Prohibition Law: Did the law really fail?

A society which we can drink liquors as we like is very good. It is natural for me that we are free to drink alcoholic drinks. Even if a man/woman was not a heavy drinker, he/she could not control the act. On the contrary, it is strange that some special power restricts the activity. Today, we can enjoy alcoholic drinks easily. Only few rules about drinking decided on. The following will be good examples.
-Minors is prohibited from drinking.
-Drunken driving is prohibited severely.
Both of the rules do us good. By the way, if some one limited our habits of drinking liquors, how do we feel about it? I am not sure, but most people will be badly shaken by the situation. However, there was a law, which was a ban on alcoholic drinking at one time in America. Then, why the strange law was provided?
I think that alcoholic drinks have some special power. For example, when a man/woman gets drunk, he/she becomes obedient to his/her mind. There is another instance. We have a proverb and it says, "Sake ha hyakuyaku no chou." Do you know the meaning? It means that moderate alcoholic drinks are good for our health, and so they are a kind of medicines. For those attractions, we may feel some attractions for liquors. That is why people have been drunk alcoholic drinks many place in the world for long time.

On the contrary, we cannot ignore harm of alcoholic drinks. Every one knows that drinking too much liquor will do more harms than good. They will cause great damage to our health. Adding to this, they sometimes threaten not only our body, but also our spirit. When some one drinks too much, he/she may be addicted to alcoholic drinks. If people have an addiction of liquors, the toxic symptoms may be quite serious. Some becomes extraordinary happy. Others are quick to use violence. There are differences between each symptom, however, we may say that that condition will be pretty troublesome to others. That is why there was once a law in order to prevent people from alcoholic drinks. The name of the law was a prohibition law. The law was enforced in 1919 in the Unite States of America. The thirty-first President, Herbert Hoover expressed this law like this; 'a social and economic experiment which has a noble motive and object.' He was a supporter of the law and of course understood the 'experiment' in the affirmative. On the other hand, when it was 1929, most men and women asked to abolish that law, that is, there were few people who support it like Hoover. The kind of person was called 'the Wet' and the law was called 'the noble experiment' by the people with sneers on their lips. There seemed to be a lot of problems around a prohibition law. Then, what in the world a prohibition law was? It was originally what was called "National Prohibition". The name of the law came from another law whose name was "Amendment 18 of the Constitution of the Unite States of America". The followings are the law.

AMENDENT18

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. (TOBITA: 212~215)

This law is what is called compulsion of a prohibition law. Strange to say, purchasing and having of liquors or activity of drinking itself were not prohibited in the law. It was only Long Island and Connecticut that did not approve this amendment until the very end. As a result, this Puritanical 'the noble experiment' ended in failure and following Amendment 21 abolished this Amendment 18.

AMENDMENT 21

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conversations in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof the States by the Congress. (TOBITA: 222~224)

There seems to be many different opinions about a prohibition law, so I will write about whether a prohibition law succeeded or not in this essay. I guess it is important to think about it because any people of twenty and over can drink liquors easily in Japan today. Another reason which I want to know did the law really failed completely is that generally speaking, Prohibition is not thought to be a failure. Then I wondered why the American Government made such a law. Therefore, I would like to invest this law.

Well, I have six different books with regard to a prohibition law. I will introduce each writer's point of view and contents of the books concisely.
The first book is America Gassyukoku Kenpo wo Eigo de Yomu. The writer is Shigeo Tobita. I have already used this book in this essay. I will use this book for the citation of The Constitution of the United States of America. He deals with this law from the point of translation. He tells us the strange interpretation of it. I could know through this book that the law contains much contradiction. The writer himself supposes that the law failed as a result. He provides some illustrations as the reasons that this Puritanical 'noble experiment' made organized crime fat and tax revenue decreased.

