While concerns about the addition of drugs to this area of alcohol studies
are understandable, I have to agree with David Fahey that there's room for
optimism.

As a historian who has studied both alcohol and drug history, I'm afraid I
see more imagined than actual danger in connecting the types of
substances.  There is so much to learn and build upon by connecting the
two.  Personally, I'm seeing all sorts of links between issues of liquor
regulation in the 1930s and drug prohibition today.  And with liquor
control today.  They can be so interconnected!  As for "relevance", well,
relevance is relative, isn't it?  It's not the field, but the practitioners
who imbue it with relevance...

When planning the ICDAH we were actively aware of the need for
inclusion.  Expanding the focus would bring in new people, and honestly,
the range of topics, and the value of cross-"substance" discussion was, as
far as I could see, tremendous.    And very beneficial.  When drug and
alcohol historians get together, they seem to see connections in trends and
approaches that can only enhance our work. Oh, and have a very good time
doing all of this.

"Addiction" and "Contemporary Drug Problems" have not turned their backs on
alcohol as a substance of inquiry.   And even a cursory read will
demonstrate that the SHAR hasn't been exclusively about alcohol for some
time now.

Dan Malleck


At 12:32 AM 8/21/04, David Fahey wrote:
>Jared makes a good point, but I am optimistic.  For me the more serious
>tension (in the ATHG and now the ADHS) is between two different approaches:
>on the one hand, the medical/legal/political response to pathological
>addictions and, on the other hand, the history of foods and leisure history
>that emphasize the normality and acceptability of alcohol and other
>drugs.  I hope that the two approaches can educate one another.
>
>"Social history" is part of both the old and the new name for the
>journal.  A case can be made that a good deal of the history of alcohol and
>other drugs is not social history, but something else: political history,
>business history, medical history, cultural history, the history of
>technology, etc.  This doesn't worry me.  The term social history merely
>indicates the core focus of the journal and does not limit its contents.
>
>Finally, I have no doubt that there is room for journals more specialized
>than that to be published by ADHS and gladly welcome them.
>
>At 04:13 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote:
>>Yes, I dare say, provided -- and this was and is my principal point -- the
>>"alcohol and temperance history" doesn't get swallowed up in the history
>>of tobacco, coffee, marijuana, hashish, qat, coca and coca derivatives,
>>betel nuts, opium and opium derivatives, not to mention designer drugs,
>>pills, usw.-- for however many hundreds of relevant substances there
>>are.  I suspect there may still be a niche for a journal specifically on
>>alcohol and (alcohol) temperance history, and if anyone agrees and is
>>interested in something of that sort, on a (necessarily) minor scale, I
>>should be interested in being in touch with them -- Jared Lobdell.
>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> > Since the conflation of alcohol and other drugs has long
>> > characterized temperance culture, it makes sense, I think, for a
>> > society devoted to temperance history to also welcome historians of
>> > tobacco, coffee, and other drugs.
>> >
>> > Jon
>
>-----------
>Dan Malleck
>[log in to unmask]