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.