4 ms·
A critical fact that destroys modern narratives about the supposedly naive rationales behind Prohibition is that the 18th Amendment was only supposed to apply t
by wahern 5y ago
A critical fact that destroys modern narratives about the supposedly naive rationales behind Prohibition is that the 18th Amendment was only supposed to apply to what we now call hard liquor, not to beer and wine. Indeed, much of the country already had similar or identical legislation yet beer and wine was perfectly legal in most (all?) of those localities. The Federal prohibition was simply for national consistency with a public policy that was well tested.
Unfortunately, an overly pedantic Supreme Court interpreted "intoxicating liquors" very broadly, resulting in a national ban that far exceeded the state and local legislation with which most people were accustomed and comfortable. It was the narrower definition only encompassing distilled liquor that the public knowingly gave their consent.
- allturtles 5y agoThis isn't quite accurate either. It was the Volstead Act - an act of Congress - that defined the breadth of the ban (i.e. what constitutes intoxicating liquors). The Supreme Court did uphold the legality of the Volstead Act.
- wahern 5y agoNoted. Thank you. And for more context, the Volstead Act passed with supermajorities in Congress, enshrining a war-time prohibition (based on war-time powers) that was already in effect. So there were indeed some very strong political dynamics pushing for strict alcohol prohibition, but arguably not enough alone to get from inception to a constitutionally enumerated power. Perhaps the better lesson is that there is no simple narrative.