SID 17354921

The Failure of Prohibition Julie Blackett It cannot be denied that Prohibition was a failure in most of what it set out to be. This paper will attempt to explore why Prohibition is considered a failure, as well as examining what led to its repeal in 1933. It will look at a variety of reasons for this failure. These reasons include: the costs involved in enforcing the law; corruption of enforcement officers and others involved, as well as what contributed to this corruption; the rise of gangs and black market monopolies and the violence associated with them; the relative ease of production and availability from various sources; as well as some economic considerations. This paper will begin by briefly touching upon how Prohibition was achieved and the process that led to what was, briefly, seen as a victory for the wets. The paper will then focus upon the issues and problems already mentioned that occurred during Prohibition and led to its failure, and will finish by examining the process of its repeal and the issues that were involved in that process. When considering the issue of Prohibition, it is important to note that it was not an idea that was quickly thought of nor was it quickly passed. Prohibition met all the tests of proper democratic action: the test of time, the test of full discussion, the test of decisive majority action (Carter, 1973, p. 189), which is not a fast process. The whole prohibition movement began easily a hundred years before being passed at a Constitutional level. This movement began with temperance organisations forming in states in the early 1800s, and by the late 1800s, the temperance movement had broadened its focus from abstinence to include all behaviour and institutions related to alcohol consumption. In 1881, the movement made its first real step forward, with Kansas being the first state to outlaw alcohol. Other states followed, especially in the South. Prohibition remained an important political issue from the 1840s through to the 1930s and was also seen as representing a conflict between urban and

SID 17354921

rural values. The Great War provided another step towards national prohibition. Firstly because German-Americans, who generally opposed prohibition, were sidelined and their protests were generally ignored. Secondly, it was argued that with prohibition, more resources could be used for the war effort. This idea of war prohibition was a spark for the movement. In 1917, a Constitutional amendment was called for and passed by both houses. By January 1919, the 18th Amendment had been ratified and Prohibition went into effect in January 1920 with the implementation of the Volstead Act. This Act was supposed to result in the country going completely dry (Reeves, 2000, p. 92). However, it can be said that as soon as the wets achieved this victory, defeat would closely follow as issues began to arise almost immediately. Although it is still debated, it cannot be argued that there was a reduction in drinking. It is generally accepted that there was a slight to moderate reduction. There is also some question about the decrease in disease and death related to alcohol, although, again it is generally accepted that there was at least some decrease. This was one of the few successes of prohibition, as there were many more issues and problems. The first of the issues that occurred with prohibition was that of enforcement. As Adams (1967) says, laws which deny individual freedoms and conflict with the wishes of a significantly large minority of the population are usually only obeyed in proportion to the effectiveness of their enforcement (p. 52). The issue of enforcement was a multifaceted one and continued to worsen as other problems arose. Corruption was a major issue as law enforcement, by Congress and the states, proved futile, and governments, court systems, and police forces at all levels frequently wallowed in corruption (Reeves, 2000, p. 92). This was perhaps particularly true of the limited number of agents employed by the prohibition bureau, varying between 1500 and 2300, with a pay rate of only $1200 to $2300 per year, who were given the impossible task of preventing a population of over a million people from drinking
2

SID 17354921

alcoholic beverages (Adams, 1967, p. 52). Rather than improving public morals, prohibition seemed to undermine them, fostering hypocrisy and disrespect for the law (Reeves, 2000, p. 92). As public opinion changed and increased in favour of repealing the law, public support increasingly sided with the lawbreakers, and the difficulties with enforcement increased. As Leuchtenburg (1993) states: Charged with enforcing a law that millions abhorred, enforcement agencies had a nearly impossible assignment. They never had enough officers, and their agents were often venal political hacks, quick to resort to violence. Public fury was aroused at the agentsthey appeared to be as lawless and reckless as the men they were pursuing. Before long, millions of Americans sided with the lawbreakers (p. 216). This favour towards the law breakers was an unintended result of prohibition and made it practically impossible to effectively enforce the Volstead Act. That having been said, there was also an issue in the courts, for while enforcement was largely ineffective in stopping the production or consumption of alcohol on a large scale, there were a surprisingly large number of arrests. This led to judicial dockets being overwhelmed and prosecutors seeking disproportionate punishments against bootleggers, in some cases up to life in prison, again due to the difficulty with public opinion (Harp, 2010, p. 1671). When considering some of the factors that led to the difficulty in enforcing the Volstead Act, it is important to be aware that a large part was due to the relative ease of either producing or acquiring alcohol. This was evident in a number of ways. One of the simplest, for any person, was the production of alcohol at home. This was done in a number of different ways, depending upon the alcohol being produced. In some cities, hardware stores openly displayed copper stills along with yeast, hops, and other ingredients (Leuchtenburg, 1993, p.

