In 1790 PER CAPITA consumption of pure alcohol, or absolute alco-hol, was just under six gallons per year.. Post-Prohibition Regulation and Control The repeal of Prohibition forced state
Trang 1In fact, beer and wine were staples on the ships carrying settlers to the New World In colonial times, water and milk were scarce and susceptible
to contamination or spoilage, and tea and coffee were expensive The Pilgrims turned to such alternatives as cider and beer, and, less frequently, whiskey, rum, and gin In 1790 PER CAPITA consumption of pure alcohol, or absolute alco-hol, was just under six gallons per year (Pure alcohol constitutes only a small percentage of an alcoholic drink For example, if a beverage contains 10 percent alcohol by volume, one would have to drink ten gallons of it to consume one gallon of pure alcohol.)
Although the majority of the colonists drank alcohol regularly, strong community social stric-tures curbed any tendency toward immoderation
Drunken behavior was dealt with by emphasizing the need to restore community harmony and stability, rather than by imposing punishment
Alcohol consumption continued without much controversy until after the Revolutionary War when whiskey and other distilled spirits became valuable commercial commodities
When Congress imposed an excise tax on the farmers who produced liquor in the 1790s, they resisted paying the tax Their resistance became
known as the Whiskey Rebellion, a PROTEST movement of farmers who felt the tax placed an undue burden on their commercial activities Before the nineteenth century, farming was the predominant occupation, and, although it involved grueling work, it did not demand precision or speed The Industrial Revolution brought millions of workers into factories where efficiency, dexterity, and rigid scheduling were necessary With these economic changes came a shift in societal attitudes toward alcohol Gone was the time when people considered the midday liquor break a benignDIVERSION
The Temperance Movement
‘Mid pleasures and palaces, though we may roam,
Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home
But there is the father lies drunk on the floor, The table is empty, the wolf’s at the door, And mother sobs loud in her broken-back’d chair,
Her garments in tatters, her soul in despair (Nobil Adkisson, Ruined by Drink [c 1860])
As the United States entered the Industrial Age, attitudes about alcohol consumption gradually changed A moralistic and punitive view of alcohol replaced the laissez-faire attitudes of earlier times What had been the“good creature
of God” in the eighteenth century became the
“demon rum” of the nineteenth
The U.S temperance movement emerged around 1826 with the formation of the Ameri-can Society for the Promotion of Temperance, later called the American Temperance Society
In the 1840s the society began crusading for complete abstinence from alcohol Dissemina-tion of the temperance message caused a fall in per capita consumption of pure alcohol from a high of more than seven gallons per year in 1830
to just over three in 1840, the largest ten-year drop in U.S history By the outbreak of the Civil War, 13 states, beginning with Maine in 1851, had adopted some form of prohibition as law Other temperance organizations became prominent during the middle to late 1800s In
1874 the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was founded The only temperance organization still in operation, the WCTU has worked continuously since its inception to educate the public and to influence policies that discourage the use of alcohol and other drugs In
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY
PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
U.S Consumer Spending on Alcoholic Beverages, 1984 to 2007
SOURCE: U.S Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Year
375
300
225
150
75
0
1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2007
$275 $269
$301 $309
$372
$459 $457 525
450
Trang 21990 the group was nominated for a Nobel Peace
Prize
In 1869 the anti-alcohol movement created
its own political party—the National Prohibition
party—devoted to a single goal: to inspire
legislation prohibiting the manufacture,
trans-portation, and sale of alcoholic beverages The
party made modest showings in state elections
through the 1860s and 1870s and reached its
peak of popular support in 1892 when John
Bidwell won almost 265,000 votes in his bid for
the presidency The Prohibition party’s main effect
was its influence onPUBLIC POLICY It succeeded in
placing Prohibition planks into many state party
platforms and was a potent impetus behind
passage of the Eighteenth Amendment
One of the most powerful forces in the
Prohibition movement was the Anti-Saloon
League, a nonpartisan group founded in 1893 by
representatives of temperance societies and
evan-gelical Protestant churches The Anti-Saloon
League, unlike thePROHIBITION PARTY, worked within
established political parties to support candidates
who were sympathetic to the league’s goals By 1916
the league, with the help of the Prohibition party
and the WCTU, had sent enough sympathetic
candidates to Congress to ensure action on a
Prohibition amendment to the Constitution
Prohibition
Prohibition is an awful flop
We like it
It can’t stop what it’s meant to stop
We like it
It’s left a trail of graft and slime
It don’t prohibit worth a dime
It’s filled our land withVICEand crime
Nevertheless, we’re for it
(Franklin P Adams, quoted in Era of Excess)
In December 1917 the temperance movement
achieved its goal when Congress approved the
Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the
manufacture, sale, transportation, importation,
or exportation of intoxicating liquors from or to
the United States or its territories The
amend-ment was sent to the states, and by January 1919
it was ratified In January 1920 the United States
