1.~- y ',:- - 4j ~T6 A N PROHIBITION? AN ESSAY ON DRINKING AND SMOKING IN AMERICA By Mark Edward Lender C> CD CD C> BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 ON CD C-0 7his hWorfcal e= was commiWoned by the Brown & Wdliamson TDbaxo Owporation 011, to encourage 4 mider aminaion of ums surmunding tobaao um , BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 PREFACE Dr. Mark Lender's study of the historical parallels between the "Noble Experiment' called Prohibition, and present efforts to severely restrict use of tobacco and control other behavior, both gives us hope and bnings us a warning. Hope, because his study demon- 46- strates that moral suasion works. The publicity and education surrounding alcohol led to ever lower consumption long before the nation ever turned to Prohibition- And warning, because of what Alexis de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of the majority" as America strove for the "perfectibility of man." As Dr. Lender notes, "Tocqueville was fight-, per- fectionism had its dark side." Justice Brandeis wrote, in his famous 1928 dissent in Olmstead v. United States:,' that our Constitution "conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man." When Brandeis focused on this need for privacy, he was building on the philosophical debate reflected in Dr. Lendefs study between those who use education and persuasion and those who use the government to impose their view. These debates go back at least as far as Aristotle and Socrates. Socrates treated democracy with condescension and scorn. He believed chat the ruler is the "shepherd" and the people are the herd that the shepherd makes sure are "safe and fed.' It is, in this paternalistic view, 'the business of the ruler to give orders and of the ruled to obey."' Aristotle's writings were a direct rebuttal of Socrates, and? although more than 2300 years old, are full of contemporary insights. Aristotle cells us that humans, unlike other animals, are endowed with logos. the ability to speak, to reason, to live in a community, to make decisions governing themselves,. to distinguish right from wrong. In the Platonic dialogue, Gorgias, Socrates attacks rhetoric because he did not CD believe that the rulers could reason with, "the herd.' In contrast, Aristotle*s Rbetoric begins by affirming that the common people have the intelligence to be persuaded by reasoned C) argument. This faith "lies at the very foundation of democracy; free government has no ON future where men can be treated as a mindless herd."' co *4.4 BATCo document for Legal Servicei : Health Canada 22 October 1999 This Aristotelian belief in the common man is at the heart of our vnerican derno- craLic tra dition. In 7be Federalist Papers. Xu niber 49. fames "'ladison. the prime author of our Constitution.. has no faith in --the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato.- Our tradition rejects the notion of autocratic rule by philosopher kings. To an extraordinary degree. this nation*s legislative efforts have accepted this basic belief in the worth of the common man and woman. If the issue is of the rype,~vhere the people seeking protection have the ability to make judgments and choose. Congress has generally rejected a paternalistic approach. The governmenc normally seeks to protect people from themselves by education, not by law limiting their choices. it is certainly proper for parents to require their children to eat vegetables, exercise. get enough sleep. and so on. but adults are not children, and the federal government is neither our parent nor. one would hope, our big brother. In law, as in everything, else, the exception proves The rule. Probably the most infa- mous example of the federal government rejecting our strong tradition and belief in the democratic process was Prohibition. our ~Noble Experiment" of the 1920s. The purposes of Prohibition were certainly noble - to create a healthy. alert, sober citizenry. HoweVer, the means to achieve this end - forced abstinence - failed because they were based on the model of the Platonic Guardian,'Dictaror. The government tried to treat adults as if they were children. With the end of Prohibition. there was fear that the people would rum in massive numbers to 'demon rum.- That did not happen. In fact, Dr. Lender demonstrates that con- sumption leading to and after Prohibition was relatively stable. However. Prohibition did sen-e to make criminals out of ordinary citizens and increase the power of organized crime. Indeed, the main legacy of this "Noble F_xperiment- was the emergence of orga- nized crime as a major force in American life. Three--quarters of a century after the begin- ning of Prohibition, we stUl are left with this unintended bequest. No one. of course. should drink, excessively. And those who suffer from alco- holism should not drink at all. But Prohibition was not the way to reduce alcoholism. Alcoholics Anommous. has proven to be a very successful method to treat alcoholism. AA does not blame alcoholism on the manufacturers or vendors of liquor. It tells its members that they are adults, personally responsible for their own choices. Any effort to blame third cr% parties is an improper exercise in denial. C:) This basic presumption against unnecessary governmental interference extends bevond our Constitution. It is a basic policy belief as -,vell. For example, as various CD Surgeons General have urged, we do not quarantine AIDS victims, we educate them (and 0\ others) on the risks of contracting AIDS and the methods used to reduce that risk. CC) BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 For decades, the Surgeon General has warned us of the health risks of smoking and drinking. More recently, we have been warned of other risks, such as eating fatty foods, diving off the high board. sun bathing and riding motorcycles, yet some people still engage in such activities. Given this state of affairs. what additional laws or regulations. if any, should the government en=2 Dr. Lender's historical study tells us what not to do. The supporters of Prohibition meant. well, but the "Noble FxperimenC did not work 75 years ago, and human nature has not changed in the meanrime. Prohibition. the one striking exception to our basic theory of democracy. was so jarring that it took a constitutional amendment to bring about. The experience that followed from Prohibition was so inconsistent with what had been bred into the bone of our S-,--SEeM that, just over a decade after the people ratified the 18di ment for its _kmendment enacting Prohibition, they sobered up and ratified the 21st Amend, repeal. Vi.rrually no serious opponent of alcohol or tobacco dares to argue openly for pro- hibition. But some argue for a prohibitive rax, which is really the functional equivalent of prohibition. We learn from Dr. Lender's historical study that prohibitory taxes have a per- verse result: they encour-age boorlegging. a loss of revenue, and do little to reduce con- sumption. As Dr. Lender documents, the more vigorous opponents of tobacco (a-e earlier opponents of drinking) claim that it is an ~acldicrion- no different from heroin and cocaine addiction. Some people urge that the warning label on cigarette packages should stress tobacco's addictive nature. Such a warning label, while well intended. could also have per- verse results. It might fumish a ready excuse for those who otherwise may brea-k the habit. Instead. that warning label should be a message of hope and encouragement. not despain It should read: "You can quit smoking if you want to; over 40 million Americans already have.- The government should be educating smokers that they can quit if they want, nor that they might as well keep on smoking because they cannot quit. To compare smoking tobacco or drinking coffee (some people have claimed that caffeine is addictive) to cocaine or heroin addiction is like comparing life to AIDS: it is true that both life and AIDS are sexually transmitted and both result in death. but such a comparison is in no way useful in understanding either subject. To treat alcohol or tobacco no differently than hard drugs like cocaine may lead young people to conclude that breaking a cocaine or heroin habit is no more difficult than C:) kicking the tobacco habit. Young people have seen older people quit smoking: the indus- try is mature and decreasing in size. with total cigarette use declining about one percent to two percent a year since 1982. Ca iii %~D BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Professor Albert Hirsch of France, an expert on tobacco (and a leading critic of the tobacco induscry~) strongly objected to the Surgeon General's claim that smoking tobacco is addictive on a level with cocaine and heroin. "It is always bad to fight an evil with mis- statements or distortions of the truth," he said.'The go-vrernment of France, he added. -should resist the kind of . . . c,-itch-hunr that can be observed in some of the excesses of the anti-tobacco campaign in the United States." Dr. Lender has demonstrated that Prohibition, like witch hunts, are no good for society, even though both are well-inten- tioned. And he has given us hope by demonstrating that moral suasion works. It may not work overnight (this is not a race for the short winded), but it will work. Ronald D. Rotunda A-lbert E. jenner. jr. Professor of Law University of Illinois I Brandeis. J.. dissenting. in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. 47S. -~S S.CL 564. 5"72, 7172 I-Ed.2d 944 (192S). See also. Warren and Brandeis, ne Rig& to Privac~r, 4 Harv. L Rev. 193 (1890). one of the intellectual godfathers of our Constitution, John Stuart Mill, opined: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient wa:-rant." J.S. Mill, On Liberty, ch. 1, lines 342-46 (1859). See. eg.. X-enophon, 7 vols.(Loeb Classical Library, 1918-1925), 4.6.12 (4:_:L43-- 45): 3.9.11-13 (4:229-31); id.. 3.2-1. 3.8-10-11 (4:229); Plato, 8 vols. (Loeb Classical library, 192,~-1931). These issues and the philosophical battles are discussed with care in I.F. Scone, The Trial of Socrates (Ijtdc. Brown & Co., 1988). I.F. Stone. The Trial of Socrates 92 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1988). QuoEed in. Seligman, TBeAleaning ofAddiction, Fortune Magazine, June 20. 1998. at 117, 119 col. C:~ C7% co BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 FbP,EwC)RD America may be on its way to teaming a terrible lesson all over again. Today. in the 75th anniversary year of alcohol Prohibition's enactment, the same social sentiments that led to the Volstead Act of 1920 are found in efforts that could effectively ban tobacco use. The intention in writing this essay was to explore today~s controversy over smok- ing in the context of prohibiting the production and sale of alcohol and. by ex-,ension. drinking itself. Some comparisons were obvious: others more subtle. Laws that prohibit or restrict smoking carry an underlyingg message that has a srrik-- ing resemblance to the temperance movement's ideal of perfectionism. Reformers did not stop at alcohol then, and the present trend toward health and fitness clearly has irnplica- tions that go far beyond smoking. Still, smokers have replaced drinkers as targets of reform. The perfectionist strain has remained a central part of prohibitionist think-mg. and has cast the debate over smoking in stark terms of good and evil. just as producers of beverage alcohol were -demonized" in the period leading to Prohibition. a similar movement to -demonize- tobacco products and smokers clearly exists in the current er-a. The Prohibition era's -demonization- of one segment of society is alive and well. Consider these parallels: ù Reformers of the 1990s, like alcohol prohibitionists, have gone beyond warning about the dangers of the product itself. They claim manufacturers deliberately endanger pub- 16 lic health by advertising and marketing their products. ù A 1929 effort by Senator Smoot to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory control over tobacco was mirrored 65 years later in former Represenmtive Mike Synar~s 1994 attempt. 0% ù Ira Landrith, the Anti-Saloon League lecturer. called for "A saloonless nation by 1920.- In a distinct echo. former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop called for a "Smoke-free America by 2000." -r-h ù Virtually all of the control techniques to reduce smoking have similarities in earlier pro- 01% hibition campaigns. Prohibitory policies have relied on local laws to control alcohol BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 and tobacco use. frorn restricting places where smoking is allowed to selective taxes. 0 'Whar ~%-e are seeing today, is not unlike what -Aie-xis de Tocque-ville. The author of DemocracNr in America. saw when he toured the counErV in the late 19th century.. He called it the "tyranny of the majority.- It manifests itself today in matTers that go far beyond smoking. The alcohol temperance movement and the assault on smoking share common roots. Improbable statistics and exaggerated claims were thrown around by ardent reform- ers in the past century. Similarly debatable data is obscuring what should be a reasoned discussion about tobacco. Envirorunental Protection Agency studies of environmental tobacco smoke are far from conclusive, yet they have become commonly accepted at pol- icy-making levels. Theodore Parker of lNew England. the great antebellum reformer. admitted that Prohibition indeed seemed -an irrvasion of human rights.- Bur he reasoned that it was -an invasion ... for the sake of preserving the rights of all." When certain zealous tobacco opponents and government agencies are removed from the debate, it is clear that a spirit of accommodation still widely exists. But who can tel.1 how long that will last? New efforts to drive smokers from public places have added an edge to the debate entirely remihiscent of earlier attacks on social drinking. That par- allel shows we are uncomfortably close to following a path that may leave no room for middle ground. The basis for FDA!s assault on tobacco is the claim that smoking is addictive. Definitions of tobacco addiction have evolved dramatically since the first Surgeon General's report on smoking in 1964. Only in 1986 did the Surgeon General equate ciga- rerEes with the addictive qualities found in heroin and cocaine. But it is dfficult to ignore the fact that tens of millions of smokers have successfully quit without any outside help. Drink-ing in America was drastically reduced prior to Prohibition largely because of various educational programs. In a similar fashion. smoking has been greatly diminished through educational efforts designed to acquaint people with associated health risks and through a campaign to make smoking socially unacceptable. It is not necessary to suffer the terrible social consequences of prohibition to bring about moderation and accommodation. The crime and social upheaval of the 1920s should serve as an instructive example for today. ON Drinking wasn't the issue that caused Prohibition to fail. Social issues and the infringe- c::) ment on too many traditional personal freedoms were at the heart of repeal. But even now, C) well before what threatens to be greater government control.. the smoking debate h2s fos- X~:.