“From Alcohol Prohibition to Regulation”

Guillaume Fournier, Researcher, SEDET a CNRS and University of Paris 7 - Denis Diderot Social Sciences Research Laboratory

July 2002

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 2

1. LOBBYING FORCES ............................................................................................. 3

1.1 The Temperance Stirrings ................................................................................. 3

1.2 The Alcohol Industry........................................................................................ 6

2. A SOCIAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 7

2.1 A Health Assessment ....................................................................................... 7

2.2 A Social and Criminal Assessment ..................................................................... 9

3. GETTING OUT FROM PROHIBITION POLICY ........................................................... 11

3.1 A Law Program: Lobbying and Inspiration ........................................................ 11

3.2 Rebuilding the Alcohol Industry...................................................................... 13

3. CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 14

4. TIMELINE........................................................................................................ 15

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 17

2

Introduction

The Alcohol Prohibition, so-called “The Noble Experiment” by President Hoover, was implemented throughout the Federal Union from January 1920 until March 1933. These thirteen years saw the apogee of a powerful political movement, which started in the late 17th century. By the end of the 19th century, this movement was behind the shutdown of saloons, the implementation of local temperance laws, then the 1920’s Prohibition of alcohol on a national scale.

The side effects of an inappropriate legislation too distanced from society customs quickly became obvious. Finally, the process for repealing the Prohibition (i.e. the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the Volstead Act) was implemented in the late 1920s, after the balance of forces had changed.

Since then, the political process behind the Prohibition of alcohol has been an object of study for many researchers, especially those working on issues such as drug, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, hazardous materials regulations, market regulations and other issues of public policy. However, the research is made difficult, in part because of the Congress and US Administration decision in the late 1950s to order a comprehensive file destruction of files relating to the Prohibition period.

This paper analyses the relevant existing documentation (listed in the bibliography) to present the forces in favor of and those opposed to the national Prohibition (the “dry” and the “wet” forces).

3

1. Lobbying Forces

1.1 The Temperance Stirrings

Temperance movements appear as early as the end of the 17th century, mostly linked to Methodist and Presbyterian churches. In 1785, General Surgeon Rush publishes an “Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Body and Mind”. He also circulates millions of copies of a brochure containing an “Intemperance Thermometer” that quickly becomes the favorite tool for non-religious temperance activists who are beginning to appear to advocate for a moderate alcohol consumption (Martin, 1993). It appears that the first of these was the Free African Society, founded in 1778 (McGrew). We can also mention the Washington Temperance Society, founded in 1840, and its women branch (the Martha Washington Society), which developed local sections throughout the Federal Union and invited President Lincoln to attend its meetings. This society uses the most recent propaganda techniques and produces shows, parades and conferences during which former alcoholics repent in public. It also publishes and distributes novels and plays outlining the dangers of alcohol. The Washington Temperance Society, after having created the modern codes for anti-alcohol propaganda, is supplanted by the Sons of Temperance, a Masonic inspired society boasting 250,000 members in the 1860s. These societies did not use religious references to convince their audience and kept with the concept of “moral suasion” which excluded any enforcement (Martin, 1993).

Women’s movements are also very active and advocate for the closure of the saloons. Activists stand at the entrance of drinking establishments and sing, pray and ask consumers to give up drinking by shouting their name on the street. During the year 1859 many saloons have to close as the result of these actions.

Churches remain active against alcohol consumption and inspire the creation of societies such as the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance (1820) animated by the Calvinist predicator Lyman Beecher. At the same time, a Baptist minister publishes a review, The National Philanthropist, that advocates for and obtains the prohibition of alcohol in the Army (Martin, 1993).

Legislative conquests made by the dry forces are reduced to nil by the Civil War (1861-1865). The Federal administration takes over the States’ powers and creates a single tax on alcohol and a beverage regulation inspired by the Brewer lobby.

Religious and non-religious temperance groups reorganize after the War: James Black, together with a Methodist lawyer, creates the National Temperance Society (1865) and the National Temperance Publication House which publishes nearly one billion printed documents.

