I forgot number 5 in the Iowa Instructions. "5. Desertion of family or dependents." Dave On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:13 AM, David Trippel 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 > 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]] >> 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. >> >> >> >> >