From Then to Now and Beyond

Running head: FROM THEN TO NOW AND BEYOND 1

From Then to Now and Beyond:

The Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments Influence on Public Administration

Michael Pinckney

FROM THEN TO NOW AND BEYOND

2

Abstract

The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1919) prohibited the importation, transportation,

sale, use, and consumption of alcohol. As a result of anti-saloon leagues, the temperance

movement, and many women who associated alcohol with the moral decay of America, this

solution to America’s social problems had immediate and undesired results. Jails were filled and

courts were swamped with violators, that enforcement was burdensome. Control and Regulation

was sought with the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed Alcohol

Prohibition. Initially, states regulated and controlled alcohol, however, legislation by Congress

and decisions by courts have limited the reach of the provision. Additionally, states manipulated

criminal laws, congress withheld funds, and courts have interceded by interstate commerce

decisions. Administrative practice has been influenced because of health and safety risks

associated with alcohol. The implications of the provision in recent developments are causes of

concern, as gay marriage and obesity are moral concerns, in which the administration may

involve itself.


3

The Provisions of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments

On December 18, 1917, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment and on January 16,

1919 it was ratified. The Twenty-First Amendment was passed on February 20, 1933 and ratified

on December 5, 1933. The Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment,

which is the first and only time an amendment has been repealed by another.

The 18th Amendment was added to the constitution through the process of ratification, in

which three quarters of all states at the time agreed and signed, which was the required process

of adding amendments to an already formed constitution. The 21st Amendment, which followed

and repealed the 18th Amendment, was also ratified through state conventions, which required

three-fourths consenting. It mandated, for the first time, that conventions of the states were to

vote on the amendment, rather than the legislatures, feeling that conventions would be more apt

to vote to ratify.

The Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments of the Constitution, respectively:

I. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or

transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the

exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction

thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. II. The Congress and the several

States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. III.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the

Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution,

within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

(The Constitution of the United States, Amendment XVIII.,1919, repealed 1933).


4

I. The eighteenth article of the amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States

is hereby repealed. II. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory,

or possession of the United States for the delivery or use therein of intoxicating

liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. III. The article shall

be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the

Constitution by the conventions in the several States, as provided in the

Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the

States by Congress. (The Constitution of the United States, Amendment XXI.,

1933).

The 18th Amendment generally is known as the banning of a widely used substance. This

particular provision addresses alcohol, which was banned in addition to the production and

consumption of alcoholic beverages throughout the United States. Each section of the provision

is clear to address all issues related to use, consumption, trafficking to include importation and

deportation within any territory in the U.S. jurisdiction. The 18th Amendment was also known as

the Volstead Act, whose name was derived from one of the key advocates and proponents of

National Prohibition Andrew Volstead. The 18th Amendment provided for concurrent powers

between the states and the federal government to administer and regulate prohibition.

The 21st Amendment requires that the 18th Amendment of the Constitution be repealed.

National Prohibition had come to its end. The amendment has come be known as “Repeal” and

can be referred to as the end of national prohibition. The repeal further addressed each section of

the 18th Amendment and repealed them, which included use, consumption, and transportation.

Originating Circumstances


5

The 18th and 21st amendments of the Constitution reflected many worries and turbulent

times in American history. The principles that underlie this provision was the need for control of

what many pointed out to be the cause of crime, similarly like that today in the case of drugs.

The belief was that alcohol led to social problems, abuse in the home from the males, domestic

violence, and public safety. Alcohol was seen as the evil of the time, and if prohibited, would

allow us to progress towards a more perfect nation with morals and ideals.

One group that played a major role in advancing national prohibition were member of the

Temperance movement, as well as many women who viewed prohibition as a means of

sanctifying the family and its values. The participants in the Temperance Movement, which

formed prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment helped frame the provision, which later

became ratified and further regulated by the Volstead Act. This act called for minimizing alcohol

content and labeling in medical supplies.

This movement was the key driving force behind the passing and signing of the 18th

Amendment. The advocates for prohibition believed the consumption of alcohol and its effects

led to many of the issues that were affecting the country during this time period. These issues

included crime, the abuse of women, and the destruction of the American family and its core

values. For these reasons prohibition was seen as the only hope and solution.

The demand for the repeal of prohibition, which came as a result of the 21st Amendment,

was rooted in the need for control, democracy, and equal rights. Following the ratification of the

18th Amendment, alcohol As a result of prohibition, alcohol consumption did not decrease and

many organizations began selling “bootleg” liquor, and many factions of organized crime

increased.


