Get help from the best in academic writing.

The Effect of Prohibition on Organized Crime Research Paper

During this prohibition of 1920 in United States, all activities contributing to the sales of alcohol were illegal. Such activities included import and export of raw materials and the final products, as well as the initial production and the transportation of alcohol.

This action of prohibition came because of realized rate of crimes and corruption among the top people, high levels of social conflicts, and increased taxes. The tax rate was too high although there was need for the government to collect money for supporting prisons, reconstructing poor houses, and to concentrate on the high risk areas where health and hygiene were at stake (Goldberg 214).

As much as the government was in effort of prohibition, the consumption of alcohol became relatively high resulting to organized crimes. The high level of organized crimes, made the court and the prisons working system overworked making the police and the public officials to practice corruption.

The effect of alcohol prohibition act gave the Mafia group an opportunity of exercising their criminal acts. This is a big group of organized criminals from various ethnic groups. They operate in various nations including the United States and Canada. They deal with all illegal acts like drug and weapon smuggling, murder, and frauds among other disgusting activities (Thornton 114).

During this period of alcohol prohibition there were widely involved in smuggling alcoholic drinks into the country to the capable and interested buyers. They discovered that the alcohol was scarce in United States and so decided to supply the citizens with alcohol illegally.

They made a lot of money out of the illegal smuggling of alcohol, which was an indication of an act to benefit the organized criminals. This group used to bribe the public officials for their entry into the United States with illegal alcohol. The money they received from this illegal business funded this group to continue with their other organized crimes like prostitution, trafficking drugs, and other immoral activities.

The United States prohibition act came into being through the eighteenth Amendment, where the police received the authority to enforce the law. The sale of alcohol was illegal in the United States, although in some places the alcohol beverage was still on sale especially the underground places where security would struggle to find them. Much of the alcohol that was on sale in the United States was from Canada, and the vendors used to sell it in private bars (Spiller 98).

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Immediately after the National Prohibition Act came into practice, an illegal system of criminals began its actions, whereby some of them made millions and millions of us dollars by transporting alcohol illegally. During this period, the smuggled alcohol became too expensive such that some people would not afford it, and hence relied on the denatured alcohol.

This denatured alcohol had some serious impacts on the users’ bodies like causing paralysis to major parts like hands and legs. Things became worse when increased death rates were realized in the United States because of this alcohol without the prohibitionist taking any action (Albanese 316).

Some of the prohibitionists claim that the users of such kind of alcohol deserved that king of punishment and people continued loosing their lives. The level of corruption was very high during this period than any other. The public officials were facilitators as they asked for bribes from the illegal alcohol traders.

According to the public officers, they wanted the prohibition period to last forever, and continue taking the advantage of the situation as the level of crime went up. Instead of benefiting from the alcohol prohibition, the nation suffered greatly from loosing its people, experiencing high levels of crime and corruption and violation of authority among others.

During this period, some of the strong supporters of prohibition like Rockefeller confessed that instead of the society’s morals to improve from this act, the overall condition of the nation is getting worse. The negative effects of the act were far many than the positive ones.

Through the alcohol prohibition act, an important source of government revenue was removed, and on the other hand, government spending shoots up. Some people who were already addicted to alcohol and could not afford the smuggled alcohol turned to dangerous drugs like opium, cocaine, and bhang among others (Freel 58).

These are among the dangerous drugs that these people would never have used if alcohol were still legal. At he initial stages of the prohibition act the levels of alcohol consumption decreased but soon after increased a lot.

We will write a custom Research Paper on The Effect of Prohibition on Organized Crime specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The government put several restrictions on alcohol consumption on land, although there was an exempt on the ships sailing at a distance of 3 miles and many people took advantage of this situation.

During prohibition, some people also practiced both legal and illegal brewing at their houses, and became somehow popular. This came because of the alcohol that was in use such as wine and hard cider, as people produced it at residential places (Maisto and Galizio 306).

In some areas still, the production of commercial wine was done in United States, and later stored in the government warehouses, only to be used in churches and other holy ceremonies. Some people decided to start selling malt extract for cooking and beverage uses, although some people used it for alcoholic purposes.

The main reason of the government to practice these restrictions on alcohol consumption was to reduce the crime rates that were very high in United States. So far, the crime rates were decreasing day by day as the prisons reduce the number of the inmates.

Some wines like Whiskey were available for medical purposes. The labels on the bottles indicated clearly that the purpose of taking whiskey would be strictly be recommended by a doctor.

The hospitals drug stores were full with whiskey bottles, because of increased patients who came with the same symptoms leading to whiskey as the right prescription (Dills and Miron 11). The government did not try to put some control on this, and hence the majority used this method to obtain whiskey from healthy facilities.