- tered a climate of intolerance that casually violates what many believe are civil, liberties. ON NJ r*j BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Long-standing opponents of smoking agree char behavior cannot entirely be con- trolled by methods employed by Prohibition. Dr. David C. Lewis. editor of the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and -kRplicacion, has cautioned against making the same mistake of 775 years ago. "Our challenge.- he contends in a quote cited by the essay, -is to fino ways to preserve public health without resorting to failed Prohibition strategies." Dr. Faith T. Fitzgerald. also cited in the essay. adds a warning against "developing a zealotry.' As she writes in a New England journal of -Medicine article. -If we redefine health, I hope we can discover a definition that does nor include a medical or social man- date to control people's behavior for the sake of their mortal bodies." Canada learned as much during its short-lived attempt to control behavior by increasing sales taxes on cigarettes. A thriving bootleg trade in cigarettes ferried across the border began Linmediately. Canada quickly saw Lhar the strategy wouldn't work and 1r,14* he mx increase. -Michigan recently began facing a similar dqemma when it raised cigaren~ taxes. U-1firnaEehr. the real cost to sociew - direc-dy paralleling the causes of Prohibition repeal - comes not from smoking but from the enormous social. political and economic consequences of trying to limit bel-uvior. The point is not to argue whether Americans can ban something they find objec- tion1ble. It is only that if they do, they should undertake it with their eyes open. In the past. various prohibitions have led the nation down unintended paths. They often fostered intolerance and offended notions of personal freedom. Prohibition invites the intrusion of goverment into private lives. if the past is any guide. prudence has always been the bet- ter course when considering such a step. I 0'' M) L-ii (A BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 AL4Rx F-DV.':4PD LEADER Mark Edward Lender is one of America's foremost historians of the Prohibition era. He has been a historian at the Rutgers University Center for Alcohol Studies in New Jersey, he received his doctorate in American History in 1975. He remains a visiting pro- fessor of History at Rutgers, and since 1980 has been Director of Advanced Study and Research at Kean College in Union, New Jersey. Lender co-authored D?Inking in America: A History for Free Press/Macmillan in 1982. 7be New York Times called the book 'brilliant social history." A documentary of the book was produced in 1984. He is presently at work on Fatal Sunday.- Ybe Campaign and Battle ofMonmoutb, to be published in 1996. His scholarly articles and papers on topics ranging from Prohibition to milizary hi%ory have been widely published. ‹o ON BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 A New Prohibition? it I An Essay on Drinking and Smoking in America By'Mark Edward Lender C> a% Co rNi Ln BATC,o document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Prohibition's Modern Parallel Prohibition took root early in the United States. It flowed logically from the ideol- ogy of the Revolutionary generation. which fostered the ideal of a republic blessed with virtuous citizens and cleansed of Old World corruptions. This desire to build a pristine new order led easily to perfectionism, an absolutist moral outlook which took full flower in the reform movements of the early nineteenth century. To a major ement, the perfectionist world view lay behind Nadonal Prohibition and, ultimately, much of the anri-smoking cru- sade of the 1990s. American reform has always encompassed a large measure of chariEv and benevo- lence. Prohibitionists, including temperance and anti-tobacco activists.. have cared gen- uinely and deeply about the well-being of theif fellow citizens. Ultimately. however. issues such as smoking and drinking became (and remain) symbolic evils that served as targets for movements vvich much broader social and political agendas. IMany reformers, fol.low- ing the dictates of perfectionist logic, have displayed a marked aversion to compromise or moderation. Rather, they have preferred their own anti-pluralist vision of the good soci- ety-a socieEy predicated on common standards and behaviors. Probibition is abour who determines the nature of Society. cr% CD The reform faithful have seldom brooked opposition lightly. Indeed.. they have CD tended to demonize those accused of impeding the perfectionist agenda. if opponents CP% _r 7 77 BATCo document for Legal Services Health Canada 22 October 1999 stood in the way of virtue and -progress.- they were evil. In the past. the temperance movement had frequently characterized drinkers and the alcohol beverage industry this way: now. smokers and the tobacco industry increasingly are accorded similar treatment. In the perfecluonist view. one cannot morally obstruct the abolition of social evil. In shorE. prohibitionism was--and, I Ehiril%, is--a serious business, with implications reaching far beyond whether or not someone could find a legal drink or buy a cigarette. Prohibidon is about the nature of society and about who determines that nature. America's defining experience with prohibition occur-red from 1920 to 1933. the era of .\-ational Prohibition. The "noble experiment," as Herbert Hoover termed it, sought the abolition of the manufacture and sale of beverage alcohol and, by implication, of drink-- ing itself. Important as it was. however, The "liquor quesdon- was only part of the story Prohibitionists also targeted tobacco. Indeed, the movements to abolish alcohol and tobac- co actually were intertwined as part of the same perfectionist crusade. Coercion in the guise ofpolicy There are also modern parallels to all of this. While alcohol remains a real social issue, certainly a compelling phenomenon is the recent movement to restrict. the use of tobacco products. Americans are witnessing a surge of anti-smoking sentiment, and feel- ings are strong enough to raise the prospect of gover=ent intervention-and perhaps even coercion-in matters of personal conduct considered beyond the reach of political policy since the repeal of National Prohibition in 1934. With apologies to George Santayana and Thomas Carlyle, history does nor repeat itself. But it can be instructive.. and it will be my intention to use the history of proWbi- tion to draw attention to certain of the more important aspects of today~s debate over smoking in America. I do not believe that the similarities between the anti-liquor and anti- smoking reformers are coincidental. If I am right, then the question of prohibition, with all of its vdder social and ideological implications, is as interesting and germane to the late 1990s as it was a century ago. a, Temperance AR Over Aitain C) C:) The question of a new prohibition is not academic. It is quite real. No one (at least _L__ no one other than fringe political groups) has proposed another Consdrutional amend- (ON CID ment to outlaw- alcohol or tobacco products; nor has anyone seriously suggested banning N) 11-4 2 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 all smoking or drinking. But during the 1980s, and into the early 1990s, popular concem over aspects of drinking behavior and smoking have raised serious policy issues. Alcohol was the first to draw heavy fire. During the 1980s, the personal and pub- Lic health implications of alcoholism and.. especially, drunken driving provoked a number of legislative initiatives. Prodded by such C - grass-roors pressure groups as Nlothers Against Drunk Driving. state and federal authorities variously took steps to raise the minimum age for the legal purchase of alcohol. enact host-liabiliry laws, and provide for stricter curbs against alcohol-reiated mayhern on the roads. It was an effective campaign for public sym- pathy and awareness. A[ the same rime. much of the public changed its drink-ingg habits. W-lEh minimal legal prompting. many Americans simply began drinking less alcohol. While available. sm- ti iscics (as of 1986) are insufficient for precise comparisons with prior decades. it is clear that alcohol beverage consumption leveled off nationally. At least one survey (conduct- ed for Time magazine in 1985) reported that. among Americans eighteen or older. only 67 percent drank alcohol beverages. one of the lowest estimates in some time. A third of those polled indicated that they were drinking less than they had before. while -only 6% said they were drinking more.- Yuppies Embrace Temperance There is no simple explanation of these phenomena. and we can only speculate on why Americans moderated their drinking. In the early 1980s, the personal health and self- image concerns of young professionals ("yuppiesl may have played a role. Concemed with fitness and -looking good.- some were supposedly leery of the health complications or calories associated with excessive drinking. "There's no such thing as a faE uppie.- one wag noted in jt~me. Whatever their motivations., most Americans took an increasingly dim view of heavy drinking. Fewer enjoyed "happy hour" or the three-martini lunch. while many businesses discouraged any drinking at all during the working day. To be sure, manv heavy drinkers altered their behavior not at all, but their qOnducE and its conse- quCnCeS now attracted more critical comment. Attitudes had indeed chaksted.- All of this hardly constituted a new prohibition crusade. Yet. for the first time in C7% C:) almost fift, , v years, there was enough concem over alcohol to attract considerable attention in the national media. A surprising number of journalists discemed the rise of a nascent C3 temperance movement or -neoprohibitionism.",In 1985, Dn_ie devoted a cover story to the issue. asking whether Americans were not embarking on a "new temperance- crusade. co 3 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 More subtly, columnist George Will suggested that concerns over drinking behavior reflected a return to more conservative and cornrnunitarian social values. Dwight Heath, an anthropologist. saw a growing public interest in "law and ordeC behind some of the focus on alcohol.~ 'Whatever the explanation, the fact was that reasonable observers saw a stiffening public posture toward alcohol-related problems. and a willingness to use legal remedies accordingly. Achael Garmer went farther still. The title of his column. in USA Todav said it all: "Bring back Prohibition." He noted the dubious history of enforced abstinence in the 1920s, yet he insisted that "something must be done.- The destructiveness of alcohol abuse had reached unbearable levels, Ganner held, and only government intervention offered any chance of relief., Gartner's was a minority position. But one need not agree with him to conclude that. during the 1980s and early 1990s. prohibition had reentered the vocab- ulary of serious public discourse. A debate rekindled by government reports If anything, the debate over smoking has brought the prohibition issue into sharp- er fociis. Many of the health risks associated with smoking have been common knowledge for over a century. Indeed, even as it crusaded against alcohol, the old temperance move- ment had directed considerable fire at tobacco, and between 1895 and 1927, fifteen states had tried to ban cigarettes on health and moral grounds. But current concerns abour smoking are a more recent phenomenon. By the 1940s, polls indicated that perhaps half of all smokers thought that cigarettes were unhealthy, and by the 1950s, as much as nine- ry percent of the American public was aware of claims that smoking caused lung cancer.' Still, perhaps half of the American populace puffed on. But the 1964 report of Surgeon General Luther Terry began a sea-change in atti- cudes and in smoking behavior. The report explicitly identified smoking as a cause of lung cancer in men and firmly established the dangers 'of tobacco in the popular mind. Since then, subsequent reports have further stirred popular concem. In 1986, Surgeon General C. Everett KooP alleged that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers, and a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report classified tobacco smoke as a class-A car- ON C) cinogen.6 The influence of these reports on public awareness would be hard to overesti- - mate; virruall-y- no one growing up in America since the rum of the century could seriously CD claim not to undersiand--or at least to have heard about---the health risks associated with 0\ smoking. co N) %0 4 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Behavior sways under socialpressure Legislative and regulatory actions to control smoking paralleledrising popular con- cern. Throuah the early 1980s. relatively mild initiatives at the federal. state, and local lev- els focused on restricting sales to minors. placing warning labels on tobacco products. and providing non-smoking sections in aircraft, public buildings. and restaurants. At the same time. government and private groups maintained a vigorous public education effort on the hazards of tobacco. None of these measures was a step toward prohibition,. but they gripped public attention. Beginning in 196-4. and most dramatically between 19,74 and 1991, the number of smokers in America has declined by half. to approxanately 40 million people. or 26 percent of the population. Though at any given time the actual numbers might vary within different groups. the point is clear: the vast majority of Americans no longer smoke, and the unpop- ularicy of smoking has steadily increased. Only among high school seniors and African ALmericans. for example, has the proportion of smokers edged upward since 1993.~ Mosi of the nation. including most former smokers. volunEarily elected abstinence from tobacco. Despite the substantial reductions in smoking. however.. many anti-smoking reformers remain unsatisfied. They object to all smoking. and especially to smoking among the young. In addition. they find alarmin- the fact that the number of smokers has stabilized instead of continuing a progressive decline. The reformers are legion and attic- ulare, although their arguments have only come into boldest relief in mid-1994. In virtu- ally simultaneous attacks on the tobacco inclusuy. Dr. David Kessler, commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration. and Congressman Henry Waxrnan of California captured national headlines. Kessler. in a well-orchestrated media blitz. charged tobacco companies with manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes in order to deliberately assure the addiction of consumers. "It is our understanding." Kessler alleged. "that manufacturers commonly add nicotine to cigarettes to deliver specific amounts of nicotine.