Radley Balko of the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank,
has written a policy analysis paper detailing the new prohibitionist
agenda: higher alcohol taxes, tougher licensing and zoning
requirements, and restrictions on advertising, among other measures.

The report, "Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social
Drinking," can be found on Cato's website at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf

Paul Ruschmann

Travel Editor, "All About Beer" Magazine
Creator of www.BeerFestivals.org

(Paul Ruschmann) nattered on
e.com:

> Radley Balko of the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank,
> has written a policy analysis paper detailing the new prohibitionist
> agenda: higher alcohol taxes, tougher licensing and zoning
> requirements, and restrictions on advertising, among other measures.

Gee sounds like tobacco "policy"...

"Paul Ruschmann" > wrote in message
m...
> Radley Balko of the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank,
> has written a policy analysis paper detailing the new prohibitionist
> agenda: higher alcohol taxes, tougher licensing and zoning
> requirements, and restrictions on advertising, among other measures.
>
> The report, "Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social
> Drinking," can be found on Cato's website at
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf

Don't doubt it. There was a book I came across in other research that laid
out a very similar anti-booze agenda...from 1967. A lot of what THAT book
talked about has already come true: tougher drunk-driving laws and a
stigmatization of alcohol as a "drug," control of sources (keg laws), and an
increase of the legal drinking age. They're out there working ALL THE TIME.
That's how Prohibition got through in the first place.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

"Lew Bryson" wrote:
> Don't doubt it. There was a book I came across in other research that laid
> out a very similar anti-booze agenda...from 1967. A lot of what THAT book
> talked about has already come true: tougher drunk-driving laws and a
> stigmatization of alcohol as a "drug," control of sources (keg laws), and
an
> increase of the legal drinking age. They're out there working ALL THE
TIME.
> That's how Prohibition got through in the first place.

Do you recall the name of the book? I'd be interested in giving that agenda
a read.

Cheers!

--
Todd Alström, Founder
http://BeerAdvocate.com - Join the Beer Revolution!
--
01/17/04 - BeerAdvocate.com Extreme Beer Fest
05/08/04 - BeerAdvocate.com Art of Beer Fest
11/06/04 - BeerAdvocate.com Belgian Beer Fest
The Cyclorama @ The Boston Center for the Arts
http://beeradvocate.com/events/
--

"Todd Alström" > wrote in message
...
> "Lew Bryson" wrote:
> > Don't doubt it. There was a book I came across in other research that
laid
> > out a very similar anti-booze agenda...from 1967. A lot of what THAT
book
> > talked about has already come true: tougher drunk-driving laws and a
> > stigmatization of alcohol as a "drug," control of sources (keg laws),
and
> an
> > increase of the legal drinking age. They're out there working ALL THE
> TIME.
> > That's how Prohibition got through in the first place.
>
> Do you recall the name of the book? I'd be interested in giving that
agenda
> a read.

Yeah, I went and looked it up, turns out I was a couple years off on the
date, it's from 1973. It's by Dr. Joel Fort, "Alcohol: Our Biggest Drug
Problem" (McGraw-Hill).

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

Lew Bryson wrote ...
>They're out there working ALL THE TIME.
> That's how Prohibition got through in the first place.

There are two large differences between then and today. First, we have the
experience of prohibition as a failed policy. Second, the lobby that would
rise up against a genuine prohibition bill would start with brewers,
vintners, and distillers, and would include the restaurant and hotel lobbies
since alcohol is such a high profit item for them. It would be interesting
to see the difference in the amount of money given by Anheuser-Busch to
fight the Volstead Act and how much they would put up today to save their
multibillion dollar business.

Tom W

"Tom Wolper" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Lew Bryson wrote ...
> >They're out there working ALL THE TIME.
> > That's how Prohibition got through in the first place.
>
> There are two large differences between then and today. First, we have the
> experience of prohibition as a failed policy. Second, the lobby that would
> rise up against a genuine prohibition bill would start with brewers,
> vintners, and distillers, and would include the restaurant and hotel
lobbies
> since alcohol is such a high profit item for them. It would be interesting
> to see the difference in the amount of money given by Anheuser-Busch to
> fight the Volstead Act and how much they would put up today to save their
> multibillion dollar business.

Yeah, but...

First, the experience of Prohibition as a failed policy means nothing --
witness the continued War on Drugs. Read histories of Prohibition, read
histories and current accounts of the War on Drugs; the similarities are
nothing short of astonishing: use of the Coast Guard and the military,
widespread breaking of the law by otherwise law-abiding citizens,
involvement of organized crime, violation of civil liberties, the continuing
demand for the product in the face of expense, inconvenience, and
illegality. Neo-Prohibitionists do not intend to make it happen again the
same way, they have digested the lessons of that failed experiment and have
other plans. They are attacking through health issues, 'control of access,'
taxes, and stigmatization. They are looking for de facto Prohibition, not de
jure.