officially became dry
The demand for liquor did not end with
Prohibition, however Those willing to violate
the law saw an opportunity to fill that demand
and become wealthy in the process Illegal stills
produced the alcohol needed to make“bathtub
gin.” Rum and other spirits from abroad were commonly smuggled into the country from the east and northwest coasts, and illegal drinking establishments, known as speakeasies or blind pigs, proliferated The illicit production and distribution of alcohol, called bootlegging, spawned a multibillion-dollar underworld busi-ness run by aSYNDICATEof criminals
Perhaps the most famous of the bootleggers was Al Capone, who ran liquor, PROSTITUTION, andRACKETEERING operations in Chicago, one of the wettest of the wet towns At the height of his power in the mid-1920s, Capone made hun-dreds of millions of dollars per year He employed nearly a thousand people and enjoyed the cooperation of numerous police officers and other corrupt public officials who were willing
to turn a blind eye in return for a share of his profits For years, Capone and others like him evaded attempts to shut down their operations
Capone’s reign finally ended in 1931 when he was convicted of income TAX EVASION
Historians differ about the success of Prohibition Some feel that the effort was a ludicrous failure that resulted in more severe social problems than had ever been associated with alcohol consumption Others point to ample evidence that Prohibition, although never succeeding in making the country completely dry, dramatically changed U.S drinking habits
Per capita consumption at the end of Prohibi-tion had fallen to just under a gallon of pure alcohol per year, and accidents and deaths attributable to alcohol had declined steeply
Although Prohibition enjoyed widespread popular support, a substantial minority of U.S
The 1888 Prohibition Party presidential candidate, Clinton Bowen Fisk, and his running mate, John
A Brooks, received close to 250,000 votes Despite the party’s meager showings in presidential elections,
it was successful in influencing public policy and became an important player in the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment.
CORBIS.
Trang 3citizens simply ignored the law Also, although Prohibition unquestionably fostered unprece-dented criminal activity, many people were concerned that the government’s enforcement efforts unduly intruded into personal privacy
In cases such as Carroll v United States, 267 U.S
132, 45 S Ct 280, 69 L Ed 543 (1925), the Supreme Court indicated its willingness to stretch the limits of POLICE POWER to enforce Prohibition In Carroll, the Court held that federal agents were justified in conducting a warrantless search of an automobile, because they hadPROBABLE CAUSE to believe it contained illegal liquor
Concerns over diminished liberties led to feelings that Prohibition was too oppressive a measure to impose upon an entire nation This sentiment was bolstered by arguments that the production and sale of alcohol were profitable enterprises that could help boost the nation’s depressed economy By the beginning of the 1930s, after little more than a decade as law, Prohibition lost its hold on the U.S conscience
The promise of jobs and increased tax revenues helped the anti-Prohibition message recapture political favor The TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, repealing Prohibition, swept through the neces-sary 36-stateRATIFICATIONprocess, and the“noble experiment” ended on December 5, 1933
Post-Prohibition Regulation and Control
The repeal of Prohibition forced states to address once more the dangers posed by excessive alcohol consumption The risks are well documented The National Highway Traf-fic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that in 2001 alcohol was involved in 41 percent
of all fatal crashes (more than 17,000 fatalities)
NHTSA also estimates that three out of ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash sometime during their lives Alcohol is the most widely used drug among teenagers and is linked to juvenile crime, health problems, SUICIDE, date RAPE, and unwanted pregnancy
Alcohol-related traffic accidents are the leading cause of death among 15- to 24-year-olds
In the face of rising concerns about liquor consumption and PERSONAL INJURY, many states chose to regulate alcohol through dramshop laws A dramshop is any type of drinking establishment where liquor is sold for consump-tion on the premises Dramshop statutes impose LIABILITY on sellers of alcoholic beverages for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron Under
such statutes, a person injured by a drunk patron sues the establishment where the patron was served The purpose of dramshop laws is to hold responsible those who enjoy economic benefit from the sale of liquor, thereby ensuring that a loss is not borne solely by an innocent victim (as when the intoxicated person who caused the injuries has no assets and no insurance) The first dramshop law, enacted in Wis-consin in 1849, required saloons or taverns to post a bond for expenses that might result from civil lawsuits against their patrons Many states followed Wisconsin’s lead, and dramshop laws were prominent until the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, when most were repealed However, the 1980s brought renewed concern over the consequences of overindulgence in alcohol, and public pressure led to the passage of new dramshop statutes As of 2009, 42 states as well
as the District of Columbia had imposed some form of liability on purveyors of alcoholic beverages for injuries caused by their customers All states and the District of Columbia also regulate the sale of liquor to minors or to individuals who are intoxicated Challenges
to the age restriction on EQUAL PROTECTION grounds have been unsuccessful