6

As a principle related to equal rights, prohibition produced many challenges in an attempt

to regulate and legally compel people to follow the law. Searches and seizures were many times

conducted and performed illegally and violated the rights the rights of citizens. Repeal was

certainly an option in hopes to address this constitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment,

which pertains to searches and seizures.

Another principle of concern was in regards to democracy because the courts and the jails

were overcome with offenders. The large number of offenders overwhelmed the system, and

with little control, other matters of national concern could not be addressed.

To restore order, generate civility and restore respect for government, Congress worked

to come up with a solution. The Twenty-First Amendment would solve the problem by

entrusting each state to enact and enforce its own set of alcohol laws, recognizing that each state

can best reflect the needs and desires of its citizens. With war looming, alcohol consumption was

no longer on the priority list and therefore repeal was an appropriate measure

Meaning for Administrative Practice and the Making of Public Policy

Since the ratification of 21st Amendment, which repealed National Prohibition of

Alcohol, the federal government has left the regulation of alcohol to individual states to

administer, as was the case prior to prohibition. The citizens of each state and jurisdiction would

be held legally accountable if they were to violate the rules of that particular state. In short, the

federal government ended prohibition at the national level but states could determine their own

stance on an individual basis. The states had concurrent power by the introduction and signing of

the Twenty-First Amendment.

To achieve this purpose states began to implement license requirements, the locations

where drinking would be allowed, and the age restrictions of those who could consume and


7

purchase alcoholic beverages and liquor. The states preferred working with a few select

companies, as opposed to many companies, which would allow for easier regulation.

Consequently, the monopolizing of breweries and hard liquors began.

With concurrent power the states have the control over use and consumption, as well as

regulation, and enforcement, whereas the federal government had power as it related to interstate

commerce, which governs commerce transactions between states. State liquor agencies exercised

a broad range of powers over the conditions under which alcohol was advertised, sold, and

consumed. In the beginning, state officials used their powers to favor off-premises over on-

premises consumption.

As Prohibition faded further into the background, however, this policy was gradually

relaxed, and currently as we have, the legislative and judicial branches have seized control.

Actions by both administrative agencies at the federal and state levels of governments as well as

interpretations by the courts have limited the reach of these constitutional provisions. At the end

of the twentieth century, legal regulation of alcohol use focused upon two issues: the drinking

age and drinking and driving.

The Legislative Branch

Congress through legislation has sought to control alcohol regulation. Many laws have

been implemented which include: Implied consent laws, illegal and administrative per se laws,

minimum legal drinking ages for alcoholic beverages, preliminary-breath-test laws, open-

container laws, no-plea-bargaining laws, laws specifying mandatory minimum penalties for a

DUI conviction, and dram-shop statutes or case laws. These are critical initiatives that Congress

has put into effect in order to control and regulate the control and consumption of alcohol.


8

Congress through legislation has also decreased state power in terms of control and

regulation of alcohol, and have sought to exhibit control over the states by withholding funds

from states that do otherwise from what congress feels is right, in addition to providing

incentives and rewards to those who pursue Congress’ agenda.

Since the mid 1970’s the federal and various state and local governments have

campaigned to reduce motor-vehicle fatalities by discouraging alcohol abuse. The Alcohol

Traffic Safety Programs (1983) was one part of the campaign (Public Law No. 97-364, 1983).

According to Chaloupka, Saffer & Grossman (1993), these programs provided financial

incentives for states to enact and enforce new, more stringent drunk-driving laws. These

measures include certain and more severe penalties for a drunk-driving conviction, an easing of

the standards required for conviction, and the increased allocation of resources for the

apprehension of drunken drivers (p. 161). In essence, state governments manipulated criminal

laws in an effort to appease the government and receive monetary rewards.

The Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act (1984) was a second part of this campaign

(Public Law No. 98-363, 1984). This act pressured all states into raising the minimum legal

drinking age for all alcoholic beverages to twenty-one. The federal government penalized states

that were slow to respond by withholding part of their highway funds. (Chaloupka, et al., 1993,

p. 162). This issue was brought to the Supreme Court in the landmark case of South Dakota v.

Dole (1987). The decision in this case exhibits both the legislative and judicial control and

regulation over the states which all hinders on the Twenty-First Amendment regarding alcohol.