Second, I wouldn't be surprised to see the multi-billion dollar businesses
line up to cooperate. They're scared to fight, and their marketers will
scare them further.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

Paul Ruschmann wrote:
>
> Radley Balko of the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank,
> has written a policy analysis paper detailing the new prohibitionist
> agenda: higher alcohol taxes, tougher licensing and zoning
> requirements, and restrictions on advertising, among other measures.
>
> The report, "Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social
> Drinking," can be found on Cato's website at
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf
>

Learn to homebrew NOW.

--NPD

Lew Bryson wrote...
> First, the experience of Prohibition as a failed policy means nothing --
> witness the continued War on Drugs. Read histories of Prohibition, read
> histories and current accounts of the War on Drugs; the similarities are
> nothing short of astonishing: use of the Coast Guard and the military,
> widespread breaking of the law by otherwise law-abiding citizens,
> involvement of organized crime, violation of civil liberties, the
continuing
> demand for the product in the face of expense, inconvenience, and
> illegality. Neo-Prohibitionists do not intend to make it happen again the
> same way, they have digested the lessons of that failed experiment and
have
> other plans. They are attacking through health issues, 'control of
access,'
> taxes, and stigmatization. They are looking for de facto Prohibition, not
de
> jure.

Alcoholic beverages, esp. beer and wine, have food and cultural values that
tobacco and drugs do not. Every study touting the health benefits of
moderate alcohol consumption gets wide play in the media in order to counter
the notion that "alcohol is just another drug." Counter prohibition forces
are active but they aren't as shrill as the neos.
>
> Second, I wouldn't be surprised to see the multi-billion dollar businesses
> line up to cooperate. They're scared to fight, and their marketers will
> scare them further.

I have heard many times that restaurants make their profit from the bar and
wine price markup. I assume that hotel bars and minibars are a lucrative
profit center for the hotels. An effective de facto prohibition would
seriously hurt the profit margins of these two businesses and they would
either have to replace the revenues or face closing. Of course, the bars
will have to close also. Cities and states would have to face the loss of
tax revenue from losing all of those businesses. God knows what would happen
to US tourism and border policy when there is an explosion in the number of
tourists going to Niagara Falls, Windsor, Vancouver, Tijuana, Juarez, etc.

On top of all that, I just can't see the political fight in California if
the grape growers and vintners (especially the boutique wineries owned by
people who can make substantial campaign contributions) are to be told that
they have to cease their activity for the public good. People might dream of
a new prohibition and even get their dreams published, but implementing them
as public policy seems farfetched.

Tom W
>
> --
> Lew Bryson
>
> www.LewBryson.com
> Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
> available at <www.amazon.com>
> The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
> or respond to it. Spam away.
>
>

"Tom Wolper" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> Lew Bryson wrote...
> > First, the experience of Prohibition as a failed policy means nothing --
> > witness the continued War on Drugs. Read histories of Prohibition, read
> > histories and current accounts of the War on Drugs; the similarities are
> > nothing short of astonishing: use of the Coast Guard and the military,
> > widespread breaking of the law by otherwise law-abiding citizens,
> > involvement of organized crime, violation of civil liberties, the
> continuing
> > demand for the product in the face of expense, inconvenience, and
> > illegality. Neo-Prohibitionists do not intend to make it happen again
the
> > same way, they have digested the lessons of that failed experiment and
> have
> > other plans. They are attacking through health issues, 'control of
> access,'
> > taxes, and stigmatization. They are looking for de facto Prohibition,
not
> de
> > jure.
>
> Alcoholic beverages, esp. beer and wine, have food and cultural values
that
> tobacco and drugs do not. Every study touting the health benefits of
> moderate alcohol consumption gets wide play in the media in order to
counter
> the notion that "alcohol is just another drug." Counter prohibition forces
> are active but they aren't as shrill as the neos.

"Food and cultural values" are in the eye of the beholder. The food value of
beer and wine is easily tossed aside by nanny-staters, I see it in the
newspapers frequently. Nutritionists and doctors make pronouncements that
alcohol beverages are "empty calories," that "impariment begins with the
first drink," and who stands up to them? No one. Reporters repeat them, and
the ATTTB enforces policy that makes the nutritional information on beer and
wine taboo. Cultural value? For every positive cultural attribute beer,
wine, and spirits have, there is a negative one; why do you think they call
them "winos?" Counter-prohibition forces fight a reactive battle, and they
(like you, I'm afraid) see all the good, thoughtful arguments on their side,
not realizing that the battle will not be fought on rational grounds, but on
appeals to emotion, just like the first Prohibition battles were fought.

