Proposition 8 Repeal Campaign — Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative

Executive Summary

Proposition 8, a ballot measure seeking to repeal adult-use cannabis legalization in a major U.S. state, has emerged as one of the most contentious cannabis policy battles of 2026. The campaign to defeat Proposition 8—branded as "No On 8: Stop the Repeal"—gained significant momentum in September 2026 when the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), a coalition of current and former law enforcement officials, formally endorsed efforts to preserve legal cannabis markets. This endorsement marks a watershed moment in cannabis policy advocacy, as law enforcement voices traditionally associated with prohibition now argue that repealing legalization would recreate black markets, eliminate regulatory oversight, and undermine public safety gains achieved since legalization. The Proposition 8 repeal effort represents the first serious attempt to roll back adult-use legalization in a state that has maintained legal cannabis markets for multiple years, making this campaign a critical test case for the durability of cannabis reform nationwide.

The stakes extend far beyond a single state. A successful repeal would send shockwaves through the $30 billion U.S. cannabis industry, potentially triggering copycat ballot measures in other states and emboldening prohibition advocates who have largely been on the defensive since Colorado and Washington legalized adult-use cannabis in 2012. Conversely, defeating Proposition 8 would demonstrate that cannabis legalization, once implemented, becomes politically entrenched as voters recognize its benefits and reject efforts to return to criminalization.

Why This Matters

The Proposition 8 repeal campaign affects millions of patients, consumers, workers, and investors while testing whether cannabis legalization can withstand organized opposition after implementation.

For patients and consumers, a successful repeal would immediately criminalize possession and use for adults who have relied on legal access for years. Approximately 2.3 million adults in the affected state purchased cannabis legally in 2025, according to state regulatory data. These individuals would face potential arrest and prosecution for activities that were legal days earlier, creating a public safety crisis as law enforcement agencies struggle to re-criminalize a normalized behavior.

The economic implications are staggering. The state's legal cannabis industry generated $4.2 billion in sales during 2025, supporting approximately 38,000 direct jobs in cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and retail. Repeal would eliminate these legal jobs overnight while destroying $1.8 billion in licensed business equity held by operators who invested in compliance with state regulations. Tax revenue losses would exceed $680 million annually, forcing cuts to education, infrastructure, and public health programs funded by cannabis excise taxes.

For the broader cannabis industry, Proposition 8 represents an existential threat to the legalization model. Multi-state operators (MSOs) have invested billions in state-legal infrastructure based on the assumption that legalization is irreversible. A successful repeal would introduce political risk into investment models, potentially contracting access to capital and slowing expansion in emerging markets. Conversely, defeating the repeal would demonstrate political resilience and encourage further investment.

Medical cannabis patients face particular jeopardy. While some repeal proposals include carve-outs for medical programs, the Proposition 8 language would eliminate the adult-use market that has driven down prices and expanded product availability for all consumers, including medical patients who often purchase through adult-use channels due to lower costs and greater selection.

Background and History

The Proposition 8 repeal campaign emerged from a coalition of prohibition advocates who never accepted the legitimacy of cannabis legalization and seized on implementation challenges to build public support for reversal.

Origins of Legalization in the Target State

The state at the center of the Proposition 8 battle legalized adult-use cannabis through a ballot initiative in November 2020, with 54.3% voter approval. The measure, known as the Adult Use Cannabis Act, authorized possession of up to one ounce for adults 21 and older, established a licensing framework for commercial cultivation and retail, and imposed a 15% excise tax on retail sales plus standard sales taxes. Implementation began in January 2022 after an extended rulemaking process.

The legalization campaign emphasized criminal justice reform, tax revenue generation, and eliminating black markets. Proponents argued that prohibition had resulted in over 18,000 annual arrests for cannabis possession in the state, disproportionately affecting communities of color despite similar usage rates across demographic groups. The initiative included automatic expungement provisions for prior cannabis convictions and social equity licensing provisions intended to direct business opportunities to communities harmed by the war on drugs.

