A Tale of Two Prohibitions

When assessing the history of marijuana prohibition and its re-legalization in America, we see similarities to the social and legal history of another widely known substance: alcohol. 

Alcohol followed a nearly identical path before its contemporary status. Cultural acceptance, moral panic, federal prohibition, illicit markets, enforcement inequity, and a slow return to legality – first at the state level, then federally. 

Cannabis is replaying alcohol’s story today. But the question remains: will the U.S. government  learn from history and eventually repeal federal cannabis prohibition?

Alcohol’s Rise and Fall – and Rise Again

Alcohol played a large role during the early years of the United States. By 1830, the average American peaked in alcohol consumption at 7.1 gallons annually. Today, that number sits at 2.5, on average. What happened along the way?

Excessive drinking led to the creation of an American temperance movement. Many believed the substance caused social shortfalls and wrongdoings, arguing it was the driver behind poverty and domestic violence. This framework gained support from various groups, including women’s and union advocacy organizations; they wanted the government to act. And they got what they wanted: state and local governments began instituting prohibitive laws. For example, Maine and several other states banned the sale and production of alcohol in the 1850s.

In 1919, the federal government followed suit with the ratification of the 18th amendment to the U.S. constitution, establishing a nationwide ban on alcohol. The Volstead Act provided legal definitions and enforcement mechanisms needed to carry out the ban.

Notably, the Amendment did not outlaw personal alcohol consumption, but rather prohibited only its manufacture, sale, and transportation. Wealthy Americans stocked up as restaurants and bars rushed to sell remaining supplies. Workers lost jobs as distilleries and breweries shut down. At the same time, organized crime rushed to meet demand. Illegal speakeasies popped up everywhere, ranging from dingy basement bars to elaborate dance halls. One could still obtain the drink legally, with a doctor’s prescription.

While drinking initially declined, it rebounded to about 70 percent of pre-Prohibition levels in just a few years. By the late 1920s, it was clear that prohibition had not improved society as intended. Rather, it contributed to political corruption and organized crime in an unregulated market. Prominent figures, including a mayor and a sheriff, faced arrest for drinking.

As the Great Depression took hold in 1929, it was clear that tax revenue was needed. The belief that lifting prohibition would stimulate the economy spread rapidly. Suddenly, societal worries were no longer at the forefront. In 1933, the 21st amendment passed, completely repealing the 18th amendment – the only time a constitutional amendment had been fully repealed. States were granted the authority to decide how to regulate alcohol within their borders. A few continued to uphold statewide bans. But by 1966, no dry states remained.

Cannabis: A Similar Arc

American history goes hand in hand not only with alcohol, but also with the hemp plant. Founding Fathers, including George Washington, grew hemp as an industrial cash crop for rope, clothing, and paper. With low THC content, it was not for smoking. By the 20th century, however, cannabis gained momentum as a recreational drug in America, particularly popular among jazz musicians and Mexican immigrant workers. 

As with alcohol, certain interest groups believed marijuana to be a driver of societal problems. In contrast to alcohol, anti-cannabis regimes became instantly racialized. Its association with Black and Mexican communities was used to scare mainstream America. By the mid-1930s, states looked to the federal government to curb the drug’s spread. Harry Anslinger – a vocal proponent of alcohol prohibition and later the first drug czar – vilified cannabis. According to Anslinger, the drug produced “violence and homicidal tendency in the man who uses it.”

The fearmongering had its intended effect. By 1937, Congress had passed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 – following history’s playbook. Federal control was established over the use, possession, and sale of marijuana through taxation, marking a significant shift in the legal status. Rather than a direct outlaw of cannabis, the Act enacted a steep tax burden that effectively criminalized its use and cultivation for those without the resources to comply with tax mandates. This consequently led to the rapid decline of the industry by making it economically unviable.

As the Vietnam War divided the country, marijuana consumption became a political act: opponents said the substance was the anti-war group’s drug of choice and led to pacifist views, and it must be dealt with accordingly. In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act placed cannabis in Schedule I: more illegal than cocaine and opium. This framework remains dominant in marijuana policy today.

A New Day for Cannabis

Yet, despite nearly a century of federal prohibition, public support for cannabis legalization stands at nearly an all-time high. Twenty-four states have moved to legalize the substance in defiance of the federal government. The growing support for these policy changes mirrors that which led to the repeal of alcohol prohibition. 

The parallels do not stop at policy shifts or public opinion; they extend to who bears the consequences. For example, the inequities in modern cannabis enforcement closely mirror those seen during alcohol prohibition. When alcohol was banned, the wealthy had the resources to stock up, and the powerful often drank freely, while enforcement fell hardest on working-class and immigrant communities. During the War on Drugs, and still today, skin color and zip code remain primary factors in how outcomes are determined. Black, Latino, and Hispanic communities are disproportionately targeted, arrested, and incarcerated, despite usage rates similar to those of white counterparts. Even as legalization spreads, the economic surge has predominantly benefitted white-owned businesses – which make up more than 80 percent of the legal cannabis industry.

Economic pressure is driving change, as it did with alcohol. Pandemic-era budget shortfalls accelerated state-level legalization for revenue purposes. Legal states have since generated billions in tax revenue, and now there is growing bipartisan support for amending federal marijuana prohibition. 

Declassifying cannabis would mirror the repeal of alcohol prohibition, allowing specific states to continue their ban on the substance. However, it would also allow other states to expand or regulate their cannabis markets without going against federal law.

Alcohol prohibition grew out of a simple idea: ban the substance and solve the problems that it “causes.” The reality of human behavior was more nuanced, and banning did not work, as health and social impacts remained concerns after prohibition. Marijuana prohibition followed the same logic with the same outcomes: the market remains, regulated or not. When the federal government catches up – and history and economic arguments suggest it will – the question is whether it has learned from history, or will continue to repeat it without lessons learned.