The incidence of liver cirrhosis dropped drastically during Prohibition and rose again after its repeal, which is widely taken as evidence that total consumption declined:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm
I think prohibition was a terrible idea, that doesn’t mean that it didn’t (at least to some degree) accomplish its purpose.
But deaths from alcohol consumption rose dramatically–not just deaths from methyl alcohol, but from drinking ethyl alcohol. No page number, but my source is “The Poisoner’s Handbook.” If public health was a real motivating factor behind Prohibition, the results were mixed at best.
From what I’ve read prohibition was a good idea because back before then, we were quickly turning into a nation of alcoholics. Booze back then had a much higher alcohol content. It truly was causing major social problems from domestic violence to accidents (remember cars were just coming on strong then) to rioting. Also back then it seemed like Americans were drinking practically sun up to sun set.
So I think prohibition was good because it gave the US a “time-out” so to speak where we could come to grips with the dangers of alcohol. When sales were resumed I feel the distilleries began producing a more quality product with lower levels of alcohol and the whole attitude towards drinking and drunkenness changed (although really being drunk was never considered “bad” until really the 1980’s). Drinking responsibly became important.
I think it was Dave Barry who said that Prohibition passed by a 9-4 vote held on a Sunday morning with the other members at home nursing their hangovers.
These two statements are contradictory.
If the amendment was aimed at German brewers of beer, then clearly people knew that it would apply to beer and would prevent the sale of beer.
If people did not think it would apply to beer, then it could not have been aimed at German brewers.
The UK has never actually imposed prohibition, although Cromwell would probably have liked to. His government did manage to abolish Christmas and close a lot of pubs but alcohol was never illegal.
Consumption was restricted in 1914 when public house opening hours were much reduced to help the war effort. When I was a young man in the 60s, pubs were only open between about 10am and 2pm and 5pm to 10 or 10:30 pm. It varied around the country but was always a source of bemusement to foreign visitors that at 2 O’clock the towels would go on the beer pumps and the landlord would start the time honoured call - “Time Gentlemen Please.”
The table that the authors cite for their claim about death rates from cirrhosis actually contradicts it. You can see that the death rate dropped considerably in the U.S. between 1910 and 1920 (Prohibition, remember, started taking effect around mid-1919), and it remained essentially stable through the rest of Prohibition and on into the mid-1950s, when it started rising again. Maybe the decline in deaths between 1910 and 1920 was in part due to the temperance movement (and other factors like WWI), but it wasn’t because of Prohibition. Also, cirrhosis (and resulting deaths) is a relatively late complication of alcoholic liver disease, so you’d expect to see death rates from cirrhosis maintaining a high level well into Prohibition and later dropping significantly. But the figures in the table don’t reflect that.
I doubt seriously that serious drinkers suddenly started abstaining en masse once Prohibition took effect. Observance of the law seems to have been most rigorous among those who were less inclined to drink in the first place.
No, it didn’t. Prohibition wasn’t sprung out of nowhere when the Eighteenth Amendment took effect. Prohibition originated at the state level, ramping up seriously when several Southern states enacted it between 1905 and 1910. It spread to the West with four Western states following suit in 1914. Then beginning in 1916 there was a rush in several more states as arguments about military preparedness and efficiency began to supplement traditional moral arguments.
In 1917, shortly after the US entered World War I, Congress enacted statutory Prohibition (as a temporary measure under emergency wartime powers). Permanent constitutional Prohibition via the Eighteenth Amendment was the icing on the cake.
In summary Prohibition was enacted gradually between (roughly) 1907 and 1920, consistent with the decline in cirrhosis shown in the charts.
They don’t sound contradictory to me. Prohibition was supported by a coalition of otherwise disparate factions (conservative teetotaler churches and progressive groups, for instance), and it’s certainly not unknown – then or now – for different arguments to be made by different supporters to different constituencies. As Troutman said:
and
(emphasis added).
National Prohibition seems related to the aphorism that every disaster results from a series of mistakes, so that the avoidance of any one apparently-minor mistake would have avoided the disaster. 
A lot of pro-Prohibition factors were in place for years or even decades before the 18th Amendment was sent to Congress, but the last pieces fell in place in the WWI years with (a) wartime food conservation (Meatless Mondays, etc.) so that “diverting” grain to beverages instead of bread seemed wasteful and (b) anti-German sentiment. Was there enough anti-German sentiment during and just after WWI to carry the 18th Amendment by itself? Probably not, but enough to tip the balance when combined with the pre-existing factors.
Jamaica Ginger extract, known in the United States by the slang name “Jake,” was a late 19th-century patent medicine that provided a convenient way to bypass Prohibition laws, since it contained between 70-80% ethanol by weight.
About 40000 men were paralyzed due to adulterated “jake”.
Yup. And in political campaigns, different and contradictory arguments targeted at different groups are often made by the same people. Consistency is not a big feature of politics.
