However many historians have argued that the only winners from prohibition were organised crime gangs run by the likes of Al Capone. Thorton has suggested that “Not only did the number of serious crimes increase, but crime became organized.” and this is supported by evidence of increased levels of crime in this period, both violent and non-violent, and by the fact that in the words of Theodore Ferdinand there was a “mysterious” decline in the crime rate after 1933, the year national prohibition was repealed. This was also noted by the sociologist John Pandiani who has stated that "a major wave of crime appears to have begun as early as the mid 1920s and increased continually until 1933 when it mysteriously reversed itself.". Although as Moore points out “Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule”, the period of prohibition coincided with an increase in the federal prison population by 366% and up to 75% of these prisoners had committed crimes linked to the policy of prohibition. This suggests that prohibition failed to reach the aim of reducing the cost of prisons and law enforcement which had been set by the likes of the Anti Saloon League who had suggested that Another problem was that prohibition provided …show more content…
In addition many had expected prohibition to allow low-alcohol drinks and only ban drinks high in alcohol content but the Volstead act only allowed up to 0.5% alcohol in non-medicinal drinks. Although Rose suggests that “designating a single factor to something as complex and ephemeral as a shift in 'taste' is a dubious exercise” Thornton suggests that “production, and therefore consumption, was of distilled spirits and fortified wines. Beer became relatively more expensive because of its bulk”. This is supported by evidence that during prohibition people would drink products such as moonshine and thus a large number of people were willing to sacrifice taste in favour of price and availability. This is also supported by Blocker who suggests that “distilled spirits made a dramatic comeback in American drinking patterns [during the period of prohibition]”. While Prohibition did indeed reduce the total amount of alcohol consumed to about 70% of pre-prohibition level this may have been due to making the product less affordable and more employers, such as Henry Ford, banning employees from drinking than due to effective restriction on the supply of alcohol. While prohibition may have succeeded in terms of reducing the amount of alcohol