I'm not sure, but it's gotta be at least as much as the concentration  
in Warsteiner Fresh NA beer (0.002%).  I'd have to drink 9.600  
bottles of it in order to get the same buzz from one six pack of 3.2  
beer.

Dave

On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Ambler, Charles wrote:

> 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.