prohibition essay thesis

22 Winning Topics For An Argument Essay On Prohibition

The prohibition in the United States was repealed after just thirteen years. In that time, however, a number of topics were developed worth exploring in an argument essay. Here are 22 worth consideration:

Do you think the prohibition amendment was ratified in response to women activists who were seeking equal voting rights?
How did the estimate and apparent rise of alcohol consumption across the nation in the 1850s encourage the debate about prohibition?
How did prohibition lead to the rise of organized crime in major cities across the United States and could it have been prevented?
Do you think the United States should reintroduce prohibition or tax alcohol with a higher rate as a means to lower the amount being consumed?
Do you believe a prohibition law similar to the law passed in the early 20th century work today in your state?
Would prohibition or a similar law regulating the consumption of alcohol have a different effect in today’s society?
What are the biggest similarities and differences between prohibition and the War on Drugs? Do you think the U.S. learned from the results of prohibition?
What were the greatest social and economic effects of prohibition in the early 20th century? Did it influence the following decades in any way?
Why do think the Federal Government decided to regulate the consumption of alcohol anyways rather than impose higher taxes?
Did prohibition give rise to America’s bootleggers and moonshiners counter-culture in the United States?
Do you think the very act of prohibiting alcohol distribution and consumption promoted curiosity in people?
Was organized crime the biggest factor behind the bringing about the end to the prohibition era or were there other pressures?
What were the immediate societal and economic effects of repealing prohibition in the early 20th century?
How did F. Scott Fitzgerald deal with the issue of prohibition in his classic American novel “The Great Gatsby”.
Did prohibition lead to rise to other types of crime? And if so why do you think congress didn’t consider the relationship before passing the amendment?
Do you think the repeal of prohibition paved the way for the United States’ current societal push to legalize marijuana?
Do you think that if there had been a greater emphasis on enforcement of prohibition then the amendment would have been a success?
Do you think the amendment was repealed because of the rise of crimes or because of public pressures from normal citizens?
Do you think that the thirteen years in which prohibition was in effect was a failure largely because of lack of enforcement?
Do you think the lessons learned from prohibition posit support for legalization of all types of drugs in the U.S.?
Do you think that prohibition was destined to fail right from the start and that it may have only been a political ploy to gain voting support?
Which political group was the most responsible for the repeal of the prohibition amendment and did it lead to future success?

Once the writing is done, the student has just a rough draft. For this rough draft to become a final draft, the student needs to edit it first. Students may want to change the font size for a larger one so that the writing seems new. This will make it easier to spot errors as the student reads through their work. The student may also want to ask a teacher or friend for help so that they can catch every error that occurs in their writing.

Compare & contrast paper

Informal essay format

Argumentative paper on gay marriage

Organizing a narrative essay

Prohibition

By Annie Anderson

Despite the national prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933, Philadelphia earned a reputation rivaling Chicago, Detroit, and New York City as a liquor-saturated municipality. The Literary Digest described Pennsylvania as a “bootlegger’s Elysium,” with every city as “wet as the Atlantic Ocean.” The Quaker City in particular was singled out, by newspapers from New Haven to Newark, as one of the wettest and wickedest cities in the United States. Philadelphia and Atlantic City, New Jersey, a seaside resort town that served as a major port of entry for illegal liquor, were considered “open towns” during Prohibition—open in their defiance of liquor laws.

General Smedley Butler destroying a keg of beer with an axe

Prohibition began in 1919 with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment , which made the production, transportation, and sale of alcohol illegal. Although the Eighteenth Amendment took effect nationally in 1920, several states enacted prohibition before then, including Delaware on March 18, 1918, and Pennsylvania on February 25, 1919. New Jersey ratified the Eighteenth Amendment on March 9, 1922. A confluence of social forces brought Prohibition to the national stage after nearly a century of Protestant criticism aimed at the supposed moral laxity induced by alcohol. In the early 1900s, the United States saw a rise in xenophobia against immigrants whom nativists associated with alcohol—especially those of Irish and German descent. Factions of the women’s suffrage movement propped up their claims to full citizenship by proclaiming a distinctly feminine moral authority, guided by temperance. Advocates of clean government and clean living argued that the elimination of the saloon would promote moral character and curtail the power that political bosses held. Prohibition encapsulated the Progressive Era ’s impulse toward reform.

Though drinking moved underground with the introduction of Prohibition, Philadelphians actually had more saloons and watering holes to choose from after the law was enacted. The supposed abolition of bars and liquor dispensaries allowed for the emergence of a black market economy regulated only by bootleggers. Journalists reported that Pennsylvania’s largest cities, including Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Scranton, showed no pretense of obeying the Prohibition laws. Philadelphia, meanwhile, was the worst Prohibition violator in the Commonwealth, allowing its citizens considerable ease and freedom to obtain intoxicating beverages. Philadelphia had long been one of the nation’s leading beer brewing capitals. Though some breweries switched to making “near beer” (a malt beverage with an alcohol content of less than 0.5%) and soft drinks during Prohibition, many continued brewing beer. Philadelphia police suspected and pounced on the illegal activity. Vice raids on dozens of brewers—including Esslinger & Son, Finkenauer Brewing Co., Liebert & Obert, Roehm Brewing Co., and Philadelphia Brewing Co.—turned up high-powered beer. Most Philadelphia breweries failed or were padlocked out of existence by the early 1930s. A city of nearly 100 breweries in the 1880s, Philadelphia had just 10 licensed breweries when Prohibition ended in 1933.

A Cyclical Pattern of Corruption

A city of two million residents, Philadelphia accommodated as many as 16,000 speakeasies during Prohibition. City officials, public servants, bootleggers, and consumers contributed to a cyclical pattern of corruption around the management and distribution of vice. Long before Prohibition, the Republican political machine used the police as a central tool in maintaining control over the city’s various districts. Philadelphia police officers, many taking bribes from bootleggers, prostitution houses, and other illegal entities, contributed to corrupt ward politicians who hand-picked police captains and provided job protection. One policeman estimated that politicians took one day’s pay per month from each of the 7,000 men employed as police officers and firefighters. While Prohibition did not invent corruption among political and law enforcement entities in Philadelphia, it exacerbated established patterns of misconduct. As the 1920s wore on, bootlegging gangs wreaked violent havoc on the city, while officials took a cut of their profits. In describing the Quaker City’s entrenched machine politics and lax law enforcement, journalists resurrected the nickname “ corrupt and contented ,” first used by Lincoln Steffens in 1903.

Philadelphia received help from the federal government twice in the 1920s to combat its Prohibition-fueled crime problem. The first intervention involved the appointment of General Smedley Butler (1881-1940), a decorated Marine, as director of public safety—the equivalent of police commissioner—in 1924. While running for mayor in 1923, Freeland Kendrick (1874-1953) pleaded with President Calvin Coolidge to release Butler from the Marine Corps to Philadelphia. Coolidge complied, and Butler, originally from West Chester, Pennsylvania, arrived in January 1924 with a mandate to clean up the vice-ridden city. Over the course of Butler’s first year in Philadelphia, police closed more than 2,500 speakeasies, compared to just 220 the previous year. While raids and arrests increased during Butler’s tenure, liquor law violators saw few repercussions. In 1925, of the 10,000 individuals arrested on the charge of conducting a speakeasy, only a few hundred were punished with more than a light fine.

Despite—and perhaps because of—Butler’s tenacity in pursuing Prohibition violators, he immediately clashed with Kendrick and the Republican political machine, including South Philadelphia ward boss William Vare (1867-1934). Butler left his post as director of public safety in December 1925. Many observed that his honesty and zealous commitment to enforcing Prohibition contributed to his speedy exit from Philadelphia. Upon his departure, Butler called Philadelphia the “cesspool” of Pennsylvania, and implored Quaker City citizens to demand honesty from their politicians.

A Crime Crescendo in 1928

Gangland murders, as well as Philadelphians’ continued disregard for liquor laws, reached a breaking point in the summer of 1928. Judge Edwin O. Lewis (1879-1974) charged the Special August Grand Jury with investigating organized bootlegging syndicates, gang violence, and police corruption. Investigators and journalists attributed twenty deaths in the year preceding the inquiry to bootlegging gangs vying for territory. Once again, the federal government intervened to help Philadelphia with its Prohibition-fueled crime problem. Prohibition officials in Washington ordered a unit of the Internal Revenue Service ’s intelligence department to Philadelphia to aid the investigation.

Members of the Special August Grand Jury

The grand jury revealed that hundreds of police officers received bribes for protecting bootlegging operations and illegal taverns. Twenty-four high-ranking police officers, each paid $1,500 to $2,500 in an annual salary, had accumulated $750,000 in assets amongst them. The grand jury’s final report found 138 police officers unfit for service, but failed to garner any indictments against the city’s organized bootlegging outfits.

Prohibition—like the prominent 1928 investigation initiated to curtail bootlegging, payoffs, and violence—proved a failure in Philadelphia, costly in financial and political terms, but also in human lives. One Philadelphia coroner noted that every day ten to twelve deaths from poison liquor, including denatured industrial alcohol improperly distilled, came to his attention. Still more deaths, including untold unreported or unsolved murders, resulted from the violence that sprang up between warring bootleg factions.

A Widespread Disregard of Prohibition

Philadelphians, like many Americans, disregarded Prohibition en masse. Despite the federal mandate, residents of the Quaker City continued to consume alcohol (legal), thereby spurring its production, transportation, and sale (all illegal). In the working class saloons of Brewerytown and Kensington , and the ritzy hotels dotting Center City ’s Broad Street , Philadelphians of divergent classes saw alcohol as social ritual and social fabric. Many advocates for repeal argued that this widespread lawlessness undermined American values, creating a nation of hypocrites. Other critics of Prohibition observed that a multitude of organized crime networks sprung up to control bootlegging, creating a dangerous black market business. Still others exposed Prohibition’s financial failings, an argument that gained potency after the stock market crash of 1929. Prohibition was costly to enforce, and the government lost millions—if not billions—of dollars in liquor tax revenue. Organizations such as the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, which counted several members of the wealthy Delaware Valley du Pont family as its leaders, worked to defeat Prohibition. With the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933, the Eighteenth Amendment mandating Prohibition was repealed.

Liquor laws in Pennsylvania—as well as a slew of South Jersey towns—harken back to an earlier era when temperance advocates held public office. Pennsylvania Governor Gifford Pinchot , a reform-minded “dry” politician, created the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board days before Prohibition ended so that the state would retain some control over the sale and distribution of liquor. Little has changed since Pinchot’s action; Pennsylvania is one of two states (the other is Utah) in which liquor is sold only in state-run stores. Though private retailers may sell beer, the state regulates when, where, and how much. Attempts to privatize liquor sales have met with a measure of popular and political support. However, resistance from the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union , which represents liquor store clerks, and legislative gridlock have swiftly dissolved these efforts.

Annie Anderson is the senior research and public programming specialist at Eastern State Penitentiary and the co-author, with John Binder, of Philadelphia Organized Crime in the 1920s and 1930s (Arcadia Publishing, 2014). She received her M.A. in American Studies from the University of Massachusetts-Boston.

Smedley Butler Destroying Kegs of Beer

Library of Congress

Philadelphia received help from the federal government twice in the 1920s to combat its Prohibition-fueled crime problem. The first intervention involved the appointment of General Smedley Butler (1881-1940), shown here in 1924 destroying a barrel of beer. Butler was a decorated Marine who became director of public safety—the equivalent of police commissioner—in 1924. While running for mayor in 1923, Freeland Kendrick (1873-1953) pleaded with President Calvin Coolidge to release Butler from the Marine Corps to Philadelphia. Coolidge complied, and Butler, originally from West Chester, Pennsylvania, arrived in January 1924 with a mandate to clean up the vice-ridden city. Over the course of Butler’s first year in Philadelphia, police closed more than 2,500 speakeasies, compared to just 220 the previous year. While raids and arrests increased during Butler’s tenure, liquor law violators saw few repercussions.

Smedley Butler

Major Smedley Butler, born in West Chester, Pennsylvania, in 1881 and seen here in 1910, had a thirty-four-year career as a U.S. Marine. He participated in military action in China, Central America, France, and other countries, and later became a major general. In 1924, Butler was asked to serve as director of public safety for the city of Philadelphia. The city government was notoriously corrupt, and Butler, a man with high moral standards, initially refused. However, after President Calvin Coolidge requested his service, the general took the job.

During his time in city government, Butler made it clear that he was not on the side of corruption. He fired corrupt officers and ordered raids on thousands of speakeasies, closing or destroying many of the illegal drinking establishments. Though Butler cut crime rates and cleaned up the city, the attack on alcohol was too much for the city's political machine and the general fell out of favor quickly, resigning after only two years.

Police Testing a New Speedboat in 1925

Special Collections Research Center, Temple University Libraries

Over the course of Smedley Butler’s first year as Philadelphia’s director of safety, police closed more than 2,500 speakeasies, compared to just 220 the previous year. Butler’s tenacity in pursuing Prohibition violators extended to the waterfront, patrolled by a new police speedboat obtained at Butler’s direction and seen here during a test trip in 1925. Butler’s desire to stop Prohibition violations immediately clashed with Mayor Freeland Kendrick and the Republican political machine. By December 1925, Butler left his post as director of public safety and many observed that his honesty and zealous commitment to enforcing Prohibition contributed to his speedy exit from Philadelphia. Upon his departure, Butler called Philadelphia the “cesspool” of Pennsylvania, and implored Quaker City citizens to demand honesty from their politicians.

Mayor Freeland Kendrick and Senator William Vare

While running for mayor in 1923, Freeland Kendrick (1873-1953), here on the left, pleaded with President Calvin Coolidge to release Smedley Butler from the Marine Corps to Philadelphia. Coolidge agreed, and Butler arrived in January 1924 with a mandate to clean up the vice-ridden city. Despite—and perhaps because of—Butler’s tenacity in pursuing Prohibition violators, he immediately clashed with Kendrick and the Republican political machine, including South Philadelphia ward boss William Vare (1867-1934), on the right in this photo from January 1927.

Special August Grand Jury of 1928

The murders that jump-started the Special August Grand Jury of 1928 were those of Hugh McLoon and Daniel O’Leary. McLoon, a humpbacked little person who in the 1910s served as the mascot for the Philadelphia Athletics baseball team, managed prizefighters and operated a speakeasy at Tenth and Cuthbert Streets. When he was killed in a drive-by shooting outside his nightclub and O’Leary died in a revenge-style killing, Judge Edwin O. Lewis tasked the grand jury with probing the liquor trade and eliminating the banditry and thuggery surrounding it.