Along with statutory measures, most courts have also recognized a common-law CAUSE OF ACTIONagainst alcohol vendors for the negligent sale of alcohol In Rappaport v Nichols, 156 A.2d
1 (N.J 1959), the court held that a tavern could
be held liable for the plaintiff’s husband’s death after the tavern served an intoxicated minor who caused the accident that killed the man The court relied on the public policy concerns underlying liquor control laws Such laws are intended to protect the general public as well as minors or intoxicated persons, the court reasoned, and therefore the tavern should be held liable if its NEGLIGENCEwas a substantial factor in creating the circumstances that led to the husband’s death Under Rappaport, serving as well as consuming alcohol can be construed to be the PROXIMATE CAUSE of an injury A majority of jurisdictions later followed the Rappaport court’s reasoning
In determining the extent of an alcohol vendor’s liability, a growing number of courts apply comparative negligence principles Com-parative negligence assesses partial liability to a PLAINTIFFwhose failure to exercise reasonable care contributes to his or her own injury In Lee v Kiku Restaurant, 603 A.2d 503 (N.J 1992), and Baxter v
Trang 4Noce, 752 P.2d 240 (N.M 1988), the plaintiffs sued
under dramshop statutes for injuries suffered
when they rode with drunk drivers The courts in
both cases recognized the importance of
dram-shop statutes in protecting innocent victims of
drunk behavior However, they also recognized
the need to hold individuals responsible to some
degree for their own safety Under comparative
negligence, which divides liability among the
parties in accordance with each party’s degree of
fault, both goals are achieved
A few courts have extended liability for injuries
to social hosts who serve a minor or an intoxicated
guest In Kelly v Gwinnell, 476 A.2d 1219 (N.J
1984), the New Jersey Supreme Court found both
the host and the guest jointly liable when the guest
had an accident after drinking at the host’s house
The court based the host’s liability on his
continuing to serve alcoholic beverages to the
guest when he knew the guest was intoxicated and
likely to drive a car Similarly, in Koback v Crook,
366 N.W.2d 857 (Wis 1985), the Wisconsin
Supreme Court held that a social host was
negligent for serving liquor to a minor guest at a
graduation party The guest was later involved in a
motorcycle accident in which the plaintiff was
injured However, the Ohio Supreme Court
refused to extend liability to the social host in
Settlemyer v Wilmington Veterans Post No 49, 464
N.E.2d 521 (Ohio 1984) The court in Settlemyer
held that assigning liability to a social host is a
matter better left to the legislature
All states and many local governments
regulate the sale of alcohol through the issuance
of licenses These licenses limit the times and
locations where liquor sales can take place The
government also regulates alcohol through
TAXA-TION Current taxes on liquor serve the same dual
purpose as did the first excise tax on liquor when
it was proposed byALEXANDER HAMILTONin 1791:
They provide a source of revenue for the
government and, theoretically, discourage
over-indulgence Enforcement of the laws regulating
alcohol and taxing it is carried out by theBUREAU
OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES
(ATF), an agency of the U.S.JUSTICE DEPARTMENT,
and the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), an agency
of the TREASURY DEPARTMENT, respectively The
collection of alcohol revenues is important to the
federal government: In 2005, liquor taxes
exceeded $8.9 billion
Since the 1980s, public awareness of the
dangers of alcohol has led to a number of changes
in the law Specifically, special interest groups such asMOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING(MADD) and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) urged state legislatures to greatly increase en-forcement and penalties for driving while intoxicated (DWI) Criminal statutes make DWI a MISDEMEANOR offense Historically, few persons servedJAILtime unless they were repeat offenders Moreover, prosecutors often reduced DWI charges to lesser charges, such as reckless driving, so defendants could avoid the stain of a DWICONVICTIONon their driving records
MADD was formed by mothers of children who had been killed by drunk drivers They were outraged at the way the criminal justice system treated DWI crimes A major focus in the 1990s for MADD was convincing state legislatures to reduce the blood alcohol count needed to constitute a DWI offense Specific blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) limits var-ied from state to state, but during the 1990s, a measure of 10 percent BAC usually qualified as driving while intoxicated
The debate moved to the national level in
1998 when Congress first rejected and then enacted legislation that requires all states to lower the drunken driving arrest threshold to 08 percent States that failed to change their laws would FORFEIT millions of dollars in federal highway construction funds Although states were initially reluctant to do so, every state since the end of 2002 has used the 08 percent standard
An increased knowledge about the conse-quences of alcohol consumption also had an effect on the makers of alcohol Concerned individuals felt that liquor manufacturers had the duty to warn consumers that their product may be hazardous Before 1987, manufacturers of alcoholic beverages were immune from civil liability for injuries resulting from the use of liquor Garrison v Heublein, Inc., 673 F.2d 189 (7th Cir 1982), held that theDEFENDANTdid not have a duty to warn the plaintiff of the dangers of its product The court stated that the dangers inherent in the use of alcohol are “common knowledge to such an extent that the product cannot objectively be considered to be unreason-ably dangerous.”
