Neo-Prohibitionism in the United States
by Corbin G. Keech and Charles W. Fairchild
- There is a significant neo-prohibitionist movement underway
in this country. This anti-alcohol campaign is extremely well
bankrolled. For example, between 1997 and 2002, the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation alone spent more than $265 million to increase
taxation, form negative attitudes and achieve more restrictions
on alcohol alone. The movement is tightly organized, self-righteous
and has sympathetic ears in the media. It is a combination of
private and public advocacy organizations, special interest groups
and governmental agencies pushing their own agenda on elected
representatives, lawmakers and officials.
- The neo-prohibitionists have targeted the entire alcohol industry,
and not just the manufacturers. Restaurants and bars, as well
as the social drinker, are all part of today’s prohibition,
drop by drop. One expert describes the collective result as a
simultaneous, multi-pronged offensive on the way adult beverages
are perceived, distributed, sold and consumed. This assault is
designed not only to address product abuse, but simply to force
everyone to drink less or not at all.
- Since constitutional prohibition was an acknowledged failure,
today’s modern prohibitionist seeks to characterize alcohol
as an illicit drug that is culturally unacceptable. This notion
of zero tolerance is precisely the environment in which young
adults currently live.
- The studies and articles claiming a general increase of alcohol
abuse, alcohol related deaths or alcohol caused traffic fatalities
among society in general, and specifically, the young adult population
are generally misleading and deceptive at best. These claims tend
to reflect the views of the neo-prohibitionist movement and based
on selective statistics
- Numerous studies funded by the federal government report that
most young people and adults drink very little or not at all.
Alcohol is not an important part of life for most Americans. In
fact, even the American Medical Association, a staunch critic
of the alcohol industry, concurs that the overwhelming majority
of adults drink alcohol responsibly.
- Consistently, the data show that among 18 to 22 year old full
time undergraduate population, 81% consume moderate to minimal
amounts of alcohol or abstain completely. Other studies debunk
the claims that alcohol consumption by young people result in
widespread criminal problems. That just isn’t happening
to the extent argued by the anti-alcohol movement. In reality,
alcohol consumption has significantly and steadily declined in
the 18 to 25 age group since 1980 and the same is true for alcohol
related traffic fatalities. As for the Echo Boomer generation,
studies document that they drink less, smoke less and commit less
crime. The vast majority are in control of their alcohol consumption.
- The claims that collegians are widely engaging in binge drinking
are false. It is best described as the binge spin. Binge drinking
is clinically and commonly viewed as a period of extended intoxication
lasting several days during which the binger drops out of usual
life activities. However, in the early 1990s, alcohol activist
Henry Wechsler, a PhD. at Harvard, received funding from the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation to conduct an investigation of college
drinking habits. In doing so, he created a whole new definition
for binge drinking. Wechsler’s study defined “binge drinking” as a male student who had five or more drinks
or a female student who had four or more drinks on an occasion
at least once in a two-week period. Another flaw with Wechsler’s
methodology is the absence of a time period over which the purported
binge drinking occurs. Additionally, Henry Wechsler then subdivided
binge drinking into “frequent binge drinkers” and
“occasional binge drinkers” in order to claim a collegiate
binge drinking population composed of 44% of the undergraduate
student population. The real data simply do not support these
conclusions.
- The anti-alcohol campaign is creating a purported societal problem
that does not exist and using junk science to support its position.
Even Henry Wechsler fully admits at the beginning of his study
that alcohol abuse has been entrenched on America’s campuses
since the first colleges were chartered in colonial days. Wechsler
then goes on to say that until recently, heavy college drinking
has been largely ignored, tolerated or winked at. However, history
will document that, by and large, previous generations have been
productive contributors to American society. History will also
document that Henry Wechsler and others are receiving millions
in grant monies to undertake studies that result in conclusions
favorable to the neo-prohibitionist movement.
- The most effective way to reduce youthful alcohol abuse is called
social norms programs. The social norms approach corrects the
common misperception held by students that most students drink
frequently and heavily. The use of marketing campaigns and other
strategies to give students accurate feedback do work. Once the
truth gets out that the majority of students drink moderately
or not at all, they behave accordingly. Even the American Medical
Association admits that studies show college age students overestimate
the drinking frequency of their fellow students and the drinking
norms on their campuses. By communicating the true facts about
campus alcohol consumption, the resulting peer pressure becomes
one of restraint rather than encouragement. More colleges need
to embrace the social norms approach.
- The whole issue over alcohol and claims of binge drinking is
just another insult and lack of respect for the 18 to 25 age group.
They have the right to vote, to fight for our country, to hold
office, to pay taxes, to serve on a jury and convict others of
crimes, to be tried and punished fully for any crime, to enter
into contracts, to own property, to operate a business and be
an employer, to sue and be sued, to enter into marriage, to adopt
children, to have abortions, to consent to sexual intercourse,
to perform in pornography, to purchase and own weapons, to assume
debt, to obtain credit, to play the lottery, to be fully authorized
to drive a vehicle or fly a plane, and even buy cigarettes. But
as to alcohol- don’t even come to the Demon Rum. Promoting
a higher drinking age isn’t a pro-alcohol stance. It is
called being anti-discrimination and pro-youth.
Adapted from Keech, Corbin G., and Fairchild,
Charles W. Dude, What are My Rights?: The Self-Help Legal Survival
Guide for Ages 18-25. Kansas City, MO: Collegiate Services
Coalition of America, 2005. ISBN 0-9763201-0-X, and edited by website
host.
This user-friendly book provides practical
legal advice on a wide variety of issues often faced by young adults,
of which alcohol is but one. Neither this website nor its host receives
any profit or other consideration of any kind from its sale.