I have been watching Kens Burns “Prohibition” on Netflix. So far I have watched the first two parts. Over and over they mention a widespread epidemic of alcoholism throughout the US.
What would cause that? Is there now the same percentage of alcoholics in the US as there was then? Is a man who over indulges only on payday really an alcoholic?
The definitions of alcoholism and events like binge drinking can appear rather skewed. It difficult to put a exact measure on it. I like to compare it to pain threshold. Its different for everyone.
As far as the larger scope fo your question, I will leave that up to other readers.
Is this in reference to the time before alcohol prohibition, or the time of alcohol prohibition?
<p>
There’s an obvious explanation for the latter – high-concentration forms of alcohol are easier to conceal and transport, and thus prohibition would tend to enhance the availability of hard liquor relative to that of mild forms like beer and wine. People used to the latter might therefore resort to the former and succumb to overuse leading to addiction.
Referring to the time before prohibition.
According to the Ken Burns show; one of the claims made by the people who were instrumental in pushing through Prohibition was widespread alcoholism. Additionally the narrator mentions the problem; not just when they are doing the historical voice overs of the people who were there.
Part of the “rampant alcoholism” that sparked prohibition was xenophobia. During this time, there was massive immigration from southern and eastern Europe to the US. The drinking cultures of these immigrants were different than that of the WASP crowd then in power.
Like current immigrants, those who feel that their power structure is threatened are inclined to propagandize the differences to create a culture of fear. Prohibition was not the only legal response to this. Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924 as a more direct response.
As I recall, it was stated in either the Ken Burns documentary or another that the 19th Century increase in alcoholism was attributed to the prevalence of hard liquor (whiskey and “moonshine”) in the U.S. compared to the less-potent “old country” drinks of beer (northern Europe) or wine (southern Europe). If someone drank high-proof liquor in the same volumes as they were used to drinking of low-ABV beer or watered-down wine, bad things often happened. :eek:
The flipside of that is that many people who supported the 18th Amendment thought from its reference to “intoxicating liquors” that it would apply to hard liquor only and that beer and wine would be allowed. The implementing Volstead Act was not thus limited, to their belated surprise. :smack: (Conversely, in 1933 before the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, Congress amended the Volstead Act to allow 4% ABV beer.)
The most interesting data I’ve seen about prohibition was that alcohol consumption was halved from before to after prohibition (during prohibition it went to like 10% or something.) If consumption today is similar to post-prohibition, then americans drank twice as much as now.
Without any controls or limits on liquor sales, apparently liquor consumption was very high. The temperance movements (such Carrie Nation and her hatchet for chopping up bars) were a major counterpoint to a culture where liquor was easily available. There was the complaint from temperance groups that the free food served in bars meant that restaurants had trouble staying in business, driving even more people to bars. Men would typically stop at the bar on the way home and spend a substantial part (if not all) of their paycheque, another gripe of temperance groups. The temperance groups persuaded various legislatures to pass prohibition by pointing out that society would be immeasurably transformed and it would be heaven on earth once the demon rum was gone.
Part of it was likely due to the hard life and low wages that many of the working poor endured. Alcohol was an escape. partly it was easy availability.