Alcohol prohibition... why did it really get repealed?

[Luke Skywalker]

Just saw this most interesting article on the repeal of alcohol prohibition in the 20's/30's on Reason Magazines blog, and thought I'd post it here. It makes some interesting points and I wonder what the rest of you guys think of it?

The Politics of Prohibition

 

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 So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.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.

 

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 No amendment had ever been repealed, and it was clear that few Americans were moved to political action yet by the partial successes or failures of the Eighteenth.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.

 

By 1920, the income tax supplied two-thirds of Uncle Sam's revenues and nine times more revenue than was then supplied by liquor taxes and customs duties combined. In research that I did with University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard, we found that bulging income-tax revenues made it possible for Congress finally to give in to the decades-old movement for alcohol prohibition.

 

Before the income tax, Congress effectively ignored such calls because to prohibit alcohol sales then would have hit Congress hard in the place it guards most zealously: its purse. But once a new and much more intoxicating source of revenue was discovered, the cost to politicians of pandering to the puritans and other anti-liquor lobbies dramatically fell.

 

Prohibition was launched.

 

Despite pleas throughout the 1920s by journalist H.L. Mencken and a tiny handful of other sensible people to end Prohibition, Congress gave no hint that it would repeal this folly. Prohibition appeared to be here to stay -- until income-tax revenues nose-dived in the early 1930s.

 

From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent.

 

In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.

 

With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue.

 

That source was liquor sales.

 

Jouett Shouse, president of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, was a powerful figure in the Democratic Party that had just nominated Franklin Roosevelt as its candidate for the White House. Shouse emphasized that ending Prohibition would boost government revenue.

 

And a House leader of Congress' successful attempt to propose the Prohibition-ending 21st Amendment said in 1934 that "if (anti-prohibitionists) had not had the opportunity of using that argument, that repeal meant needed revenue for our government, we would not have had repeal for at least 10 years."

 

There's no doubt that widespread understanding of Prohibition's futility and of its ugly, unintended side-effects made it easier for Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. But these public sentiments were insufficient, by themselves, to end the war on alcohol.

 

Ending it required a gargantuan revenue shock -- to the U.S. Treasury.

 

So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source.

 

That's the sorry logic of politics and Prohibition.

 

Don Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department at George Mason University. This article originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

 

Source: Reason Magazine Blog Hit and Run - Link to Reason Blog

[Al B. Fuct]

Obviously, we need another Great Depression.

[torture]

we dont need it america needs it... like everything else we will just tag along like fucking sheep

[Pam]

Very interesting and also very true. The ONLY way to hurt a politican is to give it a good swift kick in the wallet.

 

But the problem here is that while booze brought in the revenue, marijuana has never brought in any. And a huge part of it is that the dirtbags know that people are making taxfree cash using the black market they themselves caused.

 

All this moral indignation is less about people getting high, than people making free money! And they can't manage to figure out a way to squeeze tax revenue out of something they have been lying about for so long without lookin like ...well like politicians.

 

And if they DO manage to figure out a way, they know most growers will either remain gureilla (like the stills in the woods), and shoot at the "revenuers", or find a way to milk the government along with American farmers who find it pays better sometimes to let a field go fallow then to plant it, because the govt. pays them more NOT to grow then it would if they had a great year!

[mull]

I had no idea of the history behind alcohol prohibition or repeal. That was interesting, cheers Luke.

 

Last night I was sharing a yarn with some home brewers, both non cannabis users. So I listened to them talking about their legal hobby of home brewing. One said he can produce a very nice lager for around 25c a stubby.

They spoke of all the gear needed, where best to buy it. A little about methods and recipes. They are both right into it.

 

Whole time I was relating this to my hobby.

 

Have of course always wanted cannabis prohibition repeal for Australia.

Some of the realities of legal cannabis, concern me tho.

e.g. Cannabis would have to be legal to grow in any amount, by any method, on private property. Should be able to do whatever you want to do with it personally.

The sale side of the produce would have to be worked out fairly.

Around the same tax as the home brewer pays when he sells or shares his beer or wine would be fair.

The governments already receive tax from the purchase of nutes, mediums and equipment now, so that wouldnt have to change.

 

What should never be allowed to happen, is for cannabis prohibition repeal to make things worse for the home/ personal/ medicinal/ grower/breeder.

That is a scenario say where the government sell growers licenses to big corporations and make it impossible for personal growers to afford to grow. Making non licensed grows even more illegal.

Then choke hold the market and force everyone to buy off them.

That's my biggest concern.

[Pam]

And here I thought there wasn't a worse nightmare than what we have now....

 

They are so stubborn in their thinking that if they were to just legalize hemp, the pollen from the hemp farms would ruin the seed from most outdoor grows within miles of any hemp field effectively taking the bag seed so many depend upon out of the common peoples hands.

But they are so ignorant that they believe we will plant marijuana in with the hemp... pathetic.

 

Like we're all getting rich and not giving them their cut!