District Attorney John Monaghan (1870-1954), leading the investigation, publicly outed the well-known boxing promoter Max “Boo Boo” Hoff (1895-1941) as the “King of the Bootleggers." Monaghan padlocked more than 1,000 speakeasies and claimed to have closed every brewery and distillery in Philadelphia.

Though Hoff owned several well-known speakeasies and entertained the likes of Al Capone, he escaped a liquor charge.

The grand jury's revelations included detailed financial minutiae—high-level bootleggers had accumulated about $10 million in liquor racket earnings—as well as embarrassing testimony—Philadelphia Director of Public Safety George Elliott and several high-ranking police officers were on Hoff's Christmas gift list. As the grand jury's disclosures reached the press, Collier’s magazine noted that lawlessness was the price Philadelphia had to pay for what it wanted to drink. Indeed, a culture of desperado vengeance and violent intimidation around liquor trafficking saturated the city before—and prevailed beyond—Monaghan's ambitious investigation.

The Special August Grand Jury did not shift public opinion against Prohibition or halt bootlegging-related gang violence. Within three years of the investigation's close, one of the city’s most prominent bootleggers, Mickey Duffy (1888-1931), was slain in his hotel suite in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Infighting appears to have killed Duffy (his murder was never solved), as well as several underlings who grabbed for power in his absence.

Celebrating the Repeal of Prohibition

This photograph, from December of 1933, shows a Philadelphia man and two women celebrating the repeal of Prohibition. Alcohol was illegal for fourteen years and when the passing of the Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, celebrations were held across the country. Though taverns were once predominantly male-dominated spaces, the desire to consume alcohol in secret forced men and women into close quarters together. After the repeal of Prohibition, speakeasy culture influenced the way men and women participated in nightlife. Many taverns ceased to be male only, and led to the modern bar of the twenty-first century, where men and women often drink and socialize together.

Time Periods

Twentieth Century to 1945
Center City Philadelphia
Bootlegging
Children’s Aid Society of Pennsylvania
Great Depression
Immigration (1870-1930)
Police Department (Philadelphia)

Related Collections

Eastern State Penitentiary , 2027 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia.

Independence Seaport Museum , J. Welles Henderson Archives & Library, Bill McCoy scrapbooks, Penn’s Landing, Philadelphia.

Philadelphia City Archives , Record Group 38: Inspector of County Prisons and Record Group 79: Philadelphia Police, 3101 Market Street, Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania State Police Historical, Educational & Memorial Center , 187 E. Hershey Park Drive, Hershey, Pa.

Temple University, Special Collections Research Center , Paley Library, 1210 Polett Walk, Philadelphia.

Related Places

Eastern State Penitentiary , 2027 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, imprisoned a number of bootleggers, including Mickey Duffy, Peter Ford, Francis Bailey, and Al Capone.

1321 Locust Street, the site of one of Max “Boo Boo” Hoff’s speakeasies, The 21 Club.

The Franklin Mortgage & Investment Co ., 112 S. Eighteenth Street, Philadelphia, a speakeasy-style drinking establishment named for Max “Boo Boo” Hoff’s industrial alcohol firm.

Backgrounders

Connecting Headlines with History

Prohibition left lasting mark on national identity (WHYY, September 30, 2011)
Constitution Center to focus on 'American Spirits,' the Prohibition years (WHYY, July 31, 2012)
Could Pa. liquor privatization reignite this year? (WHYY, October 5, 2013)
Pa. State Police don't care if you're a bootlegger (WHYY, September 3, 2014)
Potable Power: Delaware Valley Bootlegging During Prohibition (Temple University Libraries)
Beer and Brewing History at Hagley Museum and Library
Brewed in Philly (Free Library of Philadelphia)
A Saint Guided By Spirits (Hidden City Philadelphia)
Ground Zero for Philadelphia Beer (The PhillyHistory Blog)
American Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (National Constitution Center)
Indomitable Spirits: Prohibition in the United States (Exhibit, Digital Public Library of America)
Renovations in Bella Vista Reveal Barber Supply and Bootlegging Biz (Hidden City)

Connecting the Past with the Present, Building Community, Creating a Legacy

Homework Help
Essay Examples
Citation Generator
Writing Guides
Essay Title Generator
Essay Topic Generator
Essay Outline Generator
Flashcard Generator
Plagiarism Checker
Paraphrasing Tool
Conclusion Generator
Thesis Statement Generator
Introduction Generator
Literature Review Generator
Hypothesis Generator
Prohibition Essays

Prohibition Essays (Examples)

827+ documents containing “prohibition” .

Filter by Keywords:(add comma between each)

Prohibition mainly concerned itself with.

As Hanson, Venturelli and Fleckenstein note, enforcement of prohibition in some parts of the U.S. was relatively strict (222). Changing the Perception: Steps hich May Have Been Taken Given the negative perception the general public had of law enforcement officers during the prohibition period, there was an existing need to undertake deliberate measures aimed at changing such a perception. In my opinion, such measures had a direct impact on winning public cooperation and compliance. As Miller, Hess and Orthmann note, the behavior of law enforcement officers "has a direct impact on their image" (42). In the opinion of the authors, the acceptance of gratuities is one of the behaviors that could impact negatively on police image. Some of the approaches that were undertaken to restore police image in our case was the express dismissal of officers who were found to be corrupt. Indeed, according to Hanson, Venturelli and Fleckenstein, "law enforcement….

Works Cited

Deitch, Robert. Hemp: American History Revisited: The Plant With a Divided History. Algora Publishing, 2003. Print.

Hanson, Glen R., Peter J. Venturelli and Annette E. Fleckenstein. Drugs and Society. London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print.

Miller, Linda S., Karen M. Hess and Christine H. Orthmann. Community Policing: Partnerships for Problem Solving. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Prohibition and Its Legacy the

By 1925, half a dozen states, including New York, passed laws banning local police from investigating violations. Prohibition had little support in the cities of the Northeast and Midwest. (Mintz) The issue most largely debated today regarding prohibition is that the social experiment did not improve conditions in the U.S. For anyone and in fact created massive violence and great deal more illegal activity that had been occurring before the 18th amendment. Prohibition quickly produced bootleggers, speakeasies, moonshine, bathtub gin, and rum runners smuggling supplies of alcohol across state lines. In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies -- twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition. Many people made beer and wine at home. It was relatively easy finding a doctor to sign a prescription for medicinal whiskey sold at drugstores. In 1919, a year before Prohibition went into effect, Cleveland had 1,200 legal bars. By 1923, the city….

Auerhahn, Kathleen. "The Split Labor Market and the Origins of Antidrug Legislation in the United States." Law & Social Inquiry 24.2 (1999): 411-440.

Behr, Edward. Prohibition: thirteen years that changed America. New York, NY: Arcade Publishing, 1996.

Byer, Mark. Temperance and Prohibition: The Movement to Pass Anti-Liquor Laws in America. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2006.

Columbia University, Press. "Liquor Laws." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition (2010): 1 History Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2010.

Prohibition Henry W Jessup 1923

Lie the prohibition, religion also plays a role in this debate. Fundamentalist Christians for example believe that both gay marriage and abortion are wrong and should not be allowed in society. On the other hand, there are those who are raped, cannot afford another child, or would like to be married to make their love official, although they are both men or both women. The problem with using Constitutional amendment to prohibit any form of human rights is that such legislation becomes self-contradictory. The Constitution guarantees human rights, while amendments to prohibit these are unconstitutional. Like the prohibition, it is more likely than not that problems will ensue when prohibiting the right of human beings to conduct their lives in a certain way. This is particularly true of gay marriage. Those who are against it generally hold their opinions for aesthetic or religious reasons, and certainly this is their right. While….

Bash, Dana. Politics: Senate set to reject gay marriage ban. CNN.com, June 6, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Jessup, Henry W. State Rights and Prohibition Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 109, Prohibition and Its Enforcement. (Sep., 1923), pp. 62-66. http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/00027162/ap030238/03a00070/0.pdf?backcontext=page&dowhat=Acrobat&config=jstor&userID=/01c0a8486600501041f2&0.pdf

Rovner, Julie and Inskeep, Steve. Election 2006: S.D. Rejects Abortion Ban, Missouric Backs Stem Cells. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6454486

Prohibition Was Bound to Fail as the

Prohibition Was Bound to Fail As the culmination of the century-long temperance campaign in the United States by religious preachers, women's temperance advocates, abolitionists, and later industrial leaders, the Eighteenth Amendment was passed in 1919, outlawing the sale, production, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States. While at the early stage of Prohibition, the new policy seemed to work and was not opposed by many, Prohibition's popularity began to dwindle later. Many Americans, labor unions, advocates of civil liberties, and industrial leaders fearing demoralization of workers began to oppose Prohibition, campaigning for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. The idea then was picked up by Democratic Party leading to the passing of the Twenty-First Amendment which effectively lifted the ban on alcohol. There were many reasons why the Prohibition failed. It may be argued that it was bound to fail from the very beginning. The major reason for….

Jeffrey Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, "Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition." American Economic Review, Vol. 81, no. 2 (1991), p. 242.

Levine and Reinarman, "From Prohibition to Regulation," pp. 465-6.

Twenty-First Amendment to the Congress of the United States of America. National Archives online, available at (Accessed: April 13, 2012); "Prohibition Repeal is Ratified," New York Times, December 5, 1933, available at (Accessed: April 13, 2012).

How Did Prohibition Impact F Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway

Prohibition Impact American Authors F. Scott Fitzgerald Ernest Hemingway Prohibition and the roaring 20s: The novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemmingway The consumption of alcohol defines the works of both F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. The quintessential Fitzgerald heroine is the flapper -- the short-haired, carefree, hard-drinking heroine of works such as Tender is the Night and the Great Gatsby. The iconic 'Hemingway man' of The Sun Also ises and A Farewell to Arms was a hard-drinking man. It is deeply ironic that both authors came of age as writers during the era of Prohibition and published their most famous novels when drinking was technically illegal in the United States. ('Technically' illegal, despite the fact that the law was widely ignored). However, this is no coincidence -- just as must as The Great War, Prohibition showed the corrupt nature of modern society in the view of these authors, hence its….

Decker, Jeffrey Louis. "Gatsby's Pristine Dream: The Diminishment of the Self-Made Man in the Tribal Twenties." NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, 28. 1(1994): 52-71. [5 Jun 2012]

< http://www.jstor.org/stable/1345913

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. eBook. [5 Jun 2012]

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fitzgerald/f_scott/gatsby/index.html

Concept of Prohibition

Prohibition in America and Why it Failed To understand why prohibition failed, one must understand what it was meant to accomplish. Prohibition was not a plan to rid the United States of alcohol, but rather a movement to reform what was seen as a gradual moral decline of the country as a whole. The temperance movement had been alive and well in the U.S. from the days of the firsts American Colonies. Even the Puritans drank alcohol, considering it to be necessary to life, and not only in a medicinal manner. But alcohol was believed to be something that should only be used in moderation, and anyone who was felt to drink too much was considered to be morally corrupt and usually became an outcast in their community for their moral failing. The earliest laws surrounding the use and sale of alcohol were meant to control the use of liquor, but….

Conferences Discussed Prohibition Movement Culminated Passage 18th

conferences discussed prohibition movement culminated passage 18th Amendment Constitution supporting statutes call Prohibition. etween 1920-1935 sale alcoholic beverages heavily controlled. This essay will explore the underlying factors that motivated temperance movements, subsequently, the Prohibition, in relation to alcohol consumption before and after the Civil War. It will address some earlier perceptions regarding alcohol and the shift in beliefs over its consumption. Ultimately, some short-term and long-term effects of the Prohibition will be revealed. Key terms: alcohol, moderation, temperance, Prohibition, saloon, bootlegging. Long before the start of colonization in the New World, alcohol had played a significant part in people's lives. Not only was it customary habit to drink on a regular and daily basis but alcohol generally was regarded as part of God's creation, thus "inherently good." The colonies placed the foundation for the American legacy of alcohol consumption that was to be thoroughly moderated. Moderation was not merely religiously proclaimed but was….

Bibliography

Blocker, Jack S. "Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation." American Journal of Public Health 96 (2006): 233-243. Accessed November 16, 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/pdf/0960233.pdf .

Gerstein, Dean R. "Alcohol Use and Consequences." In Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition, edited by Mark Harrison Moore and Dean R. Gerstein, 182-224. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981.

Hanson, David J. Preventing Alcohol Abuse: Alcohol, Culture, and Control. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995.

Hanson, David J. "National Prohibition of Alcohol in the U.S." Accessed November 16, 2013.

Alcohol Prohibition in Canada in the 1920s

Alcohol Prohibition in Canada in the 1920s The campaign against the sale of alcohol had been carried out by groups in Canada for many years. The main idea behind prohibition in Canada was to reduce alcohol consumption by facilitating the abolishment of all entities that concerned themselves with the manufacture, distribution as well as the sale of alcohol. Significant gains were made towards this end and all the provinces ended up embracing prohibition laws with the last to do so being Quebec. It hence follows that the 1920s were the peak of the prohibition era. In this text, I concern myself with alcohol prohibition in Canada in the 1920s. y definition, prohibition in Canada can be taken to denote a series of actions instituted to end the sale of alcohol at both the provincial as well as county levels. According to Robert Harrington, the main idea behind prohibition was to cripple businesses….

Amdt, Ruth. Prohibition in Canada. General Books LLC, 2010

Baldwin, Douglas and Patricia. The 1920s: Canada through the Decades Series. Weigl Educational Publishers, 2000

Heath, Dwight. International handbook on alcohol and culture. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995

Harrington, Robert. Food and Wine Pairing: A Sensory Experience. John Willey and Sons, 2007

How Did Alcohol Prohibition Lead to Crime

Alcohol Prohibition lead to crime? Prohibition is an awful flo We like it. It can't stop what it's meant to stop. We like it. It's left a trail of graft and slime, It don't prohibit worth a dime, It's filled our land with vice and crime. Nevertheless, we're for it." The national prohibition of alcohol in the United States did the exact opposite of what it was designed to do. Instead of producing "clean living," alcohol-free Americans as supporters had hoped, prohibition gave birth to some of the country's largest crime syndicates and drinking grew in popularity. Syndicates were glamorized by the public that they provided a necessary service for. This glamorization resulted in a large upsurge of crime in the United States. The Eighteenth Amendment to the constitution, known as The National Prohibition Act, was adopted in 1919 and ended in 1933. When it was first enacted, President Woodrow Wilson vetoed it. Two hours later Congress overrode his….