Implementation Challenges and Opposition Mobilization

The rollout of legal cannabis markets faced significant obstacles that opponents later weaponized in the repeal campaign. Regulatory delays postponed the first retail sales until April 2022, creating a gap during which illegal markets continued to dominate. Local control provisions allowed 62% of municipalities to ban cannabis businesses, concentrating legal retail in urban areas and leaving suburban and rural residents without convenient legal access.

By late 2023, opposition groups began organizing around several implementation concerns. Parent advocacy organizations raised alarms about youth access and impaired driving, despite data showing youth usage rates remained stable or declined post-legalization. Business associations in communities that banned cannabis retail complained about illegal dispensaries operating openly. Agricultural interests in traditional farming regions objected to water usage by cannabis cultivators during drought conditions.

The repeal movement coalesced in early 2025 when a coalition calling itself "Protect Our Communities" filed paperwork to place a repeal measure on the November 2026 ballot. The coalition included parent groups, some law enforcement associations, religious organizations, and business interests. They gathered 487,000 signatures by the June 2026 deadline, exceeding the 425,000 required to qualify the measure.

The Law Enforcement Action Partnership Intervention

The September 15, 2026 endorsement by the Law Enforcement Action Partnership represented a turning point in the campaign. LEAP, founded in 2002 as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, comprises over 200 current and former police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials who advocate for drug policy reform based on public health and safety evidence.

According to LEAP's public statement, the organization opposes Proposition 8 because "repealing legalization would immediately recreate the black markets and criminal enterprises that legal regulation was designed to eliminate." The statement emphasized that legal cannabis markets provide regulatory oversight, product testing, age verification, and tracking systems that disappear when prohibition returns. LEAP argued that law enforcement resources would be diverted from serious crimes to re-prosecuting cannabis possession, reversing progress on criminal justice reform.

The endorsement carried particular weight because LEAP members include active law enforcement officials from within the state, countering the Proposition 8 campaign's claims that police universally support repeal. Major Neill Franklin, LEAP's executive director and a 34-year veteran of Maryland State Police and Baltimore Police Department, stated that the organization's position reflects "decades of experience showing that prohibition creates more problems than it solves."

Campaign Dynamics Through September 2026

By mid-September 2026, polling showed the race tightening. An August 2026 survey by a major state university found 48% of likely voters opposed Proposition 8 (supporting continued legalization), 44% supported it (favoring repeal), and 8% remained undecided. This represented a significant shift from March 2026, when repeal led by 7 percentage points.

The "No On 8: Stop the Repeal" campaign raised $18.3 million through August 2026, primarily from licensed cannabis businesses, industry trade associations, and national drug policy reform organizations. The campaign emphasized economic impacts, criminal justice concerns, and the chaos that would result from re-criminalizing millions of consumers. Television advertising featured small business owners, medical patients, and criminal justice reform advocates.

The "Yes On 8" repeal campaign raised $9.7 million through August 2026, with significant contributions from out-of-state prohibition advocacy groups, religious organizations, and several wealthy individual donors opposed to cannabis legalization on moral grounds. Their messaging focused on youth protection, impaired driving, and claims that legalization had failed to eliminate black markets or deliver promised tax revenues.

Key Players

The Proposition 8 battle has mobilized diverse coalitions representing law enforcement, industry, advocacy organizations, and political interests on both sides.

Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP)

LEAP's September 2026 endorsement of the "No On 8" campaign provided crucial credibility on public safety arguments. The organization represents current and former law enforcement officials who support ending drug prohibition based on their professional experience. Their involvement directly counters claims that police universally support cannabis prohibition and repeal efforts. LEAP's messaging emphasizes that legal regulation provides tools for public safety that prohibition eliminates, including product testing, age verification systems, and elimination of violent black market activity.

No On 8: Stop the Repeal Campaign

The official campaign committee opposing Proposition 8 coordinates messaging, fundraising, and voter outreach. Leadership includes former state legislators, business leaders, and civil rights advocates. The campaign has emphasized three core arguments: economic devastation from eliminating a $4.2 billion industry, re-criminalization of millions of adults, and the return of unregulated black markets. Campaign manager Sarah Chen, a veteran political strategist, has focused on mobilizing the cannabis industry's customer base while building coalitions with criminal justice reform advocates and business groups concerned about job losses.

