A friend and I were discussing the movie TRAFFIC the
other day, and it occurred to us that what was unusual
about Constitutional Prohibition of alcohol (18th
Amendment) wasn’t that it was enacted, but that later
it was successfully repealed (21st Aemndment)!
The reasons to repeal prohibition were obvious, at least
in retrospect, but that clearly doesn’t explain how
the massive accretion in federal power was reversed.
How did this sudden and unique instance of legislative
sanity happen?
Any information or links to such appreciated. Thanks!
Also go here for some other material.
1913-1933: NATIONAL PROHIBITION – PROLOGUE AND FINISH
About 1/3 to 1/2 way down the page you’ll find a heading,
“1913-1933: NATIONAL PROHIBITION – PROLOGUE AND FINISH”. It seems fairly in depth. Happy reading.
My real point is twofold. I had looked at some general
reference articles even before posting the question.
What struck me is that nearly all of the arguments
mentioned in favor of ending prohibition are very
similar to the situation in regard to the drug trade,
most notably the wealth and power accruing to gangsters.
What was different about the 1930s that made people more
willing to change the law, thus removing the price
supports which caused the gangs to flourish?
Another point is the distinction between legalization
and decriminalization. Decriminalization seems like the
worst possible answer for a problem like drugs, since it
allows the trade to flourish, but does nothing to lower
the price of the drugs. It is the high price of drugs
which leads directly to the wealth and power of the
gangs involved, and making those drugs illegal amounts
to a federal subsidy of drug production and distribution.
Yet decriminalization seems to be the most commonly
discussed alternative to the status quo, while
legalization, a far more atractive alternative, is
too radical for serious public debate. How did the
anti-Prohibition forces in the 1930s avoid the lure
of decriminalization, and go striaght to legalization
in regard to alcohol?
By decriminalization, I assume you mean keeping the laws against drugs, but not enforcing them, or lifting any penalties for their use. That was never really seriously considered in the 1930s (for alcohol). Remember, though, prohibition had only existed for about 12 years, and had been controversial since the beginning.
BTW, technically, the 18th amendment didn’t make the sale of alcohol illegal. The National Prohibition Act (“Volstead Act”) did.
“What was different about the 1930s that made people more willing to change the law, thus removing the price supports which caused the gangs to flourish?”
The economic desparation of the Depression certainly played a part.
Legal booze pays taxes. States and local governments with booming “relief” (welfare) rolls were desparate for revenue, but couldn’t raise taxes in an plummeting economy.
2)I’ve read articles and pro-repeal editorials from the time implying that hundreds or thousands of jobs in the manufacture, shipping, and selling of alcoholic beverages would appear if the 18th Amendment were repealed. That may sound odd to a more disinterested ear – weren’t the jobs already there, just not “on the books” and legal? But there would be SOME increase in employment, and at the low point of the Depression, ANYTHING that credibly promised to add ANY jobs would have gotten votes.
Female suffrage – the right of women to vote – and temperance – the elimination of alcohol – were two of the three seminal liberal causes to acheive prominence in this country. The first was the abolition of slavery, which is often mistakenly thought to be the primary cause of the Civil War. Even a cursory examination of history’s players will yield the fact that the exact same people and organizations supported all these crusades.
Prohibition – the judicial and constitutional embodiment of temperance – was an incredibly stupid idea from the start. Humans have been manufacturing alcoholic beverages since before they had calendars, and, human nature being what it is, folks weren’t about to stop on account of a li’l ol’ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I have read accounts to the effect that the Mafia literally owes its modern existence to the 18th Amendment. Until Uncle Sam said, “no more alcohol,” the Mafia was dying out. Then, out of the blue, and with the name “prohibition,” came a fabulously rich opportunity to almost literally coin money!
The 21st Amendment, enacted under FDR’s liberal-to-the-max watch (go figure!), was a RARE example of government actually doing the right, sensible thing. Prohibition was precisely the dismal failure it was predicted to be by its detractors. People saw this, and reacted accordingly. “It’s not working, and neither am I, so screw it.”
I think in 1933, the American electorate might have gladly adopted the formation of a government-funded “ANYTHING” to get out of the hole they were in. Times weren’t tough; they were miserable. Killing Prohibition was FDR’s quickest and surest way of gaining favor, and he latched onto it like stink latches onto shit.
As Captain Amazing said, the 18th amendment didn’t outlaw alcohol; it simply empowered the federal government to have that option, which it did by enacting the Volstead Act. So why was the 21st amendment necessary? Couldn’t congress have simply repealed the Volstead Act, and left the 18th amendment an unused dead letter?
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th, but it also reserved for the states the right to regulate intoxicating beverages.
It didn’t declare alcohol sales legal everywhere. It just made it illegal for the Federal government to ban it outright and reserved the rights to the states. Many states stayed dry for many years after the 21st amendment.
When they prohibited alcohol, there was already a large portion of the population using it, many of whom continued to use it. There were not nearly as many people smoking marijuana, taking opium, etc. (and many of those who did were from minorities that were considered second-class citizens) so it was easier to ban it.
Things have changed though, and there are a LOT of people using illegal drugs now, a lot more than when they were made illegal, maybe more people using than there were people drinking when alcohol was prohibited. It would be damn hard to federally ban them today if they weren’t already illegal.