And "alcohol is a drug" is a STRONG idea. They teach my children that idea
in school, they say it in PSAs. I hear many pro-alcohol folks admit the
statement as truth, then seek to weaken it by saying alcohol is at least a
LEGAL drug. Stupid. If alcohol is a drug, so is caffeine, so is aspirin, so
is theophylleine... That is precisely the kind of thing that needs to be
countered, and the media is not giving it wide play in order to counter
anything, they give it wide play because controversy sells almost as many
papers as funny stories about booze.

> > Second, I wouldn't be surprised to see the multi-billion dollar
businesses
> > line up to cooperate. They're scared to fight, and their marketers will
> > scare them further.
>
> I have heard many times that restaurants make their profit from the bar
and
> wine price markup. I assume that hotel bars and minibars are a lucrative
> profit center for the hotels. An effective de facto prohibition would
> seriously hurt the profit margins of these two businesses and they would
> either have to replace the revenues or face closing.

Like the stiffer drunk driving laws have? Bar business has been hurt by the
0.08 BAC laws. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (because you CAN'T; drunk
driving is dangerous and bad -- that's why increasingly stiffer drunk
driving laws are a perfect way to develop de facto Prohibition), but people
are drinking less in bars. Bar owners are taking the hit and looking for
other profit centers. Heard about the raids in Northern Virginia this past
fall? Police officers went into bars and arrested people for public
drunkenness. In a bar. People who'd had two or three drinks. There was a
public outcry, but the police were unrepentant.

> Of course, the bars
> will have to close also. Cities and states would have to face the loss of
> tax revenue from losing all of those businesses. God knows what would
happen
> to US tourism and border policy when there is an explosion in the number
of
> tourists going to Niagara Falls, Windsor, Vancouver, Tijuana, Juarez, etc.

ALL of this happened when the Volstead Act went through. Taxes went to hell,
businesses closed, and illegal businesses skyrocketed (which of course sent
the taxes further into a spiral). People went to booze boats three miles
off-shore, people broke the law, people made their own. And every cost,
every inconvenience, every danger was considered to be well worth ridding
the country of the booze trade, and the saloon, and the drunk.

> On top of all that, I just can't see the political fight in California if
> the grape growers and vintners (especially the boutique wineries owned by
> people who can make substantial campaign contributions) are to be told
that
> they have to cease their activity for the public good. People might dream
of
> a new prohibition and even get their dreams published, but implementing
them
> as public policy seems farfetched.

The Dry forces counted 3/4 of Congress in their corner in the mid-1920s, on
both sides of the aisle. Prohibition was bad for business and great for
crime, and it was still strongly supported. Besides, wine owners will find a
way: exports, sacramental wine, grape juice (with the warnings about keeping
yeast away from it, no doubt), just as brewers made malt syrup, ice cream,
near beer, and soda, and distillers made industrial alcohol and "medicinal"
whiskey...and they survived. They would rather survive than die. Public
policy is already being implemented: 0.08 BAC driving laws and the 21
drinking age are the law of the land (or will be within a year). Keg
registration laws are patchworking the states. Federal beer taxes went up in
1991 along with a number of luxury taxes; the luxury taxes were repealed,
beer's still taxed. It IS happening, a gradual, incremental process that is
just the path the neo-Prohibition forces have planned.

It's all happened before. The neo-Dries think they'll take a different path.
It will be just as disastrous, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. I
don't for a moment believe that it will be effective over the long-term, but
the possible difficulties of the short-term dismay me. No one on the wet
side believed national Prohibition would ever go through; that's why they
lost.
--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

> There are two large differences between then and today. First, we have the
> experience of prohibition as a failed policy. Second, the lobby that would
> rise up against a genuine prohibition bill would start with brewers,
> vintners, and distillers, and would include the restaurant and hotel
lobbies
> since alcohol is such a high profit item for them. It would be interesting
> to see the difference in the amount of money given by Anheuser-Busch to
> fight the Volstead Act and how much they would put up today to save their
> multibillion dollar business.
>
Gee, that worked so well for the tobacco industries................

"Drinking in America: A History" by Mark Edward Lender:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

"Drink: A Social History of America" by Andrew Barr (a British sociologist
looks at American drinking mores):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Both books available dirt-cheap used at Amazon; both listings will give you
more books worth considering as well. (Andrew Barr also has a book "Wine
Snobbery: An Expose"........ sounds intriguing.......)

Lew Bryson wrote...
>Counter-prohibition forces fight a reactive battle, and they
> (like you, I'm afraid) see all the good, thoughtful arguments on their
side,
> not realizing that the battle will not be fought on rational grounds, but
on
> appeals to emotion, just like the first Prohibition battles were fought.

I do activist work in other areas and I have learned not to believe that
just because I have good intentions, the public and government will see
things my way and do things accordingly. I'm basing my argument on the book
"Food Politics" by Marion Nestle. Her book shows how the food industry works
to sell more food to US consumers in this period of caloric overabundance.
The food industry (including the restaurant and institutional food service
trades) has a massive lobby in Washington fighting efforts to regulate food
even as obesity becomes a major public health problem. The food industry
also funds research studies showing how each food item can be good for you
regardless of where it is on the "food pyramid." They then spend money on PR
to get this word out to news outlets and of course they have huge
advertising campaigns.

