WI: Alcohol gets Tobacco treatment

kernals12

Banned
So what if instead of pushing for an outright ban on alcohol, the temperance movement does what the anti-smoking movement did 70 years later?

This would mean:
Much higher taxes on alcoholic beverages
Bans on radio (and later television) advertising for alcoholic beverages
Bans on drinking in public places
Giant warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers about the dangers of drinking

It seems like this would reduce alcohol consumption without the negative side effects of prohibition.
 
Last edited:
It seems like this would reduce alcohol consumption without the negative side effects of prohibition.
Possible in future/potential consumers, traditional consumers will stay but the remplacament ration would be lower and fall the time goes.
 

kernals12

Banned
Possible in future/potential consumers, traditional consumers will stay but the remplacament ration would be lower and fall the time goes.
These measures can be extremely effective. Per capita tobacco consumption has fallen 75% since 1981, that's just over 1 generation. From this chart, you can see the impacts of federal cigarette tax increases in 1982, 1997, and 2009.
Screen Shot 2018-07-27 at 10.02.13 PM.png
 
These measures can be extremely effective. Per capita tobacco consumption has fallen 75% since 1981, that's just over 1 generation. From this chart, you can see the impacts of federal cigarette tax increases in 1982, 1997, and 2009.
View attachment 399090
Is even more effective i thought but Alcohol might be more resistance but we might saw by modern day similar fall rates but again even if just USA, we could see 'speakeasies' with cheaper alcohol in places like Canada or Tijuana but yeah i could imagine a gradual reduction in the time.
 
The problem is that smoking gives you and others around you cancer, so quitting is simply good sense. Alcohol can be used on a similar regular basis with no ill effects, so demonizing it would be seen as the religious-political stunt that it is.
 
The problem is that smoking gives you and others around you cancer, so quitting is simply good sense. Alcohol can be used on a similar regular basis with no ill effects, so demonizing it would be seen as the religious-political stunt that it is.
The main talking point of the temperance movement was that alcohol is correlated with violence and domestic abuse, which is why women's rights activists were usually prohibitionists.
 
The main talking point of the temperance movement was that alcohol is correlated with violence and domestic abuse, which is why women's rights activists were usually prohibitionists.

The roots of the temperance movement was in a couple of more recent protestant groups, catholics, orthodox and older protestants don't get into it. The evangelical revival of the 1830 built up a critical mass for temperance as a political movement, it was on moralistic grounds, the other stuff was window dressing to gain support from people outside these moral groups.
 
So what if instead of pushing for an outright ban on alcohol, the temperance movement does what the anti-smoking movement did 70 years later?

This would mean:
Much higher taxes on alcoholic beverages

That would lead to Prohibition Lite, since people will smuggle alcohol to avoid the taxes on it. Further, unlike tobacco, homebrewing is simple. Sure, you could use something like the Comstock laws to ban shipment of homebrewing-related texts and paraphernalia, but how hard is it to learn that mixing a few common ingredients will get you up to wine strength alcohol?

Bans on radio (and later television) advertising for alcoholic beverages

This might work, but I'm not sure if the courts would approve back then. IIRC the tobacco industry chose not to fight the law banning advertising because application of the Fairness Doctrine had caused anti-smoking PSAs to appear on TV (and they immediately this as a huge threat). Without something comparable, the alcohol industry would fight back and could probably win.

Bans on drinking in public places

Public intoxication was always illegal. And those bans on smoking in public places exist in large part because of second-hand smoke/third-hand smoke concerns which started in the 80s, as well as the increasing demand for non-smoking areas as smoking rates decreased and people got sick of the smell being everywhere. Nothing about that applies to alcohol.

Giant warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers about the dangers of drinking

Not hard to get around, when the tobacco industry voluntarily put their own warning label on cigarettes with intentionally vague language (may cause cancer) rather than let the government write it for them. Even now, the Surgeon General's warning on alcohol just tells women not to drink during pregnancy, says that it impairs your ability to operate machinery and drive, and it says that it may cause health problems. I could see associations of beer, spirits, wine, etc. doing the same thing and pre-empting the government on that. And I can't see massive labels being used back in the Prohibition era.

It seems like this would reduce alcohol consumption without the negative side effects of prohibition.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...ales-could-spark-gang-conflict-alderman-says/

From the same place the Chicago Outfit and their rivals once fought gang wars over distributing smuggled alcohol, today's gangs in Chicago have fought gang wars over distributing smuggled "loosies", due to high cigarette taxes. Sure, maybe it won't be as bad as OTL Prohibiton, but "negative side effects" would most certainly exist.

I mean thats not really true. It’s pretty terrible for your liver

What got a lot of the restrictions on tobacco was because smoking not only harmed the user, but others around the user who didn't want to smoke, like flight attendents on planes, or young children. Nobody cared much about people choosing to smoke, that was their choice to rot their lungs. Outside of drunk driving and pregnant women drinking, alcohol only harms the user.
 
The roots of the temperance movement was in a couple of more recent protestant groups, catholics, orthodox and older protestants don't get into it. The evangelical revival of the 1830 built up a critical mass for temperance as a political movement, it was on moralistic grounds, the other stuff was window dressing to gain support from people outside these moral groups.
I never said that there wasn't a heavy religious moralist aspect to temperance, but Prohibitive never would've gone through if there weren't real social ills that could be (rightfully or not) connected to alcohol, which runs contrary to your claim that alcohol has no ill effects comparable to those of tobacco.

I'm also not sure how the supposed lack of ill effects for alcohol means that regulation is less likely than a full-out ban.
 