- His goal was to extend FDA regulatory authority over tobacco. which would then be dealt with as a dangerous drug.:' Wax-man's agenda was every bit as ambitious. In -a series of Congressional hearings, he also charged that manufacturers had covered up the addictive nature of nicotine; NX'axman then rode rough-shod over tobacco executives when they tried to explain man- ufaccuring and markeLing practices. His objective was enactment of the proposed Smoke- Frce Environment Act, certainly the most stringent congressional effort against tobacco. It C> would mandate smoke-free areas in all buildings entered by more than ten people per day- the alternative for building owners would be fines of up to S5.000 per day.' BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 (\Thlie V`axman was probably unaware of it, the -five" and "ten" aspects of the Smoke-Free ACt-the $5,000 and ten-person provisions-struck a note of historical irony. In 1929. in a virtual last-gasp effort to enforce National Prohibition, Congress passed - draconian Jones Act. it set penalties of five years and S10.000 for most first-time offend- ers of the prohibition laws--and thus became popularly known as the "Jones 5 & 10 Law." .Most Ameicans hated it. No doubt Waxman would find little comfort in the analogy.)10 Kessler and Waxman, it should be noted, were not working alone. Other federal initiatives were fulh. in accord with theirs, if not so boldly in the headlines. Proposals to discourage smoking through heavy taxaEion, bans in the work-place, the schools, and at public functions.. further restrictions on sales and by various other means all had (and still have) their proponents. In a demonstration symbolic of the entire modem crusade, President Clinton and his wife. Hillarv Rodham Clinton, banned smoking from the White House. It was nor the first such gesru're on the part of a First Lady: over a century earlier, Lucv'W-'ebb Haves. wife of President Rutherford B. Hayes and a staunch temperance advo- .cate, stopped serving alcohol at White House functions. Instead, guests received lemon- ade, eaming her immortality among reformers as "Lemonade Lucy."" Even opponents are surprised by bitterness How far. then, are reformers willing to go in their war against tobacco? Unsurprisingly, representatives of the tobacco industry fear the worst, with some claiming that anti-smoking advocates are pursuing the de facto prohibition of cigarettes. If we can discount the fears of the tobacco companies, however, we must also concede that feelings are not confined to the industry, or even to smokers. In fact, the bitter rhetoric of the debate has raised evebrows among even some non- smokers and public health advocates. Dr. David C. Lewis, editor of the Brown University Digest of AddicTion Theorv and A1212lication, and a long-standing foe of smoking, has seen a drift toward zealotry in the 1990s crusade. Wondering "how much will we rely on pro- hibitionist solutions" in the anti-robacco reform, Lewis cautioned against repeating the inis- takes of a century ago. "Our chaUenge,' he warned his rmders, "is to find ways to pre- ON serve public health without resorting to failed prohibition str2tegies."" C:) Richard Klein, author of Cigarettes Ane Sublim (1993). has noted that cigarettes are CD indeed bad for individual and public health. But the developments of the early 1990s, he insisted, offered a "direct amloV* to the events surrounding National Prohibition. In 0-1~ Klein's view. the legal abolition of smoking would only recreate the societal turmoil that k .14 6 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 accompanied efforts to enforce the Volstead Act." The Ring of an Earlier Rhetoric .-%s it did when alcohol came under fire in the 1980s. the press again raised the pro- hibition issue. In April 1994. U.S. News & World Rej2o ran a cover story that framed the question bluntly: "Should Cigarettes Be Ourlawed]" The same month, Time ran a similar lead: "Threatening to snuff out smoking for good, the crusade against tobacco shifts into high Sear." With some hy into a . perbole, the magazine asked if "the crusade" had "turned witch hum."!* Headlines. of course. often play to the most dramatic aspects of a public issue. Yet the media had recogn'zed a significant point. and repeated coverage made it part of the public question: even if a de iure prohibition was not the goal of many oppo- nents of smoking, many reformers did want to see its eventual demise-no matter what individual smokers though:--and much of their rhetoric clearly had the ring of the old anri-liquor crusaders. 7bere are those who, upon deciding that a sub- stance or a behavior was barmful, would ban it. However. even if (for the sake of argument) we might discount the possibility of a latter-day prohibition of alcohol or tobacco, another issue remains: there seems little deny- ing the persistence of a prohibitionist mentality in many American reformers. Putting the matte., in its simplest terms. there are d-iose who, upon deciding that a substance or a behavior was harmful, would ban'it. In the cases of smoking or drinking, not only would they give up the practices themselves, they would take action to compel the rest of soci- etv to follow suit. In the past, such a decision implied a broader social agenda than the abolition of specific problems. Rather, the effinination of particular evils supposedly would open the doors to a better world-or, more precisely. a better world as defined by the reformer-which can be quite a different matter. 011 C) "...Developing a zealotg"'~ could lead to a "mandate to control people -:~ behavior for the sake of their mortal bodies. all, CO BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Does this kind of thinking lie behind some of the reform activity of the 1990s? At least in the case of smoking, there are some suggestive hints that it does. Dr. Faith T. FitUerald, of the University of California at Davis -Medical Center. is distinctly uneasy in this regard. -As she sees it, one of the chief problems is the concept of -wellness." The term. which combines physiological and psychological health in a wider context of "social well being.- has grown in popularity since the 1980s. Wellness promises "potential per- fecrion," and it has become a serious matter with increasing popular acceptance of social responsibility for health care. Beware a mandate to control behavior When individual health becomes a social responsibility, Fitzgerald points out, then conduct dethmental to personal health, by definition. becomes socially irresponsible. If society has to pay for the costs, then "failures of self-care.- such as drinking and smoking, become "crimes against society." Fitzgerald warned against "developing a zealotry-" that could lead to a "mandate to control people's behavior for the sake of their mortal bodies." Such a step would be perverse, she concluded, "in a nation founded on the belief that one should not legislate behavior even for the sake of the immortal soul."" This would be a wide social agenda indeed. Fitzgerald is no Cassandra. Some anti-tobacco activists; have argued their case on precisely the social grounds she feared. Professor John Banzhaf. who reaches law at George Washington University, has long tried to use the courts as agents of social change. Capable and aggressive, Banzhaf has been a scourge of the tobacco industry, bur he has readily conceded that his interests in smoking are only part of a much wider agenda for social change. The war on cigarettes is only an opening gambit.$ Dr. Jonathan Fielding, a former Massachusetts health commissioner and currently (1994) a professor of public health at UCLA, takes a sinailar view. Smoking is dividing America along class lines, Professor Fielding has claimed. Most smokers are pc*rer and less educated than nonsmokers, a situation he has labeled wrong in and of itself. "In a country where we have too many things that divide people,' he charged. "this is another thing dividing us."'-- Thus has the cigarette become an affronc to social justice. CN C:) Ardent Spirits. -Revublican Ardor 0 .C::b There is ample precedent for Dr. Fielding's perspective. American reform has a long ON co Lk 8 L*4 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 history of using specific issues or, more precisely- the battle against particular evil$, to advance a broader vision of social reform. If the abolition of smoking, for example, were to contribute to -wellness" for all. or to lessening the gap between rich and poor. gener- ations of earlier crusaders would have recognized the scrategy. Given its contemporan, resurgence, however, it is worth asking where this link-age of reform and social idealism got its start. In fact, it dated from the birch of the republic. UnEil the late eighteenth century, few voices had challenged the problems of alcohol abuse. But the Revolution changed all of that. To a generation concerned over social stability and virrue. few things seemed to have more disruptive potential than intempemnce. This unsceadying fear lay behind America's classic early stricture of drunkenness: An Inguiry into the Effects of Ardent SoiriLs on the Human 'Vind and Body (1784)~ by Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia. Rush commanded attention. -An ardent republican, he had been active in Revolutionary politics. signed the Declaration of Independence as a Pennsylvania delegate, and served for a time as a sur- geon general of the Continental army. Rush enjoyed a reputation as perhaps the new naEion*s foremost physician and one of its most influential social reformers. Indeed. he was arguably the key man in the history of prohibition: for the next two centuries, crusades against alcohol and tobacco played our largely within the medical and political contexts he had defined in the 1780s and I-790s.'s Rush had decried the use of hard liquor for years, but his masterpiece was the InQui . The Eracr was radical. It was the first serious work to describe alcoholism as a dis- ease. and it insisted that alcohol was addicting. Rush described a subtle but inexorable addiction process; once an "appetite" for spirits had become fixed, the victim was help- less to resist. In fact. Rush deserves major credit for establishing the modem paradigm of addiction. which has survived into the 1990s.1' Menace of the Drunken Voter Rush's ideological concerns were equally significant. He saw in drkiking what oth- ers had only hinted at; alcohol problems threatened civic virrue and the life of the repub- lic itself. Allow drunkenness to flourish. Rush cautioned. and the Revolution would have been fought in vain. The nation would soon "be governed by men chosen by intemperate and corrupted voters," men who would rule through demagoguery instead of N irrue. Worse. CD the Umighcy would never look favorably on a people who preferred to drink whiskey rather than build a golden edifice dedicated to liberty. and a moral republican order. as- co U4 4h. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 , Such a threat cried out for a vigorous response- To avert calamity. Rush advocated not only personal abstinence from hard liquor. but the adoption of strict communal sanc- tions against drunkards. Drunkards, he warned, vvere the antithesis of virruous citizens: they -.vere incapable of managing their own affairs and certainly could not be responsible enough to vote. He also urged that ~good men of every class unite and besiege- their lead- ers with demands for fewer taverns and heavy taxes on --ardent spirits~ as further means to stem the tide of intemperance.' For Rush.. then. the stakes of temperance involved far more than drinking. rices that corrupted the virtuous Nor. we should note. did Rush confine his attention to alcohol. He also considered tobacco an "i ntoxicant'- and felt that smoking and snuff presented the young republic with an evi.1 only somewhat less dangerous than drunkenness. In 1798. over a decade after he published the Inqu , Rush brought out his Observations u2on the influence of the Habitual use of Tobacco upon Health. Morals and Property. Smoking and chewing, he e%claimed, were disgusting practices, as dangerously habiruating as alcohol and as dam- aging to health. Equally- horrid was the link- between tobacco and alcohol, drinkers, Rush held. were usually smokers as well. Both vices were antisocial, reason enough towarrant the obloquy of the virtuous. Significantly, Rush urged reformers to consider drinking and smoking in the same light.21 Finally. in assessing the impact of Benjamin Rush, it is impossible to over-empha- size one point. For Rush, and for many after him, the implications of addicrionwere as much matters of politics and ideology. His various 'marnings about the dangers of ~crav- ing~ and "habituation- were based on what he thought was good medicine: he placed on record the addictive natures of alcohol and tobacco. But he used those arguments vocif- erously - to make a political point. The future welfare of the republic. Rush believed. depended heavily upon how vigorously succeeding generations would grapple with his message. Drinkers, Smokers, and Passive Reform C7% C-') As the nineteenth century dawned. the drinking habits that had so worried Dr. Rush continued unabated. In fact, the years spanning the 1790s and 1830s probably saw the 0% heaviest drinking in American history. Consumption estimates tell the story. from an co Q4 10 ~.n BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 annual aver-age of 5.8 gallons of absolute alcohol per capita (for people aged fifteen or older) in 1790. mean absolute alcohol intake rose to 7.1 gallons a year by 1810. With minor fluctuations, it remained at about that level through the 1830s.22 American drinking had reached unparalleled levels. Drinking at such levels provoked a deepening chorus of alarm. Significantly. these criticisirLs took their place amid a widening contem of national reform. and, during the early 1800s, any condition labeled a social evil generated an effon to set it right. Temperance. however. which included a vocal anri-robacco componenr.. became one of the most popular causes. By 1826, after a series of local reform initiatives, the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance (the basis of the later American Temperance Union) had emerged as &.e spearhead of a national anti-liquor crusade. Leadership rested firmly in the hands of socially prominent clergy and laymer4 whose proclaimed purpose was 'the reformazion of the nation through abstinence from ardent spirits. The early tem- perance movement, then. was not a prohibitionist crusade. Temperance to Total Abstinence By the late 1830s, however, the movement was evolving. The fear of alcohol addic- tion, the enslavement to drink that Rush had described, was instrumental in the process. The change was crucial: temperance was no longer abstinence from distilled beverages; gradually, it came to mean total abstinence. In 1836, a national