As one of those odd birds who does research on the period before drugs
became an issue (or even tobacco, initially), I've avoided joining this
conversation because my historical interests are perhaps somewhat
irrelevant.  On the other hand, that doesn't keep me from having an
opinion.  I don't think the tendency of some of us to see the history of
alcohol as quite separate from that of drugs is entirely artificial or a
matter of "ignoring" drugs, or ignoring the fact that alcohol can be
clinically defined as a drug -- rather, it seems to me that alcohol has a
very different cultural starting place.  From my perspective (admittedly
Euro-centric), regardless of physical similarities, other drugs entered the
picture very late in the game, making them quite a different kind of
"social substance".  Compared to alcohol, Cannabis has simply not been a
very major player in the culture of the last 2000 years (again, at least
not in Europe).  I have no objection to research on both being linked.  I
DO have an objection to linking them in discussions of "drugs" in the
classrooms of our schools.  I don't agree that children (or college
students) should be taught that there is no inherent difference between the
wine their parents enjoy over dinner and the illegal drugs that can get
them arrested.  My son once came home with a coupon for a free hamburger
from McDonald's that he got at school for signing a pledge that he would
never use "drugs or alcohol."  Never??!  What message does that give him
about his parents?
         (separate response to Non sequitor -- Bud's success is in fact
creating a monster -- it seems that Budweiser has managed to purchase a
monopoly on all beer sales at the 2006 Soccer European World Cup, which
will be in Germany, meaning that people coming from all over the world to
Germany to watch soccer will not be able to buy German beer at the
matches.  This seems quite perverse to those of us who are used to good
German beer and wouldn't touch a Bud Light if we were paid to...)
- Ann

At 03:10 PM 8/25/2004 -0400, David Fahey wrote:
>Even within historical alcohol studies writers often work as if they had no
>neighbors.  At least in the USA, wine history is written with little
>attention to other alcoholic drinks.  At least in the UK, brewery and
>public house history is written with little attention to sobriety
>movements.  Of course, in vast parts of the world (for instance, India)
>alcohol history barely exists, something that I discovered in the course of
>writing an article on Gandhi and alcohol.  My point is that different
>people define their fields differently.  Likely some historians would be
>baffled to be told that they worked within the field of historical alcohol
>studies as much as they would if told that they worked wtihin historical
>alcohol and other drugs studies.  In other words, historical alcohol
>studies is a concept that exists for only a few folk.
>
>At 02:24 PM 8/25/2004, you wrote:
>>Not an interloper -- and of course no one wants to ignore drugs while
>>working on alcohol (see my own THIS STRANGE ILLNESS: ALCOHOLISM AND BILL W
>>as an example) or vice versa.  A fruitful interchange between drug
>>historians and alcohol historians is a very good thing.  A blending of the
>>disciplines is a little more questionable in value (in my view), but of
>>course the outcome may show my doubts were not warranted.  -- JL
>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > As one of the interlopers from 'drugs history' I thought it worth briefly
>> > addressing Jared's concerns. I think that the engagement of the history of
>> > drugs with the history of alcohol is an important one, not least of all so
>> > that we can discover for sure whether any of the boundaries between the
>>two
>> > that Jared is so concerned to preserve are in fact important or
>> > justified. In other words, I am sure that while there is a impulse to
>> > identify ways in which the subject areas 'cross-fertilise' , there is
>> > similarly an interest in the ways in which they do not.
>> >
>> > Indeed, I also think it worth pointing out that there are obvious merits
>> > and outcomes from making the ADHG a broad church. I would find it silly to
>> > ignore! alcohol issues in my own work on cannabis in the UK as it was
>> > temperance campaigners who had cut their teeth on alcohol campaigns that
>> > pursued cannabis at various times in Parliament in the nineteenth
>> > century. However, it would probably be unnecessary for someone studying
>> > alcohol use in thirteenth century Scotland to worry much about the use of
>> > cannabis/opium etc as they were virtually unknown, let alone available. I
>> > am sure that the ADHG community will be big enough to allow us all to keep
>> > company that we find immediately interesting, while allowing us to eye the
>> > whole range of perspectives on alchol and drugs from across societies and
>> > periods.
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> >
>> > Jim.
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Dr James Mills
>> > ESRC Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer
>> > Department of History
>> > University of Strathclyde > 16 Richmond St
>> > Glasgow G1 1XQ
>> > 0141 548 2206 > [log in to unmask]
>> > http://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/History/mills.htm