Reading the post about Iowa reminded that growing up there, 1945-55, my father had to go to the State Liquor Store with his booklet in which were recorded every purchase that he made. That method tracked every individual purchaser. The only liquor available outside of State Liquor Stores was 3.2 beer. This system may have lasted until the mid-1970s, when Iowa started allowing the sales of individual liquor drinks in licensed places. My family drank very little liquor, so my father's booklet was probably pretty unimpressive! Austin Kerr On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM, David Trippel <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Virginia calls banning "interdiction". Here's info from 1995 on the > program in Alexandria. > http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/1995/95-04(F).pdf<http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/1995/95-04%28F%29.pdf> > The last paragraph mentions sending out color posters of interdicted people > to all licensed alcohol sellers. > > In the pre-WWII decade the individual permit states (Iowa, Ohio, Montana, > New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Utah) probably had interdiction rules > limiting/revoking these permits in certain cases. In Iowa at the time, > Individual Liquor Permits were tiny 2" x 3 1/2" booklets that had a page > with instructions including - > > "This permit will be revoked if you are guilty of: 1. Drunkenness 2. > Pretending to be intoxicated 3. Failure to support family or dependents 4. > Commission of any crime in which liquor contributed 6. Allowing any person > other than yourself to use this permit, as it is personal to you and is not > transferrable. Be temperate and obey the law. [In 1940 they added] If you > drive don't drink. If you drink don't drive." > > Interdiction may have also held for states that rationed alcoholic > beverages during the war. For instance, Virginia's wartime 2" x 4" Sales > Permit No.2 Civilian Registrant coupon booklet includes a Certificate of > Ownership stating - > > "...and that I am legally entitled to purchase alcoholic beverages in > Virginia." > > and on the Instructions page it says - > > "Regardless of a sales permit, the following persons may not legally > purchase alcoholic beverages in Virginia: a minor, an intoxicated person, an > interdicted person, a ward of the State." > > I don't know if or how people were or are able to become un-interdicted. > > Dave Trippel > > On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:18 PM, jim baumohl wrote: > > 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. >> >> >> > > -- K. Austin Kerr Professor Emeritus of History, Ohio State University