Here's some more of the article u decided to leave out....
Climaxing decades of gathering hostility toward saloons and moral outrage over the general degeneracy and debauchery said to be flowing from bottles and kegs, the Constitution of the United States had been amended, effective 1920, to prohibit the manufacture and sale of "intoxicating liquors." The Volstead Act, the federal statute implementing the prohibition amendment, included beer in that category. At first, prohibition was cheered by its victorious supporters, and generally tolerated by others. But before long, unmistakable grumbling was heard in the cities. To meet the barely interrupted demand for alcohol, there sprang up bathtub ginworks and basement stills, discreet illegal supply networks, and secret, illegal bars called speakeasies.
Commerce in alcohol plunged underground, and soon fell under the control of thugs and gangsters. Violence often settled commercial differences as suppliers and distributors were denied the services of lawyers, insurance companies, and the civil courts. On the local level, widespread disobedience of the prohibition laws by otherwise law-abiding citizens produced numerous arrests. Courts were badly clogged, in large part because nearly all defendants demanded jury trials, confident that a jury of their peers would view their plight with sympathy.
U don't think the underground saloons or rum runners played a part in getting the law changed? They opened peoples eyes that the laws were wrong that's what gets the ball rolling. Of course lawyers and politicians play apart in any law being changed they handle the legal aspects the rum runners or saloon owners or the former law abiding citizens turned dispensary owners in our case is what gets unconstitutional laws looked at. Thanks for the article u proved my point u can copy paste as u like to try an make yourself sound correct but u r sounding a lil ignorant to me