Expert Warns: Prohibition May Come Back

Personally,

What he said. I'd be a lot tougher on people with BAC over 0.15, too, which research I've read says are the people who are really killing us out on the roads. (Of the drunks, that is: there are plenty of traffic fatalities, the majority of them, caused by sober drivers.) I don't believe I said drunk-driving laws are bad; I don't believe they are. I think a number of them are badly written, they are poorly enforced, and there are better laws which need to be written. And aiming at criminalizing ever-lower BAC levels is NOT the best way to save lives on the road...although it is a great way to get to de facto Prohibition.

Steve, here I made it clear: I'm not denying that alcohol is a drug, I'm saying that alcohol has been effectively stigmatized as a "drug," i.e., the equivalent of illegal "street drugs" like marijuana, LSD, or cocaine. That kind of equivalency is stuffed into things like the D.A.R.E. program. My wife tests drugs for a living; some would say I do the same thing. That's ridiculous, our jobs are not equivalent at all (she's much better paid for hers, for instance...). What is needed is another word or phrase. Alcohol and nicotine and caffeine (and...any others? I was being facetious with theophylleine) are a separate class, they need another word.

The booze businesses WERE caught lying, corruptly influencing politics, and bribing public officials...100 years ago. Things like that led directly to Prohibition. We don't get it from where we are today, but there was a LOT more to Prohibition being enacted than simple anti-alcohol forces. It was a complex social issue that included such elements as concern over the political power of the industry (both local and national), the network of crime that surrounded the saloon, some racist and anti-Catholic elements, the trend towards progressive modernism, and the rising political power of women. Prohibition today is actually a LESS complex issue, though it's still about more than simple anti-alcohol forces.

In Florida (and wouldn't be surprised if other states) they are getting at it another way. If a company enforces a "drug-free workplace" by testing all new hires and random tests of employees you get a break on your state Workmans Comp. And, you guessed it, alcohol is one of the drugs tested. That means a beer with lunch could cost you your job...

Fred Waltman

I stopped there, because it brings up an interesting point. There were definitely ties between the progressive movement and the temperance types, and that definitely played a role in the way Prohibition came about. Progressivists in particular, and American society in general in the early

20th century, believed that public policy could change human behavior. It's somewhat the same impulse that led to Wilsonianism, which was equally wild-eyed in its optimism.

Today, we live in an era where the bulk of society has no faith in policy to accomplish much of anything. Even the support for the so-called war on drugs tends to come more from a "drugs are bad, we need to do something" perspective than an idea and trust that the policy is actually going to accomplish anything. Perhaps that cynicism makes it much more difficult to take on such a grand social experiment again.

-Steve

That certainly seems like overkill. And I'm guessing we're not talking just bus drivers and forklift operators here.

Which brings to mind an idle curiosity: I have no problem with testing drivers, heavy-equipment operators, etc. for drugs or alcohol. (Accountants, computer programmers, shop clerks, that's a different story.) Alcohol does cause impairment, and those are the sorts of jobs that put other people in danger if one's impaired.

But, are they testing for antihistamines? Nyquil? Etc.? Those cause impairment too and put others at risk. Why not judge someone on that basis, rather than just because they happened to put one particular taboo substance in their body?

-Steve

But it wasn't that cut and dry. There was also a "class based" support of Prohibition, that felt the lower classes and the working man should not have alcohol (remember the saloon was also a very political place and often served as a defacto union organizing site and strike headquarters), etc. That same faction was surprised when the Amendment also took away the wine with dinner, the drink at the men's club, etc.

The labor movement was split as well. The early locals of brewery workers that were in the Knights of Labor eventually left that labor organization because of it's support for Prohibition (the final straw- when they banned beer at union picnics) and formed the Brewery Workers Union and joined the flegdling AFL. The Brewery Workers was one of the most radical unions of the time, heavily involved in the left wing of Progressive Movement, the beginning of the even more radical IWW and a supporter of the Socialist Party of Gene Debs (4 times candidate for President of the US, and a well-known drinker and campaigned frequently in working class bars). It should be remembered that Milwaukee is probably the largest city in the US that had Socialist government officials, including a Socialist mayor up into the late 50's.