I assume that the beverage industry is part of the food industry in general
and will behave in the same way. They certainly have money that wasn't
available to the smaller drinks industry at the time of the debate over
Prohibition and they have better organization and knowledge of PR and
advertising. I can also see a shared agenda as the food industry sees
increased regulation of alcohol leading to regulation of food deemed
"unhealthy."

> And "alcohol is a drug" is a STRONG idea. They teach my children that idea
> in school, they say it in PSAs. I hear many pro-alcohol folks admit the
> statement as truth, then seek to weaken it by saying alcohol is at least a
> LEGAL drug. Stupid. If alcohol is a drug, so is caffeine, so is aspirin,
so
> is theophylleine... That is precisely the kind of thing that needs to be
> countered, and the media is not giving it wide play in order to counter
> anything, they give it wide play because controversy sells almost as many
> papers as funny stories about booze.

This is where I put my trust in our traditional enemy, the megabrewers. I
haven't done research but I believe that the big three are all publicly
traded and have to answer to shareholders. If they see the threats as
serious, then you'll see the effects in the media. I don't want to give them
too much credit, but I want to believe that they have studied the process of
enacting Prohibition and the fight over tobacco and they have learned the
lesson.

>> An effective de facto prohibition would
> > seriously hurt the profit margins of these two businesses and they would
> > either have to replace the revenues or face closing.
>
> Like the stiffer drunk driving laws have? Bar business has been hurt by
the
> 0.08 BAC laws. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (because you CAN'T; drunk
> driving is dangerous and bad -- that's why increasingly stiffer drunk
> driving laws are a perfect way to develop de facto Prohibition), but
people
> are drinking less in bars. Bar owners are taking the hit and looking for
> other profit centers. Heard about the raids in Northern Virginia this past
> fall? Police officers went into bars and arrested people for public
> drunkenness. In a bar. People who'd had two or three drinks. There was a
> public outcry, but the police were unrepentant.

Drunk driving as an issue is an opportunity for neo-Prohibitionists. Bars
have to open up far away from residential districts and people who drink in
bars have to drive home. There is a great distance between dealing with that
and letting people know that they can't have a bottle of fancy with their
fancy meal in a fancy restaurant or that a law-abiding citizen can't take
home a case of beer and drink it there.

As for the N. Virginia incident, I haven't heard of it and I think that
means something. Did the arrests stand up in court? I will know this is
worrying when the police arrest all the drunks (not just the rowdy ones) at
an Eagles game and the convictions stand.

> The Dry forces counted 3/4 of Congress in their corner in the mid-1920s,
on
> both sides of the aisle. Prohibition was bad for business and great for
> crime, and it was still strongly supported. Besides, wine owners will find
a
> way: exports, sacramental wine, grape juice (with the warnings about
keeping
> yeast away from it, no doubt), just as brewers made malt syrup, ice cream,
> near beer, and soda, and distillers made industrial alcohol and
"medicinal"
> whiskey...and they survived. They would rather survive than die. Public
> policy is already being implemented: 0.08 BAC driving laws and the 21
> drinking age are the law of the land (or will be within a year). Keg
> registration laws are patchworking the states. Federal beer taxes went up
in
> 1991 along with a number of luxury taxes; the luxury taxes were repealed,
> beer's still taxed. It IS happening, a gradual, incremental process that
is
> just the path the neo-Prohibition forces have planned.

The main difference is the way that the alcoholic beverages have
corporatized. We now have national breweries (and distillers, etc.) and many
bars and restaurants belong to chains, so they aren't fragmented like
saloons and local brewers were back in the day. PR, advertising, and
lobbying are much more sophisticated now and threatened industries all have
access to these resources in their fight.
>
> It's all happened before. The neo-Dries think they'll take a different
path.
> It will be just as disastrous, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. I
> don't for a moment believe that it will be effective over the long-term,
but
> the possible difficulties of the short-term dismay me. No one on the wet
> side believed national Prohibition would ever go through; that's why they
> lost.

I can't talk for the brewers, etc., but one thing we haven't seen is major
lawsuits against the industry. That's what brought down tobacco and there
has even bben a class action suit against the fast food industry. That might
be a sign that the beverage industry is keeping prohibition forces at bay.

Tom W

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote...
> > There are two large differences between then and today. First, we have
the
> > experience of prohibition as a failed policy. Second, the lobby that
would
> > rise up against a genuine prohibition bill would start with brewers,
> > vintners, and distillers, and would include the restaurant and hotel
> lobbies
> > since alcohol is such a high profit item for them. It would be
interesting
> > to see the difference in the amount of money given by Anheuser-Busch to
> > fight the Volstead Act and how much they would put up today to save
their
> > multibillion dollar business.
> >
> Gee, that worked so well for the tobacco industries................