temperance convention for- mally endorsed total abstinence as the movemenCs official position. There was still some resistance among the rank and file, but by the end of the decade the issue was virtually dosed. Temperance reform- for the first time, had gone fully 'dry.' Yet total abstinence did not translate ir=ediately into prohibition. Compulsory reform would come, but for the time being. most reformers were content with "moral suasion." That is, they expected appeals to morality, common sense, civic virrue-anything but govenunent intervention- to persuade citizens to lay down the bottle voluntarily. Personal choice was still the key. Arguabty, tbefates of drinking in the mid-1830s and smoking since the 1960s are comparable. Equally remarkable was the extent to which moral suasion succeeded. In 1835, almost a generufion,before America saw its first prohibition laws, temperance leaders esti- ILI%i 0% I I BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 mated that two million people had renounced distilled liquor (causing, some four thou- sand distilleries to close). while nearly a quarter of a million persons had become total abstainers. Membership in temperance organizations had climbed to about 1.5 million. Thousands of others, without any temperance affiliation or signing any pledge, also mod- erated their drinking. The cumulative effect sent national liquor consumption plummeting. From a high of just over seven gallons of absolute alcohol per capita annually in 1830, consumption estimates fell to slightly more than three gallons by 1840~---the largest ten- year drop in American history.2~ Drinking, in sum. no longer enjoyed its traditional status. Drinking diminished weg before Prohibition The example of bringing the w-orst excesses of drinking behavior under control befo legal prohibition is,~vorth noting. Millions of -Americans, having accepted that drink- ing was a national probiem, responded by voluntarily abstaining or by moderating con- sumption. This occurred without prohibitory laws, without paying for any governmental enforcement effort. and without violating libertarian democratic values. Drinking problems did not disappear, but they were significantly reduced, and society was no[ burdened by a governmental effort to compel uniform standards of public and personal behavior. In light of subsequent events, one can only speculate on the wisdom of some of the com- pulsory reform efforts that came shortly thereafter. Partisans in the modem debate over tobacco might learn from the nineteenth-cen- tury experiment with moral suasion. Arguably, the fates of drinking in the mid-1830s and smoking since the 1960s are comparable. After thirtyr years of warnings about the health hazards inherent in smoking, millions of Americans concluded that the risks were not worth any enjoyment derived from tobacco. They stopped smoking, or never started, based on personal choice. No enforcement effort-unless one includes %urning labels on cigarette packages and restrictions on adverdsing-compelled individual action. As in the 1830s, the major reductions in "problem behavior~" in the cases of smoking as well as drinking, occurred before restrictive legislation or any compulsory social policy. ProhibitioWs Goah Absolute Perfiection CD C) During the 1830s and 1840s, however. as in the 1990s, reform was adopting a more D~- (71 zealous tone. For many, the mitigation of social problems was no longer enough. co Ultimately, reformers set their sights on "legal suasion"-ffiat is, on legislated prohibition. (--I 14 12 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 The step marked a crucial juncture in American history. It not only put reform on a new and more strident course. but it broke a path for future generations of reformers. The early prohibitionists pioneered the absolutist posture that has characterized much of American reform well into the rwendeth century. including much of the modem and-smoking cru- I sade. There was a powerful logic at work in prohibition, one which blended Rush's addiction theory with perfectionist reform. if a substance was addictive, then by dermi- tion, as legions of reformers explained, there was no room for moderation. It could lead only to personal and social ruin. Moreover~ a zealous perfectionism argued that mere improvement was not enough, problems must be eliminated in order to fully reform---to -perfect'-society- 0 A Crwade to Clemise Society Over time, perfectionism would prove a remarkably durable aspect of American reform. There always had been this element in republicanism. The various reform move- ments, and in the evangelical religious sects of the antebellum years. but perfectionist sen- timents attained real influence in prohibidonism. The sense of mission would allow no half-way measures: if alcohol, tobacco, or anything else was evil. then citizens had a duty to abolish it in defense of the common good. If society was to be cleansed, prohibition seemed necessary and logical; and absti- nence, once a voluntary personal decision. would now come through legislation to save society as a whole. Perfectionism helped put coercion in the arsenal of reform. Tobacco was a smaUer target while alcohol was at the center of the prohibitionist storm. tobacco played a small- er. but still revealing role. Following Rush's lead, a number of other reformers denounced snuff and smoking with genuine enthusiasm. They had a litany of indictments.. which vir- rually repeated complaints against alcohol: tobacco use was addicting-, it impoverished the smoker or "snuffer." it was a poison; it caused cancer. it induced dissolution and di5sipa- 0% tion. it was an affront to God and to society. A Dr. Joel Shew found no fewer than eighty- C~ seven conditions linked to tobacco, including hemorrhoids.-4 Other physicians. reporting in the quite respectable - lournal of Health, announced that tobacco was a -narcotic" that frequently drove smokers and snuff users to drink. Indeed. reformers often charged that CO (.A 13 co BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 tobacco was so caustic to The Throat that water could not -soothe the irritation. the smok- er had to use alcohol to deaden the pain.2' In sum. the anti-tobacco crusaders proclaimed The weed an evil as dangerous as the demon rum. Perhaps the most zealous antebellum crusader was the Reverend George Trask. of Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Trask was a former smoker. -a tremulous, haggard clergyman. on the verge of the grave.- The reverend described himself as a -radical- bent on the destruction of the -enormous evil" of tobacco.26 In 1852, borrowing directly from the tem- perance movement., Trask even circulated an anti-tobacco pledge in which subscribers resolved to abstain from all forms of tobacco use -totally and forever.- Later, he became editor of the Anti-Tobacco J-0urnal, which assiduously reported on any and all efforts against tobacco. The man was nothing if not dedicated. Trask's most famous publication was the widely. -distributed Thougghts and Stories on Tobacco for American Lads, or Uncle Tobi's.Ami-Tobacco Advice to His Ne2hevv Billy Bruce (1852). in which he warned his fictive young relative of the dangers- of "the filthy habit." Presented in the moralilty-play format of temperance fiction, ~Uncle Toby" offered a revealing glimpse of The reform mentality. Trask followed total abstinence doctrine to the letter: tobacco was as addicting as alcohol, and thus moderation had no credence. Progressively. The smoker lost control over tobacco until the weed had enslaved him. Crime, poverty, and broken health followed inexorably. This was only logical, for in Trask's view, alcohol and tobacco were 'Siamese Twins"; a cigar~ like rum, would rum a boy "drunk as a Tbper."~' Like their temperance brethren. Trask and most other anti-tobacco reformers also were prohibitionists. By the early 1850s, the small but noisy American -Anti-Tobacco Society had concisely stated the reform position: crusaders would "break up a death-like. prevalent stupidity in relation to the evils of tobacco." and -create a public conscience. which, we trust in God, will lead to the removal of so great a curse."`9 Trask agreed, pro- claiming That his anti-tobacco efforTs; w-ere part and parcel of the legislative war against demon rum. Neal Dow, perhaps America's quintessential prohibitionist and the father of "legal suasion.." returned the compliment and publicly applauded anti-tobacco reformers as fellow crusaders. Other reformers. including Horace Greeley, Horace Mann, and C11 Edward Norris Kirk issued simdlar endorsements.-' C) New Voices Based on Old Themes None of This came as a surprise. Anti-liquor and anti-tobacco sentiments derived LP4 %0 N BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 from the same ideological roots, and they adopted the same tactics and prohibitionist goals. It is important to note that these were not parallel movements: reformers who fought alcohol and tobacco were part of the same movement. Alcohol. vastly more pop- ular. captured more public (and thus historical) artendon: but tobacco had provoked its share of wraffi. and it would remain a candidate for more. If the antebellum reform e_xpe- rience had shaped the contours of future attacks on alcohol, it had done the same for tobacco. Indeed. if modem anti-smokers are enthusiastic, they are not original. their bar- rles are a reprise of themes defined generations ago. Ybeodore Parker admitted that Prohibition indeedseen2ed *an in=ion ofprivate rights ... for the sake of presen-inga the rights of all." Through the 1850s. however, support for prohibition of any sort was often hap- hazard. I'vlosi drys, including anti-Eobacco advocates, knew that coerced abstinence was many steps ahead of popular opinion, despite widespread sympathy for more moderate temperance ideas. To press the question too soon, they feared. could provoke an unfa- vorable reaction, particularly if an unwilling public saw prohibition as an invasion of civil rights. It was a dilernma for drys, but the stakes, a sober republic and all its consequent moral and civil blessings. seemed worth the gamble. Theodore Parker of New England, one of the greatest of the antebellum reformers. admitted that prohibition indeed seemed -an invasion of private rights." But he reasoned that it was -an invasion ... for the sake of preserving the rights of all.-."- In another age, Congressman Wa-anan and Dr. Kessler would say much the same diing. Yet by the early 1850s. the outlook for prohibition had changed. Except for aboli- tion. the temperance crusade had e merged as the most powerful and politically potent antebellum reform effort. In 1846. temperance forces in -Avlaine. under the leadership of Neal Dow. persuaded the legislature to ban the manufacture and sale of distilled liquors. It was a half-way measure. and it lacked penalties sufficient to compel full compliance. but the partial victory was a clear sign of things to come. Grappling irith political morality On the other hand. many political leaders. including, some with dry loyalties, BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 remained appalled at the prospeci of thrashing out Eemperance questions in the political arena- There was no national consensus on prohibition, as millions of Ainericans still prized their right to drink-. The possibility existed that a drive for prohibition would evoke determined resistance, further rending a republic already being torn asunder by the slav- ery question. This fear proved well founded as opposition appeared on a number of fronts. The beverage industry, formerly respected, fought back in desperation. Brewers counter- attacked with genuine hatred, feeling especially wronged. Until the rise of total abstinence, the brewers had considered themselves temperance allies. They saw beer, as Rush had suggested, as a wholesome substitute for ardent spirits. Teetotalism, however. drove them to common cause with the distillers. Immigrants also formed a major opposition block. Initially, the reformers had found considerable sympathy in some ethnic communities; however, when presented with, total abstinence, most immigrants clung stubbornly to their wet heritage. Nor did the South have much use for prohibition. The movement never fully died in the slave states, but it declined quickly as Southerners found that many drys also were firm abolitionists. As political and social policy, then, Prohibition was a real prob- lem. destined to upset as many people as it pleased. Legislators bowed to tireless lobbying But the prohibitionists were tireless. They incessantly lobbied state legislatures and often allied themselves with other reform factions that sought dry votes for their own ends. As their strength grew, drys commanded the attention, if not the admiration. of major polit- ical leaders. Matters came to a head in 1851. Rectifying its ineffectual statute of 1846, Maine passed the nation?s first truly comprehensive, and seemingly effective, prohibition law. It was a genuinely historic moment. and dry reformers hailed the Maine Law as the great legislative breakthrough it was. Temperance workers moved quickly to follow up their victory. In August 1851, another temperance conventon issued a battle cry for the passage of Maine Laws through- out the nation. LobbN in at the state level redoubled, and prohibition became the goal of what -,vas now clearly one of the most comprehensive political efforts the nation had ever 0\ seen. Massachusetts went dry less than a year later, and Maine Laws next carried the day C:) in Vermont~ Minnesota Territorv. and Rhode Island (1852), Michigan (1853). Connecticut and Ohio (1854), and in Indiana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, and New York t::b (1855). Similar measures almost won in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and 'New Jersey. In CY" co 16 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Canada. the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick also outlawed booze. Such a legislative don-Lino effect is not unlike the march of state and local anti-smoking laws being enacted today. Politicized morality thus seemed well on its way to rolling back- the tide of over two hundred years of American drinking habits. By the mid-1850s, many dry reformers were congratulating themselves on having destroyed the old consensus on drinkirig as a posi- rive good, and they eagerly looked forward to national prohibition. They were sure that the day was almost at hand when the purified republic would no longer tolerate demon rum anywhere within its borders. The Price of Perfection The early reformers had won. but it was a costly and. in some respects,. a question- able triumph. During the contests for prohibition. they had claimed the high moral ground, routinely invoking patriotic and religious sentiments as they flayed "King Alcohol" and, to a lesser extent. tobacco. But the struggle had been bitter, and it revealed a grim side of the reformers: in the heat of battle, they proved willing