The United States Congress in an effort to control and regulate state concerned matters,

passed this legislation of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (1984), which was basically a

bribe to comply with their mandate or lose funding. It did so by withholding 5% of federal


9

highway funding from states that did not comply. In 1988, that amount changed to 10%.

Although some felt this was a victory for more reform and control, as Liebschutz (1984)

believes, “the act also constituted an invasion of states' rights. The act stipulates a minimum legal

age of 21 for the purchase or public possession of any alcoholic beverage, and incorporates

sanctions against states whose laws are not in compliance”. By using such tactics this presents

future implications for how Congress will pursue their agenda at the expense of state autonomy

and by the use monetary control.

Furthermore, congress has helped to implement implied consent laws, illegal and

administrative per se laws, minimum legal drinking ages for alcoholic beverages, preliminary-

breath-test laws, open-container laws, no-plea-bargaining laws, laws specifying mandatory

minimum penalties for a DUI conviction, and dram-shop statutes or case laws (Chaloupka,

Saffer & Grossman, 1993, p. 166).

The Judicial Branch & Court Interpretations

Congress along with the Supreme Court have maintained an essential role in the control and

regulation of alcohol despite the fact that when congress adopted the Twenty-First Amendment.

As Massey (2005) states:

Congress adopted the Twenty-first Amendment it was in order to give states the right to

regulate alcohol in whatever manner those states deemed fit. The first cases regarding the

rights of the several States to regulate alcohol recognized the near total control that the

Amendment provided. However, during the past six decades, the Supreme Court has

slowly whittled away at the Amendment by validating several challenges on the grounds

that the challenged laws violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution

(Massey, 2005, Abstract).


10

The Commerce Clause gives congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign

Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (U.S. Cons., art. 1, sect. 8, cl.

3). This has become a tool for Congress and the Courts to regulate the affairs of states, and as

stated by Massey (2005) “A constitutional provision limiting the power of the federal

government is slowly eroding away with the aid and compliance of the Supreme Court” (ibid).

In reviewing previous cases, it is evident that the courts decisions over time that has

passed since the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment have diminished the reach of the

provision. In earlier cases, the court ruled alongside the states, which clearly establishes their

rights to control and regulate alcohol within their jurisdictions. However, in more recent cases

this has begun to change.

In Craig v. Boren (1976), the Supreme Court found that analysis under the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, had not been affected by the passage of the

Twenty-first Amendment (Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S., 1976). In the landmark case of South

Dakota v. Dole (1987), South Dakota filed a suit challenging the withholding of highway funds,

which was a direct result of the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984 (South Dakota v.

Dole 483 U.S. 203, 1987).

In this landmark case, Finkelman & Urofsky summarize the courts ruling:

In upholding the law, the Supreme Court ignored the debate over the Twenty-First

Amendment, finding that Congress had not in fact regulated the sale of liquor. Chief

Justice Rehnquist found that Congress had acted indirectly, under its spending power, to

encourage consistency in the states' drinking ages. The Court found that this goal—and

the legislature's means of achieving it—was within its broad constitutional powers, even

though Congress could not regulate drinking ages directly.


11

In upholding the statute, the Court noted that Congress had found that the

difference in the drinking ages in the different states led to young people crossing

state lines to drink and then to return to their home state while driving under the

influence of alcohol. This interstate problem required a national solution, and,

Rehnquist wrote, “The means it chose to address this dangerous situation were

reasonably calculated to advance the general welfare.”

The Court found no violation of South Dakota's power. The offer of

benefits from Congress to the state is dependent on the cooperation by the

state with federal plans, which work together for the general welfare of the

citizens. Congress had instructed the states to establish a minimum

drinking age of no lower than twenty-one years of age or lose 5 percent of

its highway funds. The Court therefore found no merit in the claim that

Congress was forcing the states to adopt the new drinking age (2003).

The argument from here that followed was that the regulation of the age of the purchasers

of liquor, just as the regulation of the price at which liquor may be sold, falls squarely within the

scope of those powers reserved to the States by the Twenty-first Amendment as noted among the

dissenters. In the cases that followed the provision was furthered limited. In 1996 Rhode Island

imposed a law that prohibited advertisements that disclosed the retail prices of alcoholic

beverages sold to the public. In 44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island, (1996) the court declared the

law unconstitutional, and reiterated that "although the Twenty-first Amendment limits the effect

of the Commerce Clause on a State's regulatory power over the delivery or use of intoxicating

beverages within its borders, the Amendment does not license the States to ignore their

obligations under other provisions of the Constitution" (44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517


12

U.S. 484, 1996).