Barlow, Hugh D. Crime and Public Policy: Putting Theory to Work. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.

Beman, Ian. Prohibition, Modification of the Volstead Law: A Supplement to the Volume of Same Title in the Handbook Series. New York: The W. Wilson Company, 1927.

Blocker, Jack S. Alcohol, Reform, and Society: The Liquor Issue in Social Context. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979.

Cohen, Daniel. Prohibition: America Makes Alcohol Illegal (Spotlight on American History). New York: Millbrook Press, 1995.

Lifting the Prohibition on Marijuana

There are over 700,000 annual arrests for marijuana charges in the United States each year. Eighty seven percent of marijuana charges are for simple possession. This is a charge which is costing the government billions of dollars each year in its enforcement and findings have shown that many Americans have had criminal records due to this charge. THC the active ingredient in marijuana is a natural substance that has far less side effects than its legal counterparts. However, the DEA has kept marijuana as a I substance for years. Other drugs included in this label are: heroin and LSD. This is one of the reasons that there can be harsh penalties resulting from marijuana arrests and prosecutions. Such penalties can include: deportation, suspension of driving privileges, prison, and the loss of federal educational loans. Stiff penalties can be issued for possession of marijuana. The Mexican economy is tanking and so much….

Dickenson, T. (June,2009) a Drug War Truce? Rolling Stone (1081) 45-48.

Miron, J. (2005) the Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. Harvard University.

Nadelman, E. (2004, July 12). An End to Marijuana Prohibition. National Review.

Reinarman, C. (2000)the Dutch Example Shows that Liberal Drug laws Can Be Beneficial. Current Controversies: Drug Legalization.

Punitive Drug Prohibition in the United States

Punitive Drug Prohibition In contrast to the United States, many countries around the world are now using harm reduction instead of drug prohibition and are facing the facts that drug prohibition will not make drug use go away. This paper will discuss drug prohibition in the United States and in the rest of the world where it is permissive and where cannabis can be found in many cafes. It will compare drug polices and conclude which policy would best help the drug situation in the United States. It will also assess the economic affects of punitive drug prohibition. This research is socially significant because drug use comes at a huge expense not only to the drug user, but also society as a whole. While most countries agree that drug use reduction should be a goal, there's a disagreement over the best way to accomplish this objective, punitive drug prohibition or harm reduction.….

Gray, Mike. Drug Crazy: How We Got into This Mess and How We Can Get Out. New York: Random House, 1998.

In Defense of Dutch Drug Policy." 8 Nov. 2003. Kuro5hin. 27 Nov. 2003. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/7/17557/6451 .

Levine, Harry G. And Reinarman, Craig. Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. Berkeley, CA: U. California Press, 1997.

Levine, Harry G. "Drug Commissions, the Next Generation." The International Journal of Drug Policy, 1994, vol 5 no 4. Hereinstead.com. 27 Nov. 2003. http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/drugcommissionswideforprinting/ .

The American Prohibition Era

Prohibition is a chapter in the history of the United States where the government implemented a nationwide ban on the consumption and sale of alcohol. Although it seems archaic and nonsensical now since most countries allow alcohol consumption, back then, for thirteen years it was considered illegal to buy, sell, and consume alcohol in the United States. A time of bootleggers and social 'Progressives' the Prohibition Era of the United Sates shocked the nation, revealing how important the need was for people to drink. It was a time for many to understand alcohol consumption and in retrospective, see what caused the activity to be outlawed in the first place. The Prohibition Era: A Brief Background The Prohibition Era of the United States lasted from 1920 to 1933. January 1, 1920 saw the start of national Prohibition that became effective via the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The driving force behind….

Punitive Drug Prohibition

Alcohol Prohibition from 1920 to 1933 did not work. There are many parallels from this failed effort and the current laws prohibiting drugs in the United States. Alcohol prohibition was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve the health of Americans. According to research, alcohol consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, but then it subsequently increased. "Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant." Instead of measurable gains in productivity or reduced absenteeism, Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to more dangerous substances such as opium, marijuana, patent medicines and cocaine that they would have been unlikely to encounter in….

Harm Reduction in the U.S.: A Movement for Change." Canadian HIV / AIDS Policy & Law Newsletter. Vol 3 No 4 & Vol 4 No 1, Winter 1997/98. Canadian HIV / AIDS Legal Network, 11 May 2004. http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/otherdocs/Newsletter/Winter9798/20GREIGE.html

McDougall, Steven. "The War on Drugs." 03 June 2001. 10 May 2004. http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/rants/war.html

Overview of drug use in the United States. Retrieved May 10, 2004 from Web site: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880105.html

Nadelmann, Ethan, Cohen, Peter, Drucker, Ernest, Locher, Ueli, Stimson, Gerry, and Wodak, Alex. "The Harm Reduction Approach to Drug Control: International Progress." Apr. 1994. Lycaeum Drug Archives. 11 May 2004. http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/war.on.drugs/debate/harm-reduction.html

Drugs Legal Drug Prohibition Causes More Problems

Drugs Legal Drug Prohibition Causes More Problems Than it olves This is a paper on drug prohibition and its disadvantages. It has 1 source. During Prohibition, Americans discovered that making popular substances unlawful cause more problems than it solves. Like alcohol and tobacco, drugs should be legal in this country as most of the problems related to drug use arise from the fact that they are illegal and hence more tempting. Imagine this: Your fifteen-year-old son is going out to a fast food store, suddenly two gangs start shooting at each other, your son gets shot and dies in a cross fire. The government of the United tates spends more than $18 billion of tax payer's money on the drug war. The increased expenditure finances the Drug Enforcement Agency, Office of National Drug Control Policy and is used to build a new prison every week. Add to this the financial cost of lawyers, judges,….

Lynch, Timothy. War no more: The folly and futility of drug prohibition. National Review, Feb 5, 2001. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1282/2_53/69388682/p4/article.jhtml?term=Accessed 4/3/04

Alcohol How Effective Has the Legal Prohibition

Alcohol How effective has the legal prohibition of alcohol been in controlling crime? A recent Department of Justice Report (U.S. Department of Justice) said that alcohol was a factor in 40% of all violent crimes and accounted for 40.9% of all traffic fatalities in the U.S.A. In the last decade. ut these figures were 34% and 29%, respectively, lower than those of the previous decade. The Report further stated that arrests conducted for driving under the influence of alcohol correspondingly declined and attributed this to the establishment of the legal and uniform drinking age in the early 1980s. Elucidating, the Report said that, approximately 3 million violent crimes occurred each year in that decade where the offenders were drinking at the time. And although arrests were made in every age group, those made on offenders below 21 notably decreased. The rate of intoxication in fatal accidents, it said, likewise went down in….

1. Abbe, Winfield. Toughening Liquor Laws Will Do Little to Sober Our Drunk Culture.

Athens Banner Herald, February 2002. (accessed 25:03:03). http://www.*****/stories/022202/let_letter4.shtml

2. Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcohol. (accessed 25:03:03). http://soc.qc.edu/aa/aager.html

3. Davis, George. Why Crime? Action Sunshine Coast Crime Prevention Program. Crime Prevention through Community Building, 2000. (accessed 25:03:03). http://www.suncoastcentral.com/crimeprevention

What is the point of a normative theory essay?

Normative theory provides an absolutist framework for approaching philosophy and the soft sciences, and has a special application in philosophy, law, and the social sciences. Normative theory states that some things are morally superior to other things. They are concerned with right or wrong and have a goal of changing institutions, values, or norms to reflect the “right” or “good” perspective. Obviously, since normative theory focuses on what is good, it also involves moral judgments of what is bad.

To understand normative theory, it may help to think about the concept of sin. Even if you....

Need some topics for mixed method research in social sciences.

The social sciences refer to any academic discipline that deals with human behavior. The fields that generally fall under this rubric include economics, anthropology, psychology , sociology, political science, historiography, as well as certain types of culture-specific studies. Mixed method research refers to a research methodology that mixes traditional quantitative and qualitative research designs and discussing both types of evidence or data while considering the takeaways or conclusions of the research.

Some topics for mixed method research in social sciences are:

Can you help with ideas for a research proposal of Social Justice that connects with gun violence?

One of the most frustrating aspects about the gun violence debate, which is primarily an American debate due to the fact that the United States experiences far greater amounts of gun violence than most other industrialized nations , is that there has been a lack of research into this topic. The lack of research is not accidental; Congress intentionally froze funding for research into gun violence over 25 years ago , and even enacted prohibitions against doctors and other healthcare workers providing some detailed insights into gun violence. As a result, when researchers wanted....

Should the Government regulate social media if its helps prevent the spread of fake news and misinformation?

To provide an answer to this question, it is really important to know which government is the subject of your question. In some countries, the government is absolutely prohibited from imposing the types of regulations on speech that answering yes to the question would require. These types of absolute prohibitions, such as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, significantly impact whether a government could regulate social media, even if regulating social media would help prevent the spread of fake news and misinformation. Therefore, any discussion of whether they should regulate this type of speech has....

Criminal Justice

As Hanson, Venturelli and Fleckenstein note, enforcement of prohibition in some parts of the U.S. was relatively strict (222). Changing the Perception: Steps hich May Have Been Taken Given the…

Research Paper

Sports - Drugs

By 1925, half a dozen states, including New York, passed laws banning local police from investigating violations. Prohibition had little support in the cities of the Northeast and…

Lie the prohibition, religion also plays a role in this debate. Fundamentalist Christians for example believe that both gay marriage and abortion are wrong and should not be…

Prohibition in America and Why it Failed To understand why prohibition failed, one must understand what it was meant to accomplish. Prohibition was not a plan to rid the United…

Alcohol Prohibition in Canada in the 1920s The campaign against the sale of alcohol had been carried out by groups in Canada for many years. The main idea behind prohibition…

Alcohol Prohibition lead to crime? Prohibition is an awful flo We like it. It can't stop what it's meant to stop. We like it. It's left a trail of graft and slime, It don't…

There are over 700,000 annual arrests for marijuana charges in the United States each year. Eighty seven percent of marijuana charges are for simple possession. This is a charge…

Punitive Drug Prohibition In contrast to the United States, many countries around the world are now using harm reduction instead of drug prohibition and are facing the facts that drug…

Prohibition is a chapter in the history of the United States where the government implemented a nationwide ban on the consumption and sale of alcohol. Although it seems archaic…

Alcohol Prohibition from 1920 to 1933 did not work. There are many parallels from this failed effort and the current laws prohibiting drugs in the United States. Alcohol prohibition…

Alcohol How effective has the legal prohibition of alcohol been in controlling crime? A recent Department of Justice Report (U.S. Department of Justice) said that alcohol was a factor in…

Prohibition Benefits and Detriments Essay

Detriments of prohibition, benefits of prohibition, works cited.

The arguments by John Gordon Cooper (1872-1955), “Prohibition is a success” (1924) and “Prohibition is a Failure” (1926) by William H. Stayton (1861-1942) will form this summary paper. Cooper in his arguments portend that prohibition should be upheld with much important consideration as much as the other parts of the constitution. Thus is because disregarding the Eighteenth Amendment that prohibits the intoxicating liquor remains a basic and fundamental part of the constitution and as such cannot be given less consideration.

The effectiveness of prohibition as advanced by the author includes a number of well illustrated points that stand to support his arguments. First, prohibition is effective in that it has increased drinking and intemperance throughout the whole nation. Secondly, prohibition drastically led reductions in the levels of violations in that it was obeyed by bootleggers and moonshiners after the war time. This is demonstrated in its active role in the reduction of bribery and smuggling in the intoxication beverages to the thoughtless and the indifferent. In analyzing the effectiveness of prohibition, Cooper underlines the fact that it saved the nation millions of dollars from unscrupulous businessmen who had the intent to employ their act of bribery and graft to hoodwink the law enforcers into supporting their acts. This entailed enlisting the support of corrupt politicians while making use on continuous propaganda to portray the good face of law and order. Prohibition ensured that these illegal business dealings were reduced or remained under control and surveillance. According to Cooper, the opponents of prohibition formed alliances with corrupt politicians thus subjecting the whole country into unending propaganda aimed at law and order and a sober and decent America; unfortunately this propaganda was able to increase due to the leniency of the courts and petty fines practically licensed the bootleg trade and the law’s delay made conviction impossible in many cases.

While prohibition was effective in the reduction on the consumption of illegal and intoxicating liquor, nevertheless, it completely failed in the total elimination of the consumption of these liquors. This was due to the rampant levels of corruption and the inability by the law enforcement authorities to effectively institute and ensures that the prohibition provisions are upheld. In addition the above, police statistics reveal that there was a recorded increase in the number of arrests for drunkenness from the year 1920. This in fact is denoted by the author as the year in which the constitutional prohibition was recognized. While the general aim of the legislating prohibition was aimed at reducing the drunkenness by consumption of illegal liquor, taking such as fast and drastic action was not appropriate. This figure is well demonstrated by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (1) in stating that “The Bureau placed the consumption of alcoholic beverages at 73,831,172 gallons, or 0.6 gallon per capita in fiscal year 1930 as contrasted with 166,983,681 gallons or 1.7 gallons per capita in 1914”.this increase in the consumption of alcohol was the reason behind the consequent increase in the number of arrests.

The failure of prohibition has generated the greatest level of corruption within the most critical departments of the government that has led the general population into wondering on the effectiveness of the government in protecting them. The integrity of the government has thus been put into question because of the reverberating effects of the failure of prohibition. This is due to the inability to protect the law and uphold this section of the constitution with all the executive and legislative requirements it deserves. Furthermore, the enforcement of prohibition has burdened the government as a result of resources needed to enforce the law.

