Talk:Prohibition in the United States/Archive 3

Prohibition started in 1920
RE: Although the Amendment and the Volsted Act were passed in 1919, they did not take effect until 1920. --Javaweb (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Proposal to merge "American gangsters during the 1920s" into this article
I propose that American gangsters during the 1920s be merged and redirected to the organized crime section of this article. The gangsters article is poorly written and vastly undersourced, but deals mainly with the gangsters who rose to prominence by exploiting the black market created by alcohol prohibition. So what content can be salvaged and properly sourced (which certainly some of it can be) from that article is relevent to the Prohibition article. Certainly there ought to be at least mention of Capone, Dillinger, and the other notorious gangsters of the prohibition era.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * merging a bad article into a good one will not improve either one. It's an unsound idea, because prohibition waas only one factor--the same gangs were there before, and after, prohibition.  Rjensen (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (Concur with Rjensen). Student7 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points made by Rjensen. The proposal is withdrawn.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clear about drop in alcoholism
One thing that was clear during Prohibition is the drop in deaths from cirrhosis of the liver, normally caused by alcoholism. The medical profession was not "looking for" this particularly and was surprised when it happened. So drinking dropped. Headlines went up, as usual with the media. Kids drank til they could drink no more, but per capita dropped. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Source? Canterbury Tail   talk  18:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Prohibition by state
Should there be a chart or something that shows when each state enacted prohibition prior to the 18th Amendment? The article mentions that Kansas enacted Prohibition in its state constitution in 1881 and there's reference to some unnamed southern states then enacting prohibition, so apparently various states enacted some form of prohibition before the Constitutional amendment. Jtyroler (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Yes by the time of the 18th amendment there were already quite a few dry states, and an even larger number of dry counties. I'll see if I can find a list. I believe there is one in Edward Behr's, Prohibition: 13 Years that Changed America. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the problems is dedication to enforcement. Vermont was one of those "dry" states well before the 18th Amendment. But it degraded into unenforcement, and was therefore was largely ignored. Student7 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

economics
the economics section is not very useful unless it is expressed in terms of achieving the stated goals of "educating the young, forming a better public sentiment, reforming the drinking classes, transforming by the power of Divine grace those who are enslaved by alcohol, and removing the dram-shop from our streets by law" & add the Fisher goals of efficient labor force. The "cost" of enforcement is the cost of achieving these goals and that was not addressed by the text Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Class distinctions?
I don't think that prohibition can be called "illustrative of class distinctions", simply because it may have been "a law unfairly biased in its administration favoring social elites". Biased administration of laws does not apply only to prohibition. If this is the test of class distinction, most laws could be said to be "illustrative of class distinctions", and thus should be appealed. I suspect that people of all classes endeavoured to avoid the rules, and many - of all classes - got away with it.101.98.209.132 (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rich people did not support prohibition. The drys often made this point. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Prohibition in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110117151124/http://burlingtonhistory.org/Newsletters/2010%20March%20newsletter-1.htm to http://www.burlingtonhistory.org/Newsletters/2010%20March%20newsletter-1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060906144226/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061006232716/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu:80/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like folklore
The section about the Great and General banning strong waters has a strong scent of folklore about it. Anyone have a meaningful cite? Anmccaff (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * On May 6, 1657, Massachusetts' General Court did not ban the sale of liquor to everyone. In an effort to reserve the trading of fur with the Indians to the Commonwealth and not to individual persons, the sale or trade of "severall prohibited commodityes, as gunns, powder, shott, strong liquors, &c" was prohibited to all persons without authorization of the General Court.


 * In addition, "to prevent drunkennes amongst them [the Indians], the fruits whereof are murther & other outrages, this Court doth therefore...wholly prohibite all persons...to sell, truck, barter, or give any strong liquors to any Indian, directly or indirectly, whether knowne by the name of rum, strong waters, wine, strong beere, brandie, syder, or perry, or any other strong liquors goeing under any other name whatsoever..."


 * The use of liquor, wine, beer, etc. was permitted by New England's settlers, but laws against drunkenness were passed numerous times by all the colonies. It was punishable by fines, jail, and corporal punishment.

Jo Ann Butler (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Jo Ann Butler


 * Source: Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England Vol. III 1644-1657


 * Yupper. Some early source conflated the date of prohibition of sales to Indians with the year of Massachusetts's first rum distillery (!!), since then, it's even entered serious scholarship - there are a couple of papers explaining the non-existent event as the last gasp of the Puritan old guard.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

NBER study
I admit to being rather baffled at the removal of this April 2017 study ("Infant Mortality and the Repeal of Federal Prohibition"), published by three economists through the National Bureau of Economic Research. The abstract summarizes the study: "Exploiting a newly constructed dataset on county-level variation in prohibition status from 1933 to 1939, this paper asks two questions: what were the effects of the repeal of federal prohibition on infant mortality? And were there any significant externalities from the individual policy choices of counties and states on their neighbors?" The full text is also avaliable through the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), and an earlier draft here for free courtesy of the Stanford economics department.