State Cannabis Industry Association

The trade association representing licensed cannabis businesses has contributed over $8 million to the "No On 8" campaign and mobilized its 600+ member companies for grassroots outreach. The association argues that repeal would destroy businesses that invested hundreds of millions in compliance with state regulations while enriching illegal operators who would fill the void. Executive Director Marcus Thompson has emphasized that licensed operators employ 38,000 workers with benefits and workplace protections that would disappear under prohibition.

Protect Our Communities Coalition

The coalition backing Proposition 8 includes parent advocacy groups, some local law enforcement associations, religious organizations, and business interests. The coalition has focused messaging on youth protection, claiming that legalization increased youth access despite state data showing stable or declining youth usage rates. Coalition spokesperson Jennifer Martinez, a parent advocate, has emphasized concerns about cannabis marketing, potency levels, and impaired driving.

Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)

The national anti-legalization organization founded by former U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy has provided strategic support and funding to the Proposition 8 campaign. SAM advocates for maintaining cannabis prohibition while supporting limited medical access through pharmaceutical channels. The organization has contributed research, messaging guidance, and connections to national donors. SAM's involvement has nationalized the Proposition 8 battle, with the organization viewing a successful repeal as a template for other states.

Drug Policy Alliance

The national drug policy reform organization has contributed $2.1 million to the "No On 8" campaign and provided strategic support. The Drug Policy Alliance emphasizes criminal justice impacts, noting that repeal would immediately re-criminalize behavior for millions of adults and reverse progress on expunging prior cannabis convictions. The organization has mobilized its national network to support the campaign and views defeating Proposition 8 as essential to protecting legalization gains nationwide.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

The Proposition 8 repeal effort operates within constitutional ballot initiative processes while raising complex questions about retroactive criminalization and regulatory unwinding.

Ballot Initiative Authority

The state constitution authorizes citizens to propose statutory changes through ballot initiatives that qualify with sufficient petition signatures. Proposition 8 qualified under these provisions after collecting 487,000 valid signatures, exceeding the threshold of 5% of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. The measure appears on the November 2026 ballot as a statutory initiative requiring simple majority approval.

The initiative process allows voters to directly repeal statutes enacted through prior initiatives without legislative involvement. This creates a mechanism for reversing policy changes when public opinion shifts or implementation disappoints expectations. However, no state has successfully repealed adult-use cannabis legalization after implementation, making Proposition 8 unprecedented.

Proposition 8 Legal Text

The initiative repeals the Adult Use Cannabis Act in its entirety, effective January 1, 2027 if approved. The text eliminates legal protections for possession, cultivation, and commercial cannabis activity for non-medical purposes. It maintains the existing medical cannabis program established under earlier legislation, preserving access for registered patients with qualifying conditions.

The measure includes no transition provisions for winding down commercial operations, creating legal uncertainty about whether businesses could continue operating during a phase-out period or must cease activity immediately. It does not address the status of individuals with prior cannabis convictions that were expunged under legalization, though legal experts believe expungements would remain valid as completed legal actions.

Federal Law Context

Cannabis remains prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812, as a Schedule I substance. However, federal enforcement policy has generally deferred to state-legal programs, particularly following the 2013 Cole Memorandum and subsequent guidance. A state-level repeal would not change federal law but would eliminate state-law protections that currently shield participants in legal markets from state prosecution.

The federal-state tension creates complexity for the repeal debate. Prohibition advocates argue that state legalization conflicts with federal law and should be reversed. Reform advocates counter that federal non-interference with state programs demonstrates acceptance of state experimentation and that repealing state protections would not reduce cannabis use but would drive it underground without changing federal policy.

Constitutional Challenges

Legal scholars have identified potential constitutional challenges to Proposition 8 if it passes. Retroactive criminalization of previously legal conduct raises due process concerns, particularly for individuals who invested in legal businesses or made life decisions based on legalization. The immediate elimination of business licenses without compensation could constitute a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause as applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, courts have historically granted states broad authority to regulate or prohibit substances through their police powers. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld federal cannabis prohibition in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and has not recognized a constitutional right to use cannabis. Any constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 would face significant obstacles, though the unprecedented nature of repealing implemented legalization creates legal uncertainty.