The tobacco industry might not be doing as well as they expected ten years
ago, but they are still making a profit.

With tobacco, even moderate use in one's own home is a danger to one's
health. There is a substantial body of evidence that moderate drinking has
health benefits, and the greatest threat from alcohol is drunk driving, so
drinking moderately at home poses no threat to health.

Tom W

"Tom Wolper" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> Lew Bryson wrote...
> >Counter-prohibition forces fight a reactive battle, and they
> > (like you, I'm afraid) see all the good, thoughtful arguments on their
> side,
> > not realizing that the battle will not be fought on rational grounds,
but
> on
> > appeals to emotion, just like the first Prohibition battles were fought.
>
> I do activist work in other areas and I have learned not to believe that
> just because I have good intentions, the public and government will see
> things my way and do things accordingly.

Not good intentions; good arguments. Good, rational arguments don't
necessarily mean squat: see the evidence now coming out that despite legal
decisions (and Dow Corning's bankruptcy) to the contrary, silicon breast
implants were essentially harmless.

> I'm basing my argument on the book
> "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle. Her book shows how the food industry
works
> to sell more food to US consumers in this period of caloric overabundance.
> The food industry (including the restaurant and institutional food service
> trades) has a massive lobby in Washington fighting efforts to regulate
food
> even as obesity becomes a major public health problem. The food industry
> also funds research studies showing how each food item can be good for you
> regardless of where it is on the "food pyramid." They then spend money on
PR
> to get this word out to news outlets and of course they have huge
> advertising campaigns.
>
> I assume that the beverage industry is part of the food industry in
general
> and will behave in the same way. They certainly have money that wasn't
> available to the smaller drinks industry at the time of the debate over
> Prohibition and they have better organization and knowledge of PR and
> advertising. I can also see a shared agenda as the food industry sees
> increased regulation of alcohol leading to regulation of food deemed
> "unhealthy."

The beverage industry is different. It is more regulated, it is denied some
freedoms that the food industry has, and it is protected from competition in
some ways the food industry is not: there are no 'slotting fees' in
supermarket sales of beer, for instance. And despite the McDonald's
lawsuits, alcohol is still much more of a demon than food.

> > And "alcohol is a drug" is a STRONG idea. They teach my children that
idea
> > in school, they say it in PSAs. I hear many pro-alcohol folks admit the
> > statement as truth, then seek to weaken it by saying alcohol is at least
a
> > LEGAL drug. Stupid. If alcohol is a drug, so is caffeine, so is aspirin,
> so
> > is theophylleine... That is precisely the kind of thing that needs to be
> > countered, and the media is not giving it wide play in order to counter
> > anything, they give it wide play because controversy sells almost as
many
> > papers as funny stories about booze.
>
> This is where I put my trust in our traditional enemy, the megabrewers. I
> haven't done research but I believe that the big three are all publicly
> traded and have to answer to shareholders. If they see the threats as
> serious, then you'll see the effects in the media. I don't want to give
them
> too much credit, but I want to believe that they have studied the process
of
> enacting Prohibition and the fight over tobacco and they have learned the
> lesson.

I'd argue that answering to shareholders cripples the megabrewers. Publicly
traded companies tend NOT to take the long view; privately held companies
have that option. In any case, private and publicly owned breweries clearly
saw Prohibition coming, and even after the 19th Amendment was ratified, they
kept saying "It won't really happen. They CAN'T do national Prohibition.
People won't allow it, they'll demand beer. It's impossible." They were
stunned by the passage of the Volstead Act. And they sounded exactly like
the drinks industry does today, they reacted exactly like they did today.
People are NOT any smarter, wiser, or more far-sighted today. "I want to
believe" otherwise, but that's not how I'm betting.

> >> An effective de facto prohibition would
> > > seriously hurt the profit margins of these two businesses and they
would
> > > either have to replace the revenues or face closing.
> >
> > Like the stiffer drunk driving laws have? Bar business has been hurt by
> the
> > 0.08 BAC laws. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (because you CAN'T; drunk
> > driving is dangerous and bad -- that's why increasingly stiffer drunk
> > driving laws are a perfect way to develop de facto Prohibition), but
> people
> > are drinking less in bars. Bar owners are taking the hit and looking for
> > other profit centers. Heard about the raids in Northern Virginia this
past
> > fall? Police officers went into bars and arrested people for public
> > drunkenness. In a bar. People who'd had two or three drinks. There was a
> > public outcry, but the police were unrepentant.
>
> Drunk driving as an issue is an opportunity for neo-Prohibitionists. Bars
> have to open up far away from residential districts and people who drink
in
> bars have to drive home. There is a great distance between dealing with
that
> and letting people know that they can't have a bottle of fancy with their
> fancy meal in a fancy restaurant or that a law-abiding citizen can't take
> home a case of beer and drink it there.