You know mullaway, it wasn't long ago that it was illegal for Americans to brew their own beer or make wine! It never stopped my family...but hell during the prohibition, my family was making sour mash in the bathtub in NYC. There's an old family pic of my great grandmothers sister sitting on the roof with a rifle in her lap! So I follow an old family tradition I guess.

Some people believe in freedom so deeply that no law, no morally outraged politican, nothing, will ever beat it out of them.

[DownUnderDoper]

I had no idea of the history behind alcohol prohibition or repeal. That was interesting, cheers Luke.

 

Last night I was sharing a yarn with some home brewers, both non cannabis users. So I listened to them talking about their legal hobby of home brewing. One said he can produce a very nice lager for around 25c a stubby.

They spoke of all the gear needed, where best to buy it. A little about methods and recipes. They are both right into it.

 

Whole time I was relating this to my hobby.

 

Have of course always wanted cannabis prohibition repeal for Australia.

Some of the realities of legal cannabis, concern me tho.

e.g. Cannabis would have to be legal to grow in any amount, by any method, on private property. Should be able to do whatever you want to do with it personally.

 

Why unlimited? There is only so much you can grow and still maintain the 'personal use' premise. Try setting up a few 1000 litre brew vats at your house and see how long it is till the authorities take notice.

 

The sale side of the produce would have to be worked out fairly.

Around the same tax as the home brewer pays when he sells or shares his beer or wine would be fair.

 

I'm pretty sure that in every state there are penalties for selling your home brew, even giving too much away may run you foul of the laws which prohibit supply without license. This is in part because it denies Govternments of both GST and Alcohol taxes.

 

The governments already receive tax from the purchase of nutes, mediums and equipment now, so that wouldnt have to change.

 

Not to mention GST on electricity

 

What should never be allowed to happen, is for cannabis prohibition repeal to make things worse for the home/ personal/ medicinal/ grower/breeder.

That is a scenario say where the government sell growers licenses to big corporations and make it impossible for personal growers to afford to grow. Making non licensed grows even more illegal.

Then choke hold the market and force everyone to buy off them.

That's my biggest concern.

 

That possibility is unfortunately a real one, I believe that only by showing that Cannabis legalisation will not only save governments money, but has the possibility of raising tax revenues, will legalisation ever be achieved. Unfortunately, it would be far easier for Governments to reap those rewards if only a few large growers are licensed.

 

Legalisation is likely to make the price of cannabis fall dramatically, the price will be artificially inflated by fairly heavy taxes/tariffs same as alcohol (depending on what you drink up to about 40% of what you pay goes in taxes/tarriffs), but the lower the price goes per gram, the less incentive there is to grow your own for the occaisional user. Especially once quality controlled, certified strength buds are available.

Edited September 1, 2007 by DownUnderDoper

[mull]

Why unlimited? There is only so much you can grow and still maintain the 'personal use' premise. Try setting up a few 1000 litre brew vats at your house and see how long it is till the authorities take notice.

 

Agree with most of what you say there DUD but, the 'personal use premiss' has been made by prohibition.

Prohibition has governed consumption and moulded cannabis users into a - ration your medicine mentality. Its a necessity and we all know it. Easily achieved with fines, asset theft and incarceration; risks involved and value.

 

If prohibition is repealed, we might e.g. Get up on a sunday and cook a roast, while rendering a pound of heads into butter on the stove. Another pound into tincture alcohol for salves and massage oil for the week. The whole time smoking or vaping your desired or required amount.

So far you can see we're already over 2 pound, in one day.

 

I'm quite partial to a nice smell and good sinse is a nice smell to me, so.. after lunch I might make a couple of pillow cases of POT puree, to hang up around the place for aroma therapy.

As there is no prohibition, I might just use 4 kilo of heads in some nice coloured pillow cases.

 

There we go, have used over 5 kilo personally in one day so far.

 

Nothing better than ornamental plants in the garden, great stress relief, good outdoor hobby - no prohibition, they could all be cannabis - and why not? Without prohibition you could cut them before they flower and not care at all! Grow 50 plants merely to mulch under the roses!

 

I could easily set up a couple of 1k vats, but would have no joy brewing beer. Could run 33 * 30 ltr poly brew barrels and have no one blink an eye. No worries. But thats way to many snail traps... or wasted beer.

Far to much scavaging stubbies to fill.

 

[Zaknefain]

FYI: America followed Canada into prohibition.

 

 

Canada's prohibition came from women during the WW1 years when they gained more power and what-not from the wartime elections act and another act as well. When the men were away fighting the war; their wifes got a little bit out of hand and decided that they were going to use their new influence to ban alcohol.

 

 

I highly doubt that America or any other democratic country will attempt to ban liquor again. I could see the commies trying to do it, and I'm sure that if they try they will do a much better job.

 

 

We need new laws to try to protect our citizens from alcoholism and the abuse of the drug, but all out banning does not work. Why? Because of money.

[Pam]

Wow! Thank you I never knew that. I only remember that during the US prohibition Canada said it was ok to make whiskey for export, even though it was illegal there. I think that's what I heard anyway...

But it is a relief to hear that we followed someone else and didn't start that mess. When and why was Canadas probition repealed?