Prohibition was enacted in all the provinces during the First World War but was defeated, for the most part, by various plebiscites in the 1920s. Problems with enforcement arose and weakened public support. Although ultimate responsibility for setting liquor laws was a federal responsibility, provinces retained jurisdiction over inter-provincial trade. In a classic demonstration of federal-provincial compromise, buying liquor was outlawed but producing it was not and a vigorous trade between provinces undermined local prohibitions. Enforcement of the law was left to the discretion of local authorities where corruption and incidents of excessive force being used against citizens were problems (Smart and Ogborne 1996).

In the end, prohibition was replaced with system of government regulation through provincially-controlled commissions as the idea of banning alcohol entirely was replaced with the idea of limiting its harm. Pioneered in Quebec, the first jurisdiction north of the Rio Grande to repeal prohibition, the Canadian model had two elements: a high price structure with distilled spirits taxed higher than lower-alcohol beverages, and a strongly regulated licensing system for on-premise consumption.

Public support for government regulation or alcohol remains high, in Ontario and possibly elsewhere in Canada. In 1995, a poll indicated that 57% of adults in Ontario thought liquor taxes should remain the same and 19% thought they should be increased. Only 11% wanted to see extended hours for beer and liquor stores and 73% thought beer and liquor should not be available in corner stores (Smart and Ogborne 1996). The Canadian model illustrates a strong theme in Canadian political life: an acceptance and even an expectation of the government’s role in regulating individual choices.

At the same time the American experience with prohibition unfolded along a somewhat different path. Prohibition began in the U.S. in 1919 when Congress passed the 18th amendment to the Constitution, making the production, shipping, importing or selling of liquor illegal. It was followed closely by an important piece of companion legislation--the Volstead Act a strong enforcement law that passed over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto--from which sprang many “little Volsteads” out of various state legislatures.

Many thousands of American lives were touched by the cumulative effects of these acts. In Virginia, for instance, in 1917 (before Volstead) there were 1.8 liquor law offences per 100,000 of population. By 1928, the rate of liquor offences had risen to 63.9 per 100,000. During this period, liquor felonies dominated all other categories of offence (Friedman 1993). Then as now, the true believers in the restorative powers of tough punishment, frustrated by the stubbornness of the many sinners who continued to defy the law, cried out for more enforcement muscle and greater rigour. Against a backdrop of growing anxieties about immigration and growing political dissent, then as now, their calls were answered. In 1929 the Jones Act stiffened federal penalties even more (Friedman 1993).

After the American Revolution, federal responsibilities in crime control were limited to acts that injured or interfered with the federal government. By the time the 21st Amendment was passed, repealing Prohibition in 1933, the restricted role accorded the federal government in criminal justice effectively ended and bureaucratic efforts to increase the authority of the FBI had been successful. By the end of fiscal year 1924, 22,000 federal court cases were pending (Friedman 1993). Prohibition also fed the growth of organized crime as the huge revenues derived from bootlegging were used to finance and protect many other forms of criminal activity. Wiretapping became part of the g-man’s arsenal of weapons and several important constitutional cases on such issues as illegal search and seizure came out of the Prohibition background.