It strikes me as really weird for a user to think that this study is "not relevant" - it's obviously related to Prohibition in the United States and fits in very cleanly under the "Effects of Prohibition" subsection. This kind of recent academic scholarship seems to be exactly the kind of thing that we need more of across the encyclopedia. No policy-based reason for exclusion has been presented to me. I didn't add this content, by the way, initially added it. Neutralitytalk 22:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't understand the rationale for removing this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because something changed after prohibition doesn't mean that it is related to prohibition. Even the paper doesn't state outright that it's caused by the repeal of prohibition only that it could be. That's not really evidence. As a result you cannot put in an edit that states "found that the repeal of Prohibition increased the infant mortality rate" as the source doesn't support that. That conclusion may be drawn from the data used, but it's not proof and therefore you cannot state that directly, therefore to draw the conclusion would be ridiculously unscientific hence why the paper doesn't. The source isn't putting forward the conclusion that the edit stated, there is a huge difference between "could" (i.e. possibly pure coincidence or could be connected to the fact that there was the Great Depression going on at the time) and "the repeal of Prohibition increased the infant mortality rate." In fact the great depression had a massive effect on health and wellbeing and is a more likely cause, however that is purely an opinion of mine and also not scientific. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Canterbury - the authors of the paper specifically controlled for variables, including "local economic conditions" (per capita New Deal spending, per capita retail sales as a proxy for income). They specifically found that it is not "pure coincidence" &mdash; they make a much more definitive conclusion:
 * In particular, we follow Machado (2004) and implement a fixed-effect binomial regression which takes into account the facts that infant death is a low incidence phenomena and many counties have quite small numbers of births. Using this approach and controlling for potential policy externalities from neighboring counties, we find that dryish status raised baseline infant mortality by roughly 3%, or 1.77 additional infant deaths per 1000 live births. While wet status was also associated with an increase in infant mortality, we interpret these results with greater caution as the endogenous nature of wet status may cloud our results. Cumulating across the six years from 1934 to 1939, our estimates indicate an excess of 23,343 infant deaths which can be attributed to the policy externalities alone arising from the repeal of federal prohibition in 1933.
 * It's also important to note that something doesn't have to be "proof" to be included. That's not really applicable to many economical and historical analysis, where there can really only be evidence (sometimes, as is the case here, fairly suggestive evidence) and rarely if ever "proof." The fact that an rigorous empirical analysis made an academically published conclusion will very often sufficient to include, especially in fields like history, education, public policy, etc. I think if you look through the article right now you will see a number of citations to studies that aren't "proof" in the strict sense.
 * Would you feel more comfortable with the text if we were to note the endogeneity factor? That's a limitation identified by the study authors and if you think that important, I would not object to mentioning it. Neutralitytalk 03:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection per say to the paper and information being included. My main objection is the use of the definite article in the edit of "paper found that the repeal" against the "excess of 13,665 infant deaths that could be attributable" as these aren't compatible. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * : Which definite article? The word "the" before "repeal"? Neutralitytalk 00:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry misspoke. I mean the edit contained the following "paper found that the repeal" followed by the "excess of 13,665 infant deaths that could be attributable". This implies that the edit is claiming something the source is not providing as the main regular encyclopaedic section of the edit is very definite on the paper's findings whereas the summary section the edit has immediately after the: is saying "could". Emphasis below mine.
 * "A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that the repeal of Prohibition increased the infant mortality rate: 'Cumulating across the six years from 1934 to 1939, our results indicate an excess of 13,665 infant deaths that could be attributable to the repeal of federal prohibition in 1933.'"
 * See what I'm saying? We are saying they found whereas the quoted portion is only saying could, the edit as it stood was very contradictory as a result and didn't quote say what it was perhaps meaning to say. It's just a wording thing. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you're saying now. That makes sense. For a rewording:
 * In a 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, a group of economists reported on the results of a regression analysis they had conducted. The economists concluded that in six years from 1934 to 1939, "an excess of 13,665 infant deaths ... could be attributable to the repeal of federal prohibition in 1933."
 * Would something like this work? Neutralitytalk 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Could maybe add an additional sentence to explain more about why they came to that conclusion just as information for the user. My original objections were just about how the edit and the quote were contradictory, sorry it took so long to get the point across. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , : I've added the revised language. Please feel free to tweak or add as desired. Thanks for the collaboration. Best, Neutralitytalk 00:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prohibition in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304020510/http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/drunk_revised_for_el.pdf to http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/drunk_revised_for_el.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225000250/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229232307/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html to http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201174231/http://www.johnsonsdepot.com/chicago/chicago.htm to http://www.johnsonsdepot.com/chicago/chicago.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality? My… behind.
"Research shows" that it was good, while "criticism remains" that it was bad. The good effects are proven by research, while the bad effects are just unproven criticism. That's how you manipulate, folks. --jae (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Is "prohibition" lower or upper case?
The article suggests both; I feel it should be lower case, but I guess it could be a noun, so...? Remagoxer (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's upper case when referring to the Law itself and lower when used as a descriptor. Mark Dask  22:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