The first two benefits of prohibition as detailed by Cooper include the reduced death rate and the America’s increased prosperity. Statistics provided by Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (3) illustrates that prohibition has reduced the rate by 873, 000 in the first four years. In this connection, crime levels have come down in that even though many people are continuously arrested, the charges preferred are not directly linked to drunkenness. In the analysis of the increased prosperity, large amounts of dollars that formerly destined to the saloon have been adequately used to buy a whooping seven million cars that have been domestically manufactured thus translating to a robust manufacturing sector. This is because approximately three billion dollars have been channeled from the destructive uses to more constructive uses that are beneficial to the economy.

In addition to the above, Pletten (2), in giving support to Cooper’s assertion that prohibition was a success that reiterates that “Bottom line, notwithstanding the mismanagement and politicization, Prohibition was a success, despite the many efforts to sabotage it.” The benefits of prohibition are not limited to the above mentioned but have extended to the increased number of people joining the stock market as investors and those acquiring enterprises. In summary, the man remains the greatest benefactor from prohibition. This is because there has been noted increase in the volumes of earnings and levels of productivity that are products of prohibition.

National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. History of Alcohol Prohibition. 2009. Web.

Pletten, Leroy J. Prohibition Was A Success – Here is the evidence. 2010. Web.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 17). Prohibition Benefits and Detriments. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prohibition-benefits-and-detriments/

"Prohibition Benefits and Detriments." IvyPanda , 17 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/prohibition-benefits-and-detriments/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Prohibition Benefits and Detriments'. 17 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Prohibition Benefits and Detriments." March 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prohibition-benefits-and-detriments/.

1. IvyPanda . "Prohibition Benefits and Detriments." March 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prohibition-benefits-and-detriments/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Prohibition Benefits and Detriments." March 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prohibition-benefits-and-detriments/.

The Repeal of Obamacare: Desirous or Disastrous?
The US Universal Health Care System: Benefits and Harms
Consumer Surplus and Discriminatory Pricing in the Experience Economy
Patient Information Leaflets for Girl Teen Health
Genetics and Antipsychotics: Usefulness of Pharmacogenetic Analysis
“How Much Screen Time Is Too Much for Adults?” by ReidHealth
Geo-Cultural Influences in Latin America and the US
Drug Effects on the Brain: Marihuana and Heroin
The Marijuana Usage Legislation
Economic And Social Aspects of The Prohibition
Administrative Evil and the “Lucifer Effect”
Law for the Human Services: Judicial and Non-Judicial Review
Public Relations Law in Australia
The Process and Nuances of Obtaining a Fingerprint Clearance Cards
Legislative Reform Aimed at Improved Legislative Performance

Prohibition Era Thesis

The Prohibition Era, also known as the Roaring Twenties, was a time in American history when the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages were prohibited. This era stemming from January 1920 to December 1933 was marked by a surge in organized crime, speakeasies, racial tensions, and bootlegging; all factors that led to the economic downfall of the U.S. shortly after. In this paper, we will discuss the historical background of the Prohibition Era, the government’s flawed structure at the time, as well as the impact it had on different groups of American society. The temperance movement, which advocated for the moderation or abstinence from alcohol, began in the 19th century. It gained momentum during the Progressive Era, …show more content…

Women who worked as prostitutes were often vulnerable and exploited, as they lacked legal protections and were subject to arrest and harassment by law enforcement. Prostitution was also often linked to organized crime, as criminal organizations saw it as a profitable enterprise that could be used to launder money and further their illicit activities. The Prohibition Era also saw a rise in "flappers," a term used to describe young women who challenged traditional gender roles and engaged in activities such as drinking and smoking. Some flappers also engaged in prostitution, seeing it as a way to challenge societal norms and assert their independence. However, the rise of flappers was also met with a backlash from conservative groups who saw their behavior as immoral and a threat to traditional values. Prostitution during this era also had an impact on public health, as the illegal and unregulated nature of the industry meant that many women were at risk of sexually transmitted infections and other health problems. Despite the risks, prostitution continued to thrive during the Prohibition Era, as speakeasies and other illegal establishments provided a steady stream of clients. While the end of prohibition in 1933 did not immediately lead to the elimination of prostitution, it did have a significant impact on …show more content…

Women were at the forefront of the temperance movement and played a key role in advocating for prohibition. They saw alcohol as a threat to the family unit, and believed that by eliminating alcohol, they could create a safer and more stable environment for themselves and their children. On the contrary, some women benefited from this time as many entered the workforce in larger numbers, as jobs became available in industries such as bootlegging and speakeasy management. Children were also affected by the Prohibition Era, as they were often caught in the crossfire of law enforcement and organized crime. Children were exposed to violence, corruption, and poverty, as their parents turned to bootlegging and other illegal activities to make ends meet. Children were also used as messengers and runners for bootleggers, putting them at risk of violence and arrest. The Prohibition Era also had unintended consequences for children's health, as unregulated alcohol production and consumption led to many polluted and hazardous

Examples Of Prohibition In The 1920's

First, there was an increase in crime. In addition, it was disrespect to the law. Furthermore, people were losing money. There was a significant increase in crime due to Prohibition.

Ratification Of Prohibition In The 1920's

Following the ratification of Prohibition on January 19th, 1919, bars and saloons nationwide were forced to close their doors, and approximately $100 million was dedicated towards repurposing these establishments into ones that were needed by the communities. In the place of what were once saloons and bars rose essential health institutions such as free dental clinics, maternity clinics, district nursing, hospitals, and other essential establishments. While some saloons were turned into medical institutions, others were converted into

How Did Prohibition Fail

What was Prohibition, who opposed it, and why did it fail? During the early twentieth century, many temperance organizations began to form with a goal of “policing the behavior of the poor, the foreign-born, and working class”(Tindall & Shi 1031). Organizations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance League and the Anti-Saloon League were mostly filled with women who advocated for a “national prohibition law” because intoxicated men would abuse their wives and children within their households(Tindall & Shi 1031). This eventually led to the passage of the eighteenth amendment where it outlawed the production and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

What Was The Effect Of Botlegging In The 1920's

Bootlegging was a highly profitable but illegal business during the 1920s, a period known as Prohibition in the United States. Prohibition was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages that lasted from 1920 to 1933. Transporting alcohol in a hazardous and risky manner, bootleggers would deliver it to illegally operated speakeasies, while other bootleggers produced alcohol from home in dangerous brewing operations. While the intention behind Prohibition was to reduce crime, corruption, and social problems related to alcohol consumption, it had the opposite effect. Bootlegging was a large part of the crime-ridden 1920s and greatly contributed to the lawlessness of the time.

How Did Prohibition Created A Wave Of Change In Canada

From the late 1910s to the mid 1920s, the government of Canada began its noble experiment, the legal act of prohibiting the manufacture, storage, transportation and sale of alcohol. Prohibition was led by the Temperance movement, who blamed alcohol for society's ills of the time, such as domestic violence and public drunkenness. This law was repealed around Canada soon after. This essay argues that Prohibition created a wave of change, such as the introduction of large-scale organized crime, and the corruption of law, war against culture, that helped shape the culture of Canada far during Prohibition and even after the Repeal. Prohibition , a well intentioned attempt to rid Canada of society's ills, was not only a war on alcohol, but

1920s Crime Essay

Prohibition was a federal law put in place by the Eighteenth Amendment that made it illegal to sell or consume alcohol. This new law was met with massive backlash and due to this backlash smugglers emerged. With these new smugglers and “underground” bars sparked a new source of income for those willing to get involved with crime. This helped create a new social class of “new money” that was comprised of those who made their own fortunes and in the case of the 1920’s this was done through crime. Prohibition was later repealed due to the wide hatred of the law and massive crime against it.

Assess The Significance Of Prohibition Essay

For instance, flappers surfaced, something that greatly affected the way women were perceived. Flappers were young women who are characteristically known for breaking through societal barriers by living a life that was not seen as adequate, immoral and outrageous. They also pushed through economical, society and sexual barriers for women in the 1920s. This is especially true because before prohibition, women were seen as being dependent and only useful for housework. In other words, women gained autonomy in their homes and have kept that autonomy to this day, making prohibition extremely significant in how women were looked upon and what would be seen as the cultural aspects and normalization of how they would act.

Was Prohibition A Success Or A Failure Essay

When Wyoming was first considering enacting prohibition laws in 1918, there was already widespread criticism from residents about the proposition. Many of the state’s residents resisted Prohibition laws in various ways, including ignoring the laws, buying alcohol from bootleggers, making their own alcohol, and supporting organizations that were working to repeal Prohibition. Prohibition was not only unsuccessful in enforcing laws, but it also led to the exploitation of children, such as Joe Sebastian, who talks about he was often used to aid alcoholic operations, “Yes, I had this little red wagon and my dad would fill it up with a gallon of moonshine and it was about three blocks away, and I’d put a bag over it and some toys, just like I was, or clothes or something, whatever, I was kind of playing and she would out two dollars in the envelope, and had it to me and she’d take the gallon of whiskey and sell it to her boarding people there.”.

Alcohol Prohibition In The 1920's

The alcohol prohibition in 1920 was the ratification of the 18th amendment, which banned the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors. One of the driving forces for making Alcohol illegal was women. It became legal for women to vote in 1920 and one of the first things they advocated for was the ban on alcohol, it was believed that intoxicating drinkings were “Destructive force in families and marriages” (History, PROHIBITION). While women were the driving force of passing the law they were not the wasn't the only reason why the alcohol became illegal; “ When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved.

Prohibition In The United States During The 1920's

When someone thinks of America during the Roaring Twenties, many may think of parties, patriotism, the “land of opportunities”, burgers or hotdogs, and drinking. During the turn of the 20th century, drinking got far too out of hand. Only men were allowed to drink at saloons. Therefore, men were becoming abusive, and America became chaotic. Eventually, people pushed for a ban on alcohol.

Prohibition's Failure Essay

Prohibition led to the rise of organized crime and failed as a policy due to many loopholes and large numbers of corrupt officials. Though started with good intentions it was not a good policy because it destroyed jobs and attempted to destroy an industry. These reasons lead to Prohibition’s failure and the repealing of the 18th Amendment in

What Were Al Capone's Accomplishments

Guns, gangs, women, alcohol, gambling, are just some things that come to mind when I hear prohibition. According to the online source American History, The Prohibition is the act of prohibiting the manufacturing, storage, transportation, and sale of alcohol, including any alcoholic beverage. This led to the biggest crime rates of all time. At the head of all the crime was one man. His name, Alphonse Capone aka (Scarface) .

Prohibition Dbq Essay

The protest was not the only reason prohibition ended. Prohibition ended because, crime rose, people were corrupted and the government lost tax revenues. First of all, prohibition ended because crime rose. The homicide rate per 100,000 Americans was 10 in 1933 (Doc. B). It had peeked

DBQ Essay: The Role Of Prohibition In The United States

By enforcing prohibition, the government hoped to decrease the death rate. But, prohibition did the opposite of its intention, it sparked an increase in death rates, both alcohol and non-alcohol influenced. During the preceding time period of prohibition, the rate of deaths from alcohol had begun to decrease, but around 1920 when prohibition was enforced, it suddenly increased again (Document F). This information shows that prohibition, specifically, triggered the death rate to ascend, again. Also, the death rate from alcohol poisoning was soaring during prohibition (IG).

Prohibition's Positive Effects On Society

Stayton argues that Prohibition has had the opposite of its desired effect on the morals of the nation. Stayton claims that consumption of alcoholic beverages was at a higher point in 1925 than its peak pre-Prohibition. Stayton presents several facts to support his claim, showing a rise in consumption among not just men, but women and children, combined with an increase in moneys spent on alcoholic drinks to the tune of four-fold (p. 195). Furthermore, Stayton cites that the drinks available in the time of Prohibition have a substantially greater alcohol content than those that were served pre-Prohibition. This allows alcohol to be more readily abused and caused an observable increase in public drunkenness.

More about Prohibition Era Thesis

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

Jack s. blocker, jr.

The author is with the Department of History, Huron University College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

The conventional view that National Prohibition failed rests upon an historically flimsy base. The successful campaign to enact National Prohibition was the fruit of a century-long temperance campaign, experience of which led prohibitionists to conclude that a nationwide ban on alcohol was the most promising of the many strategies tried thus far. A sharp rise in consumption during the early 20th century seemed to confirm the bankruptcy of alternative alcohol-control programs.

The stringent prohibition imposed by the Volstead Act, however, represented a more drastic action than many Americans expected. Nevertheless, National Prohibition succeeded both in lowering consumption and in retaining political support until the onset of the Great Depression altered voters’ priorities. Repeal resulted more from this contextual shift than from characteristics of the innovation itself.

PROBABLY FEW GAPS between scholarly knowledge and popular conventional wisdom are as wide as the one regarding National Prohibition. “Everyone knows” that Prohibition failed because Americans did not stop drinking following ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment and passage of its enforcement legislation, the Volstead Act. If the question arises why Americans adopted such a futile measure in the first place, the unnatural atmosphere of wartime is cited. Liquor’s illegal status furnished the soil in which organized crime flourished. The conclusive proof of Prohibition’s failure is, of course, the fact that the Eighteenth Amendment became the only constitutional amendment to be repealed.

Historians have shown, however, that National Prohibition was no fluke, but rather the fruit of a century-long series of temperance movements springing from deep roots in the American reform tradition. Furthermore, Americans were not alone during the first quarter of the 20th century in adopting prohibition on a large scale: other jurisdictions enacting similar measures included Iceland, Finland, Norway, both czarist Russia and the Soviet Union, Canadian provinces, and Canada’s federal government. 1 A majority of New Zealand voters twice approved national prohibition but never got it. As a result of 100 years of temperance agitation, the American cultural climate at the time Prohibition went into effect was deeply hostile to alcohol, and this antagonism manifested itself clearly through a wave of successful referenda on statewide prohibition.

Although organized crime flourished under its sway, Prohibition was not responsible for its appearance, as organized crime’s post-Repeal persistence has demonstrated. Drinking habits underwent a drastic change during the Prohibition Era, and Prohibition’s flattening effect on per capita consumption continued long after Repeal, as did a substantial hard core of popular support for Prohibition’s return. Repeal itself became possible in 1933 primarily because of a radically altered economic context—the Great Depression. Nevertheless, the failure of National Prohibition continues to be cited without contradiction in debates over matters ranging from the proper scope of government action to specific issues such as control of other consciousness-altering drugs, smoking, and guns.