Wayne Wheeler, one of the leaders of the Anti Saloon League, was a master of manipulating public opinion using any variety of arguments. He felt you didn’t need to convince the majority; you just need to convince the 10% on the fence because the rest of the people have already decided. He used cut-throat tactics and supposedly bragged about the deceptive practices he used to get support for Prohibition.
This is true, but it still doesn’t explain the drop in cirrhosis-related deaths as being a direct effect of dry laws. A lot of the statewide legislation was enacted between 1915-19 - and given the time needed for alcohol abuse to lead to cirrhosis, those laws shouldn’t have had anywhere near that impact.
Also, ending Prohibition doesn’t seem to have had any significant impact on that death rate.
Another factor to consider: during Prohibition, physicians were more likely to report an alternate cause of death instead of something linked to alcoholism. This is particularly true when looking at death rates for “alcoholism”, but could also be a factor with associated causes like cirrhosis.
That said, I think the preponderance of evidence does suggest a significant drop in consumption for the first few years, but not as much as some suggest.
The people did not in any case vote for the 18th amendment, their elected representatives did. In fact, the US Supreme Court (Hawke v Smith, 1920) ruled that only the legislatures were entitled to vote on constitutional amendments.
I mentioned earlier that “By 1913 nine states were dry and another 31 had local option laws; over 50% of the population lived under prohibition” According to your “Rustycans” cite (which looks like a good source of information) 25 states were dry as of 1917, so considerably more than 50% of the population must by then have been living under prohibition.
Again according to Rustycans one of them was Virginia, and Virginia did not allow beer or wine, and neither did the nation’s capital. I am not going to research the letter of the prohibition laws in the rest of the country, but it is reasonable to assume enough of them included prohibition on beer and wine so that the inclusive legal definition of “intoxicating liquors” was known by virtually the entire US electorate. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that all professional politicians knew the legal definition, and they were the ones who had actual voting rights on the matter.
I will give you only partial credit on this because (1) Rustycans deals only with issues arising from the limited, special conditions of declared war, and (2) Ohio History Central emphasizes that it was the “Progressives especially” who took this view rather than the Anglo population in general, and Germans and Irish are not included in the target immigrant population.
The national ticket may have ignored prohibition, but it does not look like anyone else did. According to Rustycans the state politicians certainly did not:
And Rustycans goes on to describe in detail how the new dry congressional majority continually roiled the national political waters until they got what they wanted in the form of an Constitutional amendment and supporting legislation.
Interesting. I didn’t realize the ratification process had changed between the 18th and 21st amendments. But I’m losing track of your argument. This is further evidence that Prohibition was more about what politicians wanted and less about the will of the people. I think ECG’s use of “Washington” was more shorthand for politicians in general. Apologies if this is the distinction you were originally trying to draw.
[QUOTE=Nelson Pike]
I will give you only partial credit on this because…
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, but I’m not really looking for scoring validation from you.
[QUOTE=Nelson Pike]
The national ticket may have ignored prohibition, but it does not look like anyone else did. According to Rustycans the state politicians certainly did not:
[/QUOTE]
Correct, politicians who had a strong opinion campaigned on it. Those who didn’t stayed away from the argument. The parties as a whole did not take a stand on it. You asked for a cite that the parties as entities steered clear. I agree with you that individual politicians did not.
What do you mean? The ratification process for amendments passed by the US Houses of Congress has never changed. There is an alternate process- the constitutional convention, but that has never been employed historically and is not a issue for this thread.
And I think the will of the people was accurately reflected by decades of election results, which showed consistent and increasing popular support for Prohibition, culminating in 2/3 majorities in both Houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the states.
This is probably the first-ever use of the word “Washington” in such a sense. IMO it is nothing but a rhetorical escape hatch, a spur of the moment ad hoc concoction made up solely for the purpose of trying to save face in a losing argument. And since the original user is on the same side you are on let me say I anticipate he may wish to make use of the same device.
YVW.
The only reasonable interpretation of the 1916 Congressional election returns is that with the ever-increasing pro-prohibition momentum it was not possible for most and more likely all candidates to avoid devoting prominent attention to the issue.
Do you have figures for the population of the states that were dry or semi-dry in comparison to the wet states? Given that the dry / semi-dry states tended to be rural, might the greater population still be in the wet states?
Ugh. This is why I stay out of GD, to avoid these winner/loser threads. You seem more interested in scoring points than exchanging information, so I’ll leave you to it.
You are right about the state-wide Wet v Dry population difference.
See the Wiki article for “Dry States” and the map near the page bottom of this cite highlighting nationwide Dry v Wet jurisdictions.
NB all wet states appear to have had extensive local dry jurisdictions. There are probably maps with better resolution somewhere on the net. If I find one I will post it.
Originally Posted by Nelson Pike View Post
…IMO it is nothing but a rhetorical escape hatch, a spur of the moment ad hoc concoction made up solely for the purpose of trying to save face in a losing argument.
Thank you for quoting me. A good point deserves to be repeated once or twice.
Although you have imparted some useful information, you have also gone badly enough astray several times to require correction.