Sorry--forget to say that I was quoting Wikipedia.
On 6/15/10, David Fahey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> That great source of information and misinformation has this about
> terminology:
>
> "Low-point beer, which is often called "three-two beer" or "3 point 2
> brew", is beer that contains 3.2% alcohol by weight (equivalent to 4%
> ABV)."
>
> On 6/15/10, David Trippel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure, but it's gotta be at least as much as the concentration
>> in Warsteiner Fresh NA beer (0.002%). I'd have to drink 9.600
>> bottles of it in order to get the same buzz from one six pack of 3.2
>> beer.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Ambler, Charles wrote:
>>
>>> Is it not true that alcohol occurs "naturally" in fruit juices,
>>> etc.? what would those percentages be? Chuck Ambler
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Alcohol and Drugs History Society [[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Dan Malleck [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:13 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: 3.2 beer
>>>
>>> How do they come up with these numbers?
>>>
>>> In Ontario, during prohibition anything under 2% Proof was
>>> considered non intoxicating until 1923, when they upped it to 4.4%--
>>> a convenient illusion, I guess. Workers still didn't like the
>>> beer; called it "Fergie's Foam" in "honour "of provincial Premier
>>> Ferguson.
>>>
>>>
>>> Robin, by 2.2% do you mean Proof or ABV? Or ABW?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> t 12:48 AM 6/15/2010, you wrote:
>>> David and David,
>>> 3.2 beer lasted in California as the only beer sold in off-sales
>>> within a
>>> mile of Berkeley, Davis, and I think at least some other California
>>> campuses
>>> until the 1970s. Below are abstracts of two studies which looked
>>> at this
>>> change.
>>> Incidentally, the current rule in the European Union allows beer
>>> up to 2.2%
>>> to be treated as a nonalcoholic beverage (as Sweden does, for
>>> instance -- it is
>>> legal for Swedish kids to buy and consume it). Sweden counts 2.8%
>>> beer as being
>>> an alcoholic beverage, but does not apply an alcohol tax to it.
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> Fillmore-K-M; Wittman-F-D. Effects of availability of alcohol on
>>> college
>>> student drinking: A trend study. Contemporary Drug Problems, 11(3):
>>> 455-492,
>>> 1982. (075597)
>>> Repeal of a California law banning sales of alcohol within one
>>> mile of
>>> university campuses provided an opportunity to examine the effects of
>>> availability on college students' drinking patterns. Questionnaires
>>> were mailed
>>> to random samples of students on two campuses when the repeal
>>> became effective
>>> in January 1979 and again two years later. Shelf stock of alcohol
>>> in outlets
>>> was used as the availability factor. After repeal of the sales ban,
>>> existing
>>> stock space increased, but few new outlets opened. Students were
>>> asked about
>>> quantity and frequency of drinking by beverage in the past week;
>>> setting where
>>> beverages were consumed; time, place, and companions for drinking;
>>> drinking
>>> problems and experiences; purchase patterns for the past week; and
>>> demographic
>>> variables, including place of residence. During the two-year
>>> period, other
>>> factors affecting purchase and consumption of alcohol occurred,
>>> including a
>>> price war. The demographics of students surveyed changed, and their
>>> disposable
>>> income rose. The second survey showed a downward trend in
>>> consumption of
>>> alcoholic beverages, particularly liquor and wine, and an increase in
>>> abstainers. As predicted, older students drank more than younger
>>> students, and
>>> males drank more than females. However, students drank more at home
>>> and when
>>> alone than predicted. Consumption in the middle ranges seems to have
>>> stabilized, perhaps as a result of saturation of the market or
>>> price rises as a
>>> percentage of disposable income. 32 Ref.
>>>
>>> Wittman-F-D. Tale of two cities: Policies and practices in the
>>> local control of
>>> alcohol availability. Berkeley, Alcohol Research Group, Oct 1980.
>>> 190 p.
