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.
|
