Make alcohol unpopular

What could have happened to make alcohol the least popular it can be in the West?

Avoid criminalization of other drugs, so that people who dislike the bloating, dizziness, and hangovers of booze can have an alternative.

(And yes, my POD is easier said than done.)
 

DougM

Donor
Not much. See the US in the 1920s during prohibition. (Which arguably increased its popularity). Alcohol was for a long time the safer drink. it was also one of the few choices for “flavor” So the popularity goes back thousands of years and we are not easily changing that in a short span of time
 
Not much. See the US in the 1920s during prohibition. (Which arguably increased its popularity). Alcohol was for a long time the safer drink. it was also one of the few choices for “flavor” So the popularity goes back thousands of years and we are not easily changing that in a short span of time
This is after 1900 chat so there Germany flavoured drinks. In addition I do not see proof prohibition increased alcohol usage, just increased organised crime (market for selling alcohol went to violent criminals who shoot eacotther in the streets and rape women and invest money in to other crime)
 
Al Smith runs for third party in 1932, splitting the Democratic vote. Hoover wins a second term thanks to the Democratic split, similar to Wilson in 1912. He keeps prohibition as it was Republican policy at the time
 
Not much. See the US in the 1920s during prohibition. (Which arguably increased its popularity). Alcohol was for a long time the safer drink. it was also one of the few choices for “flavor” So the popularity goes back thousands of years and we are not easily changing that in a short span of time
Prohibition has greatly reduced the general consumption of alcohol by Americans even after it was ended. Americans prior to Prohibition were severely alcoholic.
 
What could have happened to make alcohol the least popular it can be in the West?
One question: when?

For centuries alchool, in the form of wine (often watered down) or beer, was often saffer to drink than water, in many places. Unless you had direct access to running water from a river or had your own water well, the water you'd get might very well be either stagnant or close enough; so, watered down beer/wine or close enough, or you would get sick...

Tea was not a really practical consideration, specially considering how much water we need to drink per day.
 
This is convoluted but:

Prohibition movement doesn't succeed in their legislative agenda and consequently reducing alcoholism in the US, instead settling for a long haul sustained public awareness campaign and adverts to negatively portray drunks and alcoholism. Tap into latent nativist, xenophobic and anti-immigration currents to typecast heavy drinking as 'foreign', low class, poverty, hell maybe even Russian with the Red Scare and the irrational Communist Witch Hunt. Have medical professionals link various ailments and conditions to alcohol. You might end up with Drinking being viewed negatively in public consciousness by the 60s onwards which might then be exported along with American pop culture, probably only Canada though.
 
Al Smith runs for third party in 1932, splitting the Democratic vote. Hoover wins a second term thanks to the Democratic split, similar to Wilson in 1912. He keeps prohibition as it was Republican policy at the time
(1) There's no way that Smith would do this. In 1932, he still considered himself a loyal Democrat despite his bitterness toward FDR.

(2) If he did, there is no way he could enable Hoover to defeat FDR. Indeed, because his disagreements with FDR were from the Right (insofar as there *were* any ideological disagreements--they certainly were not as sharp as in 1936) he might take votes from Hoover as well as from FDR. (Yet he could not get financing from conservative Dempcrats like Raskob--as much as they distrusted FDR, they thought they had saddled him with a sufficently conservative plarform and were supporting him that year.) But he would not get many votes anyway--he was no TR so far as national popularity was concerned, and everyone who disliked Hoover would know the only way to get rid of Hoover would be to vote for FDR. Moreover, he could not make any TR-like claim that he had won the primaries--he won them only in MA and NJ and got far fewer votes overall than FDR did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries A Smith candidacy would just look like pure personal bitterness, "sour grapes"--no distinctive platform like that of the 1912 Progressives, no sense that "we stand at Armageddon and we battle for the Lord."

The very best he could do might be to deprive FDR of a close northeastern Catholic state like MA--but FDR could lose the entire Northeast (which he wouldn't) and still win.

(3) Even the Republican platform in 1932 came out for resubmission of Prohibition to the states. The 21st Amendment was in fact passed by the lame duck 72nd Congress while Hoover was still president. Ratification was not a matter of Demcorats versus Republicans-- of the twelve states that did not ratify by Decemeber 1933, six were Democratic-controlled southern states (SC, NC, GA, LA, MS, and OK), and in fact the only states to reject the Amendment outright were SC and NC.
 
Last edited:
If people tried substances that don't make you depressed and sick for a buzz. Once you do, you'll never drink again.
 
Problem is governments like the tax money on booze too much. Wasn't it the main reason for the repeal of prohibition, Washington needed the taxes during the Depression
 
My mate's sister was working on a government funded project to demonise alcohol like cigarettes/tobacco, but I believe it has recently shut down. They were going for the safety angle; domestic and other violence, alcohol related health problems and the like. The problem with this approach, and alcohol in general I'd suggest, is that people don't believe this crap. Sure, the stats are true enough, but the vast majority of people go through their lives regularly drinking alcohol with little to no negative effects, so such appeals to reason fall on deaf ears.

I'd suggest giving people the option to use other substances would take some of the attraction of alcohol away, but otherwise it's too versatile and delicious alongside its narcotic qualities to lose its attractiveness; you can use it to catch a bit of a buzz watching some entertainment, pair it with food or wipe yourself out to deal with a temporary problem without these ruining your liver or bashing your spouse.
 
The only thing I can come up with is a massive surge popularity for the Methodist Church and other sects that frown on alcohol in the western world in the early part of the 20th century.
 
Top