The 1920 prohibition only put some restrictions on the production, selling and transporting the alcohol, but not in consuming or possessing. It was also possible to see people taking alcohol after the amendments because those who had already manufactured or bought were allowed to use it throughout that period until they exhaust it.

During the prohibition period, the famous people in the country and the politicians were still taking alcohol. These politicians had widely voted for prohibition but thy later confessed that they were still making use of alcoholic drinks.

Not sure if you can write a paper on The Effect of Prohibition on Organized Crime by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This difference between the law and the actual practice by the lawmakers and other citizens resulted to disrespect of the government authority (Mildred 78). Although the government was trying as much as possible during the prohibition period to curb the use of alcohol in the country, more people still drunk illegally and criminals still continued taking advantage of the situation.

The effects of prohibition ended up positively to some parts of the nation, but on the other hand increased the disrespect of the law and several cases of lawlessness. The 1920 prohibition also gave a good opportunity for the organized crime to take over the production, and transporting of the alcoholic drinks. Several bootleggers were able to prosper in their work of organized crimes through the much cash gotten from the illegal alcohol.

In conclusion, criminal acts increases whenever there is a product that people want in large quantity, and yet only few who can act as suppliers. In such circumstances, the mafia group of the organized criminals and other criminals takes the advantage of supplying the item on demand (Lowinson and Millman 930). That is how even the ordinary citizens who were alcohol addicts before turned to be outlaw.

The act of prohibition did not only increase the actions of the organized crimes, but also caused an increased government spending in efforts of trying to prosecute the criminals and to reduce the levels of the increased corruption. The government wasted much money, and on the other hand, the organized criminals gained a lot of money through the illegal transactions.

As a result, the organized criminals developed and grew so much assuring their continuity through a strong financial base. There were no remarkable impacts of alcohol prohibition, but only negative effects that were felt by one generation to the another for instance deaths and crimes.

Works Cited Albanese, Jay. Organized Crime in our Times. New York: Elsevier, 2010.

Dills, Angela and Jeffrey Miron. Alcohol Prohibition and Cirrhosis. New York: Cengage Learning, 2003.

Freel, Brian. Passing the Mississippi Subject Area Testing Program in United States History. New York: American Book Company, 2002.

Goldberg, Raymond. Drugs Across the Spectrum . New York: Cengage Learning, 2009.

Lowinson, Joyce and Millman Robert. Substance use: a comprehensive textbook. New

York: Lippincott Williams

The meaning of freedom today Analytical Essay

Nursing Assignment Help Table of Contents Introduction

Personal freedom

Sartre’s existentialist definition of freedom

Equality and independence

Karl Marx on freedom

The practice of freedom

Michael Foucault on freedom


Introduction In the contemporary society, people consider freedom a basic need in that person who is not free must be in a rough co-existence with him and others. It is therefore very important to exalt freedom, which begins with personal liberty to the sovereignty of nations.

The extent to which a person can be free as well as the exact definition of freedom has been subjected to philosophical discourses from time immemorial with renowned philosophers such as Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre having differing arguments in the matter. According to the school of thought that each one of them represented, the idea of freedom to them bears differing definitions and extends.

In order to come up with an agreeable and logical definition of freedom as it is in the contemporary society, people have critically analyzed the input of these philosophers and their definition of freedom in this paper with the intention of clearly understanding what freedom is according to the schools of thought they represent today.

As I reveal, the exact meaning of freedom must comprise of the different aspects such as personal liberty, the right to life, equality and independence from coercion and repressive conditions such as poverty, ignorance and diseases. Any meaning of freedom is wanting if it does not address the issue of personal liberty.

Personal freedom Freedom starts with a sense of self-control or rather self-ownership. In this case, reason influences the person’s sense of freedom. In a free state, every person receives an equal chance of exercising freedom at personal level. In this case, no other person influences another’s decisions and the extent to which he/she makes decisions remains strictly limited by him/her.

This is in other words to say that in a free state a person’s freedom is not limited as long as it does not impact negatively or limit the freedom of the other people. For instance, a person’s freedom cannot include enslaving other people. As a slave, a person is not free to make certain decisions, movements and interactions with other people in the society.

In a free state therefore, a person is not entitle to take the freedom of another person for personal interests since it is against their wish to be treated so. My fellow panelist Sartre concurs with my view of freedom despite his limited definition of the freedom.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Sartre’s existentialist definition of freedom According to Jean Paul Sartre, man is condemned to be free. This is without regard to whether he acts from external constraints to repress it or just follows his pragmatic decisions.

A person is free when s/he refuses to act in bad faith and instead follow what he is. For instance, when the waiter who knows really well that he is impersonating a waiter stops that and instead does what his freedom grants, he is at that particular moment embracing freedom.

