I am a new member of the Alcohol and Temperance History Group and have enjoyed reading the postings of both Hans Olav Fekjar & Ron Roizen. When it comes to studying these issues I am a neophyte and I would not presume to be able to contribute to their discussion however if I may I would like to raise some questions. 1. The issue of reducing per cap alcohol consumption as measured against specific alcohol problems seems to be a "shot-gun" approach. Should the approach rather be the reduction of "individual consumption" which would address the specific issue of "alcohol problems" rather than the application of the broad paint brush of "per cap alcohol consumption" which also encompasses non-problem consumption? The "per cap alcohol consumption" approach, if I understand what I have read, seems to imply that (some/many/most/all) alcohol problems are the result of general consumption rather than being indicative of individual cases of abuse. 2. The use of the term "temperance movement" as it is historically applied in this context seems to be a misnomer. The model which favors the use of government power to reduce "per cap alcohol consumption" is a prohibitionist rather than a temperance approach. The original concern over alcohol abuse in America was addressed by encouraging self-denial and the shunning of distilled or "ardent spirits" with wine and beer being offered as a reasonable alternative. As the temperance movement(s) became radicalized they assumed a prohibitionist approach shifting their focus from individual responsibility (self-control through moderation) to legal remedies (government enforced prohibition). Should there be a distinction between these radically different approaches in stead of labeling them all as "temperance"? Yours, John John Coroy voice: 601-896-5734 fax: 601-896-7448 home: 601-875-8271 [log in to unmask]