This was a very significant shift in lifestyles for many Americans. There were some who had prepared for the sudden change. Before the first day the Volstead Act was put into effect, some drinkers had been preparing for the change by adjusting to the fact that alcohol wouldn't be a part of their lives anymore. They also stocked up on "pre-Volstead" wine, which was legal. Yet there were others who were completely shocked that this theory had actually taken shape. The surprised citizens were angry with Congress because they felt that the right to drink had been guaranteed in the Constitution (Clark 1965, 141).
 

Many did not respond the way the supporters of Prohibition had anticipated. Many who opposed alcohol use in America didn't support Prohibition because it wasn't working. People were using alcohol and the government wasn't reaping the benefits of the alcohol industry financially. An estimated amount of 1,000,000 quarts of liquor were consumed in the U.S. each day. This was allowed to occur because so many official accepted bribes in return for looking the other way for bootleggers. Since all the selling of alcohol was done out the record, the National Government lost $1,000,000,000 each year due to taxes that could have been paid if the liquor was sold legally. So instead of supporting the government, the alcohol industry supported private bootleggers and corrupt officials (La Guardia). Prohibition allowed for lawless people to make incredible amounts of money that then turns around and is used to further the illegal activity that went on with organized crime (Clark 1976, 144).

 There were other problems that were created in the foundation of Prohibition. To begin with, Congress was not very strict in writing the law. They never actually called it a serious crime which made it easier for violators to get away with their illegal activity (Clark 1965, 146). Also personal interest was involved when deciding on who would deal with prohibition violators. The enforcement of the law depended on the Treasury Department. It was no coincidence that the Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon had invested quite a deal of money in the alcohol industry. There was corruption involved in Prohibition from the very beginning (Clark 1965, 149).
 

Although Prohibition decreased the amount of beer Americans drank, the amount of hard liquor grew. The beer decreased because it was harder to manufacture without getting caught so the price went up. But hard liquor was easier to make without getting caught so it was less expensive. So instead of drinking more beer, which is less potent, Americans drank more hard liquor. This was not the intention behind Prohibition (Poholek).