Hi all,

I've done a bit of reading on the subject, but am hardly an expert. I also did some Googling and this question does not seem to have come up before.

What happens if Prohibition of the 1920s/30s was more successful, or if not actually more successful then just more prolonged while politicians and lobbyists fight for favors.

The overall legality of Prohibition seems dubious, with at least some people speculatinq that the original changes to the law and constitution only got though because a significant number of younger men were unable to vote because they were deployed to Europe in the aftermath of the Great War. I haven't actually found anybody citing numbers on that though.

What if the Prohibitionist lobby and law enforcement (perhaps with some help from church leadership) manage to actually bring the number of active consumers down?

In OTL this did not happen and (particularly) the lower middle class, the urban poor and the working class were forced to buy at speakeasies, which were inevitably controlled by organized crime. While the majority of the bootlegging moonshine produced and sold by organized crime in the US during Prohibition was pretty poor stuff it was nevertheless more expensive, because Prohibition had effectively pushed the drinking population into the arms of the Mob who were definitely in the business to make money.

If the actual number of drinkers is reduced the Mob doesn't make as much money, and perhaps is not as interested in the business, leaving it to smaller time crooks with less ambition and business-sense. On the other hand we're talking about the Mob and they're likely to want a share no matter what.

By the time Roosevelt was elected in OTL it was clear that Prohibition had failed, and that it might even have been quite damaging to the country as a whole. The various criminals that controlled the business of bootlegging had become extremely violent toward each other, and toward law enforcement. People were questioning whether the laws were worth the extra cost in lives..

Roosevelt ran for office with a promise of a "New Deal" and to lift Prohibition to help create jobs. Considering how the incumbent had handled the Great Depression the Democrats could probably have put a chump or a donkey up for election and still won. However Roosevelt by himself couldn't repeal the laws. The changes had to be ratified in Congress and the Senate, and by 66% of the states. What if someone decided to hold out on giving their support to the changes. It took just one vote from Utah to swing the vote in favor of abolishing Prohibition. Any one of the people who cast their votes could have held back the process with a simple 'NO' vote. It might have been for honest, sincere reasons (like believing that Prohibition was worth keeping), or for completely selfish reasons, like Organized Crime applying pressure either through bribes or threats.

If Prohibition doesn't go away what happens with:

The New Deal? Can Roosevelt succeed in getting anything else passed if he fails on Prohibition? Without significant first term successes can he go on to be the wartime leader, and only president to serve 4 terms?

Organized Crime? The various factions in the underworld were becoming increasingly violent, and to some extent the law enforcement agencies were responding in kind. Some big names did end up going to jail (and some ended up dying in a hail of bullets). Do things get worse before they get better. How do changes in policing effect the decades ahead? Do the Feds find it easier to solve their problems with force rather than through the courts? How does increasingly powerful law enforcement treat traditional civil liberties of ordinary citizens? Especially when a significant percentage of 'ordinary citizens' are criminals by default, because their alcohol use?

US involvement in WW2? Can the US afford to get involved in Lend-Lease and other aid programs to the Allies when the situation internally is so complicated. No or less Lend-Lease could have significant effects on the wartime performance of both the UK (and its Commonwealth) and Russia. How would Japanese strategic thinking by a perception that America is a country of criminals and drunks? More boldness in its expansion into the Pacific?

Culturally? What happens in Hollywood and the various other places producing popular culture? Can Bogart even act in Casablanca? He was rather famous for a quote something along the lines of "The problem with the world today is that everyone is a few drinks behind". He wasn't talking about water or Kool-aid.

Anything I've missed. Any recommendations on decent online resources to read?

Thanks,
Kind regards.
Frank

On 5/25/2022 3:13 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've done a bit of reading on the subject, but am hardly an expert. I also did some Googling and this question does not seem to have come up before.
>
> What happens if Prohibition of the 1920s/30s was more successful, or if not actually more successful then just more prolonged while politicians and lobbyists fight for favors.
>
> The overall legality of Prohibition seems dubious, with at least some people speculatinq that the original changes to the law and constitution only got though because a significant number of younger men were unable to vote because they were deployed to Europe in the aftermath of the Great War. I haven't actually found anybody citing numbers on that though.
>
> What if the Prohibitionist lobby and law enforcement (perhaps with some help from church leadership) manage to actually bring the number of active consumers down?
>
Some interesting speculation but this here is I think the big stumbling
block, somehow reducing the consumption of alcohol. Even today with a
much more regulated society after another hundred years we really
haven't reduced this by even a tiny amount. It may be that there has to
be some change in "human nature" to accomplish that, even if it is a
subtle and apparently tiny change. And it would have wide-ranging
effects through out all of history. (How many important decisions have
been made hung over? Shortly after drinking alcohol? Even a single
drink can impact judgement and decision making.)

