A Wet Society
The prohibition act was commenced to solve social problems, reduce crime and corruption, as well as to reduce the tax burden created by prisons and was thought to benefit the quality of health in America. It was presumed to solve problems, but instead it created even more. Anti-prohibitionists, also known as “wets”, considered the ban on alcohol a violation of freedoms because it caused an intrusion of urban and immigrant lifestyle.
Because of the prohibition law, anti-prohibitionists have uncovered ways to seek out alcohol. Illegal distillery and liquor sale, or bootlegging businesses, were a way for people to make fast cash. Any transporting of illegal liquor was basically up for grabs for hijackers, and officers who stopped and enforced the prohibition law. Moreover, illegal drinking establishments, or speakeasies, during the prohibition era were popular amongst the wet society; many of which were raided by officers, charging proprietors with selling illegal liquor, while attendees would be charged with disorderly conduct. (1)
Not only did the prohibition law create disorderly conduct, it astounded labor life, as the provision not only robbed the masses of their personal liberty, but was also taking away an accustomed routine part of the millions of workers who drink beer and wine with their food everyday. (2) There were claims that the prohibition law only targeted the working class as it demonstrated it’s affect between the rich and poor on vastly different levels; where as the rich had the advantage to stock up on liquor and have booze at their leisure, while the working class could not and was arrested for even having alcohol in their possession (3). Many people of the working class felt as if their individual liberty was violated by this unjust discrimination, when they only pleaded for a “fair opportunity to live [their] whole lives.” (4) Labor organizations protested against the prohibition law and brought it to congress, then “gave warning that the tranquility of the working class may be seriously menaced by enforcement of [this law]” (5) and would only cause an outrage among the people. As a result, the prohibition law would only increase gang related activity, deaths, and crime rate, if not repealed.
In accordance to labor organizations that protested against the prohibition law, the American Federation of Labor also protested against the 18th amendment and requested that the prohibition measure would be able to exempt beer that contained two and three-quarters percent alcohol which the vote stood 26,475 to 4,000. (6) More than 100 Pacific Coast delegates signed the anti-prohibition resolution, while one delegate has “fears for the future” believing that the practice of temperance would better society, rather than the repeal of prohibition, which would fail to serve the nation. (7)
The prohibition law failed to improve the virtue and health in America and instead the motives of the 18th amendment backfired as it violated the personal liberty of the masses, increased gangs, deaths, violence and crime rates, and there was not enough policemen to enforce prohibition. The percentage of alcoholic drinkers and deaths were higher than they were before. And after the repeal of the prohibition law, those percentages dramatically decreased. The prohibition law did not achieve its goals and created more problems in return.
Because of the prohibition law, anti-prohibitionists have uncovered ways to seek out alcohol. Illegal distillery and liquor sale, or bootlegging businesses, were a way for people to make fast cash. Any transporting of illegal liquor was basically up for grabs for hijackers, and officers who stopped and enforced the prohibition law. Moreover, illegal drinking establishments, or speakeasies, during the prohibition era were popular amongst the wet society; many of which were raided by officers, charging proprietors with selling illegal liquor, while attendees would be charged with disorderly conduct. (1)
Not only did the prohibition law create disorderly conduct, it astounded labor life, as the provision not only robbed the masses of their personal liberty, but was also taking away an accustomed routine part of the millions of workers who drink beer and wine with their food everyday. (2) There were claims that the prohibition law only targeted the working class as it demonstrated it’s affect between the rich and poor on vastly different levels; where as the rich had the advantage to stock up on liquor and have booze at their leisure, while the working class could not and was arrested for even having alcohol in their possession (3). Many people of the working class felt as if their individual liberty was violated by this unjust discrimination, when they only pleaded for a “fair opportunity to live [their] whole lives.” (4) Labor organizations protested against the prohibition law and brought it to congress, then “gave warning that the tranquility of the working class may be seriously menaced by enforcement of [this law]” (5) and would only cause an outrage among the people. As a result, the prohibition law would only increase gang related activity, deaths, and crime rate, if not repealed.
In accordance to labor organizations that protested against the prohibition law, the American Federation of Labor also protested against the 18th amendment and requested that the prohibition measure would be able to exempt beer that contained two and three-quarters percent alcohol which the vote stood 26,475 to 4,000. (6) More than 100 Pacific Coast delegates signed the anti-prohibition resolution, while one delegate has “fears for the future” believing that the practice of temperance would better society, rather than the repeal of prohibition, which would fail to serve the nation. (7)
The prohibition law failed to improve the virtue and health in America and instead the motives of the 18th amendment backfired as it violated the personal liberty of the masses, increased gangs, deaths, violence and crime rates, and there was not enough policemen to enforce prohibition. The percentage of alcoholic drinkers and deaths were higher than they were before. And after the repeal of the prohibition law, those percentages dramatically decreased. The prohibition law did not achieve its goals and created more problems in return.
(1) “Alleged Speakeasy is Raided by Officers” The Daily Times, September 15, 1916.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v5QiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sa8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4948,1611793&dq=speakeasy&hl=en (Accessed March 28, 2013).
(2) “Labor Convention Opposes Dry Laws” New York Times, June 12, 1919.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A1FF8345D147A93C0A8178DD85F4D8185F9 (Accessed March 28, 2013).
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) “Labor Convention Opposes Dry Laws” New York Times, June 12, 1919.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A1FF8345D147A93C0A8178DD85F4D8185F9 (Accessed March 28, 2013).
(7) Ibid.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v5QiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sa8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4948,1611793&dq=speakeasy&hl=en (Accessed March 28, 2013).
(2) “Labor Convention Opposes Dry Laws” New York Times, June 12, 1919.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A1FF8345D147A93C0A8178DD85F4D8185F9 (Accessed March 28, 2013).
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) “Labor Convention Opposes Dry Laws” New York Times, June 12, 1919.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A1FF8345D147A93C0A8178DD85F4D8185F9 (Accessed March 28, 2013).
(7) Ibid.