The most recent case which further strips states of their right in regards to regulation and

control of alcohol was Granholm v. Heald (2005) where the court ruled that state of Michigan’s

laws regarding the sale of wines was discriminatory and violated the interstate commerce clause,

and that the Twenty-First Amendment does not protect their rights to regulate and control

alcohol sales within their jurisdictions (Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 2005).

These court rulings have decreased state power in terms of regulation through the

commerce clause. What was once left to the states to regulate is now starting to have

implications of federal control over state matters. The Supreme Court has limited the power of

the provision along with Congress. In addition to the limits placed on the provision by Congress

and the courts, many policies have been implemented and many safety policies continue to be the

subject of much debate.

Administrative Policy Making

After prohibition and signing of the repeal amendment a new movement was begun

which sparked a new behavioral look at alcohol as a disease. Alcoholics Anonymous began, in

which people claimed that they could not stop drinking by individual will and therefore were in a

diseased state, thus “alcoholism” is coined. The disease concept of alcoholism was furthered

which the federal government to involve itself for the first time in alcohol research. The Federal

Government in 1970 created the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Many

states had already begun to research the topic and began developing preventive programs for the

so-called “disease”. Many workplace policies begin to be implemented geared towards

“employee assistance” because of the behavioral context and disease labeled identification

placed on alcohol.


13

As a result of many of these policies, safety concerns have arisen over the effects of

alcohol on job performance. Workplace policy employee assistance programs for abusers of

alcohol and or other substances focuses on high-level exposure where risk is greatest. But

because low-level and residual alcohol exposure in the workplace is more prevalent than

intoxication, the attributable risk of low-level exposure for error may be substantial and

unrecognized (Howland, Almeida, Rohsenow, Minsky & Greece, 2006, p. 391). This can present

a major problem for those working in jobs where other people’s lives are within their control as

in jobs of public safety. Many people seek assurance, and “Diverse communities across the U.S.

concerned about the burden on society of alcohol-related damage are organizing to change local,

state/provincial, or national policies in ways to reduce the population-wide risk for alcohol

problems” (Toomey & Wagenaar, 1999, p. 193).

According to the Code of Federal Regulations (as cited by Howland, et al. on March

2006), The U.S Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates workplace use for operators of

some categories of commercial vehicles, including trucks, aircraft, ships, and railroad trains. The

DOT also regulates on-the-job alcohol consumption for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) air traffic controllers. Similarly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates workplace

drinking among operators of nuclear power plants. (Howland, et al. 2006, p. 390). Because these

jobs involve public safety, federal safety regulations are being questioned. In 1987, the

Transportation Research Board (National Research Council) recommended that the DOT specify

zero as the per se level for blood alcohol concentration for all commercial vehicle operators.

(Howland, et al. 2006, p. 399)

Public policies may be mandated by national, state, provincial, or local governments to

regulate, where, when, and how alcohol is sold and consumed. (Toomey & Wagenaar,1999).


14

Once again, what is clearly evident is that alcohol is to be controlled and regulated because it is

the job of legislature and the courts to govern people’s behavior and curb what they consider

moral wrongs.

The Eighteenth Amendment & Drug Prohibition

Although Prohibition has ended, the values and principles reflected in the 18th are quite

the same for current prohibition of illicit drugs, which the United States considers harmful and

have constructed strict punitive measures to achieve its goal. The problems that existed with

Alcohol Prohibition are some of the same issues encountered by drug prohibition.

Those who advocate for drug prohibition are similar to those who wanted alcohol

prohibition, who Gusfield (1968) characterized as those who believed that eliminating the legal

manufacture and sale of alcoholic drink would solve the major social and economic problems of

American society (Gusfield, 1968). The same is true. As a result the U.S. now has nearly half a

million men and women in prison for violating its drug laws. Most are poor people of color and

are imprisoned for possessing an illicit drug or “intending” to sell small amounts of it. The

mandatory federal penalty for possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine, for a first offense, is 5 years

in prison with no parole. (McWilliams, 1992)

In the twentieth century, a dozen major scientific commissions in Britain, Canada, and

the United States have recommended alternatives to punitive drug policies (Levine &

Reinarman, 1991, p. 490). Despite these recommendations, which others countries have

implemented, the United States is the only nation where these recommendations have been so

consistently ignored (Trebach & Zeese, 1990).