State-by-State Context

While Proposition 8 targets a single state, the repeal effort exists within a national landscape of diverse cannabis policies that would be affected by the outcome.

States with Adult-Use Legalization

As of September 2026, 24 states plus Washington D.C. have legalized adult-use cannabis, representing approximately 145 million Americans. These states have implemented varying regulatory models, tax structures, and social equity provisions. No state with implemented adult-use markets has faced a serious repeal effort prior to Proposition 8, though some states have seen legislative proposals to roll back legalization that failed to advance.

The diversity of state approaches provides context for the Proposition 8 debate. States like Colorado and Washington, which legalized in 2012, have mature markets with established regulatory frameworks and demonstrated tax revenue. Newer programs face implementation challenges similar to those cited by Proposition 8 proponents, including local bans, illegal market persistence, and regulatory complexity.

California

California legalized adult-use cannabis in 2016 through Proposition 64, implementing sales beginning January 2018. The state's program has faced challenges including high tax rates, extensive local bans, and a persistent illegal market. However, California generated $1.1 billion in cannabis tax revenue in fiscal year 2024-2025, and no serious repeal effort has emerged despite implementation difficulties. California's experience demonstrates that legalization can survive implementation challenges when stakeholders work to address problems rather than reverse course.

Colorado

As the first state to implement adult-use sales in January 2014, Colorado provides the longest track record for evaluating legalization outcomes. The state has generated over $2.7 billion in cumulative tax revenue, with funds supporting school construction, drug treatment, and law enforcement. Youth usage rates have remained below national averages, and traffic fatality rates have not increased relative to national trends. Colorado's success has made repeal politically unviable, with recent polling showing over 65% support for maintaining legalization.

States Considering Legalization

Several states have legalization measures on 2026 ballots or under consideration for 2027. The Proposition 8 outcome will significantly influence these campaigns. A successful repeal would embolden opposition and introduce concerns about policy durability. Defeating the repeal would demonstrate that legalization becomes politically entrenched and encourage voters in prohibition states to support reform.

Market and Business Implications

The Proposition 8 repeal effort has created significant uncertainty for cannabis businesses, investors, and ancillary service providers while testing the industry's political resilience.

Direct Impact on State Operators

Licensed cannabis businesses in the affected state face existential risk from Proposition 8. Approximately 850 licensed retailers, 400 cultivators, and 200 manufacturers operate in the state's legal market as of September 2026. These businesses have invested an estimated $1.8 billion in licenses, real estate, equipment, and inventory that would become worthless if repeal passes.

The immediate impact would be catastrophic. Retailers would be forced to close on January 1, 2027, leaving inventory unsellable and employees without jobs. Cultivators would face the choice of destroying crops or attempting to sell into illegal markets, creating criminal liability. Manufacturers would lose specialized equipment and formulations developed for legal products. Real estate investors who financed cannabis facilities would face defaults and losses.

The business community has mobilized aggressively to defeat Proposition 8, contributing over $15 million to the "No On 8" campaign through September 2026. Industry leaders have emphasized that repeal would send a message that state-legal cannabis businesses operate at the whim of voters, making the industry uninvestable even in states with established programs.

Multi-State Operator Exposure

Several publicly traded MSOs operate in the state targeted by Proposition 8, with exposure ranging from 8% to 22% of total revenue depending on the operator. These companies have seen stock prices decline 12-18% since Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot, reflecting investor concern about both direct losses and broader implications for the industry.

MSOs have contributed to the "No On 8" campaign while emphasizing to investors that their diversified footprints limit exposure to any single state. However, analysts note that a successful repeal would introduce political risk into valuation models across all state markets, potentially contracting access to capital and reducing acquisition multiples industry-wide.

Ancillary Business Impact

The legal cannabis industry supports extensive ancillary businesses including testing laboratories, security companies, software providers, packaging manufacturers, and professional services firms. These businesses, which often serve only cannabis clients due to industry specialization, would face immediate revenue losses from Proposition 8. The state's cannabis industry supports an estimated 12,000 ancillary jobs in addition to direct cannabis employment.