Women’s movements remain active and obtain 30,000 saloon closures between 1865 and 1880 (including 17,000 in Ohio where “Mother” Stewart breaks in the State Congress with a cortege of women and children). Original characters, such as the athletic Carry

4

Nation who is seen destroying saloons with an ax, become famous. These movements are financed by powerful businessmen such as John D. Rockefeller who puts his private police to contribution to investigate the alcohol industry and its customers (Martin, 1993). Business leaders see in sobriety a way to increase productivity, fight against industrial injuries and cut taxes by increasing the useful agricultural production, reducing the need for welfare or the police, justice and prison system. Beside John Rockefeller, Henri Ford, Pierre Du Pont, the Pillsbury family, John Wanamaker, Andrew Carnegie, the future President Edgar Hoover, The Hudson Motors Co, The Packard Co and many others massively support the temperance stirrings through financial contribution.

Gerrit Smith who made his fortune speculating on Federal lands convenes local temperance parties in the National Prohibition Party. Its first national convention takes place in Chicago in 1869. It advocates women’s right to vote (they were considered to be in favor of the Prohibition). John Black, the candidate running for president in 1872 gets only 5,607 votes out of 6 million. Success at the polls ultimately peaks in 1892 when John Dedwell receives a total of 270,710 votes.

The Obertin College (a Methodist university) creates in 1874 the Women’s Christian Temperance Union that gathers upper classes ladies and successfully increases its membership and develops its influence until 1920 (McGrew). The WCTU under Frances Willard’s management implements an ambitious and efficient plan: the « Do everything policy » (the 8-hours labor day, equal rights for men and women, etc.). The cause is served by a stable an waged staff (the Bureau of Propaganda sends lecturers to local unions, the Temperance Scientific Education Department works for schools and universities, the Companies Incitement Department induces firms to include a “dry clause” in employment contracts, The Bureau of Press takes care of influencing media and the Publishing Association is in charge of creating the printed material). The Union obtains successes in a number of states: Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Wyoming give women the right to vote; several others vote different kinds of severe alcohol restrictions to complete prohibition as in Kansas (1880), Maine (1884), North Dakota (1889).

The Anti-Saloon League is founded in 1893 by the Reverend Howard Russel (an alumni of Oberlin College). It leads the way for a dry nation by gathering a loose confederation of evangelical churches (Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc.) that work together for a common goal. The League is efficient in its fund-raising activities and collects on average approximately $2 million per year between 1910 and 1923, mostly from the business community (Jankowski, 1994). Saloons concentrated the critics regarding alcohol: bar owners were extremely powerful, particularly in small communities. They owned the only neutral public place where men could find pleasure under its various forms: food, beverages, prostitution, gambling and also a community life, free from the control of the boss, police, church or wife. Saloons were the only place outside a regulated and constrained public space. More attractive than the church and competing with it for its function of social public place, saloons were to be eliminated. The League retained attorneys to force closure of saloons, influenced the election of favored officials, and published its own periodicals: first a weekly newspaper “The American Issue”, then a daily “The National Daily”, a second weekly “The New Republic”, two monthly reviews, a scientific review “The Scientific Temperance Journal” and an enormous propaganda material for each category of audience (e.g. the Bureau of Security and Efficiency specifically addressed industry managers). The barrage of continuous information began to sway public opinion about saloons and about alcohol in general. A-political or trans-political, the League did

5

not yet have the power to have their man elected but was able to defeat wet candidates. In order to reconcile its goals with every ideology, the League did not deal with party organizations but rather on a local scale, directly with local politicians. The League becomes a centralized and hierarchical organization after the 1895 Washington convention, influencing and waging several congressmen. The League organization is described by a wet lobbyist as a powerful machine, managed by remarkable men and women with link to financiers and access to unlimited funds. It is strong with hundreds of thousand of men, women and children from local churches (40,000 religious places collaborate with the League in 1915) and is advised by talented and well paid lawyers (including Waine Wheeler, the most influent man of his time) working according to a well structured and efficient plan. Success follows success and a number of militants from other organizations (excluding the WCTU, which remains stable) join the League to contribute to its dynamic development. People fueling the movement are largely middle class, rural WASP. Nevertheless, the Episcopal and Lutheran churches never join the League, while Jewish and Catholic groups generally oppose their objective (McGrew).

In 1917, twenty-six states are dry after laws, referendums and/or revisions of state constitution are passed as a result of both local activism and lobbying.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the American Medical Association joins the dry side to promote the campaign in favor of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.

The South states are fond of moral order and in 1907 more than 90% of Southern counties, encouraged by the League, enforce local prohibition laws in accordance with the local option procedure1.