Drug prohibition captures what happened during prohibition. The major effect of the

Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead act of drinking was to dramatically reduce beer


15

drinking (and therefore total alcohol consumption). At the same time, however, prohibition

increased consumption of hard liquor (Levine & Reinarman, 1991, p. 467). Similarly an

unintended result has occurred in the case of drug prohibition and as Levine and Reinarman

(1991) state “It is frequently been observed that drug prohibition tends to drive out weaker and

milder forms of drugs, and to increase the availability and use of stronger and more dangerous

drugs (p. 466).

Implications of Recent Developments

Although Prohibition has ended, the values and principles reflected in the 18th and 21st

Amendments may have implications for other attempts to regulate “moral” behavior through the

Constitution, such as a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage, or the continuing debate about

the legal drinking age. If Congress can supersede state rights by withholding spending, this

leaves room for speculation as to what will be next. There are clear examples, which demonstrate

this control of moral behavior.

As Conlin, Dickert & Pepper (2005) state:

Government policies in the United States have long sought to regulate the consumption

of goods or services that are perceived to either be or lead to behavior that is “sinful.”

Today, the government regulates the consumption of addictive drugs, gambling, and

other commodities that are seen as vaguely immoral. These policies attempt to reduce or

eliminate the consumption of goods or services that may have deleterious effects on

consumers as well as external effects on society. The effect of these regulations on

consumption of the targeted good or service is relatively straightforward to predict. By

effectively increasing the price, government regulations reduce consumption. Other

unintended effects, however, are less certain. Raising the price of alcohol, for example,


16

may not only reduce alcohol consumption but may also affect the market for related

goods. The net effects on sinful consumption and on the resulting behaviors of interest

are ambiguous (p. 215).

A future implication for the provision in determining moral behavior and placing

restrictions are in deed a reality. As was the case with withholding funds, the legislature now has

power over the states to comply with their moral based decisions. Obesity and gay marriage are

central issues at stake as well. Unlike more stigmatized “vices” or “pleasures” – prostitution,

gambling, and the use of marijuana, heroin, or cocaine – drinking has not been pushed by

criminalization beyond the pale of normative and regulatory influence (Levine & Reinarman, p.

481).

When moral decisions and policies by the legislature, as well as circumventing the

Twenty-First Amendment rights to the states, congress and the courts, have infringed upon states

rights, and all have infringed upon the individual rights of citizens in determining what is moral

for each and every person.

From then to Now and Beyond

In the early 1900’s a movement began to rid the country of what was seen as the cause of

societies problems and linked to crime, domestic violence, and deterioration of the American

family. This movement was towards alcohol prohibition. Many women, and religious factors

advocated for this prohibition. In essence, this was based on moral ideas, which continues to be a

topic of debate in policy making, legislation, and court decisions. The Eighteenth Amendment

(1919) banned the importation, transportation, use, and consumption of alcohol within the United

States.


17

Prohibition produced many unintended and undesired results. There were mass violations

of the laws, courts and police stations filled with cases that overwhelmed the system. With more

important issues of concern, and with many citizens feeling the government was trying to control

human behavior based on moral values, many sought other measures. Alcohol control and

regulation was an option. In 1933, the states ratified the Twenty-First Amendment (1933), which

repealed prohibition.

The states were now in charge of regulation and imposed policies and license

requirements which was the right given to them by the constitution. Although, the states had

rights to regulate use and consumption, as well as create policies for control, the federal

government also had control by the Interstate Commerce Clause, which they would later use to

diminish the power of the constitutional provision.

Congress also had power in control and regulation over alcohol as well. Congress would

implement laws and policies, which states had to abide by in order to receive funding. Congress

would offer incentives to those who strengthened drunk driving laws and laws regarding

consumption and use. Congress would further create a National Minimum Drinking Age Act

(1984), which made the legal age to consume an alcoholic beverage 21 years old.

Prohibition proved to be a major influence on current drug laws and drug prohibition. As

was the case with alcohol, drugs are seen as the destruction of American ideals, and a cause of

crime and many other social problems that exist. In an attempt to govern and control peoples

behavior the laws remain in effect that distribute long sentences to violators of America’s drug

laws.

