18th Amendment: The Unintended Consequences Of Prohibition

The early part of the 20th century in America is one which saw tremendous amount of innovation and transformation. From the Wright Brothers flight at the turn of the century, WWI a decade later, women being granted the right to vote along with the rise of Jazz in the 1920s, and ultimately vast amounts of unemployment in the 1930s. America was certainly in the midst of rapid growth and change; however, tucked within the dark interiors of our country, something was brewing. Due in part to the ratification of the 18th amendment, risk-takers took it up on themselves to use the inconspicuous places for their illegal underground breweries and salons. The 18th amendment had two immediate effects on American culture. Here we look at the social and economic impacts which will be felt immediately after their initial passage. Just shy of a century later, key arguments and decisions are being made, or considered, today which in turn can be referenced back to the passage of the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment, having been ratified in 1919 and taken effect in 1920, established the prohibition of production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors. However this is not where the idea of prohibition is first introduced. Momentum for eradicating alcohol consumption began well before then. Rewind back to the mid-19th century with abolitionists, and their efforts to abolish slavery, a new temperance movement began to form. In attempts to free Americans of sin, citizens were slowly urged to help each other drink in moderation and later to resist the temptation of drinking all-together.

The social impact of the 18th amendment was obvious. With a natural resentment for government regulations, the 18th amendment provided citizens with more opportunities for dislike when the number of nonviolent offenses began to rise. Prohibition made criminals out of millions of Americans, courtrooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many of these new criminals were America’s immigrant working class. In a country where immigration is embedded within its roots going as far back as the pilgrims on the Mayflower, American cities thrived upon the immigrant laborers. Not necessarily opposition to the 18th amendment but the support for the right to drink was prominent within America’s top cities. Cities with populations such as German-American and Irish-American immigrants would turn to whiskey and beer as it played a key role in their social lives. Salons most often sprung up in working class neighborhoods and served as a gathering place for workers. Consuming alcohol was not the violation; the illegal activity lied on the manufacture, transportation, and sale of the alcohol which these salons became dependent of. Though prohibition did later contribute to more notable violent crimes, this section focuses solely on the immediate effect it had on ordinary, everyday working citizens. In an effort to regulate the morals of the country, to make that [drinking] immoral and criminal which is neither...the evil consists in the excessive use of intoxicants, not in their moderate use.

The second initial effect of the 18th amendment was its economic impact. It’s clear to note that the financial operation of both federal and state governments relied heavily on liquor tax sales. New York for example saw up to 75% of its state revenue be funded by liquor tax sales. However to compensate for any possibility of lost revenue, congress passed a federal income tax bill. Suddenly forgoing the financial gain from alcohol seemed to be a reasonable decision. Furthermore, prohibition proved to be costly. Whilst costing hundreds of millions of dollars to enforce, the federal government will have forfeited millions of dollars in tax revenue. It’s important to point out that the national crisis of the following decade had nothing to do with this loss of revenue. From the federal government’s point of view, the roaring 20s was off to a meager whimper at best.

In closing, the 18th amendments legacy is not one that will be cemented because of its effectiveness to rid the country of producing, transporting, and selling intoxicants. Its legacy could well be one where its decision to rid a substance failed. “It is impossible to tell whether prohibition is a good thing or a bad thing. It has never been enforced in this country. There might not be as much liquor in quantity consumed today as there was before prohibition, but there is just as much alcohol.” Just shy of a century from the ratification of the 18th amendment, one can argue that our own decisions today to ratify or rid certain substance laws could be answered if we take a closer look at how our ancestors fared.