A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From mholdri's workspace   

The Politics of ProhibitionHow government greed, not individual rights, ended America's ban on alcohol.

How government greed, not individual rights, ended America's ban on alcohol.

Don Boudreaux | July 31, 2007

The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this:

Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.

This popular belief is completely mistaken. Here's what really happened:

National alcohol prohibition did begin on Jan. 16, 1920, following ratification of the 18th Amendment and enactment of the Volstead Act.

Speakeasies and gangster violence did become familiar during the 1920s.

And Americans did indeed keep drinking.

But contrary to popular belief, the 1920s witnessed virtually no sympathy for ending Prohibition. Neither citizens nor politicians concluded from the obvious failure of Prohibition that it should end. Read More

As historian Norman Clark reports:

"Before 1930 few people called for outright repeal of the (18th) Amendment. No amendment had ever been repealed, and it was clear that few Americans were moved to political action yet by the partial successes or failures of the Eighteenth. ... The repeal movement, which since the early 1920s had been a sullen and hopeless expression of minority discontent, astounded even its most dedicated supporters when it suddenly gained political momentum."

What happened in 1930 that suddenly gave the repeal movement political muscle? The answer is the Great Depression and the ravages that it inflicted on federal income-tax revenues.

Prior to the creation in 1913 of the national income tax, about a third of Uncle Sam's annual revenue came from liquor taxes. (The bulk of Uncle Sam's revenues came from customs duties.) Not so after 1913. Especially after the income tax surprised politicians during World War I with its incredible ability to rake in tax revenue, the importance of liquor taxation fell precipitously.

created by mholdri on Aug 30, 2007 at 07:58:03 am     Comments: 2

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

I doubt that that is the real reason. In order for a law to be a genuine law it has to be enforceable. I think it was clear that Prohibition was simply not enforceable and that is the real reason for its repeal. Note that there was no public outcry when it was repealed. The reason there were perhaps relatively few complaints about Prohibition while it was in existance is probably because those who wanted to drink for the most part ignored it with impunity.

posted by ilovetoledo on Aug 30, 2007 at 08:14:00 am     #



This is one interpretation.

You can also argue how many breweries were unable to retool and went under leaving the current non-choice amongst the few remaining breweries. Mmmm, taste-free yellowcarbonated water.

Prohibition was probably the best thing to ever happen to Budweiser, Miller, Coors. And organized crime.

But the article does have an ad for objectivist ringleader Ayn Rand, the knockoff imitator of existentialism sans the "thinking n' stuff." Didn't Nathaniel Brandon, a former objectivist current psychologist, say it causes mental problems. Reason was never one to insult its readers.

posted by charlatan on Aug 30, 2007 at 01:28:30 pm     #