When in 1917 President Wilson informs the Congress that the United States is at war with Germany, the League wastes no time in targeting the brewing industry as un-American and sympathetic to the German cause. World War I gives the President the necessary authority to divert barley from the liquor industry through the Food Control Bill. It also gives Wheeler the opportunity to ask for an investigation to be carried out on two local German brewers associations for alleged espionage. Until the beginning of the 1920s, beer is widely associated with the enemy in dry speeches and printed material.

Final victory arrives on 17th January 1920 when the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution is ratified and the Volstead Act enacted: national Prohibition is in place.

1 The local option permitted towns to go dry if they so chose by referendum.

6

1.2 The Alcohol Industry

In 1903, the alcohol industry generates a turnover of $1.8 billion, of which it reinvests $873 million (5% of global investments made in the United States), with important profit margins. This industry operates a concentrating progression (between 1890 and 1990, the number of breweries is cut by 44% while their capital increases by 154%); an important process of modernization is ongoing with pasteurization, refrigeration and rationalization in production. At the same time, retail prices are cut by 50% as producers (mainly British and American-German) take-over independent saloons. In 1902, two companies (American Spirits Manufacturing Co. and Standard Distilling and Distributing Co.) control 85% of the alcohol production but 90% of bourbon is controlled by Distillers and Warehouse Co. These three companies will merge in 1902 to create the Distilling Company of America, a monopolistic holding. Dry forces use the argument of foreign capital and the high rate of concentration in the alcohol industry (characterized as the “Syndicate”) to inform against this industry.

The United States Brewers Association is founded in 1862 to use a “proper influence” on administration. This wealthy association’s income comes from contributions made by a majority of the alcohol producers, wholesalers and retail businesses. It obtains a tax reduction in 1863 and fights against dry candidates running for elections throughout the country. The association openly subsidizes wet forces and uses saloons to promote wet organizations and politicians. It is convicted several times, mostly after dry investigators denounce affairs involving brewers. Overconfident, the industry piles up unwise actions, such as public officers corruption, propaganda mainly oriented toward German and/or Catholic immigrants, etc. Its attempts to develop a self-regulating strategy (by reducing the sale of potent liquors) do not succeed in convincing the opinion. It operates through Canadian subsidiaries during the Prohibition and advocates for the legalizing of a 2.75% beer, without success.

Part of the business community remains cautious about the Prohibition. The Brewers Association points out that alcohol represents in excess of 75% of Federal income tax revenues (1909, import taxes excepted) and largely contributes to the states’ resources through the sale of alcohol manufacturing and retailing licenses. This argument becomes weaker after the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, which allows for direct personal taxing.

Despite strong efforts from the League, the trade unions and working classes will always be hostile to Prohibition. It is seen as an employers’ tool to control the poor and avoid real social progress. The American Federation of Labor maintains its support for the legalization of a 2.5% beer.

After the 1929 Great Depression, farmers, traditionally dry, progressively became wet to regain the outlets provided by the alcohol industry to farm products.

7

2. A Social and Health Assessment

2.1 A Health Assessment

The evidence on alcohol consumption during the Prohibition is incomplete, as standard data sources for this period are not available. Thus, most analyses use the cirrhosis death rate as a proxy, (Miron and Zwiebel, 1991 assessing Warburton, 1932 study) to evaluate alcohol consumption during the Prohibition. It seems that its level could have steadily declined after the beginning of the Prohibition, then increased again to reach 60 or 70% of its initial level. The end of the Prohibition did not coincide with a steadily increase of alcohol consumption as the pre-Prohibition level is reached by the late 1940s.

The Warburton figures about alcohol consumption are as follows:

Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.

Source: Clark Warburton (1932)

However and despite of an alleged decrease in consumption, people were not protected from the dangers of alcohol. A dissuasive strategy from the administration, under the League’s influence, was to add lethal substances to the industrial production of alcohol in order to deter consumers from the black market where part of the industrial stocks were diverted to. A number of death cases by alcohol poisoning were reported at that time.

Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first years of the Prohibition (19819-1926). The superintendents of eight mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients than formerly (McGrew) and the average age of people dying from alcoholism and cirrhosis fell by six months between 1916 and 1923 (Thornton, 1991).

8

Several bootleggers and clandestine producers had no possibility or interest to produce beverages of drinkable quality. Many people were also trying to produce home made alcohol such as beer or gin. It was rare at the time to find good quality products, except in private big towns clubs, which had received an authorization to sell stocks constituted before the Prohibition.

