Introduction
When the federal government of the United States banned alcohol in 1920, it was an attempt to combat graft, address endemic social ills and enhance public health. The government referred to this as National Alcohol Prohibition. As enshrined in the Constitution’s 18th Amendment, alcoholic beverages could not be sold, manufactured, or transported. In 1933, however, the repeal of this Amendment by the Twenty-First Amendment ended the federal government’s fourteen-year campaign against alcoholic drinks. To undercut the prohibition, two widely accepted fallacies emerged. The first was that prohibition failed in part because the amount of alcohol consumed did not reduce at all. The second was that prohibition fostered the creation of organized criminal groups by fostering bootlegging and the illegal liquor trade. Hence, there is a divided opinion on the effectiveness of prohibition. Despite waning popular support, prohibition was a success since it reduced alcohol use and alcohol-related ailments, as well as accelerated the war on criminal gangs.
The decline in Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages
Consumption of alcoholic beverages considerably declined as a result of the enactment of prohibition in the United States. Adults consumed an average of 9.5 liters of alcohol per year between 1900 and 1915. In 1916, less than 9 liters of alcohol could be drunk by the average American. Between 1920 and 1925, a staggering 50 to 70 percent of Americans drank less booze, and the aggregate drop of 30 percent during Prohibition was the steepest in the country’s history. Indeed, prohibition’s triumph can be explained by the fact that before it was enacted, drinking levels had been constantly increasing. As Jack Blocker elaborates, the decline in beer consumption coincided with a decline in beer production. Indeed, a decade after 1916, the United States lacked any significant beer breweries. The number of distilleries fell by 85 percent during this time period, with the majority of the remaining distilleries producing industrial ethanol. Primary evidence from the Statistical Abstract of the United States of America indicates that the volume of malt, rice, and hops used in the production of full-strength beer decreased by less than 10%, 13%, and 33%, respectively. Dried spirits income decreased from US $360 million in 1919 to less than US $13 million in 1929, while income from liquors went virtually to zero. In that same decade, the number of liquor wholesalers fell by 96 percent, while the number of legitimate merchants declined by roughly 90 percent. As a result, there was a considerable decrease in the number of alcohol-related diseases.
Decline in Rates of Alcohol-Related Diseases
National Prohibition resulted in a decrease in the prevalence of alcohol-related diseases. A decrease in the production of liquor resulted in a spike in the price of alcohol, which in turn increased the popularity of “dry” culture. As the prevalence of liquor-related medical and health disorders decreased, so did the prevalence of drinking alcohol. A considerable number of Americans had come to believe that excessive alcohol use was to blame for premature mortality, alcohol-induced psychoses, and public drunkenness. Therefore, as soon as prohibition became law, a large number of people in the United States saw the need to comply with it. Correspondingly, alcohol-related mortality fell from “7.3 per 100,000 people in 1907 to 2.5 per 100,000 in 1932,” and public drinking prosecutions and the frequency of alcoholic psychosis were also on the wane during this time. Prohibition, as the prohibitionists intended, transformed the consumption patterns of wage workers. Hospitalizations for alcohol-induced psychosis, cirrhosis, and drunkenness fell precipitously in the years following Prohibition’s repeal, as did mortality rates from these disorders and arrests for intoxication. This coincided with increased agitation by the government to fight against criminal gangs who engaged in bootlegging.
Increased War on Criminal Gangs
To a considerable extent, National Prohibition accelerated the fight against criminal gangs. When it comes to public health, removing the horrible 1920s law had some protracted crime-related benefits. This connection has been challenged, despite the fact that it has been linked to a slew of violence and intricate criminal networks. Prior to prohibition, bootleggers like Al Capone were involved in extortionate enterprises like gambling, prostitution, drug trafficking, and bribing law enforcement officers. In reality, if the Eighteenth Amendment had not been enacted, gang-style criminality would have continued to exist. During Prohibition, it was the theatrics of the media that made them famous, not their bootlegging. There were a number of gunfights, although they weren’t necessarily linked to wine smuggling operations. Al Capone’s crime-related activities or racketeering are not likely to have anything to do with the killings of seven men on Valentine’s Day in a Chicago driveway. Indeed, as FBI records indicate, “in 1931, Capone was sentenced to prison for tax evasion” rather than bootlegging. Hence, prohibition was indeed a success.
Conclusion
While public support for National Prohibition was diminishing; it was a success in reducing alcohol use and the illnesses that go along with it, as well as in hastening the fight against organized crime. The United States’ adoption of Prohibition significantly reduced alcoholic beverage consumption. Alcohol-related sickness rates dropped as a result of the ban. The price of alcohol rose as a result of a decrease in the production of liquor, which led to an increase in the adoption of a “dry” culture. Prohibition had a significant impact on the battle against criminal gangs. Removing the odious statute from the ’20s has long-term positive effects on crime prevention for the general population.
Bibliography
Blocker, Jack. “Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation.” American Journal of Public Health 96, no. 2 (2006): 233–243.
Hamilton, David and Johnathan O’Neill. “Was Prohibition a Success or a Failure.” Bill of Rights Institute. Web.
Hoover, Edgar. FBI Records: The Vault – Alphonse Capone. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1928.
National Constitution Center. “18th Amendment. Prohibition of Liquor.” Web.
National Constitution Center. “21st Amendment. Repeal of Prohibition.” National Constitution Center website. Web.
National Institutes of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. “Apparent Per Capita Ethanol Consumption, United States, 1850–2017.” Web.
Schrad, Mark. “Constitutional Blemishes: American Alcohol Prohibition and Repeal as Policy Punctuation.” The Policy Studies Journal 35, no. 3 (2007): 437-463.
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1928. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census, 1928.
Thornton, Mark. “Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure.” CATO Institute Policy Analysis. Web.