And drinking alcohol was widely considered safer than drinking the
water, for historically good reason. ;)

> In OTL this did not happen and (particularly) the lower middle class, the urban poor and the working class were forced to buy at speakeasies, which were inevitably controlled by organized crime. While the majority of the bootlegging moonshine produced and sold by organized crime in the US during Prohibition was pretty poor stuff it was nevertheless more expensive, because Prohibition had effectively pushed the drinking population into the arms of the Mob who were definitely in the business to make money.
>
> If the actual number of drinkers is reduced the Mob doesn't make as much money, and perhaps is not as interested in the business, leaving it to smaller time crooks with less ambition and business-sense. On the other hand we're talking about the Mob and they're likely to want a share no matter what.
>
> By the time Roosevelt was elected in OTL it was clear that Prohibition had failed, and that it might even have been quite damaging to the country as a whole. The various criminals that controlled the business of bootlegging had become extremely violent toward each other, and toward law enforcement. People were questioning whether the laws were worth the extra cost in lives.
>
> Roosevelt ran for office with a promise of a "New Deal" and to lift Prohibition to help create jobs. Considering how the incumbent had handled the Great Depression the Democrats could probably have put a chump or a donkey up for election and still won. However Roosevelt by himself couldn't repeal the laws. The changes had to be ratified in Congress and the Senate, and by 66% of the states. What if someone decided to hold out on giving their support to the changes. It took just one vote from Utah to swing the vote in favor of abolishing Prohibition. Any one of the people who cast their votes could have held back the process with a simple 'NO' vote. It might have been for honest, sincere reasons (like believing that Prohibition was worth keeping), or for completely selfish reasons, like Organized Crime applying pressure either through bribes or threats.
>
> If Prohibition doesn't go away what happens with:
>
> The New Deal? Can Roosevelt succeed in getting anything else passed if he fails on Prohibition? Without significant first term successes can he go on to be the wartime leader, and only president to serve 4 terms?
>
> Organized Crime? The various factions in the underworld were becoming increasingly violent, and to some extent the law enforcement agencies were responding in kind. Some big names did end up going to jail (and some ended up dying in a hail of bullets). Do things get worse before they get better. How do changes in policing effect the decades ahead? Do the Feds find it easier to solve their problems with force rather than through the courts? How does increasingly powerful law enforcement treat traditional civil liberties of ordinary citizens? Especially when a significant percentage of 'ordinary citizens' are criminals by default, because their alcohol use?
>
> US involvement in WW2? Can the US afford to get involved in Lend-Lease and other aid programs to the Allies when the situation internally is so complicated. No or less Lend-Lease could have significant effects on the wartime performance of both the UK (and its Commonwealth) and Russia. How would Japanese strategic thinking by a perception that America is a country of criminals and drunks? More boldness in its expansion into the Pacific?
>
> Culturally? What happens in Hollywood and the various other places producing popular culture? Can Bogart even act in Casablanca? He was rather famous for a quote something along the lines of "The problem with the world today is that everyone is a few drinks behind". He wasn't talking about water or Kool-aid.
>
> Anything I've missed. Any recommendations on decent online resources to read?
>
> Thanks,
> Kind regards.
> Frank

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 5/25/22 5:13 AM, Frank Scrooby wrote:
>What if the Prohibitionist lobby and law enforcement
>(perhaps with some help from church leadership) manage
>to actually bring the number of active consumers down?

Prohibition _did_ reduce alcohol consumption. There are a number
of metrics that show this.

For instance, deaths from alcohol poisoning dropped considerably.
It is possible, though difficult, kill oneself by rapid ingestion
of a lot of alcohol. Nearly all drinkers pass out or throw up first.
but a few manage to reach fatal levels. (Marijuana suppresses nausea
and makes it easier.)

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.