We historians collectively are partly to blame for this gap. We simply have not synthesized from disparate studies a compelling alternative to popular perception. 2 Nevertheless, historians are not entirely culpable for prevalent misunderstanding; also responsible are changed cultural attitudes toward drinking, which, ironically, Prohibition itself helped to shape. Thinking of Prohibition as a public health innovation offers a potentially fruitful path toward comprehending both the story of the dry era and the reasons why it continues to be misunderstood.

TEMPERANCE THOUGHT BEFORE NATIONAL PROHIBITION

Although many prohibitionists were motivated by religious faith, American temperance reformers learned from an early point in their movement’s history to present their message in ways that would appeal widely to citizens of a society characterized by divergent and clashing scriptural interpretations. Temperance, its advocates promised, would energize political reform, promote community welfare, and improve public health. Prohibitionism, which was inherently political, required even more urgent pressing of such claims for societal improvement. 3 Through local contests in communities across the nation, liquor control in general and Prohibition in particular became the principal stage on which Americans confronted public health issues, long before public health became a field of professional endeavor.

By the beginning of the 20th century, prohibitionists agreed that a powerful liquor industry posed the greatest threat to American society and that only Prohibition could prevent Americans from falling victim to its seductive wiles. These conclusions were neither willful nor arbitrary, as they had been reached after three quarters of a century of experience. Goals short of total abstinence from all that could intoxicate and less coercive means—such as self-help, mutual support, medical treatment, and sober recreation—had been tried and, prohibitionists agreed, had been found wanting. 4

For prohibitionists, as for other progressives, the only battleground where a meaningful victory might be won was the collective: the community, the state, or the nation. The Anti-Saloon League (ASL), which won leadership of the movement after 1905, was so focused on Prohibition that it did not even require of its members a pledge of personal abstinence. Battles fought on public ground certainly heightened popular awareness of the dangers of alcohol. In the mass media before 1920, John Barleycorn found few friends. Popular fiction, theater, and the new movies rarely represented drinking in positive terms and consistently portrayed drinkers as flawed characters. Most family magazines, and even many daily newspapers, rejected liquor ads. 5 New physiological and epidemiological studies published around the turn of the century portrayed alcohol as a depressant and plausibly associated its use with crime, mental illness, and disease. The American Medical Association went on record in opposition to the use of alcohol for either beverage or therapeutic purposes. 6 But most public discourse on alcohol centered on its social, not individual, effects. 7

The only significant exception was temperance education in the schools. By 1901, every state required that its schools incorporate “Scientific Temperance Instruction” into the curriculum, and one half of the nation’s school districts further mandated use of a textbook that portrayed liquor as invariably an addictive poison. But even as it swept through legislative chambers, the movement to indoctrinate children in temperance ideology failed to carry with it the educators on whose cooperation its success in the classrooms depended; teachers tended to regard Scientific Temperance Instruction as neither scientific nor temperate. After 1906, temperance instruction became subsumed within more general lessons on hygiene, and hygiene classes taught that the greatest threats to health were environmental and the proper responses were correspondingly social, not individual. 8

By the time large numbers of voters were confronted with a choice whether or not to support a prohibitionist measure or candidate for office, public discourse over alcohol had produced a number of prohibitionist supporters who were not themselves abstainers. That is, they believed that it was a good idea to control someone else’s drinking (perhaps everyone else’s), but not their own. A new study of cookbooks and etiquette manuals suggests that this was likely the case for middle-class women, the most eager recruits to the prohibition cause, who were gaining the vote in states where prohibition referenda were boosting the case for National Prohibition. In addition to the considerable alcoholic content of patent medicines, which women and men (and children) were unknowingly ingesting, women were apparently serving liquor in their recipes and with meals. In doing so, they were forging a model of domestic consumption in contrast to the mode of public drinking adopted by men in saloons and clubs. 9

Self-control lay at the heart of the middle-class self-image, and middle-class prohibitionists simply acted on the prejudices of their class when they voted to close saloons while allowing drinking to continue in settings they considered to be respectable. Some state prohibition laws catered to such sentiments when they prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, but allowed importation and consumption. 10 A brisk mail-order trade flourished in many dry communities. Before 1913, federal law and judicial decisions in fact prevented states from interfering with the flow of liquor across their borders. When Congress acted in 1913, the Webb–Kenyon Act only forbade importation of liquor into a dry state when such commerce was banned by the law of that state. 11

WHY NATIONAL PROHIBITION?

At the beginning of the 20th century, wet and dry forces had reached a stalemate. Only a handful of states maintained statewide prohibition, and enforcement of prohibitory law was lax in some of those. Dry territory expanded through local option, especially in the South, but this did not mean that drinking came to a halt in towns or counties that adopted local prohibition; such laws aimed to stop manufacture or sale (or both), not consumption. 12 During the previous half-century, beer’s popularity had soared, surpassing spirits as the principal source of alcohol in American beverages, but, because of beer’s lower alcohol content, ethanol consumption per capita had changed hardly at all. 13 Both drinking behavior and the politics of drink, however, changed significantly after the turn of the century when the ASL assumed leadership of the prohibition movement.

Between 1900 and 1913, Americans began to drink more and more. Beer production jumped from 1.2 billion to 2 billion gallons (4.6 billion to 7.6 billion liters), and the volume of tax-paid spirits grew from 97 million to 147 million gallons (367 million to 556 million liters). Per capita consumption of ethanol increased by nearly a third, a significant spike over such a short period of time. 14

Meanwhile, the area under prohibition steadily expanded as a result of local-option and statewide prohibition campaigns. Between 1907 and 1909, 6 states entered the dry column. By 1912, however, prohibitionist momentum on these fronts slowed, as the liquor industry began a political counteroffensive. In the following year, the ASL, encouraged by congressional submission to its demands in passing the Webb–Kenyon Act, launched a campaign for a prohibition constitutional amendment.

The best explanation for this decision is simply that National Prohibition had long been the movement’s goal. The process of constitutional amendment in the same year the ASL launched its campaign both opened the way to a federal income tax and mandated direct election of US senators (the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments), seemed to be the most direct path to that goal. 15 Its supporters expected that the campaign for an amendment would be long and that the interval between achievement of the amendment and their eventual object would also be lengthy. Ultimately, drinkers with entrenched habits would die off, while a new generation would grow up abstinent under the salubrious influence of prohibition. 16 ASL leaders also needed to demonstrate their militance to ward off challenges from intramovement rivals, and the route to a constitutional amendment lay through state and national legislatures, where their method of pressuring candidates promised better results than seeking popular approval through a referendum in every state. 17

Once the prohibition movement decided to push for a constitutional amendment, it had to negotiate the tortuous path to ratification. The fundamental requirement was sufficient popular support to convince federal and state legislators that voting for the amendment would help rather than hurt their electoral chances. The historical context of the Progressive Era provided 4 levers with which that support might be engineered, and prohibitionists manipulated them effectively. First, the rise in annual ethanol consumption to 2.6 US gallons (9.8 liters) per capita of the drinking-age population, the highest level since the Civil War, did create a real public health problem. 18 Rates of death diagnosed as caused by liver cirrhosis (15 per 100000 total population) and chronic alcoholism (10 per 100000 adult population) were high during the early years of the 20th century. 19

Second, the political turbulence of the period—a growing socialist movement and bitter struggles between capitalists and workers—made prohibition seem less radical by contrast. 20 Third, popular belief in moral law and material progress, trust in science, support for humanitarian causes and for “uplift” of the disadvantaged, and opposition to “plutocracy” offered opportunities to align prohibitionism with progressivism. 21 Concern for public health formed a central strand of the progressive ethos, and, as one historian notes, “the temperance and prohibition movements can . . . be understood as part of a larger public health and welfare movement active at that time that viewed environmental interventions as an important means of promoting the public health and safety.” 22 Finally, after a fleeting moment of unity, the alliance between brewers and distillers to repel prohibitionist attacks fell apart. 23 The widespread local battles fought over the previous 20 years brought new support to the cause, and the ASL’s nonpartisan, balance-of-power method worked effectively. 24

The wartime atmosphere during the relatively brief period of American participation in World War I played a minor role in bringing on National Prohibition. Anti-German sentiment, shamelessly whipped up and exploited by the federal government to rally support for the war effort, discredited a key antiprohibitionist organization, the German-American Alliance. A federal ban on distilling, adopted to conserve grain, sapped the strength of another major wet player, the spirits industry. 25 But most prohibition victories at the state level and in congressional elections were won before the United States entered the war, and the crucial ratification votes occurred after the war’s end. 26

In sum, although the temperance movement was a century old when the Eighteenth Amendment was adopted, and National Prohibition had been a goal for many prohibitionists for half that long, its achievement came about as a product of a specific milieu. Few reform movements manage to win a constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, that achievement, which seemed at the time so permanent—no constitutional amendment had ever before been repealed—was vulnerable to shifts in the context on which it depended.

PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF PROHIBITION

We forget too easily that Prohibition wiped out an industry. In 1916, there were 1300 breweries producing full-strength beer in the United States; 10 years later there were none. Over the same period, the number of distilleries was cut by 85%, and most of the survivors produced little but industrial alcohol. Legal production of near beer used less than one tenth the amount of malt, one twelfth the rice and hops, and one thirtieth the corn used to make full-strength beer before National Prohibition. The 318 wineries of 1914 became the 27 of 1925. 27 The number of liquor wholesalers was cut by 96% and the number of legal retailers by 90%. From 1919 to 1929, federal tax revenues from distilled spirits dropped from $365 million to less than $13 million, and revenue from fermented liquors from $117 million to virtually nothing. 28

The Coors Brewing Company turned to making near beer, porcelain products, and malted milk. Miller and Anheuser-Busch took a similar route. 29 Most breweries, wineries, and distilleries, however, closed their doors forever. Historically, the federal government has played a key role in creating new industries, such as chemicals and aerospace, but very rarely has it acted decisively to shut down an industry. 30 The closing of so many large commercial operations left liquor production, if it were to continue, in the hands of small-scale domestic producers, a dramatic reversal of the normal course of industrialization.

Such industrial and economic devastation was unexpected before the introduction of the Volstead Act, which followed adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment. The amendment forbade the manufacture, transportation, sale, importation, and exportation of “intoxicating” beverages, but without defining the term. The Volstead Act defined “intoxicating” as containing 0.5% or more alcohol by volume, thereby prohibiting virtually all alcoholic drinks. The brewers, who had expected beer of moderate strength to remain legal, were stunned, but their efforts to overturn the definition were unavailing. 31 The act also forbade possession of intoxicating beverages, but included a significant exemption for custody in one’s private dwelling for the sole use of the owner, his or her family, and guests. In addition to private consumption, sacramental wine and medicinal liquor were also permitted.

The brewers were probably not the only Americans to be surprised at the severity of the regime thus created. Voters who considered their own drinking habits blameless, but who supported prohibition to discipline others, also received a rude shock. That shock came with the realization that federal prohibition went much farther in the direction of banning personal consumption than all local prohibition ordinances and many state prohibition statutes. National Prohibition turned out to be quite a different beast than its local and state cousins.

Nevertheless, once Prohibition became the law of the land, many citizens decided to obey it. Referendum results in the immediate post-Volstead period showed widespread support, and the Supreme Court quickly fended off challenges to the new law. Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period. 32

Prohibition affected alcoholic beverages differently. Beer consumption dropped precipitously. Distilled spirits made a dramatic comeback in American drinking patterns, reversing a three-quarters-of-a-century decline, although in volume spirits did not reach its pre-Prohibition level. Small-scale domestic producers gave wine its first noticeable, though small, contribution to overall alcohol intake, as wine-grape growers discovered that the Volstead Act failed to ban the production and sale of grape concentrate (sugary pulp that could be rehydrated and fermented to make wine). 33

UNINTENDED AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES

Unexpected prosperity for wine-grape growers was not the only unintended consequence of National Prohibition. Before reviewing other unexpected outcomes, however, it is important to list the ways in which National Prohibition did fulfill prohibitionists’ expectations. The liquor industry was virtually destroyed, and this created an historic opportunity to socialize rising generations in a lifestyle in which alcohol had no place. To some degree, such socialization did take place, and the lessened consumption of the Prohibition Era reflects that. Although other forces contributed to its decline, Prohibition finished off the old-time saloon, with its macho culture and links to urban machine politics. 34 To wipe out a long-established and well-entrenched industry, to change drinking habits on a large scale, and to sweep away such a central urban and rural social institution as the saloon are no small achievements.

Nevertheless, prohibitionists did not fully capitalize on their opportunity to bring up a new generation in abstemious habits. Inspired and led by the talented writers of the Lost Generation, the shapers of mass culture—first in novels, then in films, and finally in newspapers and magazines—altered the popular media’s previously negative attitude toward drink. In the eyes of many young people, especially the increasing numbers who populated colleges and universities, Prohibition was transformed from progressive reform to an emblem of a suffocating status quo. 35 The intransigence of the dominant wing of the ASL, which insisted on zero tolerance in law enforcement, gave substance to this perception and, in addition, aligned the league with the Ku Klux Klan and other forces promoting intolerance. 36 Thus, the work of attracting new drinkers to alcohol, which had been laid down by the dying liquor industry, was taken up by new hands.

One group of new drinkers—or newly public drinkers—whose emergence in that role was particularly surprising to contemporary observers was women. Such surprise, however, was a product of the prior invisibility of women’s domestic consumption: women had in fact never been as abstemious as the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union’s activism had made them appear. 37 Women’s new willingness to drink in public—or at least in the semipublic atmosphere of the speakeasy—owed much to Prohibition’s achievement, the death of the saloon, whose masculine culture no longer governed norms of public drinking. The saloon’s demise also made it possible for women to band together to oppose Prohibition, as hundreds of thousands did in the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR). 38

Public drinking by women and college youth and wet attitudes disseminated by cultural media pushed along a process that social scientists call the “normalization of drinking”—that is, the breakdown of cultural proscriptions against liquor. Normalization, part of the long history of decay in Victorian social mores, began before the Prohibition Era and did not fully bear fruit until long afterward, but the process gained impetus from both the achievements and the failures of National Prohibition. 39

Other unintended and unexpected consequences of Prohibition included flourishing criminal activity centered on smuggling and bootlegging and the consequent clogging of the courts with drink-related prosecutions. 40 Prohibition also forced federal courts to take on the role of overseer of government regulatory agencies, and the zeal of government agents stimulated new concern for individual rights as opposed to the power of the state. 41 The bans on liquor importation and exportation crippled American ocean liners in the competition for transatlantic passenger service, thus contributing to the ongoing decline of the US merchant marine, and created an irritant in diplomatic relations with Great Britain and Canada. 42 Contrary to politicians’ hopes that the Eighteenth Amendment would finally take the liquor issue out of politics, Prohibition continued to roil the political waters even in the presidential seas, helping to carry Herbert Hoover first across the finish line in 1928 and to sink him 4 years later. 43

WHY REPEAL?