9

2.2 A Social and Criminal Assessment

The Prohibition allows for the transfer to the crime sector $5 billions from 1920 to 1933. This unregulated amount of money generates violence, corruption and is one of the origins of “organized crime”. Ethnic gangs (Irish, Italian, Jewish, etc.) are constituted in order to control the alcohol market, first inside their own community, then outside. The lynching of Black bootleggers by the Ku Klux Klan is reported.

Statistics from the Internal Revenue Service show an increasing volume of bootleg trade: in 1921, 95,933 illicit distilleries were seized. In 1925, the total jumped to 172,537 then to 282,122 in 1930. In connection with these seizures, 34,175 persons were arrested in 1921; by 1925, the number had risen to 62,747 and to a high of 75,307 in 1928. Concurrently, convictions for liquors offenses in federal courts rose from 35,000 in 1923 to 61,383 in 1932 (McGrew).

The justice system is overworked but is relatively merciful although it can also be fierce (for instance Etta Mae Miller was condemned to life jail for alcohol possession – this sentenced will however be revoked after it is proved that the evidence was set by the police).

Law enforcement varies between states, counties and courts. Most of the time, state polices do not have enough funding while bootleggers have the facility to buy officials and politicians.

Many of the agents of the Federal Bureau of Prohibition were inefficient or corrupted. Most were hired under the advocacy of the League, with no precise skills or qualification. An exam showed that some of them were even unable to read and write.

In 1925, the Department of Research and Education of the Federal Council of the Churches reported that requests for sacramental wine increased by 800,000 gallons from 1922 to 1924 (McGrew).

Thornton (1991) assesses that speakeasies were twice as numerous than saloons were before the Prohibition. McGrew reports on a by study Lee2 that estimates that the number of speakeasies ranged from 200,000 to 500,000. The location of drinking establishment that was regulated until the Prohibition became an important issue: speakeasies opened near churches, factories, business districts, schools etc. and public authorities had no tool to prevent the sale of alcohol in these sensible areas.

As regards crime figures, minor crimes such as vagrancy, malicious mischief and public swearing decreased by 50% (Thornton, 1991).

However Miron (1999) focuses on the homicide rate, as this is the only type of crime for which data is available both before, during and after Prohibition. Roughly speaking, there have been two periods with high homicide rates in US history, the 1920-1934 period

2 Lee, H. (1963), How Dry We Were: Prohibition revisited, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc.

10

and the 1970-1990 period3. Miron shows that both before and between these two episodes, homicide rates were relatively low or declining. This pattern seems to be consistent with the hypothesis that the Prohibition increased violent crime: homicide rates are high in the 1920-1933 period, when constitutional prohibition of alcohol was in effect; the homicide rate drops quickly after 1933, when Prohibition was repealed; and the homicide rate remains low for a substantial period thereafter. Further, the homicide rate is high in the 1970-1990 period, when drug prohibition is enforced to a stringent degree.

Homicides per 100,000 population Source: Jeffrey Miron (1999)

The most telling sign of the relationship between serious crime and the Prohibition was the dramatic reversal in the rates of robberies, burglaries, murders and assaults when the Prohibition was repealed in 1933 (Thornton, 1991).

The Prohibition was designed to empty prisons and poorhouses, cut taxes and eliminate social problems. It aimed at increasing productivity and absenteeism was supposed to disappear. The economy was to enter a period of never-ending boom. The 1929 Great Depression shattered that utopian outlook. Prohibition didn’t improve productivity or reduce absenteeism. In contrast, the private regulation of employees’ drinking improved productivity, reduced absenteeism and reduced industrial accidents wherever it was tried before, during and after the Prohibition (Thornton, 1991).

3 as mentioned by Miron those figures were first discussed by Milton Friedman in his article “The War We Are Loosing” in Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States, Krauss and Lazear ed., 53-67, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1991.

11

3. Getting out from Prohibition Policy

3.1 A Law Program: Lobbying and Inspiration

The Great Depression keeps minds occupied after 1929 as corruption becomes the rule and makes both gangsters and officials richer everyday. The failure of Prohibition is obvious to every citizen as opinion polls show:

In 1922: 38% of the population supports the 18th Amendment 21% supports abolition 39% supports a liberal change

In 1926: 75% of the population is against the Prohibition

Wheeler dies in 1927: the League faces a lack of funding, and appears to be too linked with the Republicans.

