Twenty First Amendment- Repeal of Prohibition

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


In my opinion, the twenty first amendment was bound to happen. People realized shortly after prohibition was enacted that it was not going to work. Prohibition was more of a drain on society than it was a help. By repealing the eighteenth amendment there was huge burden taken off of law enforcement. Tax revenues were now collectible on alcohol sales and people were free to drink as they please. It was not a free for all however. There were and are rules for its consumption, sales, and use. This situation is much more beneficial to the American people than Prohibition.







My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows just how far reaching the alcohol industry was and is in society. I find it amazing how Budweiser adapted to prohibition and continued to remain a company during this extremely hard time. In a time when companies are going bankrupt and CEOs are being indited for scandals it is surprising to see a respectable one who is still around. In addition, the video gave a glimpse at just how many people Budweiser employs. This is another reason why the repeal of prohibition was a great change for society. The industry gave a much needed boost to a nation on the mend.



Tax Revenue Up But Not Alcohol-Related Problems
By: Evan Carden
The South Alabamian
February 23, 2006

The city of Jackson in Alabama recently voted to become “wet.” A lawsuit has been filed in an effort to overturn the results of that election, although early evidence is that only good has resulted from permitting legal sales of alcoholic beverages in the city.

In the first seven months after legalizing alcohol, tax revenues from its sale have been nearly $200,000. Much of that money has gone to benefit programs within the community including a van for the nutrition center and a new building at the high school stadium. It’s anticipated that higher revenues in the summer months will bring the annual revenues to at least $500,000.

In spite of predictions that legal sales would lead to more DUIs and other alcohol-related arrests and problems, the Police Department has found that no evidence in support of those predictions. In fact, arrests for DUI actually dropped , compared to the same period before legalizing alcohol.

This is not surprising. Systematic research has found DUI/DWI to be higher in dry than in wet counties. This may be because people must drive longer distances to obtain alcohol and are on the roads longer. People in Jackson are now presumably buying their beverages locally (increasing tax revenues) and are less likely to drive while impaired.


My Opinion: I chose this article to show that a better way of handling alcohol would have been placing a tax on it. This would generate revenue for service programs while making it a little less attractive for consumers. This would have been a good idea for everyone. I think an interesting fact that the article points out is that wet counties, ones where alcohol is allowed, have a lower rate of DUIs than those that ban alcohol all together. This fact in itself seems like motivation for dry counties to reconsider their ordinances. When managed correctly by the government and the people, alcohol can coexist in society.