the state of virginia had a law similar to ohio's, passed in the mid-1870s,
i believe, and although disused over many years so far as i know, it was
noted (by downtown business owners, i think) as a potential remedy in an
early 1990s debate about homelessness and public order in richmond.  the
conflict resulted in a well-attended public forum just before the 1992
presidential election. it was moderated by robert segal of npr.

i'm traveling and don't have the article at hand, but i think that in a
paper that robin and i wrote about 25 years ago on the worldwide history of
treatment, we had a lengthy footnote on individual bans that likely includes
a reference or two.  since robin is the one with the steel-trap memory, i
will defer to his recollection.

jim baumohl

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Robin G W Room <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Listmates --
>
>    Below you will find an initiative by the government of the Northern
> Territory of Australia to institute a person-specific bans on drinking.
>    There is an interesting cross-national piece to be done about the
> prehistory of such measures, and I would be interested in corresponding with
> ohters interested in this.  In temperance times, there were various
> initiatives to "blacklist" heavy drinkers, often at the call of family
> members.  It can be seen as  part of the move in the Progressive Era to have
> the state intervene in the family on behalf of the weak against the strong
> (cf. for the US Tony Platt, *The Child-Minders*).  The supervisor of the
> Temperance Boards in Sweden in 1940 described them as a defense for the
> family against "petty domestic tyrants" (quoted from memory from the
> Helsinki ICAA conference proceedings). Margaretha Jaervinen did an article
> in *Contemporary Drug Problems* around 1991 about the Finnish alcohol
> monopoly sending out inspectors to investigate where a woman seemed to have
> been buying too much alcohol -- but not necessarily cutting her off if it
> turned out she was buying for her husband as a way of limiting his drinking
> -- i.e., using the wife as an agent of the state's social control. The book
> *Punched Drunk *mentions the LCBO in Ontario cutting off drinkers (putting
> them on what was known as the "Indian list", in an era of Prohibition for
> nonassimilated Aboriginal Canadians) in the 1950s at the request of wives
> and other family members, although the statistics show clearly that this
> request was often not accepted by the LCBO. There are still US states with
> state liquor stores (Ohio, as I remember) where it is theoretically possible
> for the family to ask the stores to blacklist drinkers.
>      Particularly where there had been a period of Prohibition, the
> alcohol control laws in the 1920s-1950s often included these
> individually-oriented controls, which were abandoned nearly everywhere in
> the 1950s-1960s as seeming too much of an intrusion on emerging standards of
> "privacy". (Part of the background of the "purple book", Bruun et al. 1975,
> was the argument by civil-libertarian sociologists in a Finnish context that
> universal control measures such as price and hours of sale could be
> effective without these individual-oriented measures). Now, with the
> emergence of ASBOs under Tony Blair and similar individually-oriented
> behaviour controls, we are back to the future.
>     The historically-oriented piece should take a  look at how effective
> such measures seem to have been.  One clear signal of their potential
> effectiveness is the large rise in cirrhosis mortality after the abandonment
> of the Swedish alcohol rationing system in 1955, studied by Thor Norstroem.
>           Robin
>
> ------------------------------
> some detailes from the attachedfact-sheet:
>
> *Individual and Third-Party Referrals to the AOD Tribunal*
>
> It is anticipated that other people, such as the police, family members and
> health workers, will be able to ask
>
> the Tribunal to make orders against someone. For example, if one of your
> family members has a drinking
>
> problem and is causing harm, you would be able to go to the Tribunal and
> ask them to make an order banning
>
> your family member from purchasing take away alcohol. The AOD Tribunal
> would look at what has been
>
> happening and your family member would be assessed by a professional.
>
>
>
> A person with an alcohol problem could choose to get themselves banned so
> they can more easily deal with
>
> their alcohol or drug problem.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCH Parliament [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
> ]
> Sent: Thursday, 28 October 2010 3:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Political Alert - Draft Alcohol Bills Tabled in Parliament (NT)
>
> Please find attached:
>
> DRAFT ALCOHOL BILLS TABLED IN PARLIAMENT (NT)
>
> The Minister for Alcohol Policy, Delia Lawrie, released two key pieces
> of draft legislation that detail the most comprehensive alcohol reforms
> in the Territory's history. The draft Bills, the Prevention of
> Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill and the SMART Court Bill
> were tabled in the Northern Territory Parliament.
>
>
>