to attack- opponents in the most brutal of terms. The tenacity of the opposition had infuriated prohibitionists, and dry frustrations honed a deep invective. One resuli'mas the virtual demonization of drinkers and smokers, a sentiment expressed in countless tracts.. sermons.. broadsides and lectures. Actual alco- holics were "slaves" to their habit. broken down in he--dth, worthless and corrupted as citi- zens, and threats to society. Moderate drinkers were worse in that they set a bad example that lured others into troubie.12 In either case. drinkers were not erring brethren. they were an affTont to morality and to the social order. There v~ as little to forgive in such miscreants. Thus the stigma attached to drinking was not just medical; the matter went far beyond questioning the drinkefs regard for his owm health. Rather~ it struck at the individ- ual's status in the community and as a citizen. His behavior made him a threat to everyone, and thus placed him Outside the pale of "acceptable- norms. In effect~ reformers had suc- cessfully defmed drinking as deviant behavior and drinkers. therefore, as deviates. This was powerful stuff indeed. Stigm Erodes the Middle Ground ON Exasperation with the liquor industry took reformers down other questionable C) paths. They were utterly convinced that the liquor industry acted only from the basest of X:~. CYN motives. Reformers believed that avarice alone moved liquor men. as well as a disdain for W BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 the public good. The only moral course for anyone in the business. they believed. was to resign or close. Some did. But most did not and in fighting for their livelihoods convinctd drys that ihe alcohol beverage industry was leagued in a conspiracy against reform. The -Liquor Power--the business and its allies-was evil. If drinkers were deviates. then the industry it~elf was a virtual outlaw. Such sentiments. whether directed at drinkers or the indusEry. produced rhetoric to match. and it was hardly calculated to elicit rational (or even polite) debate. Thus the mid- dle ground in the controversy disappeared. neither could see any. redeeming features in 0 the other. Invective had replaced discourse. and even civility. Having won their point under such circumstances, prohibitionists were not prepared to be magnanimous in vic- torv. Rather. they saw their new majoritv status as grounds to compel obedience to the social standards they had fought for. We might call their posture "benign intolerance- out of deference to their sinceritv, but it was intolerance nevertheless. If perfecLionists couid not see this trait in themselves, others certainly did. Indeed. much earlier. one particularl~ acute observer had all bur predicted it. This was a visiting French aristocrat. Alexis de Tocqueville, whose DemocraZ: in America afforded a pene- Erating look at antebellum society and mores. Tocqueville was impressed with Americans. They were convinced of the -perfectibfliry of man," he noted. and they had an unparal- leled propensity to org, ,anize on behalf of causes. In this regard, the burgeoning temper- ance reform struck him worth watching. "The first time I heard in the United States,, he wrote, 'Ehat a hundred thousand men had bound themselves publicly to abstain from spir- ituous liquors. it appeared to me more like a joke than a serious engagement."." He soon learned differently. Temperance men would not be content "with drinking water by their own firesides." he predicted: rather. they would join together to convince others of their posirion. Tocqueville considered this remark-able, an event virtually without precedent in conservative Europe. 'Tyrani~y of the Majority" Yet the Frenchman was uneasy with aspects of this reforming zeal. Axnerica had relatively few institutional checks on popular passions. he noted, and he was pointed in ON his observation that majorirv opinions did not lightly tolerate opposition. In facL the many (Zll were likely to run rough-shod over the few. and Tocqueville already had discerned what C:) he considered -formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion.- Consequently, he Z:~ warned of a potential -tyranny of the majorirv.- Such a nny could crush liberry as sure- c7N rym co 4b. L1.4 18 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 lv as any monarchy. He did nor see the Threat as particularly -serious in the early 1830s. but he maintained -rhaE there is no sure barrier against iE."-'*Tocqueville was right; perfec- tionism had its dark side. Demonization is aliL,e and it-ell, witb smokers largely replacing drinkers as the targets of reforming ire. The experience of The 1990s bears comparison, for some of the key characteristics of the early reform movements have endured. Certainly reform has retained much of its zealous aspect. Much of the zeal and self-righteousness of reformers is coramon to any era. Some of it is even necessary. In part. movements define diemselves by their oppo- nents, and demonizing diem-as in the cases of smokers and drinkers--is essential in ral- lying the faithful and in fixing Their common identity and purpose. Accordin ly, the . C, 9 process of stigmatizing behaviors and individuals has stood the Test of time; "demoniza- tion" is alive and well, with smokers largely replacing drinkers as the targets of reforming ire. Anti-tobacco advocates have labored mightily to define smoking as a deviant behav- ior. and many smokers see themselves as an embaErled niinoriry (as even some drinkers did during the 1980s). Like the alcoholprobibitionists.. many reformers of the 1990s bave gone beyond warning of the dangers of theproduct itse~' Nor do modem reformers concede anything to the motives of the opposition. Charges of conspiracy and avarice still dog reform targets. This sort of posturing, an effec- Eive tactic in Elie arsenal of antebellum crusaders, remains a ffixture among the zealous. Such anti-smoking champions as Dr. Kessler and Congress=n Waximn, for examples, have found it well nigh impossible to see an~diing but the basest of motives at work in the tobacco industry. There is a significant point here: like the alcohol prohibitionists. C7% many reformers in the 1990s have gone beyond warning of the dangers of the product itself. They have charged manufacturers with deliberately endangering public health and well-beingg in the advertising and marketing of their product. This They have said in a press C3\ Co .4h. 19 Z1. BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 campaign carefully orchestrated to influence popular opinion. 'Neal Dow would have understood the approach and the purpose. American reforrriers. as Tocqueville noted, have seldom been amateurs in the business of reaching the public. This sense of mission has maintained much of the fire of perfectionism. Given their druthers, many of those who today fight for a -risk freC society would offer opponenu, as lirde quarter as their ante- bellum predecessors. ne dry movenient almast crumbL‚s There were other lessons as well. The experience of the 1850s also demonstrated the perils of enacting prohibidordst policies,", ithout a clear popular mandate. As the 1850S th advanced. it became obvious that no such mandate existed: ose who prophesied a dn,- miflenniumwere wrong. In fact, the Maine Laws marked the high tide of temperance influ'- ence in the antebellum years.. a tide that ebbed quicklywith the approach of the Civil War. By the late 1850s. the nation faced a crisis over slavery and the preservation of the Union, Most Americans, including the major political parties. and even some important temper- ance leaders, increasingly gave the impending sectional struggle a higher priority than they did the battle against alcohol or tobacco. Under the circumstances, dry forces lost much of their hard-won political influence. Aiso aiding the disenchantment with prohibition were 2 number of European medical reports that concluded that alcohol, while undeni- ably dangerous in excess, was not deleterious in moderation. All this caught reformers off guard, and opponents of prohibition took heart. Indeed, political prohibition fell apart at a speed that astonished even its enemies. By the 1860s. bereft of major political allies. Maine Laws crumbled to dust in state after state. Legislatures either repealed them outright, modified them to permit liquor sales with minimal interference, or allowed them to languish -virtually unenforced. For the time being, the crusade was over. Yet the legacy of the prohibition struggle remained. The movement had indelibly etched total abstinence on much of the popular mind. It had convinced many that the dry doctrine held the key to the stability and prosperity of the republic. And if its political manifestation, prohibition, had fallen on hard times, thousands remained loyal to the idea cr% nonetheless. In fact.. the antebellum movement set an important precedent: Few. temper- C) ance advocates in subsequent years would seriously advance any other method than legal C) prohibition as a solution to the liquor question. S:N. cy- CIL> Xzb 20 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Probibition Takes The Nation The movement that secured the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was a more potent and successful reprise of the antebellum temperance crusade. There were some important differences: women, largely under the aegis of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, became major participants with an agenda of their own; and the Anti- Saloon League deployed novel political tactics. But reform fundamentals remained: per- fectionism sustained an absolutist and antipluralisr world view: the general welfare justi- fied over-riding individual values: and opponenL5 of reform were still demonized. Temperance workers were more willing than ever to impose their views on sociery for its own good. regardless of the opposition. In fact. the perfectionist impulse to cleanse socien- overshadowed the bactle against drinking itself. This reflected the success of the antebellum crusade in reducing alcohol consumption. By the 1850s, Americans were drinking or-Ay some two gallons per person annually. a figure close to modem consumption estimates (the 1978 level was close to 2.8 gallons)." Thus postwar temperance assaults focused not on consumption per se, but against drinking as a symbol of rampant pluralism and social disorder. Such symbols were everywhere. Immigration. alcohol-related crime, poverty and family problems, concerns over industrial efficiency and disorder. and social drinking among the middle and upper classes all offended temperance sensibilities. Most offensive of all were the urban saloons. Too many were simply ginmills, and the worst catered to drunkenness. crime, profanity. smoking, tobacco chewing, prostitution. gambling and political corruption. Their patrons. frequently immigrants and unskilled industrial workers.. held few values in common With temperance advocates. Indeed. the Saloon seemed to mock temperance conceptions of public virtue and stood starkly at odds with traditional -~merican mores. It constituted. as one historian aptly noted. a "countercuirure,~ danger- ous and inherently evil.-' But the liquor business worried little about its image. In fact, with ample funds to assure political support, it insolently faced down complaints. Large brewers owned most of the saloons and used them as outlets for their beers. They openly encouraged heavy drinking. New patrons often received free drinks and, as one industry spokesman explained. this tactic extended even to children. A few cents spent on free drinks for boys C*% was a good investment, the money would be amply recovered as these youths became CID habitual drinkers. Many Americans. and by no means just temperance workers. regarded such practices much the same as our own generation would consider a drug-pusher giv- ing children -free samples." Such conduct accorded temperance workers a perfect target. 01% co 21 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 It took time to rebuild dry strength, however. The first real resurgence came in the earlv 1870s. with the founding of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Members vie,.ved drink and the saloon as dangers to their farnilies and to their suirus as women, and they organized nationally with zeal and intelligence. Some initiatives were fairly novel. Using Ohio's Adair Law, for instance. which held taverners responsible for some of the actions of drunken patrons, women helped pioneer litigation as a reform device. But vic- tories came slowly. By the late 1880s. only five states were back in the prohibition col- umn. and national prohibition seemed a remote ciream. Temperance ]Propaganda Prnails Yet the slow pace of dry political activit:y was deceptive. Popular opinion was turn- ing against the demon, reacting to decades of temperance propagan including alcohol education in the schools and health warnings from physicians and scientists. It was a sophisticated effort, and Americans heard a consistent anti-liquor message. By the 1890s, grassroors reform efforts had generated enough strength for a renewed temperance surge, including an organization with enough political savvy to capitalize on dry numbers. This was the Anti-Saloon League, the brain-child of Reverend Dr. Howard Hyde Russell. of Ohio.3- With skilled leadership, the league became the most influential politi- cal pressure group of its day. National and state offices, with paid staff and thousands of motivated volunteers, brought out the vote and linked grass-roots drys with elected offi- cials at all levels. League speakers traversed the country, speaking in front of church, civic, labor, and business groups. An information clearing house at league headquarters in Westerville, Ohio, sent out millions of tracts for political, public information, and educa- ti onal purposes. The message was clear and consistent, and represented perhaps the most sophisticated public relations effort any reform organization had ever mounted. Politicians simply could not ignore such massive expressions of dry sentiment; while the alcohol bev- erage industry, its forces divided over how to respond, never learned to deal with the dry propaganda barrage or the league's vigorous local organizing. It gave the league, and pro- hibition, the initiative. National Prohibition loomed ever closer. By 1903, over a third of the nation, or 35 million people. lived under some type of prohibitory law. That figure rose to 46 million, C:) or about half of the populace, by 1913.-' Thus, prohibition had won hundreds of small battles at the local and state levels well before Congress formally considered a prohibito- CD ry amendment to the Constitution. Yet in 1916, after a tremendous push from all dry orga- ON co 22 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 nizations. [he general elections sent SO many League-endorsed candidates to Congress that N'arional Prohibition was virtually assured. The Eighteenth A endment e ily received I m as congressional approval in December 1917, and~ by januarv 1919, the necessan- 36 states had voted to ratify. 