Editing Volstead Act (section)

==Enforcement and impact==
The production, importation, and distribution of alcoholic beverages—once the province of legitimate business—was taken over by criminal gangs, which fought each other for market control in violent confrontations, including murder. Major [[gangsters]], such as [[Omaha]]'s [[Tom Dennison (political boss)|Tom Dennison]] and [[Chicago]]'s [[Al Capone]], became rich, and were admired locally and nationally. Enforcement was difficult because the gangs became so rich that they were often able to bribe underpaid and understaffed law-enforcement personnel, and afford expensive lawyers. Many citizens were sympathetic to [[smuggling|bootleggers]], and respectable citizens were lured by the romance of illegal [[speakeasies]], also called "[[Speakeasy|blind tigers]]." The loosening of social mores during the 1920s included popularizing the [[cocktail]] and the [[cocktail party]] among higher [[socio-economic group|socioeconomic group]]s. Those inclined to help authorities were often intimidated and even murdered. In several major cities—notably those that served as major points of liquor importation, including Chicago and [[Detroit]]—gangs wielded significant political power. A [[Michigan State Police]] raid on Detroit's Deutsches Haus once netted the mayor, the sheriff, and the local congressman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.germanamericanmetrodetroit.org/history.htm|title=German American Cultural Center Online |website=www.germanamericanmetrodetroit.org |access-date=September 11, 2016}}</ref>

Prohibition came into force at 12:00:01&nbsp;am on January 17, 1920, and the first documented infringement of the Volstead Act occurred in Chicago on January 17 at 12:59&nbsp;am. According to police reports, six armed men stole $100,000 worth of "medicinal" whiskey from two freight-train cars. This trend in bootlegging liquor created a domino effect among criminals across the United States. Some gang leaders had been stashing liquor months before the Volstead Act was enforced. The ability to sustain a lucrative business in bootlegging liquor was largely helped by the minimal police surveillance at the time. There were only 134 agents designated by the Prohibition Unit to cover all of [[Illinois]], [[Iowa]], and parts of [[Wisconsin]].<ref>Kobler, John. ''Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone''. Da Capo Press, 2003, p. 68.</ref> According to Charles C. Fitzmorris, Chicago's chief of police during the beginning of the Prohibition period, "Sixty percent of my police [were] in the bootleg business."<ref>Kobler, John. ''Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone''. Da Capo Press, 2003, p. 69.</ref>

Section 29 of the Act allowed 200&nbsp;gallons (the equivalent of about 1000 750-ml bottles) of "non-intoxicating cider and fruit juice" to be made each year at home.<ref name="Pinney">{{cite book | first=Thomas | last = Pinney | title=A History of Wine in America From Prohibition to the Present|date=2005 | publisher = University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-24176-3}} p. 2. [http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10206/pinney1.pdf Chapter 1] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216042756/http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10206/pinney1.pdf |date=February 16, 2008 }}</ref> Initially "intoxicating" was defined as exceeding 0.5% alcohol by volume,<ref>[https://archive.today/20120630052644/http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,787465,00.html Fizz Water] Time August 6, 1928.</ref> but the [[Bureau of Internal Revenue (United States)|Bureau of Internal Revenue]] struck that down in 1920,<ref>[https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F02E5D91131E433A25756C2A9619C946195D6CF ALLOWS HOME BREW OVER HALF percent.; Internal Revenue Ruling Applies Only to Beverages Consumed in Domiciles. MUST BE NON-INTOXICATING Beer Not Included, and Only Cider and Fruit Juices May Be Sold.] ''The New York Times'' July 25, 1920.</ref> effectively legalizing home winemaking.<ref name="Pinney"/> For beer, however, the 0.5% limit remained until 1933. Some vineyards embraced the sale of grapes for making wine at home. [[Zinfandel]] grapes were popular among home winemakers living near vineyards, but their tight bunches left their thin skins vulnerable to rot from rubbing and abrasion on the long journey to East Coast markets.<ref name="Pinney26">Pinney p. 26.</ref> The thick skins of [[Alicante Bouschet]] were less susceptible to rot, so that and similar varieties were widely planted for the home winemaking market.<ref name="Pinney26"/><ref name="Johnson pg 444">H. Johnson ''Vintage: The Story of Wine'' p. 444. Simon and Schuster 1989 {{ISBN|0-671-68702-6}}.</ref>

The Act contained a number of exceptions and exemptions. Many of them were used to evade the law's intended purpose. For example, the Act allowed a [[physician]] to prescribe whiskey for his patients but limited the amount that could be prescribed. Subsequently, the House of Delegates of the [[American Medical Association]] voted to submit to Congress a bill to remove the limit on the amount of whiskey that could be prescribed and questioned the ability of a legislature to determine the therapeutic value of any substance.<ref>"[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1655505/pdf/calwestmed00210-0040b.pdf The A.M.A. and the Volstead Act]", ''California and Western Medicine'', 26:808 (1927). See also "Resolution in Regard to Volstead Act", ''Bull N Y Acad Med.'' 3(9):598–99 (1927).</ref> [[Vine-Glo]] was produced ostensibly to let people make grape juice from concentrate but it included a warning on its packaging telling people how to make wine from it.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://grapecollective.com/articles/prohibitions-grape-bricks-how-to-not-make-wine|title = Prohibition's Grape Bricks: How to Not Make Wine}}</ref>

According to Neely, "The Act called for trials for anyone charged with an alcohol-related offense, and juries often failed to convict. Under the state of New York's [[John B. Mullan|Mullan]]–[[Bert P. Gage|Gage]] Act, a short-lived local version of the Volstead Act, the first 4,000 arrests led to just six convictions and not one jail sentence".<ref>Okrent, Daniel. ''Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition'', Scribners, 2010, p. 253.</ref>

While the production, transport and sale of intoxicating liquor was illegal, their purchase was ruled legal in ''[[United States v. Norris]]''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Liquor Purchaser No Guilty of Plot|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1929/10/04/archives/liquor-purchaser-not-guilty-of-plot-federal-appeals-court-frees-ae.html |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |work=[[New York Times]] |date=October 4, 1929 |access-date=March 3, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Prohibition|url=https://time.com/vault/issue/1929-01-07/page/12/ |magazine=[[Time Magazine]] |location=[[New York City]] |publisher=[[Time Inc.]] |page=10 |date=January 7, 1929 |access-date=March 3, 2021}}</ref>