dries
I'm confused by the use of "dries" in this article. The first use is Prohibition was supported by the dries, primarily pietistic Protestant denominations that included Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, New School Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans, but also included the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America and, to a certain extent, the Latter-day Saints and the second is In March 1917, the 65th Congress convened, in which the dries outnumbered the wets by 140 to 64 in the Democratic Party and 138 to 62 among Republicans. They don't seem to be referring to the same thing. The first seems to be referring to religious denominations, the second to members of congress? --valereee (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "dries" here represents, more or less, someone who is part of or agrees with the Prohibition movement - i.e, they do not consume alcohol and/or advocate against the consumption of alcohol. Koecik (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Did it start on January 16th or on January 17th?
Did the prohibition start on January 16th or on January 17th? The article says January 17th. The article about January 1920 says January 16th. Homogeneity would be preferred. A lot of people will read and talk about this in just a few days. Calle Widmann (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A cursory review of Google showed January 17. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Prohibition in the Phillipine Islands
Could someone please tell me what the status of prohibition was in the American territory of the Phillipine Islands Kanto7 (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Department of the Treasury corruption
Almost certain I saw an ‘American Justice’ episode which had a text screen before the commercial that said that 80 percent of the Treasury agents were working for the Italian-American mafia during prohibition. Something like taking a third or a quarter of their annual salary to not show up at work leaving their section wide open on the Ca-US border. Less certain, and unsure of where I heard it, 92-94 percent of increased armed violence during prohibition was due to Al Capone. May be way off......idk. Brad41071 (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Kudos
For my own notes, I had scraped a copy of the lead circa November 2016. Today I encountered this note again and noticed that it did not sketch a quick, compelling picture.

As I tried to figure this out, I noticed that there was an elementary punctuation error: an appositive before the main verb set off with a comma on only one side. So I came here thinking I might fix this small error, and what I found was a lead nearly 80% rewritten during the intervening 5 years.

The present lead is light years better than my previous copy.

I've quickly scraped a lot of leads for my own notes in my time, and I've rarely ever seen a lead improve by this much that wasn't previously stub category.

Kudos to those involved! Too often on Wikipedia good enough proves immune to this kind of wholesale change entirely for the betterment. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Prohibition history
Why is there no article on prohibition? The USA is not the only country to have banned alcohol - indeed many countries and districts have done so. Shouldn't the article be on prohibition generally?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is. It can be found conveniently at Prohibition. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since this article deals only with Prohibition in the U.S., should a link to the broader Prohibition article be listed in the "See also" section of this article? Rosalina523 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a link there now. ··gracefool&#9786; 12:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation updates
I added citation templates to references that I could verify if the existing reference did not already have a template. This will make the long list of references more consistent. As needed I also updated existing template citations so they have a consistent format. Several of the citations remain incomplete - so please update those references with the missing information if you can verify them. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cp1006.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelD6969.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Consequences of Prohibition into Prohibition in the United States
As written, Consequences of Prohibition reads like a less-neutral WP:CFORK of Prohibition_in_the_United_States. However, a fair amount of the information in the Enforcement section of Consequences of Prohibition would be good to merge. signed,Rosguill talk 05:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Essentially there's only one half section (half of the last section) that is not already covered, and that could be readily merged to the parent article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The Prohibition_in_the_United_States article is not too big and this article seems to fit in a natural way there.   scope_creep Talk  15:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As per above. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:651B:2954:55BA:4C8 (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A fair amount of it is already in the main Prohibition article anyway, so it's not a lot more to bring in. Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, a selective merge seems the most logical choice.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with this, it would be beneficial to merge the contents of the article so as to not create unnecessary content forks. MizuWiki (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Status of Prohibition in 1916
Possibly of interest: this 1916 ad from an unsuccessful Washington State initiative to modify the terms of that state's Prohibition law (which had gone into effect January 1 of that year) gives good descriptions of the then-current limits on alcohol possession in various U.S. states and certain Canadian provinces at that time. Washington itself, at that time, did not allow manufacture of alcohol but did sell per-order permits to allow purchase from out-of-state for private consumption. The failed initiative tried to revive in-state manufacture and sale of beer, still confining it to private consumption. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What are some facts about prohibition
What are some facts about prohibition 2600:8804:1BCE:1900:991:A50D:50C1:5048 (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend reading the article. DonIago (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)