1) I feel that both sources agree that prohibition is bound to fail, as in source A it states “ The bad influence of saloons”. This shows the writer feels saloons had a bad influence on the public. The message in this source is saying that prohibition was a bad mistake and making it illegal was the wrong choice because it just made the public want it more. The writer shows this by saying statistics show alcohol was decreasing and if they left it, it would of carried on decreasing. In hindsight we know this is true.
Like wise in source B the writer agrees prohibition was bound to fail to an extent when the writer says “ there’s more than 30,000 speakeasies by 1928”. This shows prohibition failed because people were still buying and drinking alcohol. The message in this source is saying what went wrong with prohibition such as gangsters like Dutch Schulz and Al Capone, were Al Capone ran loads of speakeasies and turned the avoidance of prohibition into a big violent business, for example the Saint Valentine Massacre, and overall led to an increase in crime.
I think both sources agree with each other, by agreeing that prohibition was bound to fail to an extent.
2) I feel that both artists are for prohibition, because in source C it shows a man collecting his weekly wages from a barman. The message in this source is that the artist feels strongly that men should be spending their money on their families not in pubs. An example of this in the poster shows the mans family sitting round a table, desperate for money because they have no food. The caption which goes with this says “ Slaves of the salons” this shows that the families have no choice and have to live like this. However this source was published in 1910, which was before prohibition, so the artist, didn’t know what was to come such us drinking increasing and families still suffering.
I think source D is also for prohibition, it shows two poor children looking at a pub, where they know their...