Many safety and health policies have come as a result of prohibition and repeal. Alcohol

has moved into the behavioral realm and studied now as a disease. This has helped to create


18

many policies in the workplace to assist employees who may be at risk. In turn this has also

caused some federal and state agencies to begin to review their work safety guidelines in relation

to the use of alcohol prior to work.

Prohibition and Repeal Amendments have many implications for recent developments in

public administration. Moral behavior may be dictated by legislation, such as gay marriage, and

obesity, all of which may have negative impacts on society.

One future benefit for public administration in reference to both prohibition and repeal is

the valuable insight into our current drug laws and policies which resemble the 18th Amendment

and National Prohibition, and which has produced the same challenges, overwhelming the

system, although with better quality control than at the time of prohibition. The courts are packed

with drug offenders, citizens Fourth Amendments rights are being violated, while the

government is spending an exorbitant amount of money in attempts to regulate and control

federal drug laws and policies. I

In retrospect, observing our own history and the passage of the 18th Amendment,

National Prohibition and the 21st Amendment which repealed prohibition, we must learn from

past mistakes and solve the issue of drugs without dismissing the issue by simple banning but

rather by design and skillful implementation of a process by which regulation of drugs usage can

be used and the most dangerous drugs kept banned. Most Americans will look back on drug

prohibition and judge it to have been (like alcohol prohibition) repressive, unjust, expensive and

ineffective—a failure (Levine & Reinarman, 1991, p. 490). We can stop overwhelming courts,

cease from performing these illegal searches and seizures, whereby we truly promote democracy,

rather than stifling democracy. This is only part of the future for public administration.


19

Another major future concern should be considering the disease model of addiction. This

has major implications for both the federal and state governments. In labeling and confirming the

disease model, there seems to be an apparent contradiction; punish offenders and make laws that

prohibit certain criminal behaviors, and yet say that it can be linked to a disease model which

should therefore nullify any criminal culpability. Furthermore, public organizations as well as

private organizations provide employees assistance and other agencies have received government

contracts to perform these services.


20

Executive Summary

The following major points can be ascertained from this report:

• One major consideration, which should be of importance, is whether federal regulations

are effective to prevent safety hazards to the public. The health and safety of the public is

at risk, with regards to safety sensitive jobs. Public employees who work in areas where

the public safety is at risk, such as bus drivers, pilots, transit workers, air traffic

controllers, and others who work in safety sensitive jobs are not held to more stringent

standards of Alcohol usage before work. Because of the effects of alcohol and the

potential effects of residual alcohol on next day performance, these workers should not be

allowed to drink for a longer period of time prior to work. The fact the substance abuse

programs are concerned with high risk people; the concern for the lower risk personnel is

not counted and therefore may represent a substantial risk to public safety.

• One major conclusion made after studying the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments

is that Americas current drug laws and prohibition policies can be resolved and money

can be saved instead of wasting billions of dollars over time trying to combat a problem

which can be regulated and controlled by state and federal governments. Over half a

million arrests had been made under alcohol prohibition which is about equivalent to the

number of incarcerated men and women in jails now because of America’s drug laws.

Since the mid 1980’s growing numbers of Americans have come to recognize the

harshness, expense, and ineffectiveness of U.S. drug prohibition, and they have

advocated alternative approaches including harm reduction, drug decriminalization and

even outright drug legalization. They have also looked for lessons in America’s own

experiences with alcohol prohibition, and with how the U.S. turned from nation-wide


21

alcohol prohibition to various forms of local alcohol regulation. (Levine & Reinarman,

1991, p. 464)

• One major problem revealed is that the states are losing their individual rights as they are

being trampled by legislations and judicial decisions. Moral decisions can have a

detrimental effect on society although well intentioned. Congress has basically used

bribing tactics, although not identified as such to control and regulate alcohol within the

states. An example of this is clearly evident with the introduction of the National

Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to implement a minimum drinking

age of 21 in order to secure funds from congress. Congress has used their spending

powers to wield power in alcohol regulation and control which is a right guaranteed to

the states. Moreover, the Supreme Court has also undermined the states by using the

commerce clause to regulate and control alcohol within the jurisdictions of the states.

Slowly but surely, the Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution is being trampled.

• One major recommendation is that we revisit the addiction and disease model for alcohol.