By being a waiter, the person is only denying his or her own freedom. According to existentialism, one cannot claim that external forces shape his/her deeds or actions. For instance, the profession of a person cannot shape the person’s identity considering that the roles played in that profession are only as a matter of bad faith and will eventually cease.

Being aware of one’s significance in the process of doing the roles in the profession inform the choices that a person makes and that seem directed to the person’s sense of freedom. However, I stand to criticize his definition based on how limited it appears.

Sartre, as well as other existentialists, concentrates more on the intrinsic definition of self-freedom rather than giving a definition and an extent to freedom that one can put into practice in the contemporary society. He does not clarify whether a person is free or not clearly defined in that existentialists hold that in every situation a person has still the freedom of choice.

Having the freedom of choice is not that important and does not qualify as being the absolute meaning of being free. This is basically for the simple reason that even a person who is enslaved by another has the freedom to choose either to rebel or to show complicity but that does not mean that they are free.

In the contemporary society, a person is only free if any other person or condition can implement his /her thoughts and choices without any repression. The issue of equality of freedom constitutes the meaning of freedom.

We will write a custom Essay on The meaning of freedom today specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Equality and independence Equality is very essential in any situation for a person to be free in the contemporary society. This ranges from political, sexual, racial as well as religious equality.

For people to consider another as free in a free state, he/she must go through an equal treatment with others regardless of their gender or any other affiliations. When a person is marginalized on the any of the above areas, their freedom is interfered with and eventually the person is deprived the necessity of being free.

With equality comes independence in making decisions as well as living without any coercion from anyone. This implies that the different types of independence that Karl Marx and others who embrace the Marxist school of thought argued mostly about.

Karl Marx on freedom Karl Marx in his Manifesto of the communist party conceptualizes freedom from an economic point of view. Marx conceptualizes freedom from an individualistic point of view whereby he argues that freedom is an individual’s collective use of reason to create a reconciled definition of personal and public freedom.

From this, Marx argues that a person who exercises freedom at the expense of the masses abuses it since the freedom of the majority is the one that matters. For instance, a person who owns means of production and abuses his employees for the sake of enriching himself and expanding his financial freedom by enriching himself is infringing the freedom of the others.

It is therefore clear from his arguments that Marx’s view of freedom is more informed by the social relations of people in the society. He argues that for a state to be termed as free there has to be a revolution whereby the proletariat overpower the bourgeoisie and own the means of production.

In that case, the majority would be free in that they will be in a position to cope with life without the fear of being oppressed by a powerful ruling class. However, I stand to criticize the view based on its one-sidedness.

Marx’s idea of the masses overpowering the ruling class, as a necessary precondition for their freedom, is one sided and has failed to hold on for a long time. This stands out because he fails to address other important aspects such as equality, the addressing of human rights and the dealing with other factors that lead to the oppression of people.

Not sure if you can write a paper on The meaning of freedom today by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More His address however on the issue of economic oppression holds until today as evidenced by workers rising up against their oppressive employers in the contemporary society and demanding for a fair exchange for their labor. This is because a person’s freedom seems abused if he/she faces oppression in any given situation.

The practice of freedom The fact that in order to be completely free one must keenly be aware of the limits of his/her freedom is a very important factor to consider when defining freedom in the society today.

This is in the sense that other people’s freedom is as important as your freedom. A question arises as to whether a person has or should have the right to defend him/herself against coercion. This brings forth a quite interesting aspect of freedom regarded as the freedom of defense.

In most Free states where freedom of people seems held with dignity, always a system acts to differentiate acts of coercion as either offensive or defensive. In this case, whether a person acted in an effort to defend him/herself or was interfering with another’s rights is established. Foucault’s meaning today’s of freedom is wanting based on its failure to explain how one can free him/herself.

Michael Foucault on freedom According to Michael Foucault, being free is a practice of the different practices of freedom. To him it is therefore a continuous process. Foucault emphasizes more on the practices of freedom over the process of liberation. He argues that it the practices of freedom that eventually upholds freedom rather than the process of liberation.

For instance, he uses the example of a colonized nation, which liberates itself from the colonizers. The society would still be in need of practices of freedom as they engage in building their own government.

One can clearly notice that Foucault’s works are in a way, skeptical about the extent to which people can free themselves. If people cannot stand out of the constraints of relations of power, knowledge and subjectivity, then to him their practices of freedom are simply on a small notion of resistance from within.

Conclusion In order to answer the question of what one exactly means by ‘being free’ in the contemporary society, it is of great essence to be all-round while addressing the aspects of freedom.

The problem with the definitions and the answers that philosophers Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre presents is that they are in most cases one sided whereby they all aimed at addressing a single aspect within the complex issue of freedom. Therefore, it is arguable that one can summon their arguments to contribute to the broad definition of today’s freedom.