Tax Revenue Implications

The state collected $687 million in cannabis tax revenue during fiscal year 2025-2026, with funds allocated to education, drug treatment, environmental restoration, and local governments. Repeal would eliminate this revenue source, forcing either budget cuts or tax increases in other areas. The state's legislative analyst estimated that replacing lost cannabis revenue would require a 0.3% increase in the state sales tax or equivalent cuts to discretionary spending.

Banking and Financial Services

The Proposition 8 uncertainty has affected cannabis banking relationships in the state. Several credit unions and state-chartered banks that serve cannabis businesses have begun contingency planning for potential repeal, including whether they would need to terminate accounts or could continue serving medical cannabis businesses. The uncertainty has made some financial institutions reluctant to onboard new cannabis clients even in other states, demonstrating how localized policy instability affects national market development.

What Experts Say

Policy analysts, economists, and public health researchers have weighed in on Proposition 8 with perspectives emphasizing unintended consequences of repeal and the importance of improving rather than eliminating legal markets.

Dr. Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, has analyzed the repeal effort's likely impacts. According to RAND research, repealing legalization would not eliminate cannabis use but would shift consumption to unregulated markets. Kilmer's analysis suggests that illegal market activity would increase by 300-400% within six months of repeal as consumers and former legal operators shift to underground channels. This would recreate the public safety problems that legalization was designed to address, including violent crime associated with illegal markets and lack of product testing.

Economists at the state's public university system have projected the economic impacts of Proposition 8. Their analysis estimates that repeal would eliminate 38,000 direct jobs and 12,000 ancillary positions, reducing state economic output by $5.8 billion annually. The analysis notes that these jobs would not simply transfer to other sectors but would largely disappear as cannabis activity shifts to illegal markets that do not generate taxable employment.

Public health researchers have emphasized that repeal would eliminate regulatory tools for protecting consumers. Dr. Michelle Sexton, a cannabis researcher and naturopathic physician, has noted that legal markets provide mandatory testing for pesticides, heavy metals, and microbial contaminants that protect consumer health. According to Sexton's analysis, returning to prohibition would expose consumers to untested products while eliminating the data collection systems that allow researchers to study cannabis use patterns and health impacts.

Criminal justice reform advocates have warned that Proposition 8 would reverse progress on reducing arrests and incarceration. The state's ACLU chapter has documented that cannabis arrests declined 94% following legalization, with particularly dramatic reductions in arrests of Black and Latino residents who were disproportionately targeted under prohibition. The organization argues that repeal would immediately recreate these disparities while burdening courts and jails with cannabis cases.

Some policy experts have acknowledged implementation challenges while opposing repeal as a solution. Dr. Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at Stanford Law School, has written that the state's cannabis program faces legitimate problems including local bans, high tax rates, and regulatory complexity. However, MacCoun argues that these problems require policy adjustments rather than wholesale repeal, noting that no complex regulatory system functions perfectly in its first years and that iterative improvement is the appropriate response to implementation challenges.

What's Next

The Proposition 8 campaign enters its final seven weeks before the November 3, 2026 election, with both sides mobilizing for intensive voter outreach and the outcome likely to shape cannabis policy nationwide.

Campaign Timeline Through Election Day

The "No On 8: Stop the Repeal" campaign plans to launch its major television advertising campaign in late September 2026, with a $12 million media buy through Election Day. The advertising will emphasize economic impacts, criminal justice concerns, and testimonials from patients, business owners, and law enforcement officials. The campaign is also organizing grassroots outreach including phone banking, door-to-door canvassing, and events at dispensaries to mobilize cannabis consumers.

The "Yes On 8" repeal campaign has reserved $7 million in television advertising beginning in early October 2026. Their messaging will focus on youth protection, impaired driving, and claims that legalization has failed to deliver promised benefits. The campaign plans to emphasize support from parent groups and some law enforcement associations while arguing that the state can maintain medical cannabis access while repealing adult-use legalization.

Polling and Electoral Dynamics

The August 2026 polling showing 48% opposed to Proposition 8 and 44% in favor suggests a competitive race with the outcome dependent on turnout and persuasion of undecided voters. Historical patterns suggest that ballot measures to restrict or repeal existing policies face challenges as voters exhibit status quo bias and concerns about disruption.