This present view allows people to be less responsible as labeling of alcohol as a disease

can be a means some people will resort to. This has major implications on policies in the

workplace, as well as insurance carriers, not to exclude the large sums of moneys

invested in treatment programs. If people are willing to use alcohol, they should be

informed of its affects, and in very rare instances should we provide all the care at

taxpayers expense.


22

References

Alcohol Traffic Safety Programs of 1983, Public Law No. 97-364, 23 U.S.C., Section 408

(1983).

Blocker, J.S., (2006). Did Prohibition Really Work: Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health

Innovation. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 233-243.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.065409

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)

Chaloupka, F.J., Saffer, H., & Grossman, M. (1993). Alcohol-Control Policies and Motor-

Vehicle Fatalities. The Journal of Legal Studies, 22(1), 161-186. stable url:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3085637

Code of Federal Regulations. [Online]. US Government Printing Office. (updated March 1,

2012; cited March 14, 2012). Retrieved from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.

Cornell University Law School (nd). Alcohol, Tobacco, and Controlled Substances: An

Overview. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alcohol

Conlin, M., Dickert, S.C., & Pepper, J. (2005). The Effect of Alcohol Prohibition on

Illicit‐Drug‐Related Crimes. Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 215-234. stable url:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/428017

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment XVIII (1919 Repealed 1933).

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment XXI (1933).

Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, Public Law No. 98-363, 23 U.S.C., Section 158

(1984).


23

Finkelman, P. & Urofsky, M. (2003). South Dakota v. Dole, in Landmark Decisions of the

United States Supreme Court 496 (2003). Retrieved from

http://library.cqpress.com/scc/lndmrk03-113-6442-349548

Foust, J. (2000). State Power to Regulate Alcohol Under the Twenty-First Amendment: The

Constitutional Implications of the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. Boston

College Law Review, 41(3). Retrieved from

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol41/iss3/5

Granholm v. Heald 544 U.S. 460 (2005)

Gusfield, J.R., (1968). “Prohibition: The Impact of Political Utopianism.” In Change and

Continuity in the Twentieth Century America, eds. Braeman et al. Columbus: Ohio State

University Press.

Howland, J., Almeida, A., Rohsenow, D., Minsky, S., & Greece, J. (2006). How Safe Are

Federal Regulations on Occupational Alcohol Use? Journal of Public Health Policy,

27(4), 389-404. stable url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4125181

Jost, K. (2005). Granholm, Governor of Michigan v. Heald. Retrieved from

http://library.cqpress.com/scc/

Levine, H.G., & Reinarman, C. (1991). From Prohibition to Regulation: Lessons from Alcohol

Policy for Drug Policy: Confronting Drug Policy: Part 1. The Milbank Quarterly, 69(3),

461-494. stable url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3350105

Massey, D.D., (2005). Dueling Provisions: The 21st Amendment's Subjugation to The Dormant

Commerce Clause Doctrine. Tennessee Journal of Business Law, 7(1). Retrieved from

http://trace.tennessee.edu/transactions/vol7/iss1/3


24

McWilliams, J.C., (1992). Through the past darkly: the politics of America’s drug war. In:

Walker III, W.O., (ed), 1992. Drug Control Policy: Essays in Historical and

Comparative Perspective, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp. 5-41.

Mennell, S.J., (1969). Prohibition: A Sociological View. Journal of American Studies, 3(2), 159-

175. stable url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552891

Smock, R. (1998). The National Prohibition Act (The Volstead Act). Landmark documents on

the U.S. congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved from

http://library.cqpress.com/scc/lmkusc-0004829892

Smock, R. (1998). The Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution: Context and text.

Landmark documents on the U.S. congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved from


Smock, R. (1998). The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution: Context and text. Landmark

documents on the U.S. congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved from


South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Toomey, T., & Wagenaar, A.C. (1999). Policy Options for Prevention: The Case of Alcohol.

Journal of Public Health Policy, 20(2), 192-213. stable url:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3343211

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Zero Tolerance and Other Options,

Special Report 216.40; 1987.

Trebach, A.S., & Zeese, K.B. eds (1990). Drug Prohibition and the Conscience of Nations.

Washington: Drug Policy Foundation.


25

Witt, E. (1987). More Than Two Dozen Decisions Announced: High Court Completes 1986-

1987 Term, Upholds Drinking-Age Law, 1987 CQ Weekly. Retrieved from

http://library.cqpress.com/scc/WR100401253.

From Then to Now and Beyond

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of From Then to Now and Beyond