Even without a supportive major political party, prohibitions held fast to the beliefs of temperance and abstinence and sought new means of representation. Several groups advocating prohibition were already in existence near the turn of the century in an attempt accommodate this demand for representation and from the ashes of the Prohibition Party, the prohibitionists learned that their key to success was unity. Thus, the prohibitionists combined their efforts and resources and created a single society: The Anti-saloon league.
The Anti-saloon league, an organization formed from over one hundred temperance societies, such as the National Temperance Society and Publication House, the Catholic Total Abstinence Union, and the Congressional Temperance Society, served as the spearhead for prohibitionists. Representing them as a major voting alliance that could influence the members of Congress. Success was not instantaneous, however. “The national league’s receipts barely averaged $1,000 a year, hardly enough to pay the postage, much less the salaries of its officials.” But, as popularity of the Anti-Saloon league increased, so did its support. By the end of 1899, 21 states and territories were involved, and by 1903, 40 states and territories had combined with the Anti-Saloon League. By 1913 the Anti-Saloon league had “transformed itself into an independent temperance agency.” Its structure had grown considerably; consisting of its own constituency, leaders, policies, and procedures. After nearly twenty years in the making, the Anti-Saloon league had the power to move quickly against saloons by tapping into a large body of voters and enforce political pressure in the favor of prohibition. It was this pressure that led to the eventual passing of several prohibition resolutions including the War Time Prohibition Act in April of 1917, forbidding the waste of grain used to make alcohol during World War I, the Eighteenth Amendment, proposed in December of 1917, which was to make an alcohol related activities, such as manufacture or consumption, unlawful, and the National Prohibition Act (Volstead Act) in October of 1919, which provided the means for the enforcement of prohibition and defined anything with an alcohol content of 0.05 and greater to be alcoholic.
Viewpoints and Arguments
It is the belief of those who support prohibition that alcohol has detrimental affects on society and is responsible for “19% of the divorces, 25% of the poverty, 25% of the insanity, 37% of the pauperism, 45% of child desertion, and 50% of the crime in this country”--as the Anti-saloon league has portrayed. Yet, do these statistics have any real factual basis, or are they merely misplaced facts used in an attempt to increase the case for prohibition?
It is the intention of those who are against prohibition to prove that not only are these facts misused to represent the cause for prohibition, but that prohibition, as a means for controlling excessive alcohol consumption, is not only ineffective and unpractical, but moreover, it is the worst course of action that can be taken.
At this time, America is spiraling into economic recession and the nation is on the brink of depression. In terms of money, “alcohol serves as a large means of tax revenue” on both local and federal levels which would be lost if prohibition were to be enacted. An even further loss in profit would occur when funds have to be allocated to ensure that the provisions of prohibition were maintained. This money could be put to better use in programs designed to educate people in need of such education to the dangers of alcohol abuse. It is not, and should not be, the position of the government to dictate how people may and may not use the money they have labored to earn. Secondly, the enforcement of prohibition nation wide would call for vast funding and support, while causing the otherwise unconnected crime scene to reconstruct itself along the illegal means of producing and transporting alcohol, thus increasing organized crime. In turn, the population of prisons would increase as organized crime increased, further draining federal funding for effective law enforcement and suitable containment/housing for the criminals. The so called “[fifty] percent” of crime due to alcohol would soon rise exponentially as the crime rate also increased. A possible alternative to prohibition in this regard would be to instill severe punishment for those who abuse the substance, while still allowing the average Joe his freedom to enjoy it in moderation. This leaves the thinking individual accountable for his actions, while not attempting to hold an inanimate substance responsible. Thirdly, in terms of safety, an influx of illegal brew could lead to a harmful aftershock. “Instead of consuming alcoholic beverages manufactured under the safeguards of state and federal standards, for example, people might result to the use of methyl alcohol, a poison, because ethyl alcohol was unavailable or too costly.” This substance leads to blindness, paralysis, and death. The traffic of alcohol is evitable-legal or illegal-yet, it is far better that the alcohol being transported is a beverage, not a refined poison.
Conclusion
It is important that we do not confuse the necessity for order with the desire for a perfect utopia. In a perfect world there would be no ill effects from the abuse of any liberty, such as the over consumption of alcohol. Evidence shows, however, that this nation is far from a perfect utopia. We must strive to enjoy the liberties we have to an extent that does not impose on another person liberties. And although we are not yet able to prevent all individuals from acting unlawful or imposing on the freedom of another individual, we are able to create and enforce laws to punish the unruly and unlawful behaviors of any individual found by due process to be abusing his or her God given rights. More specifically, to deny the citizens of this nation the ability to govern themselves in the consumption of alcohol entirely, whether in moderation or excess, is not the solution-- especially when dealing with a substance of vast cultural importance to many immigrants and native born Americans, used as a means of relaxation by others, and used in religious ceremonies by others still. This method--the prohibition method-- goes against the very sense of freedom America was founded upon.
Questions
- How do you, the prohibitionists, plan to compensate for the amount of money lost due to the enforcement of prohibition?
- What will substitute alcohol for religious and cultural purposes?
- Assuming that prohibition is enacted, if the crime rate and illegal traffic of alcohol rises to levels greater than they were before prohibition, what is the next course of action?
- Why not deal with the problem individuals abusing their freedom to drink instead of taking the right away from all Americans? Why do you consider prohibition the overall success?
- Is it not possible, that if an alcohol education program were properly enacted, the percentage of Americans who abuse alcohol could decline substantially and thus the need for prohibition would be eliminated? Would the cost not be much less than that of prohibition?
Bibliography
Cherrington, E. H.: The Evolution of Prohibition In The United States of America, Westerville, Ohio: American Issue Press, 1920.
Menue, F.R. Acute Methyl Alcohol Poisoning, Archives of Pathology, 26 (1938): 79-92 Available at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU33.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2003.
Odegard, P. H. Pressure Politics-The Story of The AntiSaloon League, New York City: Columbia University Press, 1928.
Sinclair, Andrew. Prohibition: The Era of Excess. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962.
Thornton, Mark. The Economics of Prohibition (Ph.D. diss., Auburn University, 1989) Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2003.
Timberlake, James H. Prohibition and the Progressive Movement 1900-1920. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1966.
Odegard, P. H.: Pressure Politics-The Story of The AntiSaloon League, New York City: Columbia University Press 1928 p. 60
Andrew Sinclair, Prohibition: Era of Excess (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1962), 43.
Cherrington, E. H.: The Evolution of Prohibition In The United States of America, Westerville, Ohio: American Issue Press (1920), pp. 16
James H. Timberlake, Prohibition and the Progressive Movement 1900-1920, (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966), 125. , 128.
Mark Thornton, "The Economics of Prohibition" (Ph.D. diss., Auburn University, 1989) Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2003.
F. R. Menue, "Acute Methyl Alcohol Poisoning," Archives of Pathology, 26 (1938): 79-92 Available at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU33.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2003.