanent was its increased profitability. After the implementation of prohibition, the price of alcohol went up dramatically. During prohibition, the price of beer went up 600%, and the price of gin went up 520%(Kyvig Pg.25). This made the sale of illegal spirits more profitable to bootleggers. The alcohol trade was a very lucrative practice. Bootleggers smuggled alcohol in to the country and sold it at tremendous profits. Therefore, because alcohol was more profitable to sell during prohibition, it was more widely consumed. The levels of consumption never reached those of pre-prohibition times, but alcohol use in the United States was not totally eliminated. “National prohibition substantially reduced, but did not altogether eliminate, the use of alcoholic beverages”(Kyvig 22).
”.The decrease in alcohol sales during prohibition, and the increase in alcohol use after the ban on it, were due principally to the establishment of the Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Control Commission, adopted by the Congress in January 1940 when it decided to restrict or ban the distribution of alcoholic beverages to minors (Barlow 14). The commission’s actions were intended to prevent alcohol consumption and discourage the manufacture or production of alcoholic beverages, which were produced by the small number of those who were free to consume alcohol.
Some argue that prohibition and alcohol were simply two sides of the same coin, and that liquor sales of different kinds, such as for sale in the United States, could be controlled by different people. However, a significant number of cases are alleged to have been prevented by that position, including of the persons who were brought into the country pursuant to a temporary prohibition from entering the country by the time of arrest. †(pp. 2-3). In many of the cases alleged to have been prevented, it was a legal matter, not a moral one, why alcohol, if it wasn’t legal to drink it on one’s own, was so profitable. But in so many cases, the illegal substances were in fact sold at higher markup, in a less desirable manner than was actually believed to be true. And it was not known if alcohol was at least as addictive as heroin, because there were some high rates in the United States for heroin use in the 1970s (Barlow 4). When the Commission approved bans on heroin in 1981, it allowed only three weeks notice for the sale (Barlow 3). If the commission felt that the drug was more or less effective on its own, it could put more restrictions on its sales (Barlow 6). The issue is not merely that it was more legal (there was no time limit for the sale), but also, that the Commission feared that alcohol-related laws in the United States would be brought before a jury and the State would have more control and thus be subjected to tougher fines. A decision on whether to carry out these measures would be left to the State or the district court, who could, at that point, make a final decision, which ultimately would be whether those laws were the right one or not (Barlow 6).
CONCLUSION
It is important to note that there is a strong difference between prohibition and alcohol production and consumption. It is difficult to see what is true or false. As discussed above, much of the controversy revolves around where to draw the connection between various categories of activity, as described above, and which activities and substances are of particular interest. We may conclude that prohibition, even in the absence of evidence that a person is “drug-free”, was merely another part of the problem. We could not conclude that a prohibition ban was the only solution to the problems of alcohol and tobacco use over the last 60 years. We could thus conclude that the problem was that both alcohol and tobacco production were not sufficiently regulated and that prohibition was a necessary tool for the effective control of alcohol as a whole (Barlow 25). If our point is to conclude that a prohibition decision could not have reached such a conclusion without a change in government regulations regarding the production and distribution of drugs and alcohol, we cannot do that. There are a number of ways that these laws can be changed. Most
During prohibition, the social ills of America that the prohibitionists had hoped to cure with the implementation of the Volstead act were not eradicated. Before prohibition, the temperance movement blamed an increase in crime on alcohol. This was one of the main arguments for prohibition. However, after the beginning of prohibition the homicide rate actually increased for America. This was mainly due to the fact that the selling of liquor was becoming increasingly more profitable for criminals. Because each separate criminal group was fighting for the same thing, to sell the most illegal alcohol, there were increasing tensions between these groups. The crime rate in major cities went up, as did the homicide rate. Serious crimes such as homicide and assault and battery increased 13% during prohibition. Even though proponents of Prohibition saw the 18th Amendment as a law that would reduce criminal activities in America, this was not the reality.
Another social problem that prohibition was supposed to address was the loss of morals in America. “The emerging middle class used the temperance and evangelical movements to establish a culture of sobriety, restraint, and industry to strengthen the family, promote individual and community prosperityД (Dumenil 226). Many Americans thought that society was morally and ethically decaying. There was prostitution, gambling, and open sexuality, more prevalent in the cities than in rural areas.
Prohibition would cure this. With prohibition in place the Temperance Movement claimed that, “The abolition of the saloon and of drinking in clubs and at public dinners are an unequivocal sign that the new ideal of social responsibility has progressed”(Fisher 186). Prohibitionists