This document summarizes the 18th and 21st Amendments to the US Constitution regarding alcohol prohibition and regulation. It discusses how the 18th Amendment established national prohibition in 1919 due to moral and social concerns, but was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933 after prohibition failed to curb drinking and organized crime increased. Since then, states have regulated alcohol sales and consumption within their borders, though the federal government has increasingly intervened through legislation and Supreme Court rulings that have eroded state control afforded by the 21st Amendment.

1. 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

2. 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was sought with the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed Alcohol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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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 The Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment,
which is the first and only time an amendment has been repealed by another.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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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
http://library.cqpress.com/scc/lmkusc-0004829932
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
http://library.cqpress.com/scc/lmkusc-0004829894
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. FROM
THEN
TO
NOW
AND
BEYOND
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.