'No previous amendment had ever passed so quickly and with so clear a mandate. The nation thus became conSEirUtionally dry in January 1920. Yet even in dving (for that is how matters looked in 1920). drink- served a vim[ national purpose. Alcohol had been the enemy to generations of -Ainericans wedded to the venerable ideals of republican virtue and stewardship. Indeed. the anti-liquor reform- ers saw themselves ftffLUing the perfectionist dreams of their predecessors. The temper- ance wars. in their view. had been every bit as crucial as other conflicts--including the Revolution and the Civil War-thar had shaped the contours of American history. Thus the death of liquor symbolized the fruition of dreams unfolding since the [are J-jSOs. the pass- ing of the last hurdle on the path to the virtuous republic. Drinking in ~jnerica now seemed only a part of an imperfect past. Tobacco Remained a Target for Reformers .A,b alcohol prohibition reached high tide, reformers did not neglect their argument with tobacco. ~5 in the antebellum years, the assault on the weed was a smaller affair. but it remained an integral and interesting part of the broader prohibitionist impulse. in fact, the smoking controversy ultimately revealed a good deal about the outside limits of pro- hibition as social and political policy. Reformers had no use for any tobacco product, but the focus of their arEackwas the cigarette. For decades, cigarettes were not especially pop- ular with smokers. but when the development of cigarette manufacturing machines made them cheap and convenient, they caught on. By the turn of the century. ci re es had ga. tE surged in popularity among Smokers, and after the First World War. when they became a favorite of the troops, cigarettes were an established part of the -Aancrican scene. But the popularity of the cigarette marked it for the special attention of reformers. For reformers, the real problem was young smokers. They maintained that cigarette manufacturers overti-v marketed to boys and young men (although mariy women smoked as well). In the reform atmosphere of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this was the equivalent of waving the proverbial red flag in front of the bull. The WCTUI C:3 and other groups responded predictably and vigorously, I and from the same motivations that prompted their hatred of the demon rum. Cigarette smoking. like alcohol. was a mat- i rer of -home protection.- co CD 13ATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Temperance doctrine on tobacco had not changed since the d3ys of Benjamin Ru~h. thus the %WCT11 in particular saw the cigarette as a threat to their children, their homes. to health. and to social standards. Indeed. and-ciaaretre rhetoric was virruallv indis- ringuishable from the reform jeremiads against alcohol. -The ruin of the republic is close at hand.-,~varried an editorial in the New Yor~- Times, if cigarette use ever became gener- a12' This was a classic republican philippic. However. the war on smoking differed from the dry crusade in at least one impor- tant respect. Most reformers never seriously considered a constitutional solution to smok- ing. Tobacco would remain the focus of sraruEe law. up to and including any national leg- i5ladon reformers considered necessmy. This was also the case with opiates and other drugs. which fell under the pun-iew of the 1914 Harrison Act. Amending the Constitution. the basic charter of the nation. was the great moral and symbolic statement. and that was reserved for the truly arch enemy of the republic. alcohol. There were some important exceptions to this general view. From time to time, the W= and other reformers considered a drive for constitutional action agairw, tobacco. This mas especially the case in the immediate aftermath of the Nictory over alcohol. The crusader with the highest hopes was WCTU veteran Lucy Page Gaston. By 1890, Gaston ,was campaigning full time against cigarettes, and until her death in 1924 she was a formi- dab] e agitator and a Ehom in the side of the tobacco industry.' Nevertheless, most dry lead- en. argued against another constitutional amendment. The Anti-Saloon League stressed the enforcement of the Volstead Act. and feared that a drive for a tobacco amendment would push popular support for all prohibition too far. The league saw tobacco as a worthy rar- get of reform, but considered the tim~g wrong for another constitutional crusade. It was a key tactical decision, and most reformers, including and-Eobacco advocates, agreed.11 Smoking as a 100-year-old issue is At the same time, reformers understood that the lack of an anti-tobacco amendment posed little practical barrier to effective tobacco prohibition. Anti-smoking forces modeled their efforts directly on the localiry-by-localiry and staEe-by-state tactics pioneered by the Anti-Saloon League; and. at almost the same time that the league began to score dry vic- cr, Eories, tobacc6s foes started vvinning some rounds of their own. Indeed, by the 1890s. 0 and-smoking had become a major public issue.,2 C) The specific lines of attack- varied, although virtually all of them have a very mod- J~b- ern ring. Local and state law was a staple. By the rum of the century. virtuaRy every state ON co Xl~b %~D 24 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 legislature. and many municipalities, had considered placing restrictions on cigarette sales; and in keeping with WCTLT concerns, there was particular attention to preventing zobac- co sales to minors. There were ~,rarious proposals to impose heavy mxes on tobacco prod- ucts, or to require merchants to pay expensive licensing fees, in order to discourage sales. Many municipalities, including some of the nadon*s largest cities. also outlawed smoking in public places.,~ Virtually all of these tactics were venerable temperance weapons; Rush, for example, had suggested mxation as an and-drinking measure as early as the 1780s. The similarity of techniques further illustrated the intertwined relationship of the anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco reformers. Smoot, like Kessler tcas seeking government aurbority to determine in wbatform tobacco products would reacb the public.. if at all. Science was another club shared by alcohol and tobacco prohibitionists. Over time, both had produced an impressive roster of medical and scientific authorities to warn against smoking and drinking. and many of these warnings were sincere arid based on the best information available from research and statistics. On the other hand, reformers were often more concerned with marshalling popular support for prohibition than with the accuracy of particular statistics. Reverend Trask was a case in point. As one historian has pointed out, Trask was among the first to play fast and loose with health statistics. He insisted, for example, that upwards of twenty-thousand Americans died annually from tobacco, including many from cancer. German doctors, Trask also reported, blamed tobac- co for half the deaths among young men between eighteen and twenty years old. The rev- erend wasted little time on derivation of such figures.. but he happily used them to beat the drums for prohibition.- Other reformers would use numbers in similar fashion through the 1920s (and, as we will see. into the 1990s). FDA regulationfiaiLed once before There were also some interesting policy initiatives. In early 1929. Senator Smoot. of CY\ Utah, called for the regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug -Administration. The sen- ar&s intent was directly comparable to Dr. Kessler's interest in FDA regulation of tobac- CD co today. It would provide federal auchoricy to set the terms and conditions of the con- Co 25 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 tents of tobacco products as well as their sales. In effect. Smoot. like Kessler and former Congressman Mike Synar. was seeking government authority to determine in what form tobacco products would reach the public and under what circumstances. if at all. It was a clear attempt at cle facto prohibition.-* Congress was having none of it. however, and Smoot's g-ambir went nowhere. "Me fate of iu; modern incarnation remains an open ques- tion. Individually. none of these anti-mbacco initiatives would have prohibited smoking. Together.. however. they probably would have gone far toward an informal prohibition. Occasionally. they aroused enough ant-i-tobacco sentiment to permit the actual prohibition of cigarettes. Between 1895 and 1897 the legislatures of three sraEe&--\,onh Dakota, Iowa, and Tennessee-prohibiied cigarette sales or the sale of cigarette papers. The cause picked up momentum in 1900, when the United States SuDrerne Court found the Tennessee law constitutional. and by 1909. nine additional srares'or territories (Oklahoma Territory, Wisconsin. Nebraska, Indiana. -Axkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Washington, South Dakota.. and 1114innesora) had enacted prohibitory laws. Idaho and Utah passed similar laws in 1921. These victories encompassed neither the more populous states nor (as we will see) the base of popular support enjoyed by alcohol prohibition. Nevertheless, the cru- saders had accomplished a great deal. it was enougl-4 at least.. to prompt one national mag- azine to ask a pointed question: "Is tobacco going to have its scalp added to the belt of the prohibitionist beside that of the lamented. but as yet not altogether late. alcohol?'- Tobacco Attack Fafls In fact. the answer was a resounding -No.- Wliile sarisf~ing to reformers, restric- tions on tobacco proved unpopular with most citizens. Even in the most ardently and- smoking states, sizeable minorities (perhaps they were awakened majorities) protested vigorously; and if they did nothing else. such objections demonstrated the danger inher- ent in prohibition laws not based on overwhelming popular support. -Most states aban- doned cigarette prohibition even before the framing of the Eighteenth Amendment; and in states chat did not, the issue remained disruptive.,In Kansas, for example, the debate C7% turned ugly. Cigarette prohibition fell (1927). but only after reformers and their oppo- CD nents--notably veterans of World War I. who felt they had earned the right to make their own decisions on whether or not to light up-traded nasty recriminations. The crusade also suffered as wild medical claims against tobacco failed to muster credible scientific support. Thus. even as the tide of alcohol prohibition was cresEing, the fate of tobacco Ln 26 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 prohibition was questionable at best.4", Consumers Preferred Choice It was enough to cause some reformers to reassess their goals. Between 1919 and 1921. three major anti-cigarette organizations. convinced that over-zealous reformers were acruallv hurting the cause, expelled Lucy Page Gaston and reverted to working through moral suasion."' In state after state, legislators found and-tobacco laws increasingly unpop- ular. difficult and expensive to enforce, and not particularly effective in reducing smoking. While many crusaders soldiered on, they fought a losing battle; cigarerEe prohibition was gone by the late 1920,.-,, and so were many other restrictions against smoking. By the end of the decade, tobacco prohibition was no longer a serious public question.19 it is difficult to idenEify- precisely why the anci-tobacco crusade ended so abruptly. Certainly the failure of prohibition laws to effectively prohibit was a factor, as was the con- sequent inability of reformers to sustain a popular mandate. The effective political oppo- sition of the powerful tobacco industry, which never shared the pariah status of the liquor traffic, was alsocelling. Bur broader cultural factors also played a role. By the 1920s, a more. pluralistic and consumer-oriented society had emerged; Americans were more hedonistic and less inclined to appreciate appeals for single stan- dards of behavior or to accept intrusions into personal lifesryles.'o The tobacco crusade, not rooted in a Constitutional amendment, and without benefic of lobbying groups of the stature of the Anti-Saloon League, was unable to adjust to such cultural and political vagaries. Popular support evaporated. These same forces took a bit longer to catch up with National Prohibidon-a bit longer, but not much. Proflts in the pockets of cilminab is In fact, by the late 1920s, time was also running out for the Eighteenth Amendment. This was true despite the fact that prohibition could point to some real suc- cesses. After the Volstead Act became law in 1920, even wet studies conceded that drink- ing had fallen to its lowest levels in history (probably under a gallon per capira armually), and that alcohol-related traffic accidents. industrial injuries. and health problems of all kinds had declined as well. Social workers also reported fewer cases of drinking-related family problems and poverty.51 All of this was genuinely impressive. bur it was only parc C:) of the picture. ON C)o U'l 27 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Drinking did not disappear. however. Moderate drys were willing to take a long view. arguing that continued public education and persuasion would foster respect for [he Volszead Act and. over time, lead EO the final extinction of Demon Rum. Thai did not hap- pen. A sizeable minority continued to drink and alcohol consumpEion gradually climbed toward pre-prohibiEion levels. The growing illicit market kept bootleggers atwrork-. and. if prohibition did not give rise to organized crime (and we cannot blame it for that). it did foster the expansion of criminal enterprise and vastly increase its profits. Sucb an effort would bave entailed a monu- nientalpolice presence in eve?yday life, "While drys were shocked at such developments, they should not have been sur- prised. There were too many precedents. Antebellum prohibition had loosed a steady flow of illegal alcohol which found its way to willing customers. This happened even in Maine, where all of the efforts of Neal Dow himself failed to eradicate bootlegging. Indeed, the phenomenon may be relatively impervious to time and place, for there are modern exam- ples as well. In 1993. for example, in an overt effort to discourage smoking, Canada imposed prohibitory tax increases on cigarettes. Ibis triggered major smuggling operations which qui6dy supphed about a third of aU Canadian cigarette sales; the problem disap- peared when Canada rescinded the taxes. In 1994, Michigan also used taxation as a pre- vention measure, and quickly saw its citizens turn to cheaper cigarettes in neighboring states or to bootlegged products.12 Thus, the pattern has been remark-ably consistent over time: prohibitory policies, including taxation with a prol-iibitory intent, create demands readily supplied by illicit sources. Onty a police state cou& guarantee abstinence A truly massive law enforcement effort might have dried up America, just as it might have prevented illegal cigarette sales in Canada. But such an effort would have entailed a monumental police presence in everyday life, and very few citizens would have ch, and no consistent enforcement tolerated it. State and national authorities realized as mu drive ever materialized. Consequently the nation witnessed a massive disregard for the law of the land. a process accompanied by the corruption of law enforcement itself. At aged prohibitionist val- the same time, many of those who ignored the law openly dispar C7\ 28 i co U4 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 ues, which they considered intrusive, anti-libertarian, and, in the more hedonistic 1920s, inconvenient and silly. While millions still supported the Noble Experiment, thoughtful observers, including many moderate reformers, understood that things had not worked out as planned. This state of affairs was intolerable to most drys. Rather than compromise, d-iey elected coercion. Ira Landrith, a national lecturer for the Anti-Saloon League, put their case in grand perfectionist style- "Democracy Must Be Decent or Die! Republicanism Must Be Respectable or Ruine& Progressivism Must Be Pure or It Is Pre-ordained to Perishit' Landrith. who could rum a phmse, then called for "A saloonless nation by 1920.