The Wickersham Commission in charge of making a assessment of the Prohibition is composed of eleven congressmen who work during 19 months before submitting a report to the President in 1931. The report focuses on the side effects of the Prohibition but nevertheless concludes to a necessary strengthening of its enforcement. The report becomes a subject of ridicule in the media.

The tax cost is important: the Prohibition creates a loss of $200 million for the states and of $700 for the Federal Administration. The states become hostile to the Prohibition because of its cost and of the loss of power (part of the police power is transferred to the Federal Administration).

On the Church side, “Judge” Rutherford, the second president of The Watchover Bible and Tract Society openly advocates against the Prohibition as the work of Satan. He publishes a famous article in The Watchover entitled “Prohibition”.

The Crusaders are created and advocate for the repeal of the 18th Amendment.

The Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, AAPA is created in 1918 by the conservative captain William Stayton (slogan: “temperance, not wet”). It boasts 100,000 members in 1920, 726,000 in 1926, and is joined by Republican business leaders (see below, Curran, Du Pont, Sabin...). As the League, the Association publishes material assessing the Prohibition dangers and its side effects. The press (NY Times, Herald, World…) cannot refuse to publish wet opinion to sponsors such as Du Pont and General Motors (Martin, 1993). Republicans are reluctant to let the Democrats exploit the struggle against the national Prohibition. Nicholas M. Butler, the Columbia University president is in charge of political lobbying and drafts numerous de-prohibition laws presented to the Congress.

Mrs. Sabin resigns from the National Republican Committee (dry) to create in 1929 with other establishment ladies the Woman’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform, WONPR), which is influent among the elite.

12

The American Bar Association joins the wet side in 1930.

Business leaders progressively leave the dry side (Du Pont in 1926, Sabin, Root, Pratt) because of the enormous tax increases. John D. Rockefeller declares to be opposed to Prohibition in 1932 in a famous letter to N. Butler, published by the New York Times.

Sensing that the end of the Prohibition experience is approaching, Mabel W. Willebrand, a former Los Angeles attorney who became Federal Vice-General Attorney in charge of the Prohibition in 1921 with the support of Wheeler is hired as a lobbyist by a California wine grower association.

The conservative and traditionalist American Legion ask for dry laws liberalization in 1931.

The future President Franklin D. Roosevelt calls in 1932 for a state convention to elaborate the “wiser plan” to reform the Prohibition.

The repeal Amendment (21st) is drafted by a Columbia University lawyer: N. T. Dowling. It is easily voted (in 3 days) by the Congress then ratified by the states since dry lobby is collapsing.

On December 4, 1933 (the day before final ratification of the repeal Amendment), the President establishes the Federal Alcohol Control Administration. The FACA was to have the power to grant or revoke permits to engage in the alcoholic beverage industry (not the brewing industry) as well as the power to control plant capacity and production. In addition, FACA prohibited the ownership of retail outlets by manufacturers and wholesalers. The FACA will definitively pass under the control of Treasury Department in 1940 after years wavering inside the Federal Administration (McGrew).

The sale of liquor by the drink is permitted in most states, which however still require that it be sold in packaged form only, reflecting the continuing fear of the resurrection of the saloon. In many states Sunday closing laws are enforced and mandatory closing times are imposed on bars and package stores alike. Sales are prohibited almost uniformly on Election Day and, in many places, on Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Christmas and other public holidays (McGrew).

13

3.2 Rebuilding the Alcohol Industry

The creation of FACA results in the reinstatement of alcohol taxes in lieu of nuisance taxes, and in a reduction of other direct taxes.

In some states, speakeasies obtain beverage-retailing licenses by tender. In other states, alcohol is subject to a state monopoly. Many bootleggers evolve into legal businesses: Sam Bronfman creates Seagram, Joe Kennedy (John’s father) becomes the exclusive wholesaler for a number of famous British liquor brands (Haig, Pinchbottle, Gordon’s), the gangster Frank Costello founds the Alliance Distributors Co, Meyer Lansky, “Lucky” Luciano and “Bugsy” Siegel take over the control of the Capitol Wine and Spirits Co…(Behr, 1996).

600,000 Americans work for the alcohol industry after it is rebuilt; they pay taxes and product quality controlled products.

