A few weeks ago I was doing a little online research on the old temperance movement. I stumbled across several websites mentioning the RWJF as “neo-prohibitionists.” Much of their “evidence” involved listing research grants for studies done on alcohol consumption, some of which I am familiar with.
The RWJF states its mission as promoting healthy lifestyle choices and reducing societal and economic costs associated with abuse of alcohol (among other substances). Apparently some believe their ultimate goal is not reducing abuse but reducing use–down to zero.
I’m not sure how it matters much in the end–I see prohibition as a lost cause, and not one I find personally compelling. However, if someone wants to donate millions of dollars towards the cause, hey, it’s his money.
Just curious if anyone know more about it, and how valid the charge of “neo-prohibitionism” is.
I’d be interested in seeing who expressed that opinion. I worked at the RWJF a couple of decades ago, and never got that impression. On of the things I did was assist in preparing their annual report through data collection, so I did see the list of all the grants for the year. While there may have been some that related to helping treat substance abuse, I don’t recall it as being a major emphasis.
A quick google will give you their web site . It has a section on Alcohol and Drug Addiction programs, including things like “A Matter of Degree: Reducing High-Risk Drinking Among College Students.” Doesn’t sound like any kind of prohibitionism to me.
One of their four stated “goal areas” is
“To reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by substance abuse — tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs.
Tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs inflict an enormous toll on Americans, especially among our youth.”
I don’t know what “neo-prohibitionism” means. I never heard that term before.
MLS: I don’t know what sites the OP was thinking about, but I’ve definitely seen libertarians refer to the foundation as such, because of their efforts to pass laws to restrict drinking WAY above and beyond what they think is necessary. I think they also believe that the Foundation twists the truth in order to get their agenda passed. The Agitator is one such site that you can do some searching on to see why.
Dam hamsters ate my post. And it was really good. Will try to recap, but basically if you really want to know about this organization, browse around their website a bit.
They tend to be academic and research-oriented, focusing on how to do things better, to see what works and what doesn’t, as opposed to having a specific agenda.
Take a look at their overall guidelines and what they do and don’t fund. For example, they specifically will not fund anything that has to do with lobbying.
You can look at their grants and reports on line, and can get copies of almost anything they’ve funded or published.
My general impression is that the Agitator is a bit off base on this one.
Well, of course I visited their website, sheesh. LOL. I merely paraphrased their mission; was I that far off? The Weschler studies are in fact the ones that I am somewhat familiar with, because they certainly get press in my line of work (Higher Ed). I am aware of how the RWJF spends its money. The point is that some people–maybe they are nuts–claim that this money is being spent for a more ambitious and unstated goal.
There is a reason I posted this question instead of noodling around on their website for the answer. If they do have some agenda like ultimately achieving prohibition, I doubt it’s in their best interests to state it. I’m not saying I buy the “conspiracy theory” (for lack of a better phrase) that they’re out to destroy Demon Rum–but I think it’s optimistic to think looking at their website alone would debunk it definitively.
I won’t be ironic and ask you to google neo-prohibitionism.
Having looked at the site you mentioned, and being somewhat familiar with RWJF, I am still of the opinion that they are not an organization that has a prohibitionist goal. As you have no doubt noticed, for example, their grant guidelines specifically exclude anything to do with lobbying; they could not under their own guidelines “try to get an agenda passed.”
You originally asked if anyone know more about it, and how valid the charge of “neo-prohibitionism” is. In my opinion, it’s not a valid label to apply to RWJF. It’s just not the type of thing they do. As a former employee, I’d say the info on their site is pretty up-front. They fund a lot of research into how some problem or another can best be addressed, and their grantees come to whatever conclusion their research indicates. Then RWJF may give a grant for disseminating the results, and then there will likely be another grant to evaluate the results, and so on. Based on how good a job the grantee did, how well they handled the grant money, and so forth, they may or may not consider that organization for future funding.
FWIW, I tend to agree with the libertarian idea that prohibition of many things that society limits or prohibits is foolish and accomplishes little. We might want to open up another thread to discuss that idea, but on the OP, my answer about RWJF remains the same.