The second book is Kinsyuho 'Sake no nai Shakai' no Jikken. The meaning of the title is 'a prohibition law-an experiment -without alcoholic drinks'. Masaru Okamoto writes it. He writes about the whole of the law. He refers to many problems about it. Although he knows such harms of the law, he himself does not think that a prohibition law failed. He explained us why he supposes so through the law. Another object of the law was also shown in his book. He thinks that the object set its goal or not. He tells us the result of the law including this point. The third book is named America kinshu-undo no Kiseki, which is also written by above mentioned, Masaru Okamoto. The title says, 'a history of a prohibition movement' in English. A history of a prohibition law is stated in detail in this book. He puts emphasis on the historical background of the law. The writer supposes that a cause of it goes back the colonial time. He discusses why it is important to go back the era. Many other laws, which are origins of the law, appear, too. The writer gives a detailed explanation of each law. He wrote this book from the point that "National Prohibition" was the last plan for Americans who wanted to reform the social system. He thinks that they wanted to try the law at any costs in those days. The writer also guesses that we do not forget the time after abolication of the law. As the fourth book that I introduce is the book whose name is America Rekishi no Tabi. The writer is Kanae Saruya. He writes mainly about "speakeasy". I did not know it, however, which is one of the most important words to know the prohibition time. It means irregular bar in 1920's. People sold and drunk alcoholic drinks unofficially at that time there. Those bars also had other names. People called them 'blind tiger' or 'blind pig'. Both words were almost the same meanings as "speakeasy". The Mafia was an outstanding figure in this book. The writer regards a series of prohibition movement as a challenge of an old a ban desires.

The next book is Genten America-Shi Volume?. It was written by an organization, America Gakusha, which studies American laws, and so the contents of the book is mainly about Amendments-the Constitution of the United States of America, especially about Article18. The writers (I suppose that this book was written by several writers.) refer to reaction of people in those days through that law. They think that one of the biggest causes was the World War?, and at the same time the background of the movement is much more important.

I will write about the last book. It is America no Shakai to Bunka no Rekishi. Hideo Aoki is a writer of this book. It is about a history of American society and culture. A period of a prohibition law has appeared as the back face of prosperous time 1920's. It is said that 1920's were a prosperous time. We can know how to smuggle alcoholic drinks at the time. While the Government cracked down on illegal "speakeasy", the writer pointed out that wine was popularized in that prohibition time. It was the time that wine came into wide use. The writer says that it was an ironic happening.

I will use these six different articles to write my essay.

I wrote that a prohibition law started in 1920's. However, strictly speaking, the expression might not correct. An accurate history of the law seems to have been much more complicated. I will explain it in detail. According Kinsyuhou, an alcoholic drink was treated courteously as a drink like wine with the blessings of the God in Bibles in America (21). Increase Mather once expressed them "good creature of God" instead of the word alcoholic drinks (26). Many people had the idea through colonial era, which begun from 1607 and finished in 1776. People at that time drank alcoholic drinks instead of water, for water was unsanitary. If we ferment apple juice, it will become apple cider or rum is distilled from a kind of honey(26). Such liquors were necessities rather than luxuries. Moderate liquors were one of the daily habits without problems.

On the other hand, overuse of liquors were controlled not only northern New England, but also in middle or southern colonies. Those districts were affected Puritanism strongly. They did not allowed to get drunk in public from their religious reason. The man/woman who drunk too much was called 'drunkard' and he/she was regarded as a guilty person. The activity, which disturbed the order of unstable colonial society, was strictly controlled(22). On the contrary, the government did not criticize liquors themselves or producers of them. It was characterized in the colonial era to recommend moderation in drinking and this movement might be an origin of prohibition law. That is to say, a prohibition movement began from colonial time.

