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