I am a new member of the Alcohol and Temperance History Group and have
enjoyed reading the postings of both Hans Olav Fekjar & Ron Roizen. When it
comes to studying these issues I am a neophyte and I would not presume to
be able to contribute to their discussion however if I may I would like to
raise some questions.
 
1.      The issue of reducing per cap alcohol consumption as measured against
specific alcohol problems seems to be a "shot-gun" approach. Should the
approach rather be the reduction of "individual consumption" which would
address the specific issue of "alcohol problems" rather than the
application of the broad paint brush of "per cap alcohol consumption" which
also encompasses non-problem consumption? The "per cap alcohol consumption"
approach, if I understand what I have read, seems to imply that
(some/many/most/all) alcohol problems are the result of general consumption
rather than being indicative of individual cases of abuse.
 
2.      The use of the term "temperance movement" as it is historically applied
in this context seems to be a misnomer. The model which favors the use of
government power to reduce "per cap alcohol consumption" is a
prohibitionist rather than a temperance approach. The original concern over
alcohol abuse in America was addressed by encouraging self-denial and the
shunning of distilled or "ardent spirits" with wine and beer being offered
as a reasonable alternative. As the temperance movement(s) became
radicalized they assumed a prohibitionist approach shifting their focus
from individual responsibility (self-control through moderation) to legal
remedies (government enforced prohibition). Should there be a distinction
between these radically different approaches in stead of labeling them all
as "temperance"?
 
Yours,
 
John
 
John Coroy
voice: 601-896-5734
fax:     601-896-7448
home: 601-875-8271
[log in to unmask]