Need of some insight?

Question

I have started writing my very first DBQ (Document Based Essay) and I'm in need of some critique of my introduction, but mainly my overly descriptive thesis. How can I shorten it/ make it more clear? or is it fine on its own? and lastly do I accurately address the questions asked?
Here is the essay question:
- Analyze the arguments for and against the restrictions of the sale of gin in 18th century England, and assess the degree to which the issues of the debate were reflected in the follwing excerpt of the Gin Act of 1751.
"Whereas the immoderate drinking of distilled liqors by persons of the meanest and lowest sort, hath of late years increased, to the great detriment of the health and morals of the common people, the commons of Great Britain in Parliament assembled, ever attentive to the preservation and health of your Majesty's subjects, have taken this great evil into our serious consideration, and proposed such lawa andprovisions asappear to ustobemore likelytoputastop2thesame

Ugh, they cut me off. Here is my intro:




As the consumption of gin gradually replaced the popularity of beer in England, the English government had to deal with problems arising in the health and morality of its citizens. After the Gin Act of 1736 was passed, a high fee on gin was issued, only to be lowered within the next few years. The government’s attempt at deterring its people away from the liquor failed and only emphasized the significance of distillers and their products. The restrictions of the sale of gin in eighteenth century England were both argued for and against causing great debate over the later passed Gin Act of 1751. Many who were against the restrictions offered the argument that in passing this act, not only would his Majesty lose profit, but as would the small businesses and shopkeepers who built their foundations on the sale of gin, and the act would also hurt the profits of the sale of grain and would take away the relief gin provided for the c

for the commoners. Conversely, those who were for the restrictions on gin, went with the claim that society was nothing but a denotation of quarreling, cursing, and drunkenness. The issues of the debate were highly reflected in the act itself because of the statement saying that gin was the, “great detriment to the health and morals of the common people,” which further supported the argument for the restrictions of gin.

What's with the strict limit? boo

Answer 1

Hope this works for you.

The English government sought to address the growing popularity of gin and the potential displacement of beer by passing the Gin Act of 1736 mandating a high fee on gin, a fee subsequently lowered within the next few years.

The Gin Act of 1736 was prefaced on the pretext of “moderating”, if not entirely “deterring”, the growing gin consumption by the “common people” who were purportedly already of the “immoderate”, “meanest” and the “lowest” sort.

However, the stated purpose masked a deeper issue with graver political, behavioral, cultural, even economic impact than openly admitted, thereby generating such intense debate even then, just as it subsequently did even more with the passage of the Gin Act of 1751.

Those who were for restrictions claimed that quarreling, cursing, and drunkenness attendant to gin consumption were behaviors so immoderate as to justify deterrence via tariff legislation.

Those who were against argued that restrictive legislation not only would deprive commoners of their right to choose such product as they thought most fitting for their personal purposes, but would also gravely affect the sale of grain, render non-profitable those in the gin industry, from distillers to shopkeepers, and even cost the Crown.

It is, perhaps, not surprising that so much debate attended the passage of both legislation, considering that a piece of tariff legislation would be so heavily premised on health and morals, attributed in so facile a manner to only a certain class of people so characteristically “mean” and “low” as to be singularly predisposed to “immoderation”, to the extent that the legislation would be so necessary as to “preserve” and “protect” their health.

Indeed, all sorts of pretexts, couched in the proper parliamentary language, were offered to justify the legislation, on the non sequitur premise that such undesirable behavior as drunkenness, quarrelsomeness and cursing could be reasonably and logically attributable to moral depravity unique solely to the meanest and lowest of the realm, such that restrictive legislation for economic reasons would justify intervention to protect their health.

Far from achieving the deterrence sought by both Acts, both pieces of legislation only highlighted the power of distillers and the increasing appeal of their products.

Answer 2

I think it is fine on its own

Answer 3

Gin Act