Opponents of prohibition liked to claim that the Great Experience had created a gangster element that had unleashed a “crime wave” about an unhappy America. Mrs. Coffin Van Rensselaer of WONPR, for example, insisted in 1932 that “the alarming crime wave that had reached unprecedented heights” was a legacy of prohibition. But prohibition can hardly be blamed for inventing the crime, and while the illegal liquor supply proved lucrative, it was only an additional source of income for more traditional criminal activities such as gambling, loan sharking, extortion, and prostitution. The idea of the crime wave caused by prohibition, despite its popularity in the 1920s, cannot be accurately proven because the records of local police authorities are inadequate. Average alcohol consumption in the 1830s and 1840s was three times higher than it is today. Wine was not an important element in the diet at the time, so there was more pure alcohol, much more. Men and women didn`t drink together in public, except the rich, so the tavern was a retreat for men and a place for an unhappy man to really bond one. Women made prohibition possible, but it was also women who brought about the end.
Pauline Morton Sabin, a wealthy New York celebrity and women`s rights activist, founded an organization called the Women`s Organization for National Prohibition Reform. [Initially] she had supported prohibition, but she had two sons and they had no respect for prohibition laws like very few of her friends. How will their sons grow up respecting the rule of law when they see that prohibition is in the Constitution, the basic document of the U.S. government, and that it is openly violated on a daily basis? Prohibition represented a conflict between urban and rural values that emerged in the United States. Given the massive influx of migrants into America`s urban centers, many within the prohibition movement have associated the crime and morally corrupt behavior of American cities with their large immigrant populations. The salons frequented by immigrants in these cities were often frequented by politicians who wanted to get votes from immigrants in exchange for favors such as job offers, legal aid, and food baskets. In response, smugglers hired chemists who managed to restore the alcohol to make it drinkable. In response, the Treasury Department urged manufacturers to add more deadly poisons, including particularly deadly methyl alcohol, which consists of 4 parts methanol, 2.25 parts pyridine base, and 0.5 parts benzene for every 100 parts ethyl alcohol.  New York coroners strongly opposed this policy because of the danger to human life. Up to 10,000 people died from the consumption of denatured alcohol before prohibition ended.  New York Coroner Charles Norris believed that the government had claimed responsibility for the murder, even though he knew that the poison did not deter consumption, and nevertheless continued to poison industrial alcohol (which would be used to drink alcohol). Norris noted: “The government knows it will not stop drinking by putting poison in alcohol.
It continues its poisoning processes, regardless of whether people who are determined to drink ingest this poison daily. Knowing that this is true, the U.S. government must be given moral responsibility for deaths caused by poisoned alcohol, although it cannot be held legally responsible.  Most economists of the early 20th century favored the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment.  Simon Patten, a leading proponent of prohibition, predicted that prohibition would eventually take place in the United States for reasons of competition and evolution. Irving Fisher, a professor of economics at Yale, who was dry, wrote extensively on prohibition, including an article that presented economic arguments in favor of prohibition.  Fisher is credited with providing the criteria by which future prohibition, such as marijuana, could be measured in terms of crime, health and productivity. For example, “Blue Monday” referred to the hangover experienced by workers after a weekend of excessive drinking, making Monday a wasted productive day.  But new research discredited Fisher`s research, which was based on uncontrolled experiments; In any case, his figure of $6 billion for annual gains from prohibition for the United States continues to be cited.
 The ratification of the 21st Amendment marked the end of federal laws prohibiting the production, transportation and sale of intoxicating spirits. But on the 21st. The amendment returned control of liquor laws to states, which could legally ban the sale of alcohol in an entire state or let cities and counties decide to stay “wet” or “dry.” Today, federal law makes it legal to consume homemade beer and wine for personal and family use only. But you can`t distill spirits — hard spirits like whiskey or moonlight — at home. The stills are still illegal, a potential crime. If you want to distill a strong liquor, brew beer, or make wine to sell it commercially, you`ll need a federal permit from the U.S. Treasury Department`s Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and pay federal taxes on what you produce. Another deadly substance that was often replaced by alcohol was sterno, a fuel commonly known as “canned heat.” Forcing the substance through a makeshift filter, such as a handkerchief, produced a substitute for raw alcohol; However, the result was toxic, although not often fatal.  Prohibition has been successful in reducing alcohol consumption, mortality rates from cirrhosis, admissions to state psychiatric hospitals for alcoholic psychosis, arrests for public drunkenness, and absenteeism.    While many claim that prohibition stimulated the spread of rampant, organized and widespread clandestine criminal activity, Kenneth D.