Okamato said in America Kinsyuundo no Kiseki that the leaders of colonies did not allow to drink too much, then, how much quantity did 'too much drink' mean? There were some expressions, which meant this condition. The followings are good examples of it; "excessive drinking", "drunkenness", "abuse of drink", leaders in colonies(28) often used "intemperance" and "besottledness". They repeated those words and put meaning of criticism and warnings into them. There were little differences between each word, however, they had mostly the same senses. On the other hand, how many people supported this law? According to Saruya, 45 percent of people who lived in states where the law had been approved opposed(250). I found an impression phrase in this book; 'There were no prophets who predicted so many terrible problems which would strike our country soon.- Ships around beaches, illegal breweries, smugglers of liquors, shops which sell those smuggled goods secretly, rotten policemen and judicial men, hijackers who rob the smugglers' interests and their guns, bloody doors of the gangsters, secret parties of millionaires, murders and assassination and other harms which came from the Amendment 18(250).' When the governments put the law into effect in 1920, people who supported the movement used to believe that a clean life would be guaranteed. The writer supposes this situation that it started something, rather than ended.

I have written about the law itself and its contents. We know that most laws or rules have its punishment in order not to be broken. A prohibition law was not an exception. The law had also the same penalties depending on weight of the crimes. I suppose that they can be divided into two categories. One is a punishment which church gave. The other is the one, which was not related to religious reasons. Then, I will compare these two different kinds of punishments. First of all, I will write about punishments of church. In order to understood the means of penalties, it is important to know habits in colonial times. According to America Kinsyuundo no Kiseki, people who lived there needed to drink liquors. It is a notable point. There were some reasons. In the first place, they themselves were fond of drinking alcoholic drinks from the beginning(27). In the second place, it was difficult to get safe water to drink there(27). In the third place, things instead of alcoholic drinks such as coffee or milk were very expensive for ordinary people(27). Furthermore, relations between people went smoothly by alcoholic drinks or liquors made humans relaxed from severe environments(27). Adding to this, there were other reasons. For example, people receive alcoholic drinks as a cure-all(27). It was good for not only grown-up people but also infants(27). The writer thinks that is why drinking liquors was one of important stands of food culture in colonies and it was an important habit of people in colonies.

When plentiful liquors came to drink every colony, it did not avoid that excessive drinking became serious problem. Excessive drinking is thought to be 'sick' or 'stupid' today. However, it was not the same at that time. It was regarded as guilty activity. Therefore, a solution of it was expected churches, which was a tradition from England. According to Aoki, in New Continent, not only an influence of church but also the power of a government played an important part in order to deal with this problem(139). He says that a tradition which political power among a prohibition law interfere in drinking, which was originally personal moral problem was formed during the colonial era. A law, which was put into effect in 1645, gave a clear definition of a word 'excessive drinking' like this. They gave permission to sell 2/1 paints of wine (it is about 225ml) per a half an hour as 'lawful'(138). However, if some one sold much more liquors than the quantity, it would be considered as 'abuse of liquors' and be punished. Okamoto says in America kinsyu-undo no Kiseki that leaders of churches in New England regarded excessive drinking as 'momentary fall' which people without 'a will which overcome impulse' arise(29). Next, when they analyzed this fall, they told "drunkenness" from "drunkard". That is to say, the former is a sin itself which a devil made. On the contrary, the latter is a sinner, but they were thought as a man who has a possibility to be saved. Cotton Mather compared each people to 'a prison' and 'a prisoner'(29). Other churchmen admonished that people should not get drunk. At the same time, they gave a punishment thinking how to save that prisoner from the prison. A sinner was not received more penalty only if he presented "repentance". However, if the same man/woman commit the same crime, he had to be given "admonition" in public, or be refused to participate function at church, or sometimes he told "excommunication"(30). Indeed, this excommunication did not mean eternity expulsion. In much case, a sinner was allowed to reconcile by repentance. For the reasons above, it shows that church dealt with the drunken as an object of salvation. Salvation was a proof of 'Covenant of Grace' (31). Colonial churchmen thought their living time was a test period, which would become 'God Country'. For this reason, the writer believes that it was natural for them to scold excessive drinking(32).

