Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items :

  • "repeal of prohibition" x
  • Topics in Cultural Studies x
Clear All

cafes particularly in the cheaper sections of town.”121 Moreover, the collusion of the local police and the Board of Supervisors against Prohi- bition contributed wholeheartedly to the consolidation of San Fran- cisco’s pro-liquor forces. In 1921, the Board of Supervisors publicly reprimanded two police captains for enforcing Prohibition laws while on duty. By the late 1920s, repeal efforts were the most popular brand of city politics and one of the few venues where business cooperated with la- bor.122 To rally public support around the repeal of Prohibition, state

’re entertaining and singing and working as waitresses. We continued to go there often. They made us very very welcome. Reba Hudson Mona’s was San Francisco’s first lesbian nightclub. It opened on Union Street in 1934, just after the repeal of Prohibition, but moved in 1936 to Columbus Avenue. Originally intending it as a hangout for writers and artists, Mona Sargent and her then-husband, Jimmie Sargent, covered the floors at 140 Columbus with sawdust to give the place a bohe- mian atmosphere.1 Nightclub-style entertainment soon grew out of im- promptu performances, and Sargent

repeal of Prohibition and the development of new methods of policing shut down gay and lesbian public entertainments, in San Francisco repeal seemed to stimulate the development of queer and gender-transgressive entertainments.34 In post-Prohibition Califor- nia, the state’s liquor control administration was placed within the state’s tax board (the State Board of Equalization), so there was less em- phasis, at the state level, on vice control than on the financial manage- ment of liquor production and distribution. This, combined with San Francisco’s traditionally

marijuana de- bate concerns the public’s right to weigh in on the social status of a con- troversial drug. The repeal of Prohibition in 1933 is, of course, the great precedent in this regard. Propositions 215 and 200 represented more re- fined judgments, in that they aimed at serving a medically needy minor- ity rather than a pleasure-seeking majority that wanted to regain access to a recreational drug. Yet here, too, federal officials looked on with some fear and trembling as the public delivered its unwelcome verdict in the form of referenda that had originated outside