On the “Young Indian Jones Chronicles” DVDs, there is a documentary dealing with a prohibition episode (Indy teams up with his college roommate Eliot Ness and his reporter friend from The Great War Ernest Hemingway to investigate a murder in a restaurant where Al Capone is a worker). One of the people makes the observation that the drys never really thought you would need massive law enforcement for prohibition. Once it was illegal, people would give it up and just would not drink again. Although it is controversial whether alcohol consumption decreased in the twenties due to a lack of getting reliable figures of the number of bottles sold. Keep in mind alcohol consumption was far more prevalent back then. It was not unusual to have crews at factory send out young workers to get a bucket of beer to consume at lunch before 1919. Drys would have been better served to work for moderation and treatment programs, IMO.
It has also been suggested that it passed with the United States involved in the World War that Wilson won reelection on by telling us that “He kept us out of war” (his supporters said nothing about the future, although you had real idiots running Germany who did stupid things like the Zimmerman telegraph). Lots of the customers who drank were in the trenches in France and couldn’t register there complaints plus people get really moral and stupid during war. Sauerkraut was called "Liberty cabbage, dachshunds were called “Liberty Hounds” and it was frowned upon to listen the Beethoven.
I wonder about the “No amendment has been repealed” argument. Since some parts of the constitution had been amended, like owning slaves, was it considered unthinkable that prohibition would be? Harder to get 3/4 of the states to do so. There was also the fact that before an amendment to allow for the income tax, the SCOTUS had struck down legislation calling for it.
I’ve always wondered - what was the law for the transition from a wet to a dry society, in the one-year runup to Prohibition taking effect? Were citizens, bars, country clubs etc. required to discard all the booze they had on hand? Was anything already on the shelf grandfathered in, and if so, did people thus stockpile? I know about later widespread bootlegging.
The date for the transition was announced in advance. Prior to that day, people went on a national binge to drink as much as humanly possible. On that date at midnight all supplies were to be destroyed. No grandfathering was allowed for public gathering places like bars or nightclubs or hotels.
However, individuals could keep anything they had in their homes. People who could afford it bought up carloads of booze. Perhaps - and I would never accuse anybody of anything - some of the bar booze that was scheduled to be destroyed was “purchased” by individuals at the last moment.
Pre-Prohibition booze was a treasured commodity. But realistically it was a tiny, tiny amount compared to a country’s demand for alcohol. After a year or two almost all alcohol was smuggled in or manufactured on the cheap. There were some legal dodges that instantly became abused. Doctors were allowed to prescribe alcohol for medicinal purposes (hence the phrase you see in movies of the era) and a huge trade in phony prescriptions sprang up. So did the number of fake rabbis who could authorize wine for Jewish holidays. Real priests literally bought vineyards to supply parishes who got religion overnight. They needed to because all the other vineyards were torn down and replaced by different grapes whose main quality was their purpleness - i.e., when illegal cheap wine was made from them they dyed two or three times as much liquid as regular wine grapes. Fruit wines were not banned and so the apple crops of California magically multiplied. Again, while these were common they were small compare to the total.
This is all remembered from Okrant’s book. It’s a great read.
The transition wasn’t as sudden as you might think. Congress and the President had been gradually tightening the screws since 1917, using emergency wartime powers. You can read a good summary in the case of Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey. (The plaintiff in that case, by the way, was the owner of the New York Yankees. While awaiting the resolution of his lawsuit, he bought Babe Ruth from the Red Sox, which must have softened the pain of defeat.)
I don’t think the topic of slavery is a good parallel with Prohibition. The original Constitution exclusive of Amendments mentions slavery in one or two places, but does not explicitly make inviolate the right to own or traffic in slaves. The one mention that I do specifically remember, banning importation after 1808, is one that portends the far greater Federal interest in the topic, and outright prohibition of the slave traffic, that would come after the Civil War.
See Raich v. Ashcroft (aka Raich v. Gonzalez), a case involving a California medical marijuana user whose half-dozen home-grown cannabis plants were confiscated in a DEA raid. In a nutshell, the SCOTUS decided in favor of the government, on the grounds that home-grown marijuana could end up in interstate commerce even though it was intended for personal consumption. Among other things, the Supremes cited the inherent difficulty in distinguishing locally produced versus imported MJ.
Could one reason for the amendment approach have been that, since ratification was on a state-by-state basis, the “dry” rural states could easily outvote the more urban states with “wet” tendencies?
OK, but what if Congress had passed no such act? Or what if “a majority of both houses and the President” had repealed the act? With no penalties mandated (and no definition of “intoxicating liquor”), would the amendment have done anything to prohibit anything?
My thesis topic is temperance/prohibition so maybe I can shed a little bit of light on the topic. First, temperance and prohibition are two separate things and supporters of one didn’t always support the other. I will be as brief as I can so I do not bore you to death.
Temperance is moral suasion. I will persuade you not to drink.
Prohibition is political. I will make it so you cannot drink (in theory).
The 19th Amendment was passed because the Prohibitionist knew that they were about to lose a lot of power with the upcoming 1920 census. This is the data that we’re Constitutionally bound to use in order to come up with the number of representatives in the House (more on this in a moment). The Drys knew that the 1920 census would tilt the political power in favor of the wets. Any national law they passed would be in grave danger of simple being repealed after 1920. (This is something that happened in other states. Maine, for example, was the first state in the Union to go dry prior to the Civil War but those laws were later repealed and it became wet again.) While a Constitutional Amendment is difficult to pass it is equally difficult to repeal and, in fact, at that time none had ever been repealed.
I could write more about it but I think that pretty much answers your question. And I see that others have already given you pretty much the same answer. Incidentally, after 1920 the U.S. did not reapportion state representatives in the House as they were supposed to do. This did not happen until 1929.
That explains why I’m unable to defend my thesis. Incidentally, any chance we can just keep this error between ourselves and not let the other Dopers know?
While it is true that the “tax” element of both laws was a ruse, the Marihuana Tax Act Of 1937 did impose a prohibitively expensive tax on anyone other than licensed practitioners such as doctors and pharmacists. The $100 tax assessed for each ounce would, of course have been equivalent to a couple grand in today’s money.
Because of NATURAL RIGHTS. In the preamble it states that we have rights that can not be taken away by anyone or anything. like the pursuit of happyness and liberty and the right to life. Notice it is the right to and not the right s of.
Because of NATURAL RIGHTS. In the preamble it states that we have rights that can not be taken away by anyone or anything. like the pursuit of happyness and liberty and the right to life. Notice it is the right to and not the right s of.
Dude, how many bong hits do you take every day? The bit about “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Exapno Mapcase and Dewey Finn, let’s refrain from insulting remarks directed at other posters. You guys should know better than this. No warning issued.
It’s actually amazing how many Americans don’t know this, and believe that the sentence about natural rights, written by Jefferson for the Declaration, also made it way into the Constitution. I teach college history, and i’ve seen this often among my students.
What’s more discouraging is that, when you point out the distinction, plenty of people shrug as if it doesn’t matter. “Declaration. Constitution. It’s all the same time period, right?” This, of course, completely ignores the very different purposes of the two documents, and the very different circumstances of their creation.