- a line prescient of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's call for a 'smoke-free America by 2000.'51 It was this oudook that impelled increasingly harsh enforcemenc measures, .4. sug- gestion that drinkers be sent to work camps in the Aleutian Islands went nowhere. but in "5 & 10' law. 1929, Congressional drys did pass the draconian Jones Act he infamous Far from the liberating social panacea its supporters had intended, prohibition had become oppressive. During the 1920s, for example, illegal liquor production and marketing became commonplace; smuggling liquor from foreign sources became too profitable to scop, even with the combined and progressively more expensive efforts of federal, state and local authorities. In 1923, the treasury secretary told Congress that his department needed a staggering S28 million to fund the Prohibition Unit adequately (so much for the $5 million that had been estimated), while a few years later one enforcement official suggested an annual figure of $300 million. Speakeasies and other illegal distribution operations routinely made 'protection" payments to local police. Widespread media coverage of consequent scandals at least gave the appeamnce (however mistaken) of a society thrown into turmoil. Moreover. illegal alcohol, like illegal cigarettes, was not taxed and yielded nothing to the public coffers. Finally. zealous prohibition enforcement exacted a human toll. In 1929, to cite only one illustration, dry agents clubbed a suspected bootlegger unconscious, then shot his unarmed wife as she came to his aid. By then, relatively few Americans saw drinking as a clubbing or shooting offense. This incident was hardly representative of the prohibition enforcement effort, but it made for vivid headlines and a nasty impression on the public. Bad Science Couldn't Save the Cause Even as they sought to coerce public behavior, drys fought tenaciously for popular 1 CD 29 0:1 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 opinion. Ultimately. even in this they were heavy-handed. Attempts to buttress the dry cause wid- medical and scientific evidence was a case in point. Temperance doctrine had long stressed the dangers of addiction and other health problems linked to alcohol. and properly -cc. But the reformers went too far and allowed policy concerns to over-ride the limits of available research. The WCTU. for example, through its Department of Scientific Temperance, and the independent Scientific Temperance Association, tried to place the mantle of scientific objectivity or, claims that ethyl alcohol was invariably a poison and always addicting., This was demonstrably ridiculous: millions of moderate drinkers never became alcoholics or suffered -any deleterious effects from drinking. and most of the pub- lic knew iL So did most doctors and scientists. There was never any question that alcohol use carried heaith risks, bur any number of prominent physicians weighed in against dry exag- gerations of The -poisonous" nature of alcohol. Moreover, they also took drys to task for publishing skewed interpretations of experimental results. By the late 1920s, virtually all temperance statistics on the dangers of alcohol and on the alleged benefits of prohibition had come under careful scrutiny and were foundwanting or questionable. Wets made the most of dry exaggerations. but attorney Clarence Darrow scored 2 particularly telling point. If a clear scientific verdict emerged against alcohol, he wrote, even sensible oppo- nents of prohibition would urge others to abstinence. "But prophecy is not science," and there was no such verdict.. and Darrow was convinced that national policy should nor rest on such a questionable base when the rights of others were involved.51 The politics of Repeal grew steadily from the chorus of discontent. Prohibition -%-as still enshrined in the Constitution. and most wets discounted outright repeal. Yet popular alarm was palpable, and Anti-Saloon League gaffes, carefully exploited by wet organiza- tions. set the stage for a denouement. Weakened by declining membership and leadership changes, the league misread the popular mood. In 1928, it abandoned non-parLisanship in order to oppose wet Democrat Alfred E. Smith; then, in the face of the Depression, it insisted thaz prohibition was still the key national issue. Americans saw this for the absur- diry it was. Thus, tied to the Republicans and unable to prevent Democrats from adopting a wet platform. the once mighry league could only watch as Franklin D. Roosevelt's land- slide victory swept away the barriers to Repeal. On December 5, 1933, when the Twenty- first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth, it was almost an anticlimax : ON : CD 30 0\ C."I I Un BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Cycles of Prohibition -kinerica has experienced prohibition, or at least prohibitionisc -sentiments, in cycles." From the late eighteenth to the late twentieth centuries, reformers periodically have proposed to elirninare problems attributed to drinking and smoking by eliminating beverage alcohol and tobacco products. The logic and motives behind these reform cycles have been remarkably consistent, and so have many of the results. These are worth con- sidering in the context of today's controversy over smoking. New efforts to drive smokersfrom public places bave added an edge to the debate entirely rem- iniscent of earlier attacks on social d7inking. I Certainly prohibition has not lent itself to civil discourse. The perfectionist strain has remained a central part of prohibitionist thinking, and has cast the debate over smoking in stark term of good and evil. If the temperance movement excoriated drinking in terms unlikely to foster compromise, many anti-smoking crusaders also have crossed the same line of invective. Until very recently, most smokers and nonsmokers had accommodated one another; common courtesy generally prevailed in such matters as where to smoke in restaurants or whether one smoked in another's home. New efforts to drive smokers from public places, however, have added an edge to the debate entirely reminiscent of earlier attacks on social drinking. In any case. it appears that government regulation will now increasingly determine what most citizens used to settle among themselves. Smokem are T"gets Again Intentionally or not, restrictions on smoking have prompted a growing disparage- ment of individual smokers. Alcohol prohibitionists slipped easily from attacks on alcohol to demonizing those who drank it, Over time, reformers carefully shaped popular opin- ion to view drinking as unacceptable, anti-social, even deviant, behavior. This was part and parcel of building support for prohibitory legislation. Increasingly, smokers now find themselves in a similar siruation. blamed for inconveniencing others, setting a poor exam- pie to nonsmokers, and over-burdening the health care system. If the old temperance experience offers any guide, smokers can expect to bear the brunt of even greater per- Jib ON 31 CO (JI 0% BATCo document for Legal SerVices : Health Canada 22 October 1999 I sonal criticism as the ant-smoking movement gathers steam. This is not a prediction. for it is already fact. I cite only one illustration, but it is revealing: Only recently, the D2UE farnily'%SS refused the only available room at a Nfissouri morel because Mr. Daut admined that he was a smoker. Morel policy barred giving non- smoking rooms to smokers, even if they agreed not to smoke. But Daut agreed to more than that: he successively volunteered to leave his cigarettes at the front desk,. and then to sleep in his car if his wife and two small children could stay in the room. The answer was still no, and the en&e famill, slept in the car.5' The situation was one of the more unfortunate legacies of our prohibitionist heritage, and we can probably expect to hear more of the same. Exaggerated and even specious claims be4~ed destroy the credibility of National Probibition. Are we about to make a similar mistake? Absolutist convictions have led prohibitionists in other questionable directions. Building public policy on inconclusive or even questionable information has been a prominent case in point. As I noted earlier, justiflable concerns over health risks inherent in drinking helped shape policy in the nineteenth and eaxly twentieth cenniries. But exag- gerated and even specious claim helped destroy the credibility of National Prohibition. Are we about to make a similar mistake? No one questions the health risks associated with smoking. But various governmental bodies have also considered and-smoking initia- tives based on the supposed dangers of environmental or "second-hand" smoke. This is a murk-y point, for the issue remains the subject of real contention. Both sides dispute the othees data-sometimes pointedly-and it is not my intention to evaluate scientific evi- dence. The point, however, is that while the debate continues, policy planning moves apace. We might recall Clarence Darrow's caution about setting policy before reaching a clear scientific 'verdict.' Uldmatehr such a course may risk- the credibility of the cause it purports to serve. Addiction as a subjective issue The matter of addiction also poses a problem. Addiction has been a staple of tem. CD perance concerns since the time of Benjamin Rush. Alcoholism has afflicted millions, a fact 32 I I MI BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 with staggering social, economic, and cultural consequences. Yet the overwhelming major- in, of drinkers do not become addicted, a fact which put the lie to grossly exaggerated dry claims on the subject. Nineteenth and early twentieth-century claims against cigarettes foundered for much the same reason. Dire warnings simply did not jibe with daily obser- vation. Addiction remains a trick-, matter. In 1964, die Surgeon General's report labeled tobacco (actually nicotine) habituating, but not addicting in the sense of alcohol or other drugs. Yet the latest FDA and-smoking posture derives specifically from the 1988 Surgeon General's claim that tobacco is addicting on the model of cocaine and heroin. Clearly, addiction has become a broader and less rigorously-defined conception over the years, and now includes a much wider variety of behaviors and habits. Even so, tens of millions of Americans have voluntarily quit smoking, and the vast majority have done so without outside help and without government interference with their personal behavior. Arguably, the FDA, and others who issue dire warnings on the addictive dangers of cigarettes, are on the same slippery ground as the Scientific Temperance Association. Will daily obser- vation again belie exaggerated predictions? Reformers Have Already Won Such questions prompt others. One can reasonably ask, for example, if certain agencies and reformers have not embarked on an exercise of reform or regulatory over- kill. The nation his not stopped smoking, but most of it has, and trends still appear down- ward. Public opinion overwhelming accepts the view that smoking is dangerous; smokers frequently go out of their way to avoid making nonsmokers uncomfortable. In effect, reformers have already won. Moreover, they have done so on a pattern established years ago: We should recall that among drinkers, the most substantial modifications of problem behavior occurred well before the Maine Laws or National Prohibition. Since 1964, the story of smoking has been roughly the same. Ye., calls for the virtual, if de facto abolition of smoking continue. Under the circumstances, we must ask again why anti-smoking advocates remain so zealous. What, in fact, do they really want? we have noted that prohibitory legislation has Previously covered broader social and political agendas. There was, of course, the old perfectionist vision of a social nin-ana that would emerge after the death of Demon Rum. Now the goals may be somewhat different: "wellness," some over-all health care policy even a variation (as some conservatives think) on venerable anti-corporate reform C:~ 33 Xl~ 0*1 OD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 themes.16 In any case, if today's anti-smoking campaigns are strictly about smoking, reformers should say as much. If they are part of a broader agenda-and some clearly art---hen reformers should say that. On the brink of a reforming rampage? If comprehensive health-care polim, is 2 goal among some anti-tobacco activists (as it mos" , certainly is), then there is every reason to proceed w ith caution. The current f0cu5 of reform is smoking! but the same logic that would regulate tobacco for health reasons would impel regulation of other things as well. Alcohol, for all of the time-honored rea- sons. would be a natural target once again, with all of the complications such a step would entail. Red meat, of course, is a leading source of cholesterol, and heart attack- kills more Americans every year than any other disease. Should we not regulate the consumption of beef and pork? This is not completely speculative. In late 1994, Yale University professor Kelly D. Brownell called for -sin" taxes on unhealthy foods, as we already have on alco- hol and tobacco, to pay for the health complications of "low-nutritior~' eating habits.