All prohibitions are coercive, but their effects can vary across populations and banned articles. We have no estimates of the size of the drinking population on the eve of National Prohibition (or on the eve of wartime prohibition, which preceded it by several months), but because of the phenomenon of “drinking drys” it was probably larger than the total of votes cast in referenda against state prohibition measures, and many of the larger states did not even hold such referenda. So Prohibition’s implicit goal of teetotalism meant changing the drinking behavior of a substantial number of Americans, possibly a majority.

Because the Volstead Act was drafted only after ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment was completed, neither the congressmen and state legislators who approved submission and ratification, nor the voters who elected them, knew what kind of prohibition they were voting for. 44 The absolutism of the act’s definition of intoxicating liquors made national alcohol prohibition a stringent ban, and the gap between what voters thought they were voting for and what they got made this sweeping interdict appear undemocratic. Nevertheless, support for prohibition in post-ratification state referenda and the boost given to Herbert Hoover’s 1928 campaign by his dry stance indicate continued electoral approval of Prohibition before the stock-market crash of 1929.

Historians agree that enforcement of the Volstead Act constituted National Prohibition’s Achilles’ heel. A fatal flaw resided in the amendment’s second clause, which mandated “concurrent power” to enforce Prohibition by the federal government and the states. ASL strategists expected that the states’ existing criminal-justice machinery would carry out the lion’s share of the work of enforcement. Consequently, the league did not insist on creating adequate forces or funding for federal enforcement, thereby avoiding conflict with Southern officials determined to protect states’ rights. The concurrent-power provision, however, allowed states to minimize their often politically divisive enforcement activity, and the state prohibition statutes gave wets an obvious target, because repeal of a state law was easier than repeal of a federal law or constitutional amendment, and repeal’s success would leave enforcement in the crippled hands of the federal government. 45 Even if enforcement is regarded as a failure, however, it does not follow that such a lapse undermined political support for Prohibition. Depending on the number of drinking drys, the failure of enforcement could have produced the opposite effect, by allowing voters to gain access to alcohol themselves while voting to deny it to others.

Two other possible reasons also fall short of explaining Repeal. The leading antiprohibitionist organization throughout the 1920s was the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA), which drew its support mainly from conservative businessmen, who objected to the increased power given to the federal government by National Prohibition. Their well-funded arguments, however, fell on deaf ears among the voters throughout the era, most tellingly in the presidential election of 1928. Both the AAPA and the more widely supported WONPR also focused attention on the lawlessness that Prohibition allegedly fostered. This argument, too, gained little traction in the electoral politics of the 1920s. When American voters changed their minds about Prohibition, the AAPA and WONPR, together with other repeal organizations, played a key role in focusing and channeling sentiment through an innovative path to Repeal, the use of specially elected state conventions. 46 But they did not create that sentiment.

Finally, historians are fond of invoking widespread cultural change to explain the failure of National Prohibition. Decaying Victorian social mores allowed the normalization of drinking, which was given a significant boost by the cultural trendsetters of the Jazz Age. In such an atmosphere, Prohibition could not survive. 47 But it did. At the height of the Jazz Age, American voters in a hard-fought contest elected a staunch upholder of Prohibition in Herbert Hoover over Al Smith, an avowed foe of the Eighteenth Amendment. Repeal took place, not in the free-flowing good times of the Jazz Age, but rather in the austere gloom 4 years into America’s worst economic depression.

Thus, the arguments for Repeal that seemed to have greatest resonance with voters in 1932 and 1933 centered not on indulgence but on economic recovery. Repeal, it was argued, would replace the tax revenues foregone under Prohibition, thereby allowing governments to provide relief to suffering families. 48 It would put unemployed workers back to work. Prohibitionists had long encouraged voters to believe in a link between Prohibition and prosperity, and after the onset of the Depression they abundantly reaped what they had sown. 49 Voters who had ignored claims that Prohibition excessively centralized power, failed to stop drinking, and fostered crime when they elected the dry Hoover now voted for the wet Franklin Roosevelt. They then turned out to elect delegates pledged to Repeal in the whirlwind series of state conventions that ratified the Twenty-First Amendment. Thus, it was not the stringent nature of National Prohibition, which set a goal that was probably impossible to reach and that thereby foredoomed enforcement, that played the leading role in discrediting alcohol prohibition. Instead, an abrupt and radical shift in context killed Prohibition.

LEGACIES OF PROHIBITION

The legacies of National Prohibition are too numerous to discuss in detail; besides, so many of them live on today and continue to affect Americans’ everyday lives that it is even difficult to realize that they are Prohibition’s byproducts. I will briefly mention the principal ones, in ascending order from shortest-lived to longest. The shortest-lived child of Prohibition actually survived to adulthood. This was the change in drinking patterns that depressed the level of consumption compared with the pre-Prohibition years. Straitened family finances during the Depression of course kept the annual per capita consumption rate low, hovering around 1.5 US gallons. The true results of Prohibition’s success in socializing Americans in temperate habits became apparent during World War II, when the federal government turned a more cordial face toward the liquor industry than it had during World War I, and they became even more evident during the prosperous years that followed. 50 Although annual consumption rose, to about 2 gallons per capita in the 1950s and 2.4 gallons in the 1960s, it did not surpass the pre-Prohibition peak until the early 1970s. 51

The death rate from liver cirrhosis followed a corresponding pattern. 52 In 1939, 42% of respondents told pollsters that they did not use alcohol at all. If that figure reflected stability in the proportionate size of the non-drinking population since the pre-Prohibition years, and if new cohorts—youths and women—had begun drinking during Prohibition, then the numbers of new drinkers had been offset by Prohibition’s socializing effect. By 1960, the proportion of abstainers had fallen only to 38%. 53

The Prohibition Era was unkind to habitual drunkards, not because their supply was cut off, but because it was not. Those who wanted liquor badly enough could still find it. But those who recognized their drinking as destructive were not so lucky in finding help. The inebriety asylums had closed, and the self-help societies had withered away. In 1935, these conditions gave birth to a new self-help group, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and the approach taken by these innovative reformers, while drawing from the old self-help tradition, was profoundly influenced by the experience of Prohibition.

AA rejected the prohibitionists’ claim that anyone could become a slave to alcohol, the fundamental assumption behind the sweeping approach of the Volstead Act. There were several reasons for this decision, but one of the primary ones was a perception that Prohibition had failed and a belief that battles already lost should not be refought. Instead, AA drew a rigid line between normal drinkers, who could keep their consumption within the limits of moderation, and compulsive drinkers, who could not. Thus was born the disease concept of alcoholism. Although the concept’s principal aim was to encourage sympathy for alcoholics, its result was to open the door to drinking by everyone else. 54 Influenced by Repeal to reject temperance ideology, medical researchers held the door open by denying previously accepted links between drinking and disease. 55

Another force energized by Prohibition also promoted drinking: the liquor industry’s fear that Prohibition might return. Those fears were not unjustified, because during the late 1930s two fifths of Americans surveyed still supported national Prohibition. 56 Brewers and distillers trod carefully, to be sure, attempting to surround liquor with an aura of “glamour, wealth, and sophistication,” rather than evoke the rough culture of the saloon. To target women, whom the industry perceived as the largest group of abstainers, liquor ads customarily placed drinking in a domestic context, giving hostesses a central role in dispensing their products. 57 Too much can easily be made of the “cocktail culture” of the 1940s and 1950s, because the drinking population grew only slightly and per capita consumption rose only gradually during those years. The most significant result of the industry’s campaign was to lay the foundation for a substantial increase in drinking during the 1960s and 1970s.

By the end of the 20th century, two thirds of the alcohol consumed by Americans was drunk in the home or at private parties. 58 In other words, the model of drinking within a framework of domestic sociability, which had been shaped by women, had largely superseded the style of public drinking men had created in their saloons and clubs. 59 Prohibition helped to bring about this major change in American drinking patterns by killing the saloon, but it also had an indirect influence in the same direction, by way of the state. When Prohibition ended, and experiments in economic regulation—including regulation of alcohol—under the National Recovery Administration were declared unconstitutional, the federal government banished public health concerns from its alcohol policy, which thereafter revolved around economic considerations. 60

Some states retained their prohibition laws—the last repeal occurring only in 1966—but most created pervasive systems of liquor control that affected drinking in every aspect. 61 Licensing was generally taken out of the hands of localities and put under the control of state administrative bodies, in an attempt to replace the impassioned struggles that had heated local politics since the 19th century with the cool, impersonal processes of bureaucracy. Licensing policy favored outlets selling for off-premise consumption, a category that eventually included grocery stores. With the invention of the aluminum beer can and the spread of home refrigeration after the 1930s, the way was cleared for the home to become the prime drinking site.

LESSONS FOR OTHER DRUG PROHIBITIONS

Perhaps the most powerful legacy of National Prohibition is the widely held belief that it did not work. I agree with other historians who have argued that this belief is false: Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption. The lowered level of consumption during the quarter century following Repeal, together with the large minority of abstainers, suggests that Prohibition did socialize or maintain a significant portion of the population in temperate or abstemious habits. 62 That is, it was partly successful as a public health innovation. Its political failure is attributable more to a changing context than to characteristics of the innovation itself.

Today, it is easy to say that the goal of total prohibition was impossible and the means therefore were unnecessarily severe—that, for example, National Prohibition could have survived had the drys been willing to compromise by permitting beer and light wine 63 —but from the perspective of 1913 the rejection of alternate modes of liquor control makes more sense. Furthermore, American voters continued to support Prohibition politically even in its stringent form, at least in national politics, until their economy crashed and forcefully turned their concerns in other directions. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that in 1933 a less restrictive form of Prohibition could have satisfied the economic concerns that drove Repeal while still controlling the use of alcohol in its most dangerous forms.

Scholars have reached no consensus on the implications of National Prohibition for other forms of prohibition, and public discourse in the United States mirrors our collective ambivalence. 64 Arguments that assume that Prohibition was a failure have been deployed most effectively against laws prohibiting tobacco and guns, but they have been ignored by those waging the war on other drugs since the 1980s, which is directed toward the same teetotal goal as National Prohibition. 65 Simplistic assumptions about government’s ability to legislate morals, whether pro or con, find no support in the historical record. As historian Ian Tyrrell writes, “each drug subject to restrictions needs to be carefully investigated in terms of its conditions of production, its value to an illicit trade, the ability to conceal the substance, and its effects on both the individual and society at large.” 66 From a historical perspective, no prediction is certain, and no path is forever barred—not even the return of alcohol prohibition in some form. Historical context matters.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 11121blocker.jpg

Bone Dry Forever! This sign on a St Louis street at Prohibition’s onset illustrates the widely held belief that the liquor ban would be permanent.

Source. Missouri Historical Society, image SNDC 7-08-0022.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is DN-0072348.jpg

Seized distilling equipment early in the Prohibition Era reflects the artisanal scale to which the production of beverage alcohol was reduced.

Source. Chicago Historical Society, image DN-0072348.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is DN-0079835.jpg

The Federal Prohibition Bureau, led by Roy Haines (left), was chronically underfunded by Congress and harrassed by officials of the Anti-Saloon League, such as O. G. Christgau (right).

Source. Chicago Historical Society, image DN-0079835.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is im-id18489.jpg

Prohibition fostered increasing consumption of nonalcoholic beverages, such as fruit juices and carbonated drinks, the latter symbolized by this A&W Root Beer stand in Madison, Wisc, in 1931.

Source. Wisconsin Historical Society, Image 18489.

Acknowledgments

Tom Pegram and Ted Brown provided helpful comments on an earlier version of the article.

Peer Reviewed

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Sign up

Essay The Prohibition Era

1 Works Cited

The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors. This ushered a period in the American history. This was known as Prohibition. Prohibition was difficult to force during the first decade of the 20th century. Bootlegging is the illegal production and sale of liquor. The increase of bootlegging, speakeasies, and the accompanying rise in gang violence and other crimes led to waning support for Prohibition. In 1933, the Congress had adopted a resolution. They proposed a 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which would repeal the 18th Amendment. The prohibition era came to a close by the end of that year. Origins of Prohibition began in the 1820’s and 1830’s when a wave of …show more content…

In the same year, the Congress submitted the 18th Amendment. This had banned the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors, for state ratification. Even though the Congress had stipulated a seven-year time limit for the process. The amendment had received support of the necessary three-quarters of US states in only eleven months. Ratified on January 29, 1919, the 18th Amendment went into effect a year later. By that time, about thirty-three states had already enacted their own prohibition legislation. In October that same year, Congress had passed the National Prohibition Act. This provided guidelines for the federal enforcement of Prohibition. The Representative Andrew Volstead of Mississippi championed this. He was the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation was more commonly known as the Volstead Act. Both the federal and local government had difficulties in enforcing Prohibition over the course of the 1920’s. Enforcement was originally assigned to the IRS. Later it had been transferred to the justice Department. Prohibition was enforced much more strongly in areas where the population had more sympathy towards the legislation. The illegal manufacturing and sale of liquor went on throughout the decade. As well as operations of speakeasies, smuggling alcohol across state lines, and informal production of liquor in private homes. The prohibition era had encouraged the rise of criminal activities, which

A comparison between the 1920's and the 1980's.

Prohibition was passed as the 18th amendment, that importing, exporting, transporting, and manufacturing of alcohol was to be put to an end. Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems that it intended to solve. It was expected that the decrease in alcohol consumption would in turn reduce crime, poverty, death rates, improve the economy, and the quality of life.

Essay The Prohibition of the 1920s

During the 1920’s there was an experiment in the U.S. “The Prohibition”, this experiment, made by the government, was written as the 18th amendment. The prohibition led to the bootlegging, increase in crimes, and gang wars.

Outline For The Prohibition Research Paper

In 1920, The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the manufacture, sales, and transportation of the alcohol was passed and continued until 1933.

