|
|
National Prohibition As under a spell, the people had suffered this act to be brought to its fatal conclusion, but with the first touch of cold reality—i.e. of Prohibition in practice—the charm was undone, and the law appeared in its true aspect—a monstrous reversion to the bogies of our historical infancy. (Monahan 82) National Prohibition, brought about by the Eighteenth Amendment and enforced through the Volstead Act, lasted for over a decade. Despite a growing lack of public support for both Prohibition and temperance itself, the ban on alcohol continued throughout the United States—at least in the law books. In practice, however, National Prohibition was much less effective than temperance and Prohibition leaders had hoped, in the end causing more problems than it solved. Once enacted, Prohibition directly led to the increase in crime and corruption during the twenties, the public health problems associated with bootleg liquor and alcohol substitutes, the aggravated tensions between religious, racial, and social groups, and the political upheaval in response to its existence. Yet in the end, it was the vocalization of the supreme public hatred of the Amendment, caused by all of these factors combined, which brought about Prohibition’s repeal. Yet Prohibition did enjoy some success. Records reveal that alcohol consumption did initially drop after the onset of National Prohibition and the Volstead Act. However, this decrease on a national level was not all that significant compared to the effect of previous temperance measures in specific communities. Also, after this initial drop alcohol consumption continued to rise steadily throughout Prohibition to the point where it was thought consumption would actually surpass pre-Prohibition levels. The same was true of alcohol related diseases—while initially declining, alcoholism and alcohol-related illness climbed to new heights, all while Prohibition was still in effect (Thornton, “Failure” 70–71). Thus, in the long run, the initial success of Prohibition was soon reversed. Crime, however, was a problem throughout Prohibition. In his book The Economics of Prohibition, Mark Thornton states that any prohibitive measures, whether on alcohol or other goods, inherently create a black market trading in those goods (4). For, since demand does not generally decrease, or at least not significantly, the prohibited good will continue to be traded even though laws exist to prevent such an occurrence. The presence of this black market, in turn, increases the criminal activity related to the manufacture and sale of that substance (Thornton, Economics 4–5). In short, “prohibition creates new profit opportunities for both criminals and non-criminals,” especially for those previously involved in criminal activities (Thornton, “Failure” 116–117). The same was true in the case of National Prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s—crime continued to increase as fewer and fewer people were willing to give up alcohol or to respect Prohibition laws, as shown by the dramatic increase in fines levied for Prohibition violations throughout its existence (Thornton, Economics 100). In response, crime quickly became “organized” for the first time, running activities contrary to Prohibition on a never before seen scale (Thornton, “Failure” 70). In fact, by the end of Prohibition, speakeasies had actually outnumbered the saloons of pre-Prohibition years, spreading the influence of alcohol over a much wider range (Thornton, “Failure” 72). In addition, the increased price of alcohol, due to the difficulties of manufacturing and selling a prohibited substance illegally, also caused some, especially among the working classes, to steal alcohol itself or to steal other goods which could then be sold to pay for spirits (Thornton, Economics 117). Prohibition was originally meant to curtail the abuses thought to be related to alcohol, one of which was crime (Thornton, Economics 111). However, as more and more people began to disrespect Prohibition, new types of criminal activity associated with alcohol were created. In response, the effort needed to enforce the Act continued to rise throughout the twenties and early thirties (Thornton, Economics 100); prisons filled to capacity and beyond (Thornton, “Failure” 73) while money spent on enforcement more than doubled (Thornton, Economics 100). In this sense, it is not surprising then that crime dropped dramatically almost immediately after the repeal of prohibition (Thornton, “Failure” 73).
|
