Roosevelt campaigned for the presidency on the platform of abolishing prohibition, and finally won the election. After he took office, 1933,1On February 5, 9, the US Congress passed the 2 1 constitutional amendment to formally abolish the "prohibition of alcohol", and the national prohibition movement that lasted for nearly 14 years in the United States came to an end. It should be pointed out that the amendment was reviewed by the US Congress, requiring all states to hold a constitutional convention. In fact, this method has only been used once in American history. Because rural and fundamentalist forces supporting prohibition dominate the legislatures of many States, it is impossible for the legislatures to pass the amendment. Therefore, Congress stipulated that the amendment should be considered by the state constitutional assembly, not by the state legislature. Because under such circumstances, the Constituent Assembly can better reflect the desire of the overwhelming majority of the public to abolish prohibition than the state legislature. ■ Evaluation of the "Prohibition Order" The original intention and purpose of the US government's prohibition of alcohol in the past were naturally good, in order to maintain the purity of society. As we all know, alcohol is harmful to health, and drinking too much will bring bad consequences to others. It can be said that the American people at that time were somewhat idealistic. It can also be said that the adoption of "prohibition" is the victory of moral idealism. But because it is out of the soil of human existence, it has caused the opposite result. In 189 1' s doctoral thesis "Exploring the Theory of Value and Price by Mathematical Methods", irving fisher tried to distinguish between "impossibly useful" utility and "truly useful" utility. He believes that the government has the responsibility and power to ban things that are not good for individuals. In his view, some things are addictive, or consumers know little about their harm, or lack strong will, or are deceived by cunning entrepreneurs. This kind of consumption activity reduces the production efficiency, destroys the social environment and has huge negative externalities. Therefore, the government must make choices for these consumers by means of prohibition. In this way, public health can be improved, and waste, degeneration, family breakdown and crime can be reduced. This theory is regarded as the basic argument of contemporary welfare economics, but there is a premise behind this argument: politicians and superstructure should really know better than the public what is harmful to the human body and what is more conducive to the healthy development of individuals. Now, the "prohibition of alcohol" has long been history, but it has great reference value for the formulation of laws and regulations in many countries.