The History Of The Irs

1919 - The states ratified the 18th Amendment, barring the manufacture, sale or transport of intoxicating beverages. Congress passed the Volstead Act, which gave the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the primary responsibility for enforcement of Prohibition (Internal Revenue Service, 2013)

The Consequences of Prohibition Essay

As i told the prohibition party had their greatest success in 1919, where they succeeded in passing the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Amendment actually outlawed production, sale, transportation, import and export of alcohol. It was only legal when used for religious purposes. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The Prohibition Of The 1920s Essay

This paper discusses one of the most significant events of the 1920s and 1930s that still affects life to this day, the prohibition. Throughout the modern American, who may be interested in the prohibition and why organized crime was so powerful, discover just that as well as why the prohibition was implemented, who had the most influence, how people viewed one another at the time, and the factors that lead to the prohibitions lack of success. It was a time of struggle between law enforcement, organized crime and the citizens caught in-between. Overall the main question the collective research intends to answer is “who held all the power, the police, organized crime, or the citizens and how did that shape the prohibition?” The answer to the question will be discovered through research and facts. Topics such as motivations behind the prohibition, police efficacy, citizen involvement, organized crime, the morals of America, and multiple views on the prohibition will be covered in hopes to fully understand what the prohibition was and the roles specific groups had in the outcome.

Prohibition And The Prohibition Era

Prohibition, a word that defined an era. “The Eighteenth Amendment of the constitution was ratified in January 1919 and was enacted in January 1920, which outlawed the manufacturing of intoxicating beverages as well as the transportation of intoxicating liquors.” The forging of this amendment came from the culmination of decades of effort from many different organizations such as Women’s Christian Temperance Union as well as the Anti-Saloon League. When America became a dry nation on January 17, 1920, it would remain a dry nation for the next 12 years when it was finally repealed in December of 1933. This amendment being put into place caused tens of thousands of distilleries, breweries, and saloons across America to be compelled to close their doors, as America embarked on a very controversial era known as the Prohibition Era. Prohibition was being implemented on a national scale now and being enshrined in the Constitution no less. What followed was a litany of unintended consequences throughout America. Did prohibition really help America, or did prohibition trigger a landslide of problems in America?

Prohibition Dbq Essay

The 18th Amendment was removed from the Constitution and replaced by the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. It was added because the government was also suffering from the Great Depression at that time. By removing Prohibition, the government would get taxes from alcohol sales, jobs would be created, and it would decrease the costs of law enforcement for Prohibition. The 18th Amendment was the only amendment that was ever abolished in the U.S. Constitution. An amendment is supposed to stay in the Constitution forever and acts as a law that is protected by the federal government. When the 18th Amendment was removed, it shows that the government thinks that it wasn’t effective. Organized crime made money from selling the alcohol and increased crime throughout U.S. After years, lawmakers agreed that prohibition was not effective but also dangerous to many laws and caused many crimes concerning the safety of the citizens. Thousands were called back to work for alcohol companies. More than 5,000 new jobs are predicted as a result of repeal and many celebrated the downfall of Prohibition. After 13 years trying to stop use of alcohol among the citizens, Prohibition was not success, but rather

Prohibition in Canada Essay

When caught bootlegging liquor you would be issued a fine, this made things alright because everyone was happy, the laws were so hard to enforce that the government was just happy collecting fine money and the bootleggers were happy cause it was a small price to pay for the amount of money they were making. The most ironic thing about prohibition is that it is the major bases for what we call organized crime.

Okrent’s Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition Essay

January 1920, the opening year of the 18th Amendment that sought banning “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” within the United States and its US territories. Many Americans relate this era with speakeasy, public law breaking, and a public disregard for the establishment of prohibition. The 18th Amendment was the first constitutional amendment that sought to limit the rights of citizens and their rights to drink. This would become an attempt that many would soon come to realize as one of the greatest failures in law enforcement in American History. For if an American wants to drink, those with the American spirit for rebellion will surly offer him one.

Essay on Herbert Hoover

Herbert Hoover called it a "noble experiment." Organized crime found it to be the opportunity of a lifetime. Millions of Americans denounced it as an infringement of their rights. For nearly 14 years—from Jan. 29, 1920, until Dec. 5, 1933--the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages was illegal in the United States. The 18th, or Prohibition, Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress and submitted to the states in 1917. By Jan. 29, 1919, it had been ratified. Enforcement legislation entitled the National Prohibition Act (or more popularly, the Volstead act, after Representative Andrew J. Volstead of Minnesota) was passed on Oct. 28, 1919, over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto.

Deliver Us from Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition

The 18th amendment was ratified by congress on January 16, 1919 in which the selling and distribution of “intoxicating liquors” was banned. That was the start of what many called the dry decade in the United States. Norman H. Clark’s Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition illustrates the struggles to make the dry decade possible and the consequences that followed it. The 235 page text describes how the Anti-Saloon League was determined to make prohibition possible and the struggles they had to overcome. As well as what directly followed once it was a reality.

Economic and Social Effects of Prohibition Essay example

“Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve.” On 16th January 1920, one of the most common personal habits and customs of American society came to a halt. The eighteenth amendment was implemented, making all importing, exporting, transporting, selling and manufacturing of intoxicating liquors absolutely prohibited. This law was created in the hope of achieving the reduction of alcohol consumption, which in turn would reduce: crime, poverty,

Prohibition Essay

Prohibition, under the Eighteenth Amendment was the Governments idea of illegalizing the consumption, production, and transportation of intoxicating liquors.

President Herbert Hoover Prohibition

In 1913 they launched a national drive for a constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages (Behr 58). The 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress on December 18, 1917 and pending ratification by the States, prohibited the manufacture, sale transport, import, or export of alcoholic beverages. Thirteen months after the 18th amendment was passed by Congress Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify it on January 16, 1919. The enforcement arm of the 18th Amendment was the National Prohibition Act, also called the Volstead Act, which became effective October 28, 1919, and placed the authority to enforce the amendment in the lap of the Treasury Department and defined what legally constituted an alcoholic beverage (Hanson

Essay on Prohibition

The views of people on prohibition have always been different. A controversy has been raging for the last few centuries about the usefulness and efficacy of Prohibition. Prohibition implies banning of drinking by the Government.

Those who are opposed to prohibition have their own arguments to support their views. The lovers of wine find nothing wrong in drinking. According to them, Hindu Mythology is replete with names of gods and demons who drank Soma’ and Sura’ respectively. They further say that the Russians have been taking Vodka’ and even the English are not against drinking.

They contend that wine is used in the religious rituals of the English and that it has become a second nature with them to drink. They even go to the extent of saying that during the British rule in India drinking became a mark of gentility with the people to drink and those who did not were considered backwards in civilization.

The opponents of Prohibition argue that life is full of miseries and sorrows and that it is a ring of dejection. According to them, there is no other way to forget their worries except by drowning their sorrows in a cup of wine. Even some state governments of India of the post-independence era imposed prohibition only to withdraw it later on.

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra and Haryana had bitter experience on this issue. This speaks, according to the lovers of wine, of the uselessness of prohibition because it deprives the states of a big part of revenue coming from excise and custom of liquor.

Some argue that drinking is a personal matter and any prohibition amounts to suppressing individual liberty. Moreover, they point out, that the more prohibition exerted itself, the greater will be the popularity of drink. Illicit sale and smuggling of wine have raised its fangs in the states where prohibition was imposed.

But those who oppose prohibition do not realise the: drowning of sorrows in a cup of wine is a temporary escape from ironic; tragedies stresses and strains of life. They should not forget that habit is second nature. Habit is the first cobweb, then a cable.

We weave a thread of it every day, and at last, we cannot break it. The supporters of prohibition are of the view that revenue from custom and excise of liquor should not be earned to the moral and economic detriment of unfortunate individuals and their families.

The advocates of individual liberty should not forget that liberty is not licensed. It is not a curtailment of an individual’s liberty to prevent a man from drinking that results in the ruin of his family and very often leads to his personal physical, mental, moral and material ruin.

The evil effects of drinking are obvious. It ruins discriminate discrimination between good and evil. It switches off the control of reason and conscience, and makes one blind with passion. It engenders an irresistible craving for wine, women and wealth.

It makes a man completely imbecile, besides ruining his finances family and his family. It incapacitates the brain and imagination and breaks down a man’s morale and will-power. It overstrains the nerves, shatters the lungs and the heart, thereby bringing the person who indulges in it to premature death.

Apart from this, the habit of drinking is a great social evil too. It degenerates and perverts society. A man under the influence of liquor fails to distinguish between wife and daughter.

His judgement fails ments falter and he loses all sobriety. It has cost many promising People dearly S.T. Coleridge, Marlowe, singer Prince Sehgal, etc., fell victims to the evil of drinking.

Prohibition implies complete abstinence from wine. Gandhi. Morarji Desai and social reformers of India wanted prohibition to be enforced in the country so that the poor classes like the knights of the broom, the washermen, the cobblers, the unskilled labourers, drivers, professional soldiers and others might not ruin themselves by drinking liquor.

But the job is not that easy. It cannot be a success as long as people are illiterate and poor. The government must realise that the people are still groping in the dark. They cannot tell good from evil, right from wrong. The spread of education can alone broaden their mental horizon.

Since our education system is itself defective, it cannot be expected to deliver the good. There is strong need of awakening in the masses. Changes in the education system be brought about to suit the purpose. Healthy diversions, cultural activities and love for life are very essential before the cup of wine is snatched from the lips.

Prohibition is a social problem. The economic conditions of the people will have to be improved. Labour laws will have to be enacted to lessen the physical strain of the workers. Sources of amusement and recreation will have to be provided.

Honest administration vigilantly guarding against smuggling and illicit distillation is a must. Work and ideals of success and prosperity will have to be made available to every individual to achieve freedom from want, worry, fear and frustration. Social conscience will have to be awakened against the custom of drinking on days of festivals and other occasions of festivity.

If the above mentioned steps are taken both by the government and the Social reformers with courage and will-power and that too in right earnest, there is no reason why is reason why the people of India will not be healed of this evil of drinking.

Random Disease Generator [Fake & Real]
Mirza Ghalib Shayari on God
Howl Poem By Allen Ginsberg Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
Stri Purush Tulana by Tarabai Shinde Analysis
Daddy Poem Summary and Line by Line Explanation by Sylvia Plath in English
Michael Poem by William Wordsworth Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English

Supported by

A Culture Warrior Takes a Late Swing

The editor and essayist Joseph Epstein looks back on his life and career in two new books.

Share full article

A photograph of a man riding a unicycle down the hallway of a home. He is wearing a blue button-down shirt, a dark tie and khakis.

By Dwight Garner

NEVER SAY YOU’VE HAD A LUCKY LIFE: Especially If You’ve Had a Lucky Life , by Joseph Epstein

FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTENT: New and Selected Essays , by Joseph Epstein

When Tammy Wynette was asked to write a memoir in her mid-30s, she initially declined, she said in an interview, because “I didn’t think my life was over yet.” The publisher responded: Has it occurred to you that in 15 years no one might care? She wrote the book. “Stand by Your Man: An Autobiography” (1979) was a hit.

The essayist and editor Joseph Epstein — whose memoir “Never Say You’ve Had a Lucky Life,” is out now, alongside a greatest-hits collection titled “Familiarity Breeds Content” — has probably never heard Wynette sing except by accident. (In a 1993 essay, he wrote that he wished he didn’t know who Willie Nelson was, because it was a sign of a compromised intellect.) But his memoir illustrates another reason not to wait too long to commit your life to print.

There is no indication that Epstein, who is in his late 80s, has lost a step. His prose is as genial and bland, if comparison to his earlier work is any indication, as it ever was. But there’s a softness to his memories of people, perhaps because it was all so long ago. This is the sort of memoir that insists someone was funny, or erudite, or charismatic, while rarely providing the crucial details.

Epstein aw-shucks his way into “Never Say You’ve Had a Lucky Life” — pretending to be self-effacing while not being so in the least is one of his salient qualities as a writer — by warning readers, “I may not have had a sufficiently interesting life to merit an autobiography.” This is because he “did little, saw nothing notably historic, and endured not much out of the ordinary of anguish or trouble or exaltation.” Quickly, however, he concludes that his life is indeed worth relating, in part because “over the years I have acquired the literary skill to recount that life well.”

Here he is wrong in both directions. His story is interesting enough to warrant this memoir. His personal life has taken complicated turns. And as the longtime editor of the quarterly magazine The American Scholar, and a notably literate conservative culture warrior, he’s been in the thick of things.

He does lack the skill to tell his own story, though, if by “skill” we mean not well-scrubbed Strunk and White sentences but close and penetrating observation. Epstein favors tasseled loafers and bow ties, and most of his sentences read as if they were written by a sentient tasseled loafer and edited by a sentient bow tie.

He grew up in Chicago, where his father manufactured costume jewelry. The young Epstein was popular and, in high school, lettered in tennis. His title refers to being lucky, and a big part of that luck, in his estimation, was to grow up back when kids could be kids, before “the therapeutic culture” took over.

This complaint sets the tone of the book. His own story is set next to a rolling series of cultural grievances. He’s against casual dress, the prohibition of the word “Negro,” grade inflation, the Beat Generation, most of what occurred during the 1960s, standards slipping everywhere, de-Westernizing college curriculums, D.E.I. programs, you name it. His politics aren’t the problem. We can argue about those. American culture needs more well-read conservatives. The problem is that in his search for teachable moments, his memoir acquires the cardboard tone of a middling opinion column.

His youth was not all tennis lessons and root beer floats. He and his friends regularly visited brothels because, he writes, sex was not as easy to come by in the 1950s. He was kicked out of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign for his role in the selling of a stolen accounting exam to other students.

He was lucky to find a place at the University of Chicago, a place of high seriousness. The school changed him. He began to reassess his values. He began to read writers like Irving Howe, Sidney Hook, Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz, and felt his politics pull to the right.

After college, he was drafted into the Army and ended up in Little Rock, Ark., where he met his first wife. At the time, she was a waitress at a bar and restaurant called the Gar Hole. Here Epstein’s memoir briefly threatens to acquire genuine weight.

She had lost custody of her two sons after a divorce. Together they got them back, and she and Epstein had two sons of their own. After their divorce, Epstein took all four of the boys. This is grist for an entire memoir, but Epstein passes over it quickly. One never gets much of a sense of what his boys were like, or what it was like to raise them. He later tells us that he has all but lost touch with his stepsons and has not seen them for decades.