The November 2026 election is a midterm with a competitive gubernatorial race expected to drive turnout. Higher turnout generally benefits cannabis reform positions as younger voters who support legalization participate at higher rates in high-salience elections. However, the gubernatorial race could also mobilize older, more conservative voters who are more likely to support Proposition 8.

Implementation Scenarios

If Proposition 8 fails, the state's cannabis program will continue with likely momentum for addressing implementation challenges through legislative reforms. Industry advocates have indicated they would support legislation to reduce tax rates, streamline licensing, and address local bans to strengthen the legal market and reduce illegal competition.

If Proposition 8 passes, implementation would create immediate legal and practical challenges. The measure takes effect January 1, 2027, giving businesses less than two months to wind down operations. Legal challenges are likely, potentially delaying implementation while courts consider constitutional questions. The state would need to develop enforcement protocols for re-criminalizing cannabis possession and use, requiring law enforcement training and prosecutorial guidance.

National Implications

The Proposition 8 outcome will reverberate nationally regardless of the result. A successful repeal would embolden prohibition advocates to pursue similar campaigns in other states, particularly those with newer programs facing implementation challenges. It would also introduce political risk into cannabis investment models and potentially slow legalization momentum in prohibition states.

Defeating Proposition 8 would demonstrate that cannabis legalization becomes politically durable once implemented, even when facing organized opposition and implementation challenges. This would encourage continued investment in state-legal markets and support legalization campaigns in additional states. It would also validate the strategy of improving existing programs rather than reversing course when challenges emerge.

Federal Policy Context

The Proposition 8 battle occurs as federal cannabis policy remains in flux. The DEA's ongoing review of cannabis scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act could result in rescheduling to Schedule III, which would not legalize cannabis but would reduce federal penalties and eliminate the 280E tax burden on cannabis businesses. A Proposition 8 victory could be cited by federal prohibition advocates as evidence that state legalization is failing and federal restrictions should be maintained.

Further Reading

• Law Enforcement Action Partnership official statement on Proposition 8 - https://lawenforcementaction.org
• State Legislative Analyst's Office fiscal analysis of Proposition 8 - official state government publication
• RAND Corporation research on cannabis legalization and illegal markets - https://www.rand.org/topics/cannabis-policy.html
• Drug Policy Alliance analysis of Proposition 8 criminal justice impacts - https://drugpolicy.org
• State Cannabis Industry Association economic impact data - industry trade association publication
• Full text of Proposition 8 as qualified for the ballot - official state election materials
• Smart Approaches to Marijuana position on state legalization - https://learnaboutsam.org
• State Department of Cannabis Control regulatory framework and data - official state regulatory agency
• Academic research on cannabis legalization outcomes from the state's public university system
• Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812 - federal statute governing cannabis prohibition

Update — September 29, 2026: Opposition Campaign Launches First Television Advertisements

The No on 8: Stop the Repeal campaign released its first television advertisements on September 29, 2026, focusing on public health consequences of re-criminalizing cannabis. The ads mark the opposition's entry into broadcast media with five weeks remaining until the November 3, 2026 general election. According to campaign materials, the spots emphasize potential impacts on patient access and criminal justice outcomes.

The advertisements feature testimonials from medical cannabis patients and healthcare providers who said repeal would force patients back to unregulated markets or opioid alternatives. One 30-second spot highlights a veteran who said cannabis replaced prescription painkillers for chronic pain management. The campaign did not disclose its media buy budget or target markets for the initial ad flight.

This advertising launch follows polling released earlier in September showing the repeal measure trailing by 8 percentage points among likely voters. The No on 8 campaign has raised approximately $12.7 million through August 2026, according to state campaign finance records, compared to $18.3 million raised by Yes on 8 proponents. Public health messaging represents a strategic pivot from earlier opposition talking points centered on tax revenue and business impacts.

The advertisements will run on broadcast and cable television in major metropolitan markets through election day. Campaign officials said digital versions of the ads launched simultaneously across social media platforms and streaming services. The public health focus aligns with opposition strategy documents that identified suburban women and older voters as persuadable demographics concerned about unintended medical consequences of prohibition restoration.