As HB suggests, criminal organizations would have had less incentive to become involved in bootlegging, speakeasies, rum-running, and the whole network of related activities that go along with drinking. Mind you, LESS incentive, not no incentive; there still would have been money in alcohol, but less of it.
On a cultural/cuisine note: there would have been a lot more diversity (and dare I say quality?) in American beer and wine production throughout the mid-20th century. Beer brewing was struck hard by Prohibition, and a lot of smaller breweries making styles of ales, porters, or other varieties went out of business. So we lost not only the legacy of dozens of styles brought over from more than a dozen European cultural traditions, but also dozens if not hundreds of varieties that had been developed in the US since the 1700s.
I don't mean that we lost the recipes in an absolute sense, since home-brewing and really local crafts likely preserved them in some fashion. Rather, I mean that the small breweries lost their commercial hold, and when Prohibtion was finally repealed, it took a lot of effort and capital to get that marketshare back. Big breweries were always going to take a large chunk of American market just due to advances in production, marketing, distribution, and refrigeration....BUT without Prohibition, smaller breweries could have kept stronger hold on local and regional markets.
...
An other point they made was, that many first thought prohibition would only concern hard liqueurs and not beer and wine. When the laws that regulated prohibition didn't make the distinction support for prohibition went down.
No Prohibition has a implication that morale crusaders & do-gooders were less organized and influential. If that is the case then there is a different social and legal trajectory into the mid 20th Century. If it fails to be enacted simply through a few votes short & assorted parliamentary and political deals then the moralists will be active suppressing 'Immorality' other ways. The revival Klan of 1915-1923 were supporters of Prohibition and the enforcement arm were active against distillers and bootleggers. Lacking national Prohibition some or many of the Klaverns could have been active against the legal alcohol business. Fire bombing low Saloons, distilleries, & interdicting bootleg shipments. Similar to what they tried in the early Prohibition era.
As has been mentioned many times elsewhere, the trajectory of organized crime is very different. The mob, gangs, mafia, syndicates, whatever made themselves rich during prohibition and became powerful enough to finance pumping up narcotics & other businesses that used a similar plan or operating system as bootlegging.
In general US history it avoids or alters a embarrassing failure of the great experiment.
...
I do wonder if this means that we also avoid the calamity that was the Drug War...
Interesting question. Perhaps much criminal infrastructure may not have happened? Where does that lead us? Perhaps even different US Presidents? I'm sure there are also many other important divergence in the time line. Ripples running out from the center. World wide effects.
The same is true for wineries where it is probably more important. Prohibition did a real number on the US wine industry to the point where people were surprised with the 1976 Judgement of Paris that US was making world class wine.
lol. tough choices here my friend.. liver.. diabetes .. I'm going to vote in favor of Wine.. best of both worldsThe tax revenue generated by alcohol could change the early response to the great depression.
Strangely alcohol consumption lessened because of proabition , drinking took a little effort so the casual drinking dwindled.
The soft drink industry wouldn't have become as large as it is today.
The tax revenue generated by alcohol could change the early response to the great depression. ...