I have stated a religious side of punishment here. A solution of problems, which caused abuse of liquors, was expected, it show that people thought it was only a religious problem but also a social problem. We should keep in mind that this social problem was regarded that excessive drinking disturbed the order of society, and it was cause of failure to build a colony. Especially, early leaders were sensitive to it because the society was unsuitable. For example, they expelled antinominian like Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts Colony. It was because they thought that daily habits like industry or thrift was need in order to develop their colony economically. We should understand a law which prohibited excessive drinking that a virtue for the object the same as that. The attached importance to the kinds of habits because they were worried of chronic shortage of the work force that time in New England.

According to Tobita, the laws about drinking which were enforced in each colony in New England could be divided into three categories. One was license law. Another was a law, which prohibited from getting drunk deeply. The other was the one, which was about sale liquors for Native American or black slaves(215). I shall concentrate on these three laws.

A LAW OF LICSENCE
In America Kinsyuundo no Kiseki, the writer said that Alcoholic drinks were mainly sold in bar through colonial age. The bar was not only a place where people drunk liquors. It had another faces. For example, it was a liquor shop where people bought liquors for their own use. Sometimes, it functioned as inn in order to supply accommodations to travelers. Therefore, the kind of the bar was called "tavern", "inn", or "ordinary"(216). The tavern was a center of a community and it was build near a church. It was because there were few amusements at that time. The place had other parts. It was used as a court, a polling place, a town meeting, and a commercial transaction besides a place of society. Whether a governor-general, country court or alderman were transferred an authority to give a license to the kind of bar. A master who got it was relatively of high social standing because each organization limited one or two taverns per a town. On the other hand, the masters had an obligation to stop excessive drinking in their shops. If a master allowed drinking too much, he/she had to pay 20-shilling charge in Massachusetts(218). It was a License Law. The law included that it prohibited from being absorbed in dancing or gambling, smoking, prostitution(219). The law was consisted in 1633.
Taking a legal action to drunkard;
-First complaint of smashing 5 shilling fine.
-Second complaint of smashing 10 shilling fine.
-Third complaint of smashing a penalty of fetters.
-Forth complaint of smashing 5 pounds or being pilloried.
It was an occasion of New England(219). They were a part of the law, but the writer has an idea that there seems to have been much other kind of penalties like above.

I will write about the third kind of categories, that is, a regulation to Native Americans. This kind of law like this was likely to intended to keep social order or protect of economic profit. In New England, among the people, when we consider an importance of confusion which caused drinking. Leader thought that Indian's drinking was evil. The idea was not true, however it applied in some points. I will take an example to illustrate. Drunken Indians sometimes plundered, indeed. Those Indians found out 'high quality' among ecstasy, trance illusion, in drunken condition as a warrior(226). As a result, they were eager to get drunk. Perhaps white leaders did not notice their idea, and so, they controlled their drinking severely. We can imagine that Indians faced drinking problems much harder than white colonists.

A regulation of sale alcoholic drinks to Indians was in order to protect peace and order of colonies. Of course, a regulation to black slaves or white apprenticeships included this point, however, their resistance was not so often as Indians, so, economical object was bigger than the occasion of Indians. That is to say, the idea which drinking makes decline efficiency of work drove the owners of slaves or employee's masters prohibition from drinking liquors. As a result, slaves and employees could not go to bars without their masters' permission. Regulation to black slaves were especially severe. They did not give alcoholic drinks except for the special occasions like after harvest or Christmas(37). I may say that regulation to particular races or classes was comparatively severer than that of ordinary drunken people for the necessity.

As I mentioned above, in 1920's there were so many bars, which were called "speakeasy". My six difference reference materials are all written about these saloons and I found little distinctions in those data. I shall now look more carefully into this problem.

According to America Gakusha, in Genten America Shi volume?, the writer regards the bar as an illegal place. That is to say, it was a place for smuggling, unlawfully brewing and selling liquors under cover(373). It encouraged committing unlawful acts and there was still no end to drink by means of all kind of ways, which were taken advantage of a loophole in the law in the end. Many crimes with regard to these places got increased markedly. The writer thinks that the prohibition law was a cause of special evils and it broke out serious social problems in contrast to the first intention of a prohibition movement as a result(373). He seems to bear bad feeling toward the law. It is hard to deny the fact that the World War?was one of big causes of realization of Amendement18. However, America Gakusha think that we should not forget that the movement, which had promoted from the position of an ethical and moral realism, had being existed(373). On the contrary, a problem about a human habit like abstinence could not be solved by only a piece of a law. This told us a law had a limit(373).

