-------------- Original message --------------

> 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 acti! vely 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.
> >
> &g! t;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]