You don't get me. People who go out to lunch from work don't drink at lunch
any more. As little as 10 years ago, they did. Restaurants and bars have
lost that business. Did they do anything about it, lobby or pressure
Hollywood to show drinking at lunch as a good thing? No. They rolled over.
They'll keep rolling over.

> As for the N. Virginia incident, I haven't heard of it and I think that
> means something. Did the arrests stand up in court? I will know this is
> worrying when the police arrest all the drunks (not just the rowdy ones)
at
> an Eagles game and the convictions stand.

Yeah, it means nobody sent the story to you. He
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...3933-2003Jan16 is a follow-up piece.
Note that public opinions are all over the place, some saying the cops were
way over their authority, some saying that the cops should have first
educated people that they are not allowed to be "drunk in a bar," some
saying "law enforcement is doing its job." The people arrested were not all
"rowdy," they were tapped on the shoulder and breathalyzed. The owners of
the taverns hadn't complained. (Here's a post on a tavern-owners' website
forum about it: http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0301/0418.html) And yes, the
arrests stood up in court:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

> > The Dry forces counted 3/4 of Congress in their corner in the mid-1920s,
> on
> > both sides of the aisle. Prohibition was bad for business and great for
> > crime, and it was still strongly supported. Besides, wine owners will
find
> a
> > way: exports, sacramental wine, grape juice (with the warnings about
> keeping
> > yeast away from it, no doubt), just as brewers made malt syrup, ice
cream,
> > near beer, and soda, and distillers made industrial alcohol and
> "medicinal"
> > whiskey...and they survived. They would rather survive than die. Public
> > policy is already being implemented: 0.08 BAC driving laws and the 21
> > drinking age are the law of the land (or will be within a year). Keg
> > registration laws are patchworking the states. Federal beer taxes went
up
> in
> > 1991 along with a number of luxury taxes; the luxury taxes were
repealed,
> > beer's still taxed. It IS happening, a gradual, incremental process that
> is
> > just the path the neo-Prohibition forces have planned.
>
> The main difference is the way that the alcoholic beverages have
> corporatized. We now have national breweries (and distillers, etc.) and
many
> bars and restaurants belong to chains, so they aren't fragmented like
> saloons and local brewers were back in the day. PR, advertising, and
> lobbying are much more sophisticated now and threatened industries all
have
> access to these resources in their fight.

We had brewers back in those days that were so politically sophisticated
they were routinely influencing elections: that was one of the most
convincing reasons for Prohibition, breaking the political power of the
booze lobby. Bars and restaurants belonged to the breweries (that's why we
have the anti-tied house laws now), so they ALL did what the booze lobby
told them to do. PR and advertising may be more sophisticated (I'd argue
about lobbying), but the threatened industries are MUCH more gun-shy of
using them because of the successful stigmatization of alcohol.

> > It's all happened before. The neo-Dries think they'll take a different
> path.
> > It will be just as disastrous, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. I
> > don't for a moment believe that it will be effective over the long-term,
> but
> > the possible difficulties of the short-term dismay me. No one on the wet
> > side believed national Prohibition would ever go through; that's why
they
> > lost.
>
> I can't talk for the brewers, etc., but one thing we haven't seen is major
> lawsuits against the industry. That's what brought down tobacco and there
> has even bben a class action suit against the fast food industry. That
might
> be a sign that the beverage industry is keeping prohibition forces at bay.

I interviewed Bill Samuels, the prez of Maker's Mark, a few years ago. Said
he'd been to a nat'l meeting as part of the KY Chamber of Commerce. The
Nat'l CofC had commissioned a study to see who the trial lawyers were going
to go after once Big Tobacco had been successfully gutted. The order was
recreational firearms (see the gun lawsuits in Chicago and other cities),
fast food (as you said), and alcohol beverages was third. Just a matter of
time. It can happen again. It will. Unless we work harder to stop it.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

Lew Bryson wrote...
>
> I'd argue that answering to shareholders cripples the megabrewers.
Publicly
> traded companies tend NOT to take the long view; privately held companies
> have that option. In any case, private and publicly owned breweries
clearly
> saw Prohibition coming, and even after the 19th Amendment was ratified,
they
> kept saying "It won't really happen. They CAN'T do national Prohibition.
> People won't allow it, they'll demand beer. It's impossible." They were
> stunned by the passage of the Volstead Act. And they sounded exactly like
> the drinks industry does today, they reacted exactly like they did today.
> People are NOT any smarter, wiser, or more far-sighted today. "I want to
> believe" otherwise, but that's not how I'm betting.
>
I think we've hit the point where we can't advance this any further - we can
only repeat ourselves, so I am not going to try to push my points again. I'm
not agruing against you, Lew, I find it hard to believe that multibillion
dollar corporations will roll over to implement a policy that was proven to
be a failure decades ago.

