{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021602160216021602, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009900990099009901, 'mean_word_length': 5.24438202247191, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Labour's Doorstep Politics in London John E. Turner Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978, pp. xiv, 396

order. Kyvig presents the constitutional issues raised by the amendment clearly and deals equally effectively with those relating to the repeal procedure. The prohibition amendment is the only one ever revoked and provided the one occasion on which the alternative amending procedure was used extensively, that is, ratification by state conventions. Basing its opposition on constitutional grounds allowed the repeal movement to rally sustained support from a group of distinguished Americans, but it was not constitutional questions which eventually swung the masses, and particularly American women, over to the repeal cause. The lawlessness and, finally, the depression were the second and third strikes against prohibition. Of the disrespect for the law promoted by prohibition, nothing more needs to be said. It was hoped in the dark days of the early 1930s that repeal would give the country at least one thriving industry, change bootleggers' profits into government tax revenues, lower the general tax burden and, perhaps, lead to a general business revival. By 1933, the overwhelming majority of legislators and more than 70 per cent of the voters supported repeal (151). Prohibition succeeded in establishing a more moderate long-term pattern of alcohol consumption in the US, one that persisted beyond repeal (24), but at a high cost. The hope that the overall quality of life would be enhanced perceptibly was not realized: many argued that the reverse occurred. Kyvig's book is a sharp reminder that liberal democracies have still to find an acceptable role for government in moulding public behaviour and values. Blanket prohibition by paternalistic government of the socially undesirable, but widely accepted, failed in this case and discouraged further attempts at social engineering. But can we be complacent about a situation in which values are increasingly determined by hucksters of various kinds? Kyvig raises the issue clearly but, quite appropriately given his central theme, does not considerother ways in which governments can contribute to the moral development of the citizenry.