In America no Shakai to Bunka no Rekishi, Hideo Aoki thinks the followings. Many young poor artists, such as a dramatist, an author and a poet gathered and made use of the illegal kind of bars(141). There seems to be had been some reasons. For example, the master of the bar was adored by them(141). It is said that about 319,000 speakeasies were existing in the whole America in 1932. Every bar needed to promote friendships between policemen in order to survive among them. Aoki feels that it was common that a master offer a bribe, and the police accepted it. He has an idea that those saloons played an important part in rot. This idea shows that the bar was one of causes of political rotting and the situation lead failure of the law. He refers to other causes. That is to say, new jobs were born; dealing secretly and unlawfully brewing and so on. A prohibition office spent more than 11370,000 dollars form 1932 to 1933, so that it could manage violations, but it could not perish them completely. The followings are the result of this control;
-Arrests:73,883 -Seizures cars:11,833 -Ships:61 Brewing machines:23,165
-Fermentation machine:15,244 -Beers:3611,746gallon -Refined Sake:1655,677g.
-Wheat for beers:32872780g.
There were more than 500,000 people who were arrested besides the above(140). However, Aoki supposes that unlawfully brewing and secretly selling did not die out(140). The Mafia is notorious for smugglers. Especially, Al Capone was typical. This problem became also very serious social problems at that time. Aoki agreed with America Gakusha's idea in this point.

Saruya said that speakeasies were built here and there as soon as the day when a prohibition law was published(250). The masters of saloons were so cautious that they identified customers quite carefully through a small window on an entrance door(250). If the customer did not have a member's card of the bar, or he/she was not a friend of a regular visitor, they did not allowed to enter it. There were 30,000 speakeasies only in New York, and more than 200,000 of them in the whole America(251). Saruya thinks that there were all sorts of ranks in each bar. Some spent hundreds of money in a night. It was a high-class saloon. Others drunk unsanitary liquors which would make people be out of their condition. A cheap saloon also did other illegal jobs(251). Gambling or panders were typical examples. Saruya considers that there were so many places to smuggling, which supported the speakeasies. By the way, illegally brewed whisky is named "moonshine" after that people made or carry it secretly in the moonlight(251). Let's return to the original subject. The writer guesses that among the police who restricted these bad deeds, a lot of them winked at illicit brewers or secret dealers for the reason of being purchased although some excel officers achieved splendid results(252). Saruya thinks that a prohibition law was abolish because it formed society confused all the more. Therefore, I can say that he agrees with Aoki and America Gakusya in this point. However, he supposes that a wish for realization of the law in southern or the Middle Western rural area was an old American asceticism challenge against boomtowns, industrialism and sudden social changes. If we think these challenges as good one, we may say that the writer does not always agree with two people.

I suppose that Prohibition succeeded as a result. Certainly, many problems like the Mafia, a rot of the police or officers came to light. However, when I look these problems carefully, the law was not an only cause of them. Indeed, from 1920's to 1930's when it had the power, the number of crimes never lessen, but it was not a peak time. In this point, the first object, that is to say, 'cut off the root of all evils by alcoholic drinks' seems to have been accomplished. It is true to some extent. The time 1920's is famous for American prosperous time. I think that the law had some connections with the time. In order to thrive, industrial development or social peace is essential. When I say about the former, 'sober up' condition made a contribution to it. Concerning about the latter, the number of crimes decreased, I have already mentioned, it means that the society was peaceful. I will think about it from different viewpoint, namely the Mafia. It seems that the number of the Mafia had happened to reach its peak in 1920's. They used a prohibition law to grow in force at that time. The two elements happened at the same time. Despite, funds, which were made except by the law, were much huger on the background, that is, a drug, prostitution, gambling and so on. That money lined rotten politicians, police officers or judicial people's pockets. There was a tacit agreement between the two different sides of people. I suppose that Prohibition was nothing but one causes which highlighted being of the Mafia. Therefore, I take the position that I agree to Masaru Okamoto's idea.