>>> (049923)
>>> Effective January 1, 1979, the California Legislature repealed
>>> restrictions
>>> on the off-sale of wine and liquor close to University of
>>> California campuses
>>> in nine cities throughout the state. Prior to repeal, the UC
>>> campuses had been
>>> ringed by "dry zones" of from one to three miles within which only
>>> beer could
>>> be sold off-sale, i.e., for consumption off the premises where it was
>>> purchased. This study uses the aftermath of the repeal to
>>> investigate generally
>>> the operation of policies and practices in the local control of
>>> alcohol
>>> availability, and to observe specifically the local effects of the
>>> repeal. The
>>> progress to date on a continuing study of two of the nine campus
>>> communities is
>>> summarized. 57 Ref.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2010-06-15, at 00:13, David Fahey wrote:
>>>> David--Envy your time in Paris. Will check your book re 3.2. By the
>>>> way, in early 1933 the Ohio legislature considered a slightly less
>>>> alcohol beer than 3.2. Ohio communities that voted against the
>>>> repeal
>>>> of state prohibition in November 1933 were mollified by acquiring a
>>>> local dry status without an additional separate vote. I don't have
>>>> all the details, but I assume this explains how Westerville reverted
>>>> to a dry status in November 1933 after a few months when 3.2 beer was
>>>> sold in the "dry capital of the world." Have you read Mark Lawrence
>>>> Schrad, The Political Power of Bad Ideas: Networks, Institutions, and
>>>> the Global Prohibition Wave? A political scientist, Schrad looks at
>>>> three case studies: the USA and Russia which adopted prohibition and
>>>> Sweden which did not. Schrad reads both Russian and Swedish. David
>>>>
>>>> On 6/14/10, David Kyvig <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> Dear David:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting aspect of this story that you haven't dealt with
>>>>> is why
>>>>> 3.2 became the new standard in April 1933. The preceding extreme
>>>>> 0.5
>>>>> definition of "intoxicating beverage" was written into the
>>>>> Volstead Act
>>>>> legislation by Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League in 1919 in
>>>>> the
>>>>> exuberance of victory after the Eighteenth Amendment was
>>>>> adopted. By
>>>>> the mid-1920s a movement for modification had arisen among those
>>>>> critical of prohibition but who despaired of repealing the
>>>>> constitutional amendment. The only option they saw was
>>>>> redefinition of
>>>>> the Eighteenth Amendment's vague term. The American Federation of
>>>>> Labor, among others, embraced this position and so it went on the
>>>>> table
>>>>> for wet Democrats well before the election of 1932. Exactly why and
>>>>> when the moderationists settled on 3.2 as the standard may be
>>>>> buried in
>>>>> my book Repealing National Prohibition but I don't remember for
>>>>> sure and
>>>>> I don't have a copy at hand. I'm spending two months in Paris
>>>>> where my
>>>>> wife has a fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Studies. I'm
>>>>> using
>>>>> my time in a feeble attempt to duplicate Scott Haine's research
>>>>> on the
>>>>> culture of the French café, but as a non-French speaker I'm
>>>>> finding it
>>>>> challenging, if pleasant. Never a 3.2 limitation here. Good
>>>>> luck with
>>>>> your project. I wonder if the list can come up with other schools
>>>>> claiming or complaining that they were the 3.2 beer capital, just as
>>>>> there are many contenders for the title of top party school.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Fahey 06/14/10 9:54 AM >>>
>>>>> I am writing a short book on the Women's Temperance Crusade in
>>>>> Oxford,
>>>>> Ohio. In my epilogue I offer an explanation for why this college
>>>>> town
>>>>> allegedly became America's 3.2 beer capital. In 1917 the village
>>>>> had
>>>>> enacted local prohibition of intoxicating beverages. When the state
>>>>> and the country repealed prohibition, the mayor initially assumed
>>>>> that
>>>>> the local law would continue to ban all alcoholic drinks. For 3.2
>>>>> beer, this did not turn out to be true. My explanation is this:
>>>>> while
>>>>> waiting for the ratification of a constitutional amendment repealing
>>>>> the Eighteenth Amendment, Congress in March 1933 changed the
>>>>> Volstead
>>>>> Act definition of an intoxicating beverage as more than 0.5 alcohol.
>>>>> The new definition was more than 3.2 alcohol. In other words, 3.2
>>>>> beer became legal in April 1933, several months before the repeal of
>>>>> National Prohibition. The Ohio legislature enacted parallel
>>>>> legislation. For most of the state and the country, 3.2 beer became
>>>>> irrelevant in December 1933 when the Eighteenth Amendment was
>>>>> repealed. In Oxford, 3.2 beer became legal in April 1933 because
>>>>> the
>>>>> state had defined it as non-intoxicating. Local government had no
>>>>> power to prohibit it. In December 1933 there was no change in
>>>>> Oxford
>>>>> because the local law still prohibited 6.0 beer, wine, and distilled
>>>>> drinks. In 1979, after a previous rejection by the voters in Oxford
>>>>> as a whole, two precincts (student housing and commercial buildings)
>>>>> voted to allow their sale by the drink. This belatedly killed 3.2
>>>>> beer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose that 3.2 wine must have been legal too, but I have never
>>>>> seen it sold in Oxford, Ohio (where I have lived since 1969).
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions? Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> David Fahey
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David M. Fahey
>>>> Professor Emeritus of History
>>>> Miami University
>>>> Oxford, Ohio 45056
>>>> USA
>>>
>>> Dan Malleck, PhD
>>> Associate Professor, Community Health Sciences
>>> Brock University
>>> 500 Glenridge Ave
>>> St. Catharines, Ontario
>>> L2S 3A1
>>> 905 688-5550 ext 5108
>>>
>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including any attachments, may
>>> contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and
>>> immediately delete this message and its contents, and then find
>>> someone to blame. Thank you.
>>
>
>
> --
> David M. Fahey
> Professor Emeritus of History
> Miami University
> Oxford, Ohio 45056
> USA
>
--
David M. Fahey
Professor Emeritus of History
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056
USA
|