He worked for the magazine The New Leader and the Encyclopaedia Britannica before becoming the editor of The American Scholar in 1975. It was a position he would hold for 22 years. He also taught at Northwestern University for nearly three decades.

At The American Scholar he began to write a long personal essay in each issue, under the pseudonym Aristides. He wrote 92 of these, on topics such as smoking and envy and reading and height. Most ran to 6,500 words, or about 4,000 words longer than they should have been.

Many magazine editors like to write every so often, to keep a hand in. But there is something unseemly about an editor chewing up acres of space in his own publication on a regular basis. Editorially, it’s a droit du seigneur imposition.

A selection of these essays, as well as some new ones, can now be found in “Familiarity Breeds Content.” In his introduction to this book, Christopher Buckley overpraises Epstein, leaving the reader no choice but to start mentally pushing back.

Buckley calls Epstein “the most entertaining living essayist in the English language.” (Not while Michael Kinsley, Lorrie Moore, Calvin Trillin, Sloane Crosley and Geoff Dyer, among many others, walk the earth.) He repurposes Martin Amis’s comment about Saul Bellow: “One doesn’t read Saul Bellow. One can only reread him.” To this he adds, “Ditto Epstein.” (Epstein is no Saul Bellow.) Buckley says, “Joe Epstein is incapable of writing a boring sentence.”

Well. How about this one, from an essay about cats?

A cat, I realize, cannot be everyone’s cup of fur.

Or this one, from an essay about sports and other obsessions:

I have been told there are people who wig out on pasta.

Or this one, about … guess:

When I was a boy, it occurs to me now, I always had one or another kind of hat.

Juggling today appears to be undergoing a small renaissance.

If one is looking to save on fuel bills, politics is likely to heat up a room quicker than just about anything else.

In tennis I was most notable for flipping and catching my racket in various snappy routines.

The essays are, by and large, as tweedy and self-satisfied as these lines make them sound. There are no wild hairs in them, no sudden deepenings of tone. Nothing is at stake. We are stranded with him on the putt-putt course.

Epstein fills his essays with quotation after quotation, as ballast. I am a fan of well-deployed, free-range quotations. So many of Epstein’s are musty and reek of Bartlett’s. They are from figures like Lord Chesterfield and Lady Mary Montagu and Sir Herbert Grierson and Tocqueville and Walpole and Carlyle. You can feel the moths escaping from the display case in real time.

To be fair, I circled a few sentences in “Familiarity Breeds Content” happily. I’m with him on his distrust of “fun couples.” He writes, “A cowboy without a hat is suitable only for bartending.” I liked his observation, which he borrowed from someone else, that a career has five stages:

(1) Who is Joseph Epstein? (2) Get me Joseph Epstein. (3) We need someone like Joseph Epstein. (4) What we need is a young Joseph Epstein. (5) Who is Joseph Epstein?

It’s no fun to trip up a writer on what might have been a late-career victory lap. Epstein doesn’t need me to like his work. He’s published more than 30 books, and you can’t do that unless you’ve made a lot of readers happy.

NEVER SAY YOU’VE HAD A LUCKY LIFE : Especially If You’ve Had a Lucky Life | By Joseph Epstein | Free Press | 287 pp. | $29.99

FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTENT : New and Selected Essays | By Joseph Epstein | Simon & Schuster | 441 pp. | Paperback, $20.99

Dwight Garner has been a book critic for The Times since 2008, and before that was an editor at the Book Review for a decade. More about Dwight Garner

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

How did fan culture take over? And why is it so scary? Justin Taylor’s novel “Reboot” examines the convergence of entertainment , online arcana and conspiracy theory.

Jamaica Kincaid and Kara Walker unearth botany’s buried history to figure out how our gardens grow.

A new photo book reorients dusty notions of a classic American pastime with a stunning visual celebration of black rodeo.

Two hundred years after his death, this Romantic poet is still worth reading . Here’s what made Lord Byron so great.

Harvard’s recent decision to remove the binding of a notorious volume in its library has thrown fresh light on a shadowy corner of the rare book world.

Bus stations. Traffic stops. Beaches. There’s no telling where you’ll find the next story based in Accra, Ghana’s capital . Peace Adzo Medie shares some of her favorites.

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

IMAGES

≫ Impact of Prohibition on U.S. History Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
≫ Prohibition Was a Mistake Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Prohibition Essay
The Prohibition in The Great Gatsby
Prohibition Essays
👍 Prohibition 1920 essay. Prohibition of the 1920’s. 2019-02-10

VIDEO

Prohibition
Essay on plastic ban say no to plastic use ll @jsj jesy education
Problem-Solution Essays
General Essay
Basic Content of Senior Essay & Thesis research Proposal
Cruelty S498A IPC Dowry Death Abetment to Suicide Bhoot Peshach not a Cruelty-

COMMENTS

List Of Great Topics For An Argument Essay On Prohibition
The prohibition in the United States was repealed after just thirteen years. In that time, however, a number of topics were developed worth exploring in an argument essay. Here are 22 worth consideration: Do you think the prohibition amendment was ratified in response to women activists who were seeking equal voting rights?
Prohibition Essay
Prohibition Essay. Sort By: Page 1 of 50 - About 500 essays. Good Essays. Prohibition And The Prohibition Movement. 977 Words; 4 Pages; Prohibition And The Prohibition Movement. Introduction Prohibition in the United States was an extent intended to decrease drinking by removing the businesses that produced, dispersed, and retailed alcoholic ...
introduction of prohibition: [Essay Example], 490 words
Introduction of Prohibition. In the early 20th century, the United States embarked on a bold social experiment that would forever alter the landscape of American history: prohibition. This era, marked by the nationwide ban on the production, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages, aimed to curb the perceived societal ills associated with ...
PDF THE RISE and FALL OF PROHIBITION
• Define the terms Prohibition, Temperance, Progressive, Organized Crime, and Repeal on your own. Compare your definitions with a partner. PLEASE NOTE This resource contains background essays at three levels: 10-12th grade (1100 words) 8-9th grade (800 words) 6-7th grade (500 words)
Prohibition
Essay. Despite the national prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933, Philadelphia earned a reputation rivaling Chicago, Detroit, and New York City as a liquor-saturated municipality. The Literary Digest described Pennsylvania as a "bootlegger's Elysium," with every city as "wet as the Atlantic Ocean." The Quaker City in particular ...
Prohibition And The Prohibition Movement
Thesis: Though the primary purpose of the Prohibition was to prevent harmful effects caused by alcohol and improve the condition of society, many unexpected adverse effects followed. ... In this essay whether Prohibition was successful in reducing crime and corruption and solving social problems or was the opposite true will be discussed, and ...
Prohibition Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Prohibition quickly produced bootleggers, speakeasies, moonshine, bathtub gin, and rum runners smuggling supplies of alcohol across state lines. In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies -- twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition. Many people made beer and wine at home.
Prohibition and the Rise of Organized Crime Essay
The rise of organized crimes occurred at a time when there were many temperament groups seeking to better the society. The movement had taken shape since 1800. Their founding goals were to reform several aspects of the society. The issue of alcohol being a source of social instability was part of the movement's aim.
Alcohol, Temperance, and Prohibition
The site is a series of short essays on the temperance movement and national prohibition, such as "Why Prohibition?," "The Brewing Industry and Prohibition," "The Women's Crusade of 1873-74," "The Anti-Saloon League," "The Ohio Dry Campaign of 1918," and "Medicinal Alcohol."
Thesis Statement For Prohibition In The 1920's
The end of the Prohibition in the United States came when the 21st amendment passed in December of 1933. Because of the end of Prohibition in 1933, it helped out the shrimp and prawn business because people stopped eating shrimp once they were not able to eat it while drinking a beer. "The revival of one industry helps another.
Essays on Prohibition
Argumentative Essay About Prohibition. 1 page / 662 words. Prohibition, a controversial topic that has sparked countless debates and discussions throughout history, continues to be a subject of interest and contention in contemporary society. From the temperance movement of the late 19th century to the failed experiment of the Prohibition era ...
Prohibition Benefits and Detriments
The arguments by John Gordon Cooper (1872-1955), "Prohibition is a success" (1924) and "Prohibition is a Failure" (1926) by William H. Stayton (1861-1942) will form this summary paper. Cooper in his arguments portend that prohibition should be upheld with much important consideration as much as the other parts of the constitution.
Argumentative Essay About Prohibition
Prohibition, a controversial topic that has sparked countless debates and discussions throughout history, continues to be a subject of interest and... read full [Essay Sample] for free
Prohibition Era Thesis
This essay argues that Prohibition created a wave of change, such as the introduction of large-scale organized crime, and the corruption of law, war against culture, that helped shape the culture of Canada far during Prohibition and even after the Repeal. ... More about Prohibition Era Thesis. Examples Of Prohibition In The 1920's 378 Words | 2 ...
Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health
The conventional view that National Prohibition failed rests upon an historically flimsy base. The successful campaign to enact National Prohibition was the fruit of a century-long temperance campaign, experience of which led prohibitionists to conclude that a nationwide ban on alcohol was the most promising of the many strategies tried thus far.
Essay On Prohibition
Essay on prohibition. Prohibition, which was also known as The Noble Experiment, lasted in America from 1920 until 1933. There are quite a few results of this experiment: innocent people suffered; organized crime grew into an empire; the police, courts, and politicians became increasingly corrupt; disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance-alcohol ...
Prohibition Essay
Free Essay: Prohibition Prohibition, "The Noble Experiment," was a great and genius idea on paper, but did not go as planned. ... Thesis: Although prohibition's goal was to increase a sense of integrity in the United States, it encouraged normally law-abiding citizens to break the law, enabled the growth and influence of organized crime ...
Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us.
Essays On Prohibition
Prohibition Essay Prohibition Prohibition, "The Noble Experiment," was a great and genius idea on paper, but did not go as planned. With illegal activities still increasing and bootlegging at its all time high, it was no wonder the idea crumbled. Could they have revised the law to make it more effective? If so, would the law
Prohibition by Sheila Olasiman on Prezi
Prohibition. Thesis statement: In 1920, the United States passed the 18th amendment, which banned the transportation and manufacture of alcohol in the United States. Alcohol was banned because alcohol consumption was getting out of hand and it didn't have any good effect on people. So as a result, Prohibition led to more violence, poverty ...
Prohibition Essays
Prohibition Essay. Prohibition The 18th amendment, known as prohibition, had America in fits when it was ratified in 1919. The government was hoping to achieve a healthier, efficient society with good morals and a break for women from receiving beatings from drunken husbands.
Essay The Prohibition Era
Open Document. The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquors. This ushered a period in the American history. This was known as Prohibition. Prohibition was difficult to force during the first decade of the 20th century. Bootlegging is the illegal production and sale of liquor.
Essay on Prohibition
Essay on Prohibition. The views of people on prohibition have always been different. A controversy has been raging for the last few centuries about the usefulness and efficacy of Prohibition. Prohibition implies banning of drinking by the Government. Those who are opposed to prohibition have their own arguments to support their views.
Book Review: Joseph Epstein's New Memoir and Book of Essays
FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTENT: New and Selected Essays, by Joseph Epstein. ... He's against casual dress, the prohibition of the word "Negro," grade inflation, the Beat Generation, most of what ...

22 Winning Topics For An Argument Essay On Prohibition

Prohibition

A Cyclical Pattern of Corruption

A Crime Crescendo in 1928

A Widespread Disregard of Prohibition

Related Topics

Time Periods

Related Reading

Related Collections

Related Places

Backgrounders

Prohibition Essays (Examples)

Filter by Keywords:(add comma between each)

Prohibition and Its Legacy the

Prohibition Henry W Jessup 1923

Prohibition Was Bound to Fail as the

How Did Prohibition Impact F Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway

Concept of Prohibition

Conferences Discussed Prohibition Movement Culminated Passage 18th

Alcohol Prohibition in Canada in the 1920s

How Did Alcohol Prohibition Lead to Crime

Lifting the Prohibition on Marijuana

Punitive Drug Prohibition in the United States

The American Prohibition Era

Punitive Drug Prohibition

Drugs Legal Drug Prohibition Causes More Problems

Alcohol How Effective Has the Legal Prohibition

What is the point of a normative theory essay?

Need some topics for mixed method research in social sciences.

Can you help with ideas for a research proposal of Social Justice that connects with gun violence?

Should the Government regulate social media if its helps prevent the spread of fake news and misinformation?

Research Paper

Prohibition Benefits and Detriments Essay

Prohibition Era Thesis

Examples Of Prohibition In The 1920's

Ratification Of Prohibition In The 1920's

How Did Prohibition Fail

What Was The Effect Of Botlegging In The 1920's

How Did Prohibition Created A Wave Of Change In Canada

1920s Crime Essay

Assess The Significance Of Prohibition Essay

Was Prohibition A Success Or A Failure Essay

Alcohol Prohibition In The 1920's

Prohibition In The United States During The 1920's

Prohibition's Failure Essay

What Were Al Capone's Accomplishments

Prohibition Dbq Essay

DBQ Essay: The Role Of Prohibition In The United States

Prohibition's Positive Effects On Society

More about Prohibition Era Thesis

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

TEMPERANCE THOUGHT BEFORE NATIONAL PROHIBITION

WHY NATIONAL PROHIBITION?

PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF PROHIBITION

UNINTENDED AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES

WHY REPEAL?

LEGACIES OF PROHIBITION

LESSONS FOR OTHER DRUG PROHIBITIONS

Acknowledgments

Essay The Prohibition Era

A comparison between the 1920's and the 1980's.

Essay The Prohibition of the 1920s

Outline For The Prohibition Research Paper

The History Of The Irs

The Consequences of Prohibition Essay

The Prohibition Of The 1920s Essay

Prohibition And The Prohibition Era

Prohibition Dbq Essay

Prohibition in Canada Essay

Okrent’s Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition Essay

Essay on Herbert Hoover

Deliver Us from Evil: an Interpretation of American Prohibition

Economic and Social Effects of Prohibition Essay example

Prohibition Essay

President Herbert Hoover Prohibition

Related Topics

Essay on Prohibition

Related Posts:

A Culture Warrior Takes a Late Swing

Explore More in Books