14

3. Conclusion

Few powerful men and women made the difference between dry and wet in the alcohol prohibition fight. The first is Wayne Wheeler, the real leader of the League, who is said to be the most influent man of America in the 1910s and the 1920s after its movement had united both protestant churches and rich entrepreneurs. The personality of Wheeler and the wealth of its organization became the Prohibition’s most important weakness: after his death wealthy leaders decide to change side and the whole construction collapses when public opinion realizes how dangerous the Prohibition was. One of the main points seems to have been the tax increase generated by the Prohibition that turned the wealthy class from dry to wet. After it became obvious that the Prohibition was to disappear, the most influent lobbyists such as Mabel Willebrand changed camp. “Organized crime”, which most benefited from the Prohibition, took the opportunity presented by de-prohibition to stay and settle in lawful business by becoming alcohol producers, wholesalers or retailers.

By early 1930s no one had an interest anymore in the Prohibition remaining in place (the police excepted, severely criticized by public opinion for being corrupted, it was eventually sacrificed by politicians). The “Noble Experiment” finally disappeared in less than six months of legislative process.

15

4. Timeline 1785 – B. Rush, General Surgeon, publishes Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Body and Mind 1787 – New England Quakers get totally sober 1808 – The first temperance society is founded in Moreau (NY) 1826 – The American Temperance Society is founded in Boston 1883 – Gardiner (MA) become the first dry town in the US 1851 – Maine becomes the first dry state 1851- 1856 – Eleven states become dry but quickly get back to a regulation policy 1856 – Maine sells alcohol again 1862 – The Internal Revenue Act provides a federal legal frame to the alcohol industry 1867 – The first Temperance party is founded in Michigan, then in Illinois (1868), Ohio (1869)… 1869 – The National Prohibition Party founded in Chicago 1874 – WCTU founded under Mrs. Wittenmeyer presidency 1886 – Senate votes “no” to a Constitutional Amendment in favor of national Prohibition 1893 – The Anti-Saloon League is founded 1898 – The league opens its Washington DC office and wages a legislative lobbyist 1900 – The Anti-Canteen Act prohibits alcohol in the Army 1907 – Georgia then Oklahoma enact state prohibition 1914-1916 – Nine new dry states (23 dry states in 1916) including Michigan, first industrial state to enact prohibition 1917 – The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) is voted by House of Representatives and Senate 1918 – The Association Against Prohibition Amendment is founded The alcohol industry lobbies get active in Congress The 18th Amendment is ratified by 36 states and integrated to the Constitution

16

The House of Representatives and Senate vote the Volstead Act (Federal Prohibition) against President Wilson’s veto 1920- The National Prohibition is enforced. 1924 – The Federal Administration signs an international treaty extending sea police zone to 7 miles away from the coast 1925 – Canada and Mexico are forced to prohibit alcohol exportation to the US 1928 – The Governor of New York Smith propose to delegate legal alcohol volume definition to states 1929 – Mrs. Sabin creates the WOHPR 1931 – The Wickersham report is published 1932 – Both Republican and Democrat conventions commit to repeal the 18th Amendment Senator Blaine proposes to Congress the 21st Amendment project (abolishing Prohibition) 1933 – Congress votes 21st Amendment A few months later the Cullen act that allows selling 3.2% beer is voted On December 5th, the 21st Amendment is ratified (5 pm) and President Roosevelt promulgates the end of the national Prohibition (7 pm)

17

Select Bibliography Berh, E. (1996), L’Amérique hors-la-loi, Plon, Paris. Jankowski, B. (1994), “The Making of Prohibition – Part 1: The History of Political and Social Forces at Work for Prohibition in America”, Brewing Techniques’ Nov/Dec. Kivig, D. E. (1979), Repealing National Prohibition, University of Chicago Press. Kopp, P. (1997), L’économie de la drogue, La Découverte, Paris. Martin, J.-P. (1993), La vertu par la loi, la prohibition aux Etats-Unis : 1920-1933, Editions Universitaires de Dijon, Dijon. McGrew, J. L., History of Alcohol Prohibition, paper for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, available at online Schaffer Library of Drug policy: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc2a.htm Miron, J. and Zwiebel, J. (1991), “Alcohol Consumption during Prohibition”, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 81, No 2, May. Miron, J. (1999), “Violence and the US Prohibition of Drugs and Alcohol”, American Law and Economics Review, 1, Fall, 78-114. Thornton, M. (1991), The Economics of Prohibition, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press. Warburton, C. (1932), The Economic Result of Prohibition, New York, Columbia University Press.