The way forward, then, is to organize against a prohibitionist agenda. It
would naturally be bipartisan as it would appeal to the deregulation and
lower taxes people of the right and the right-to-one's-pleasure people of
the left. Fund raising should be simple - if the organization is 501(c3),
meaning that the purpose of the organization is to educate consumers about
choices in the marketplace (and not lobby legislators) - then contributions
would be tax deductible and foundations tied to big brewing companies should
be happy to give an independent organization seed money to help them
survive.

Tom W

"Lew Bryson" > wrote in message
. ..

> Neo-Prohibitionists do not intend to make it happen again the
> same way, they have digested the lessons of that failed experiment and
have
> other plans. They are attacking through health issues, 'control of
access,'
> taxes, and stigmatization. They are looking for de facto Prohibition, not
de
> jure.

Yep. Literal prohibition will not reoccur in the U.S. It's politically
untenable. But, it is easier to chip away at things surrounding the free
availability of alcohol. And once you make it very difficult for people to
purchase or consume, you've pretty much hit your goals anyway, even if you
don't have a law that says "no booze."

-Steve

"Lew Bryson" > wrote in message
. com...

> If alcohol is a drug, so is caffeine, so is aspirin, so
> is theophylleine...

I'm not getting your point there, Lew. Those *are* drugs. Just because
something is a drug doesn't make it bad. The other prohibitionist movement
has made the word more perjorative than it should be, but there are all
sorts of useful and/or benign drugs.

Now, of course, the alcohol is a drug line of reasoning tries to pair it
with coke and smack. And there is not an equivalency.

Denying that alcohol is a drug isn't going to get you anywhere, because it
comes across as having as much intellectual validity as claiming that the
moon landing was staged. It needs to be addressed that alcohol is not the
equivalent of opium and LSD, just as caffeine and aspirin are, and that it
therefore needs to be treated differently.

-Steve

"Lew Bryson" > wrote in message
om...

> Don't doubt it. There was a book I came across in other research that laid
> out a very similar anti-booze agenda...from 1967. A lot of what THAT book
> talked about has already come true: tougher drunk-driving laws and a
> stigmatization of alcohol as a "drug," control of sources (keg laws), and
an
> increase of the legal drinking age. They're out there working ALL THE
TIME.
> That's how Prohibition got through in the first place.

I suspect you can go back even further than that. In other words, I suspect
a lot of that has always been there. One could interpret that as that there
is this decades-long insidious movement to pull the beer from our hands
again. Or one could interpret that, depsite the push for this sort of thing
for so long, we're still able to fill up a pint when we want. I suspect the
reality lies somewhere in between.

One thing those of us fighting neo-prohibitionist forces need to be careful
of is how we state our case. The problem is not tougher drunk-driving laws,
for example; it's that they've been toughened in the wrong way. Personally,
I believe that any repeat offense should carry significant prison time, say
five years (I'm not willing to go Draconian on a first offense, under the
belief that everyone's entitled to a mistake). I believe vehicular homicide
should be the equivalent of non-premeditated homicide using any other
implement other than a car and bottle. Drunk driving is an objective,
serious danger, and needs to be treated as such. It is not. Instead, we have
laws that focus on the wrong side of the equation, by making it more
difficult for law-abiding, sane, responsible drinkers to imbibe outside of
the home. Just saying "tougher drunk driving laws are bad" makes us look
like idiots. I've addressed the problems with denying that alcohol is a drug
elsewhere in the thread.

-Steve

"Tom Wolper" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

> This is where I put my trust in our traditional enemy, the megabrewers. I
> haven't done research but I believe that the big three are all publicly
> traded and have to answer to shareholders.

I don't think that's a life preserver at all. Being publicly held puts
enormous pressure on a company to operate in such a way that provides a
solid return on the stock price. And the investment climate of the last 25
years or so has vastly emphasized short-term, quarter-to-quarter results
instead of long-term growth.

If I'm a brewer or distiller, and my stock price is getting hammered because
of lawsuits or legislative pressure, I'm going to settle.

One needs look no further than the tobacco companies. They were getting
hammered in the markets. They settled. They are growing. Altria is one of
the best-performing stocks of the last year. And yet, the industry is
nowhere near as healthy as it once was. Certainly not as diverse. And, for
companies like Altria, much of their growth has had to come from businesses
that have nothing to do with tobacco.

Granted, there's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison between the drinks
business and tobacco. The former has not been caught committing perjury
before Congress, deliberately falsifying documents, etc. There is a certain
degree to which, yes, tobacco had it coming. That doesn't diminish the
market lessons learned from their experience, however.

> I can't talk for the brewers, etc., but one thing we haven't seen is major
> lawsuits against the industry. That's what brought down tobacco and there
> has even bben a class action suit against the fast food industry. That
might
> be a sign that the beverage industry is keeping prohibition forces at bay.