There was another idea, which I cannot agree to Saruya and Aoki. They think a prohibition law failed because immoral conduct was rampant. I think this is not true. The number of them decreases rather than increase. I think the reason like the following. Masters of speakeasies did not afford to commit other illegal acts in their bars because it was all they could do to get and sell illegal alcoholic drinks. It was also hard for the lower classes to put their money into such activities because of comparatively high charge of liquors. Adding to this, more female customers came to visit the places frequently at that time. Moreover, people's consumption of alcoholic drinks diminished by less than a half of before. This tendency kept by the end of a prohibition law. For the reasons mentioned above, I cannot agree with the idea that a prohibition law failed.

Then why this "experiment" was abolished? Okamoto says that from the beginning, "experiment" is a short circuit and it is natural an end or cancellation. Tobita also consider the result that the law was its official stand and because of it, Amendment18 was ratified only less than 10 months. Anyway, the notorious saloons which were called 'sociable places for the poor' disappeared and people's (especially workers') amount of liquors decreased. In this situation many of people seems to have been satisfied with growth of capitalism economy. On the other hand however, several kinds of 'a side effect' were born by the "experiment" and they kept worse with the passage of time. Consequently, they came to be exposed to universal approval by the mass media. Okamoto writes that the Wet tried to lead a conclusion that the "experiment" had failed by focusing on that 'a side effect'.
Indeed, they could not leave 'a side effect' alone. There was unfairness that some people kept drinking liquors, but the rest could not drink them. A constitution was trampled without a guilty feeling and the disorder. Inconsistency which a criminal of great wealth. Under the circumstances, people gradually, but certainly had conscience that it was about time to abolish the "experiment". Then perhaps a clue, which put this conscience into practice, was the Great Depression. Okamoto thinks that in 1933 not only the Wet but also many the Dries who had supported amendment18 through 1920's satisfied the end of the "experiment". I could agree this point of view because they could did an experiment which they wanted to do just one time, however, they were perplexed by 'a side effect'. They might feel easy by the abolishment.

I hardly knew a prohibition law, however, I could understand it quite well through this essay. I know this law does not have a direct relation with my daily life. On the other hand, there are districts where a prohibition still continues. I was very surprised at the fact. At the same time I felt something strange that the effect of habit from 1920's or much former era is still being today. I hardly knew a prohibition law, however, I could understand it quite well through this essay.

I hardly know this law does not have a direct relation with my daily life. On the other hand, there are districts where a prohibition still continues. I was very surprised at the fact. At the same time it is little hard for me to understand effectiveness of Prohibition in early 1920's in America. Especially, it is also difficult for Japan whose industry has already been progressed to see it. However, I cannot deny that the America of those days could enter the industrial society in quite 'sober' condition comparing with the occasion without the law. I suppose that a prohibition law contributed to American status in the world of today.

Works Cited

Tobita, Shigeo. America Gassyukoku Kenpo wo Eigo de Yomu. Tokyo: Chukoushinsyo, 1998.

Okamoto, Masaru. Kinsyuho-"Sake no nai Shakai" no Jikken. Tokyo: Koudansya, 1995.

Okamoto, Masaru. America Kinsyuundo no Kiseki. Tokyo: Mineruva, 1994.

America Gakusya. Genten America Shi Volume?. Tokyo: Iwamami, 1982.

Saruya, Kaname. America Rekishi no Tabi. Tokyo: Asakisensyo, 1987.

Aoki, Hideo. America no Shakai to Bunka no Rekishi. Tokyo: Genryusha, 1989.



Note: Some letters/words were lost/changed when converting from Japanese operating system to English.



ESL Students' Essay Pages
Email the author