I never said that there wasn't a heavy religious moralist aspect to temperance, but Prohibitive never would've gone through if there weren't real social ills that could be (rightfully or not) connected to alcohol, which runs contrary to your claim that alcohol has no ill effects comparable to those of tobacco.

I'm also not sure how the supposed lack of ill effects for alcohol means that regulation is less likely than a full-out ban.

I didn't claim that there were no ill effects from alcohol abuse, I claimed that regular alcohol use akin to the regular smoking doesn't have similar effects. While smoking gives smokers and passive smokers cancer etc drinking doesn't give people standing beside a drinker liver problems, nor does regular drinking make most drinkers into wife bashers or other harmful problems.

Hence I said that most people would (and even now do) see through the demonizing of alcohol as window dressing a morality push by a religious group.
 
Pry my riesling wine out my dead hands.. Take my smokes.. But leave my wine alone.

Jesus . We should all be goodie 2 shoes and only be vegan.. You only get to live once and we really don't make it overly enjoyable for most the world's population.. Give people some slack.

Plus tax one drug.. People will just turn to others for an escape now and then .

In other words prohibition failed the many times its been advocated. Why, because people want an escape, or unwind. Sure you may tax over the counter alcohol out of the price range for some, they will just seek alternatives.

Having the government, religion or some self righteous group, even if based on good intentions or tragedy micro manage people's personal space seldom works and usually then only becomes enforceable against targets or groups of selective interest.

That said higher taxes instead of prohibition would Have been a better alternative than flat out banning.

Still.

Education and responsibility is a better approach.

This has worked with tobacco in the USA

But as mentioned there is a big difference between the two.
 
Last edited:
I mean thats not really true. It’s pretty terrible for your liver
It also causes cancer. Alcohol causes less deaths than tobacco, but its economic cost is much higher due to the additional burden on the criminal justice system from the associated violence etc.
 

Zachariah

Banned
The problem is that it's simply far harder to restrict the production and distribution of alcohol. Tobacco is a specific crop; restricting its production, distribution and consumption poses no greater a challenge than that of, say, cannabis, or cocaine. Trying to do the same with alcohol, on the other hand, is akin to attempting to restrict the production, distribution and consumption of yoghurt, cheese, vinegar, Sauerkraut, sourdough bread and pickles. Because ethanol can be produced by fermenting practically anything.
 
In other words prohibition failed the many times its been advocated. Why, because people want an escape, or unwind. Sure you may tax over the counter alcohol out of the price range for some, they will just seek alternatives.
possibly. I suppose to know for sure, we'd need the stats on how many people are regular drinkers, occasional drinkers, hardly-ever-drinkers, and never-drinkers. People who don't drink a lot likely wouldn't find it hard to give it up completely instead of going through all the work of brewing their own or finding illegal sources of it or turn to other substances.
 
possibly. I suppose to know for sure, we'd need the stats on how many people are regular drinkers, occasional drinkers, hardly-ever-drinkers, and never-drinkers. People who don't drink a lot likely wouldn't find it hard to give it up completely instead of going through all the work of brewing their own or finding illegal sources of it or turn to other substances.
But why should they.. Its a choice no?

That's the catch you just made something that is normal thought history illegal, that makes it more inticing, and or people just look for a new drug of choice / status.

Those who don't drink often then might be inclined to say hey wtf.. What's the deal and then drink more or try to brew something at home
 
Not hard to get around, when the tobacco industry voluntarily put their own warning label on cigarettes with intentionally vague language (may cause cancer) rather than let the government write it for them. Even now, the Surgeon General's warning on alcohol just tells women not to drink during pregnancy, says that it impairs your ability to operate machinery and drive, and it says that it may cause health problems. I could see associations of beer, spirits, wine, etc. doing the same thing and pre-empting the government on that. And I can't see massive labels being used back in the Prohibition era.

The other problem with health warnings is that whereas there is no minimum safe level of tobacco consumption and no health benefits from its use, the same is not true for alcohol. Whereas excessive consumption is definitely detrimental to your health, low to moderate consumption has certain health benefits, such as -

Possible health benefits of moderate alcohol use

Moderate alcohol consumption may provide some health benefits, such as:

  • Reduce your risk of developing and dying from heart disease
  • Possibly reduce your risk of ischemic stroke (when the arteries to your brain become narrowed or blocked, causing severely reduced blood flow)
  • Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes
From the Mayo Clinic website. - Medical Daily adds increased life expectancy, reduced risk of erectile disruption and dementia to the list. It's apparently even good for fighting off the common cold. Seriously, it wouldn't take much of a campaign to make booze sound like a miracle drug...

If the government wants to put health warnings on alcoholic drinks about the dangers of excessive consumption it's a certainty that the producers will fight back by putting even larger notices about the benefits of moderate consumption, and how would you stop them?
 

Ian_W

Banned
So what if instead of pushing for an outright ban on alcohol, the temperance movement does what the anti-smoking movement did 70 years later?

This would mean:
Much higher taxes on alcoholic beverages
Bans on radio (and later television) advertising for alcoholic beverages
Bans on drinking in public places
Giant warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers about the dangers of drinking

It seems like this would reduce alcohol consumption without the negative side effects of prohibition.

This is essentially what has already happened in OTL Australia.

To give an example, a case of 24 beers is about $40, and a bottle of vodka about the same.

The other major change is random breath testing essentially eliminating the culture of drinking and then driving.
 
This is essentially what has already happened in OTL Australia.

To give an example, a case of 24 beers is about $40, and a bottle of vodka about the same.

The other major change is random breath testing essentially eliminating the culture of drinking and then driving.

True, and while young people aren't drinking as much they are using illegal drugs in far greater numbers given they are much cheaper.
 
Top