I take it simply as a sign that they just haven't gotten around to drinks
yet. They'll hit food for a while, and once that's finished, they'll need a
new target.

-Steve

"Steve Jackson" > wrote in message
news:GUKKb.30182
> "Lew Bryson" > wrote in message
> > If alcohol is a drug, so is caffeine, so is aspirin, so
> > is theophylleine...
>
> I'm not getting your point there, Lew. Those *are* drugs. Just because
> something is a drug doesn't make it bad. The other prohibitionist movement
> has made the word more perjorative than it should be, but there are all
> sorts of useful and/or benign drugs.
>
> Now, of course, the alcohol is a drug line of reasoning tries to pair it
> with coke and smack. And there is not an equivalency.

That pretty much was my point. However, as one of my profs in college once
said, I was without my usual clarity of expression here.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

"Steve Jackson" > wrote in message
news:C0LKb.30253
> "Lew Bryson" > wrote in message
> One thing those of us fighting neo-prohibitionist forces need to be
careful
> of is how we state our case. The problem is not tougher drunk-driving
laws,
> for example; it's that they've been toughened in the wrong way.
Personally,
> I believe that any repeat offense should carry significant prison time,
say
> five years (I'm not willing to go Draconian on a first offense, under the
> belief that everyone's entitled to a mistake). I believe vehicular
homicide
> should be the equivalent of non-premeditated homicide using any other
> implement other than a car and bottle. Drunk driving is an objective,
> serious danger, and needs to be treated as such. It is not. Instead, we
have
> laws that focus on the wrong side of the equation, by making it more
> difficult for law-abiding, sane, responsible drinkers to imbibe outside of
> the home. Just saying "tougher drunk driving laws are bad" makes us look
> like idiots.

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.

> I've addressed the problems with denying that alcohol is a drug
> elsewhere in the thread.

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.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

"Steve Jackson" > wrote in message
news:J6LKb.30313
> Granted, there's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison between the
drinks
> business and tobacco. The former has not been caught committing perjury
> before Congress, deliberately falsifying documents, etc. There is a
certain
> degree to which, yes, tobacco had it coming. That doesn't diminish the
> market lessons learned from their experience, however.

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.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

"Lew Bryson" > wrote in message news:<UvXKb.54569

<snip>

> 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.

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
www.LABeer.com
www.FranconiaBeerGuide.com

"Lew Bryson" > wrote in message
news
> 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,

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

"Fred Waltman" > wrote in message
om...

> 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...

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

Steve Jackson wrote:

> "Lew Bryson" > wrote in message

>>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,
>
>
> 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.

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" <g>)

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.)

"Steve Jackson" > wrote in message
news:Sp3Lb.34462
> "Fred Waltman" > wrote in message
> > 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...
>
> That certainly seems like overkill. And I'm guessing we're not talking
just
> bus drivers and forklift operators here.

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 ****ed off, then I was
filled with pity.

> 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?

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?

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

> wrote in message news:hU8Lb.76557
> 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.
<SNIP amplification of that>
> 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" <g>)
>
> 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.)

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.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at <www.amazon.com>
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" > writes:


>> since alcohol is such a high profit item for them. It would be interesting
>> to see the difference in the amount of money given by Anheuser-Busch to
>> fight the Volstead Act and how much they would put up today to save their
>> multibillion dollar business.
>>
>Gee, that worked so well for the tobacco industries................


Oh yeah, I forgot that now it's impossible to buy cigarettes.
--
"PS. Please take note of the fact that, in conformity with the
regulations of this office, all information contained in the above
letter is false, for reasons of military security."
- Umberto Eco, /How to Travel with a Salmon & Other Essays/

Joseph Michael Bay wrote...
> Alexander D. Mitchell IV writes:
> >Gee, that worked so well for the tobacco industries................
>
>
> 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 ******* 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

Joseph Michael Bay > wrote:
>"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" > writes:
>>> since alcohol is such a high profit item for them. It would be interesting
>>> to see the difference in the amount of money given by Anheuser-Busch to
>>> fight the Volstead Act and how much they would put up today to save their
>>> multibillion dollar business.
>>>
>>Gee, that worked so well for the tobacco industries................
>
>Oh yeah, I forgot that now it's impossible to buy cigarettes.

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?
--
Joel Plutchak "Senza la birra tutto diventa orfano."
plutchak@[...] - Italian proverb (slightly revised)

"Lew Bryson" > wrote in message .com>...
>
> 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.

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

> "Drink: A Social History of America" by Andrew Barr (a British sociologist
> looks at American drinking mores):
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
>
> Both books available dirt-cheap used at Amazon; both listings will give you
> more books worth considering as well. (Andrew Barr also has a book "Wine
> Snobbery: An Expose"........ sounds intriguing.......)