"Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud"

Roger Q. Mills' quote, "Restriction was introduced as a fraud; it has actually been nursed as a fraud", provides a blunt and crucial perspective on the Restriction period in American history. This statement encapsulates Mills' disillusionment with both the beginning and the ongoing enforcement of Prohibition.

To interpret this, one need to first consider the context. Prohibition in the United States, enacted through the 18th Amendment in 1920 and rescinded by the 21st Amendment in 1933, was aimed at curbing alcohol usage, which was thought to be the root of societal issues like crime, domestic violence, and hardship. Reformers argued that prohibiting alcohol would cause much healthier households, a more productive workforce, and a more moral society. Nevertheless, Mills perceives this optimistic vision as essentially deceitful-- a "scams.".

The term "fraud" indicates purposeful deceptiveness and recommends that the true intentions or expected outcomes of Prohibition were misrepresented. From Mills' viewpoint, Prohibition may have existed to the public as a moral crusade to improve society, but the truth was starkly different. He hints at ulterior motives perhaps connected to political, economic, or social interests that gained from the legislation, despite its efficacy or ethical standing.

Furthermore, the assertion that it "has actually been nursed as a fraud" underscores Mills' belief that Prohibition's application and maintenance were similarly insincere. In spite of growing proof of its failures-- including the rise of organized crime, speakeasies, and a basic neglect for the law-- beneficial interests continued to support the policy. "Nursed" recommends a careful maintenance of this façade, showing that stakeholders maybe selected to ignore its flaws for viewed benefits like controlling specific populations or acquiring political utilize.

Mills' declaration invites a vital reflection on how policies may be sold to the general public versus their real-world implications and sustainability. It works as a cautionary note on the possible disparity between proclaimed suitables and outcomes, urging analysis of legal openness and accountability.