For much of the 19th century a number of anti-alcohol organizations in the United States existed, most of which had their origins in the Protestant churches. Many anti-alcohol groups campaigned for the moderation in consumption and for overall temperance; some groups even fought to eliminate the use of alcohol altogether. After the turn of the 20th century, these organizations were still in the popular minority, but had gained unsurpassable political influence. By 1919, the United State’s federal government was pressing for the ratification of the 18th amendment, the Volstead Act, which passed and went into effect the following year. This constitutional amendment made the production, transport and sale of alcohol illegal and marked the beginning of the United State’s 14-year prohibition of alcohol. The Volstead Act's goals were to rid the nation of crime, springboard the country into economic prosperity and restore values of family and productivity which were believed to be in direct correlation with alcohol use. The consequences of the 18th Amendment proved to be counter productive primarily regarding the rise of organized crime and productivity of our citizens. Although prohibition was being strictly enforced, alcohol production and consumption did not slow down and it was redefined even in legal terms. Consumption was not defined as disobeying the law so many people took advantage of this loophole in the amendment and stocked-up on beer and liquor before prohibition officially began. Others exploited medical loopholes in the law by obtaining prescriptions from doctors for their "sicknesses". The remaining alcohol consumers chose to operate outside the law altogether by introducing America to a new kind of organized crime and a new kind of "gangster". Bootlegging and illegal distribution of alcohol corrupted not only the common citizen, but many members of local-state-federal law enforcement chose to join the payroll of organized crime and use their positions to further the distribution of the alcohol. Crimes were not only being committed by alcohol gangsters, but also by the very individuals responsible for protecting the American people. Further unanticipated complications of the 18th amendment included health consequences due to unmonitored distilleries and economic deprivation including tax funding and employment.
As history has shown, the past often repeats itself, and prohibition is no exception. Today, the United States legal system continues to struggle with the prohibition issues of organized crime, public official corruption, and hindering the potential for economic prosperity, but it is not alcohol related, but rather based on our current laws regarding marijuana. The current "war on drugs" is routinely referred in the media and in everyday conversation as the second prohibition and parallels are often drawn in context to that of the 1920 prohibition of alcohol. Much like the prohibition era, present-day marijuana production, distribution and use is still prevalent despite its current category under Schedule I of the United State's Controlled Substances Act. Mexican drug cartels and stateside gangs have replaced the bootleggers of the 1920s and the organized crime "mobsters" that used to oversee similar activities within our borders .
Because of the hold that cartels have on the overall drug market, individual users of marijuana often have to purchase from one of their lower tier dealers which results in financially supporting cartels responsible for much worse crimes. If the repeal of the 18th amendment drastically reduced crime caused by bootleggers and gangsters, perhaps the elimination of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act would result in a reduction in corruption as well. Following the lessons learned during the prohibition era and our eventual legal tolerance of alcohol, a change in our position regarding marijuana might bring about economic benefits in more ways than one; producing jobs, providing income through taxation, and by reducing the number of incarcerated non-violent individuals in our jails. I argue not from the moral stance of the right and wrong of marijuana use, but rather from a position that predicts the outcome of the legalization of marijuana in a historical context. American history has shown that a government intervention which strays from the roots of democracy and a free market will result in negative consequences. It is important that we use the last century's advances in health science to protect our citizens health if they choose to use, but we must also evaluate the organized crime and loss of tax revenue that is entwined in this debate. Simply put: strict prohibition did not work under the 18th Amendment and it is not developing as our best option now.