* His column brought an immediate counter-attack: one respondent, a former smoker, noted that "-Americans should be concerned about having government define sin... I quit smoking many years ago, but I despise the self-righteous smugness of some nonsmokers. Is it a sin to smoke but not a sin to be rude. confronta- tional and just plain cruel to those who do smoke? ... How long after ~unhealthy' foods are taxed will we see the spectacle of fellow diners in restaurants pointing fingers, literally, at someone eating an eclaYe VU there be special areas in buildings ... for those who want to have a Twinkie with lunch?"10 If reactions to Brownell were Pointed, however~ so was his logic. Indeed, aggressive reg- ulators could well make a case for extending alcohol and tobacco controls and taxes to other products. Wrtual~y all of the control techniques mentioned today have antecedents in earlier prohibition campaigns. Whatever their motives-and there is no doubting the good intentions of most- C:) 34 C-) Ul 1 1.10 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 many who would restrict smoking would strenuously object to being caUed prohibitionists. Yet prohibition has never depended entirely on national legislation or even on actizal pro- hibition laws. Prohibitory policies have relied on local laws to control alcohol and tobacco use, age and locational restrictions, selective taxation, litigation, and regulatory policy. Virtually all of the control techniques mentioned today have antecedents in earlier prohibi- tion campaigns. Implemented singly, their impact would have been (and has been) limited: but combined. they have the potential to produce de facto prohibition. Thesewere precisely the tactics emploved to such startling effect by the Anti-Saloon League-. They were intended track. They did just that. to lay the foundation for a much broader, but later, legislative a StiU ripefor Wegal trade In some important respects, however, there is little practical difference berween Le facto and de iure prohibition. over time, the strict enforcement of prohibitory laws, fegula- dons, taxes. or whatever, has generated faith- consistent difficulties. Alcohol and tobacco prohibition has fostered the growth of illegal markets for both commodities. has cften led to wide-spread disrespect for the law, has strained law enforcement resources. and has even corrupted Elie criminal justice system. The recent Canadian experience with prohibitory ation, for example, only replicated many of the problems associated with the history of American prohibition- Ultimately, some of the worst social costs came not from drinking or smoking, but from the enormous social, political, economic, and moral consequences of going too far in limiting behavior. I do not suggest that a ban on smoking would fully repli- cate such distressing states of affairs. but it is worth asking reformers how far they would be willing to go in dealing with the almost inevitable violations of any tobacco prohibition. Finally, we do need to carefully consider the libertarian questions inherent in pro- hibitionisc policies. A mericans have prohibited certain behaviors in the past. and they may well again: I have never argued that Americans cannot ban something they fmd objection- able. My point is that if they do. they should undertake it with their eyes open. and per- haps honestly and openly call it what it is: prohibition. As we proceed, we should bear in mind that earlier policies aimed at the complete elimination of behaviors have led the nation down some unintended paths. As de Tocqueville warned, the "tyranny of the major- ity' can be a very pemicious tyranny, even when imposed in the name of the general wel- fare; it lirnits thought as well as conducL Prohibition invites these intrusions into private lives; and if the past is any guide. prudence has always been the better course when con- cr-- sidering any such invitation. 35 ON 0* - I (D BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 Acknowledgments This work- was undertaken with a grant from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, for which I want to express my appreciation. A number of colleagues pro- lided helpful criticisms of my various drafts, and in particular I would like to thank Penny Booth Page, at Rutgers University, and Jack Kamerman, Mary Lewis, and Jacki 'Walker, at Kean College of New Jersey, for their comments. I would also lil~e to thank Diana Dean. at University of Houston, for her immiuable research assistance. 40 36 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Notes 'The Time article is quoted and summarized in Mark Edward Lender and James Kirby Martin, Drinking in America: A His rev. ed. (New York. Free Press/Macmillan, 1987), 191. The trend toward moderation has continued into the 1990s. By 1992, annual average per capita consumption"-measured in gallons of absolute alcohol (that is, ethyl alcohol alone, not including water or other substances in a beverage-4iad fallen to its lowest level since 1967, and more Americans were numing from alcohol to soft drinks, coffee, and other nonalcoholic beverages. See "M-oreAmericans Choosing Not to be a Part of the Drinking Scene," The Bottom Line (Alcohol Research Information Service), 14 (Winter 1993): 4-8; *Absolute Alcohol Consumption.' MiLC-L-, 23-26; U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Eigbth Special rgport to the U.S. Con&= on Alcohol and Health (Washinoon. DC: 1993). 4-5. 'Quoted in Lender and Martin. Drinking in America, 191-92. Scholarship has also reflected the heightened public interest in alcohol-related questions. In particular, a grow- ing number of historians have turned their attention to the temperance movement, often concluding that the anti-liquor crusade had produced some beneficial results. It was the fwst time in generations that disinterested scholars had found much to admi in dry reform- See especially John C. Burnham, "New Perspectives on the Prohibition 'Experiment' of the 1920s," Tournal of Social Histoa 2 (1068).- 51-69, and Norm- H. Clark, Deliver Us fi-om Evih An IgLegpremtion of Agnerican Rrohibitio (New York 1976). Some careful studies even found that the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment was a mixed blessing, and that it was hardly the progressive measure described in earlier schol- arship, eg., David E. Kyrig, ed., Law. Alcoh6l. and Order- Persvectives on Natio I Prohibitlo CWestport, CL 1985). Other disciplines, notably those touching on public health issues, also put alcohol under scrutiny. If alcohol was a dangerous chemical, they asked, should government regulators not deal with it as suchI2, See, for example, Dan F- Beauchamp, Beyond &koholisimu Alcohol andPublic Health Poli (PhiLidelphia, 1980). Opinion was anything but unanimous on such questions, nor did it have to be- The point was that these matters had engaged academe as they had not for decades, and that tem. perance and criticisms of beverage alcohol emerged from the 1980s with a vastly enhanced scholarly credibility. -'The issue of the "new temperance" movement or Ineoprohibitionism' is dis- cussed in Lender andMartin, 12EIC&Ine in America, 191-201. *Wchael Cramer, "Bring back Prohibition,- jjLjg&y, May 1994. 0'. ""Cigarette Smoking and Health Risks: Four Centuries of Information and Public 2 Nov. 1988, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.; U.S. Awareness," Report, Section 2. " Dept. of Health and Human Services, The Health ConsatVences of Smoking: Nico Addictim a Revorr f the Sgmon Gen (Washington. D.C., 1988). 9-11; John A-Meym "Cigarette Century,"American Herijage, 43, No. 8 (1992). 776-79. 4Christopher John Farley, "The Butt Stops Here." juLne, 18 Apr. 1994, 60. ;C:> C:) 37 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 'Associated Press, 'Smoking Among Women Increases, Reversing Trend," Washinnon P 4 November 1994. "Should Cigarettes Be Outlawe&" U.S. News & 3M2rL4jLep= 28 Apr. 1994, 35. 'Chrisropherjohn Farley, "The Butt Stops Here,"rime IS Apr. 1994, 58. 11rhe Jones Act (also called the Jones-Stalker act) specifically forbid courts from discriminating between "slight or casuar and serious violations of prohibition laws when imposing sentences; see Ernest Hurst Chcrrington, ed., The Anti-Saloon IgMe Year Ro-ok, 1931 (Westerville, OH, 1931), 17. On reactions to the law, see Lender and Martin, Drinking in America, 163-64. The act was amended in 1931 to reduce the severity of pun- I ishments for "petty offenses." "Mark Edward Lender, DictioaMy of American Tem2erance BioSMIM; From Lemoj2Dce Reform to -Alcohol Research. the 1600s to the 1980s (Westport, CT, 2984), 221. "David C. Lewis, "For Health but Against Prohibition," Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and AgRlication 13, No. 9 (1994).- 11-12. "Richard Klein, Cigarettes Are Sublime (Durham, NC, 1993); Klein quoted in Cbristophcr John Farley, "The B= Stops Here., rimge, 18 Apr. 1994, 64. uSbannon Brown]= Steven V. Roberts et al.. 'Should Cigarettes Be Outlamped." U.S. News & 'World 18 Apr. 1994, 32-38; Christopher John Farlcy~ 'The Butt Stops Here," ri-me, 18 Apr. 1994, 58-64. 'rFaith T. FitqNxald, "7be Tyranny of Health," New Engj=d Yournal of Medicine 331. No. 3 (1994): 12-13. 16"Changing the Wbrld4 Cigarette Foe Banzhaf Sees the Law as Tool to Attack Social Ills," The Wall Street Tomma-L 17 Apr. 1969. 17Fielding quoted in Farley, "The Butt Stops Here", 64. "For a discussion of Rush's influence, and especially his ideological convictions, see Lender and Martin. 12rinkigg j2 Am 34-40; an overview of his temperance activ- ities is in Lender, Dictionary of Tem2gggpgg Ainc v1xv. 421-24. unless noted otherwise, my, treatment of Rush follows these sources. 'Marry G. Levine, "The Discovery of Addiction: Changing Conceptions of Habitual Drunkenness in America," jouraW of Studies on Alcohol 39 (1978): 143-74, Mark Edward Lender and Karen R. Kamchanapee, "Temperance Tales: Antiliquor Fiction and American Attitudes toward Alcoholics in the late 29th and Early 20th Centuries," MLid. 38 (1977): 134-,70. 'Rush quoted in Lender and Martin, Drinking in America, 38. 'Benjamin Rush. Observations mMn the influence of the Habitual use of Tobacco i 38 co ON I LN BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Upon Hc2lth. Nfor-Als and Pro2grrv (Philadelphia, 1798); Gordon L Dillow, "The Hundred Year War Against the Cigarette," AmeTican Kerita2e, Feb.(M=. 1981. 2'For statis stics on alcohol consumption, and their implications, see Wj. Rorabaugh, jb& Alcoholic Republic. An American Tradition (-New York. 1979). 13Lender and Martin, Drinkine in America, 71-72. '"Gordon L Dillow, -Me Hundred Year War Against the Cigarette," American H Feb./Mar. 1981, 6. "'Tobacco," journal of Health [Philadelphia], Vol. 1, No. 3, 7 Oct. 1829, 36-38, Arents Collection, NLO. 3191, New York Public Library, "WAIlister's Dissertation on Tobacco," RE14., Vol. 1. No. 21, 14 July 1830, 329-31. 'Anti-Tobacco [Fitchburg, MAI, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1859): 2. r-IbLd, Vol. 2, Nos. 10-12 (Oct., Nov., Dec. 1973)- 183. '(George Trask], Thou&h--ts and Stories on Tobacco for American Lads: Or Uncle Toby's Anti-Tobacco Advice for His Njgnhew Bft (Boston, 1852),9-10,12ass "'Anti-Tobacco TournaL Vol. 1, No,. 5 (Aug. 1860): 135. "'Trask, nLo-ughts and Stories on Tobacco, 10; Dillow, "The Hundred Year War," 6, Lendew; Dictionarv of TemiK-rance Biggmpft 202-203, 280-82, 320-22. Parker quoted in IA=der andMartin, Driiking in Ameri 73. 3MenuncLulons of moderate drinking were staples of the temperance literature; some of the best examples are in Daniel Dorchester's comprehensive dry history, The UQY= Problem in AD AgCj (Cind-ad OH, 1884). See also Lander and Kamchanapee, 'Temperance Tales." 33AIemis de Tocqucvine, 12MQM&y in &=jG& ed. by Richard D. Heffner (New York, 1956, orig. 1835 and 2840), 201. -"RaLL, 116-117. "Me figure for 1992 was 2.34 gallons, a further decline but stiR slightly ahead of the 1850 estimate of 2.10 gallons; see ".Absolute Alcohol Consumption," Bottom Lin 25-26. IqI)js was the conclusion of Clark, Deliver Us from- Exib fbr a particularly reveal~ ing study, see Perry R. Duis, The Saloon: Public Drinking in ChLc-a_W and Boston. 1880- 1920 (Urbana, 1983). A dry view is in George X Ham -11 ed., The Rassing of the Salwn ON (Cincinnati, OH, 1908). C:) -17Russell advocated three operational tenets. The fast was the direct involvement of the pulpit in prohibition politics. Working first through Methodist churches (and I co 39 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 thereafter through other denominations as well), the league effecriveh- urged Ohio con- gregations to vote dr~. The second technique was Iocal option," which began to dry up Ohio on a counry-by-counry or town-by-town basis. Finally, there was a nonpartisanship- The league proved that it could marshaII votes for anyone-Republican or Democrat- who was willing to vote dry. The major parties rapidly awoke to the electoral power of the league, and it soon became apparent that the political fortunes of the antiliquor cru- sade did not depend on any single party, and certainly not on the small and ineffectual Prohibition Party. Throughout the 2890s, then, the Anti-Saloon League gathered niomen- turn as it duplicated its Ohio successes elsewlirre, forming state chapters and a national organization (I"Dalong the way. Me best treatinmr of the league is K Austin Keres Orggdnd for BltQ=- a New ffj%02~ of the Anti-Saloon Lmo (New Haven, CT, 1985), still useful is a contemporary study by Peter Odegard, Pressure Politics: The StozX of the Anti-Saloon I&M (New York, 1928). 5%&nder and Martin, Drinking in Ameri 129. 3'Quoted in Dillow, "The Hundred Year War," 77. IP12n Amendment to Outlaw Tobacco," New York Times, 3 Aug. 1919; for a con- temporary view of the question, see L Ames Brown, "Is a Tobacco Crusade Coming?" Mo Oct. 1920,446-55; on gaston, see "Lucy Page Gaston," Herald, Passaic, DU, EditorW Diges4 23 Sept 1924; and "Miss Gaston, Cigarette Foe, Passes Away," rJ9g= Tribune 21 Aug. 1924. 41"Dry League Not to join Tobacco Fight," Scranton IPA] Times 277 Feb. 1925. 493espite its f0ure to formally endorse tobacco prohibition, the indirect influence of the Anti-Saloon. League in the and-cigarette movement was considerable. Reformers specifically noted their debt to teclunques developed bv the League. For examples, see "National Drive to Be Launched Upon Tobacco: Attack on -Filthy Weed Based on Tactics of Anti-Saloon League," Akron fOhiol lournaL 26 Mar. 1925; interview statement by Wilbur Crafts, Internatiorml, Reform Bureau, Summer 1919, 3. 4313ffiow~ "The Hundred Year War," 10-23; Brown, "Is a Tobacco Crusade Coming?" 450, 454. The Pennsylvania chapter of the W.C.T.U. wanted the firing of teachers who smoked, "W.C.T.U. Meeting Assails Cigarettes," EbAzIdphia In 19 Oct. 1927. "Dillow, "The Hundred Year War," 6-Akriti-Tobacco I Vol. 1, No. 2 (jan. 1869). 31. 45Sen. Reed Smoot, "Extension of Food and Drugs Act to Tobacco and Tobacco Products," Cong=sional RgggrL~ Vol. 71, No. 45, 10 June 1929, 26877-91. "Garrett Smith, "Is Tobacco Doomed,' Leslie's 14 May 1921, 1. 47Brown, "Is a Tobacco Crusade Coming?' pms ""Lucy Page Gaston Ousted By Ieagtie," New York TeLc&mVJ6 27 Aug. 1921. C-) C7% 40 Ln BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 qlDillow, "The Hundred Year War," 15. "Jack S. Blocker~ Jr., American TempgMce Movements: Cycles of Re (Boston. MA, 1989), 110; Lea