Thanks, Robin. If my memory hasn't failed me, the Good Templars in
Denmark allowed low-alcohol beer. Is there any significance to these
precise figures for alcohol by volume: 3.2 for a time in many places
in the USA and the lower ABV for various purposes in Sweden? Or did
legislators take the numbers out of a hat? David
PS: Time (May 24 2010) reports the trend to super-strong beer, a trend
led by the Scottish microbrewery BrewDog and the German brewer
Schorschbrau. The Scots issued a beer 32 percent alcohol by volume,
six time as strong as Budweiser. The Germans responded with one that
was 40% ABV, similar to vodka. The Scots replied with a 41% beer,
The Germans answered with a 43% beer.
On 6/15/10, Robin G W Room <[log in to unmask]> 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
>
--
David M. Fahey
Professor Emeritus of History
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056
USA
|