Indeed, in labor history, the downfall of the union was when they joined forces (too late, of course) with the corrupt Democratic Party and "the brewery capitalists"* to try to fight Prohibition. (*In the early days of the union, the term "brewer" meant someone who worked in the brewery- they called the owners, "brewery capitalists" )

The Bartenders Union, The Cooper's Union and the Cigarmakers Union were also heavily involved in fighting Prohibition, the latter because the saloon was often the only source for Union Cigars. Other unions (esp. some of the Railroad Brotherhoods) sometimes voiced support of the idea of Prohibition.

Finally, one should recalled that the anti-German histeria of WWI helped the Prohibitionists, since the big brewers were all still proudly German (as was the Brewery Workers Union- many publications of the union were in German, their card was interchangable with the German Brewery Workers Union card, etc.)

It's worse. I recall being out for lunch in 1994 with some co-workers -- I was doing temporary editing work at the time for a fairly tight-assed pharmaceutical company -- and when I ordered a beer with lunch (a draft Brooklyn Black Chocolate stout, I can still see it, taste it), two people left the table and went to another room of the restaurant. They were so scared for their jobs that they said they didn't even want to have lunch WITH a person who was having a beer. At first I was pissed off, then I was filled with pity.

And microbes, baby. I had a boss who was a real hard-ass about sick days. He didn't care if you were sub-par, he wanted you IN THERE. People scared of losing their jobs for staying out sick? And...WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???????

And who the hell said it was taboo, anyway?

Yup, all that. Prohibition was a very complex issue indeed, and it has been almost completely glossed over by American historians. It was a huge factor in American history for its effects on organized crime alone, yet there are fewer than 10 serious historical texts about Prohibition. This may be due to one of the most fascinating of all aspects of Prohibition: how quickly and absolutely it disappeared after Repeal. What is happening today is not a resurgence of Prohibition, it is a wholly new movement. The alcohol laws post-Repeal all show signs of appeasement of Dry forces that would turn out to be completely toothless. Interesting era of history.

Oh yeah, I forgot that now it's impossible to buy cigarettes.

This is why the argument is geting muddled. Lew is talking about a de facto prohibition, where, I suppose, alcohol is legal but impossible to come by, and we all are comparing it to Volstead Act prohibition, where the sale of alcohol is illegal.

I drink one or two beers or glasses of wine pretty much each day. It's been over ten years since I had a real session or tied one on. I don't want to see my ability to buy beer or wine curtailed, but I also don't want to excuse away drunk drivers or drunken, obnoxious fans at sporting events. There has to be a middle ground.

Back to beer: my two beers for today were Victory Hop Wallop at the Sharp Edge in Pittsburgh. I had a chance to discuss it with a bartender there. She said she had been told that it was like Arrogant Bastard but without the bitter aftertase. I compared it to SN Celebration Ale (the dominant hops are Cascade, and there is a strong citrus flavor). She drew a sample and noted that it was sweet. I was so caught up with the hops that I didn't notice how strong the malt is in it, which to me means that it is well balanced. I am not drawn to the hop monsters, and I found Hop Wallop very drinkable.

-Tom W

Not impossible, but the price of a pack of cigarettes has gone up something like 2000% in the past 30 years. That's a bit more than can be accounted for by inflation. Want that to happen to beer?

An interesting book that discusses issues leading up to prohibition is The History of Beer and Brewing in Chicago:18something to 1970ish (don't remember exact dates). All the issues touched in this thread were all brought together. Class differences, immigration issues, etc. Chicago in the late 1800 had what were called the Lager Riots. Basically, prohibitionist advocates wanted to close all the corner taverns on Sundays. This was everyones day off where family and friends would gather, each, talk politics, etc, i.e. their way of life both socially and culturally. The short term solution was to use the side entrance. This went on for a while and not going into too many details, basically Irish ad German immigrants marched on city hall to protest what was happening with corner taverns and the police department opened fire. Messy business and probably extreme in today's context. Ayway, interesting read regarding alcohol and how politics and a city grow.

I recently read "Drink" and found it hard to read at times. The author spent most of at least one chapter trying to link the failure of prohibition with the anti-drug laws in this country. Most of the book was informative and compeling.

Steve

73150787/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2571207-7449638?v=glance&s=books