SID 17354921

214). In many cases, home brewing and the production of moonshine in particular, became normal family occupations (Adams, 1967, p. 53) and people devised ingenious means to outwit the efforts of the drys (Leuchtenburg, 1993, p. 214). Industrial alcohol factories flourished as much industrial alcohol could be consumed directly or redistilled easily. Illegal commercial stills and breweries also flourished, after quickly adapting to follow the letter of the law. This also became the time of the speakeasies, which replaced the saloons, and indeed increased in number when compared. Bootleggers became something of a national hero, and smuggled liquor from Canada at a rate conservatively estimated at forty million dollars worth a year (Adams, 1967, p. 52). They supplied individual consumers, restaurants and hotels, but found their chief market in the speakeasy (Adams, 1967, p. 52). Thus, with so many possible avenues to produce or find alcohol, it is not surprising that law enforcement had such difficulties in stopping it. The illegal production and consumption of alcohol also led to the rise of organised crime or gangs. While they had existed before prohibition, the enormous profits from the trade gave them the means to control by bribery whole communities, including city governments, and to enforce compliance with their demands by terror and physical violence (Adams, 1967, p. 53). Chicago in particular, has become infamous for this, with Al Capone setting up a $60 million empire in alcohol, gambling, prostitution, and drugs. He also had his own private army of almost a thousand hoodlums (Leuchtenburg, 1993, p. 215) and controlled most of Chicagos 10,000 speakeasies (Reeves, 2000, p. 92). In Chicago alone, there were five hundred gangland murders (Reeves, 2000, p. 92). While Chicago and Capone are perhaps the most famous of the organised crime empires that were set up in the cities, they are by no means the only one. Similar situations took place in other cities, notably New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other wet cities. The nature of such organisations also contributed to the corruption of law enforcement, particularly local police seeking to supplement their income.
4

SID 17354921

Thus, rather than the reduction in crime that was hoped for, and that the drys predicted to dramatically drop, Since 90 percent of adult criminals are whiskey-made (Leuchtenburg, 1993, p. 215); crime, violence, and murder increased dramatically. This increase is also due to what is known as black market economics. This occurs when the sale of a popular drug or substance is banned, leading to wealth and power being amplified and transferred from competition between legitimate firms to a monopoly control of organised, entrepreneurial criminals. This in turn leads to the government investing in preventing the criminals, who subsequently engage in resistance and subterfuge. Violence becomes rampant as the only mechanism for adjudicating contractual disputes and enforcing industry norms. Violence is used to take over and hold supply routes and distribution territory (Harp, 2010, p. 1670). This has a cyclical effect on both the level of violence and expenditures. At the same time, consumers may resort to theft in order to pay for the increased cost of the drugs or illegal substance. This whole cycle results in increased price and reduced quality (Harp, 2010, p. 1670). This relates back to the increase in crime and violence, and the monopoly of organised crime. In the final days of prohibition, the same questions that were brought up, relating to the division between urban and rural values, North and South, and class differences, were raised once again. It can be said that the path to the repeal began as soon as prohibition was passed. Black market alcohol was mostly produced in the United States, where Prohibitions bad effects were concentrated. The visibility of local costs led to the relatively quick repeal of the 18th Amendment (Harp, 2010, p. 1665). The circumstances surrounding the repeal also contributed. With the economic problems that were occurring, most notably the Depression, the government couldnt afford to have so much money going to gangs and other organised criminals. The taxes on alcohol and jobs involved the production and sale of it were necessary, especially in such a time. This argument, and other relating to the economic cost
5

SID 17354921

of prohibition can be summed up quite simply: it failed because of the futility of trying to eliminate, by fiat, flourishing markets for highly demanded goods (Harp, 2010, p. 1664). Unlike some other issues and more recent prohibitions, like the more recent war on drugs, prohibition was met with decisive backlash and repeal (Harp, 2010, p. 1664). The issue of prohibition also became one for political parties. Democrats were in favour of the repeal, but Republicans were against or ignoring it. When the repeal was enacted in 1933 with the Cullen-Harrison Act or the Twenty-first Amendment, it was on a Constitutional level. This is the only amendment to be repealed. However, this did not affect the law on a more local level, as a number of states, counties and towns still had at least some form of prohibition. Mississippi, for instance, was the last state to repeal prohibition in 1966, and Kansas did not allow the sale of alcohol on-premises until 1987. Ultimately, prohibition was a failure, with the costs far outweighing the benefits. As can be seen, a number of aspects contributed to the failure of prohibition. Although there was some success in reducing consumption of alcohol and the diseases related to it, overall, prohibition was a disaster. The huge increase in violence and crime was perhaps the most noticeable effect of prohibition and what perhaps ultimately led to its end. The other main concern was the fact that the enforcement was so ineffective which, in a cyclical manner, contributed to the increase in crime and helped lead to the failure of prohibition. It can, however, be argued that prohibition was not a complete catastrophe, with some states, counties and towns still dry today, showing that the experiment had some merit, it was perhaps, simply not suitable on a national level, at least without a great deal more investment and consideration.

SID 17354921

Reference List Adams, D. K. (1967). America in the 20th century: A study of the United States since 1917. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Carter, Paul A. (1973). Prohibition and democracy: The noble experiment reassessed. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 56 (3), 189-201. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4634793. Harp, Seth (2010). Globalization of the US black market: Prohibition, the war on drugs, and the case of Mexico. New York University Law Review, 85 (5), 1661-1693. Retrieved from http://www.nyulawreview.org/ Leuchtenburg, William E. (1993). The perils of prosperity, 1914-1932, 2nd Ed. Chicago, United States of America: The University of Chicago Press. Jenkins, Philip (2012). A history of the United States, 4th Ed. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Reeves, Thomas C. (2000). Twentieth-century America: A brief history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.