Garrison was followed by other jurisdictions until 1987 when Hon v Stroh Brewery, 835 F.2d
510 (3d Cir 1987), signaled a shift in judicial sentiment In Hon, the plaintiff’s 26-year-old husband died of pancreatitis attributable to his
Trang 5moderate consumption of alcohol over a six-year period The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s products were “unreasonably dangerous” be-cause consumers were not warned of the lesser-known dangers of consumption The court, relying on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, held that a product is defective if it lacks a warning sufficient to make it safe for its intended purpose Because the general public is unaware of all the health risks associated with liquor consumption, the court found the defendant liable for failing to warn the plaintiff
The reasoning in Hon has been followed in other cases, including Brune v Brown-Forman Corp., 758 S.W.2d 827 (Tex App 1988), where the court found that the defendant’s product was unreasonably dangerous because it bore
no warning about the dangers of excessive consumption The plaintiff’s daughter, a college student, died after consuming 15 shots of tequila over a short period of time
The duty of liquor manufacturers to warn consumers of the hazards of drinking was codified when Congress passed the Alcoholic
Drinking on Campus: A Rite of Passage Out of Control?
Alcohol has had its advocates and its
critics, particularly on college
cam-puses, where the desires of students to
enjoy the rights and freedoms of adults
collide with the concerns of parents,
university officials, and the police
Al-though some widely publicized studies
from the late 1980s and early 1990s
indicated that student drinking was at an
all-time high, threatening students’ health
and academic careers, others indicated that
the problem of student drinking was
over-blown and on the decline By 2009,
how-ever, it was clear that over-consumption
of alcohol, especially in episodes of binge
drinking, remained a national problem An
Associated Press study found that 157
college-age people, age 18 to 23, drank
themselves to death between 1999 and
2005 Attempts to curb drinking on
campus have met with little success, as
enforcement of underage drinking laws has
proved ineffective, if nonexistent In 2008
the presidents of 100 major universities and
colleges threw up their hands and proposed
lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18
They hoped that this might diminish the
lure of alcohol as a forbidden fruit
During the 1980s and 1990s
atten-tion focused increasingly on alcohol use
by college students An article published
in the December 7, 1994, issue of
the Journal of the American Medical
Association reported the findings of a study conducted by Henry Wechsler, director of the Alcohol Studies Program
at the Harvard School of Public Health
Wechsler and his team surveyed more than 17,000 students, first-year students
to seniors, at 140 colleges in 40 states
They concluded that college students were drinking more than ever before
In Wechsler’s study, 44 percent of the students surveyed reported binge drinking, defined as having five consecu-tive drinks in a row for men or four in a row for women, on at least one occasion
in the two weeks before the survey
(Wechsler defined binge drinking at a lower level of consumption for women because women’s bodies take longer to metabolize alcohol, causing them to be affected by lesser amounts in a given time period.) Nineteen percent of all the surveyed students were found to be frequent binge drinkers, meaning they had at least three recent binges
Similar findings were reported in 1994
by the Commission on Substance Abuse at Colleges and Universities, a group estab-lished by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
Its report, titled Rethinking Rites of Passage: Alcohol Abuse on America’s Cam-puses, stated that white males were the biggest drinkers on campus However, the
commission noted a sharp rise in the percentage of college women who drank
to get drunk, from 10 percent in 1977 to 35 percent in 1994 Unlike female students in earlier studies, those in 1994 reported that they felt little or no social stigma attached
to their drinking At the same time, they felt pressure to succeed, and consuming alco-hol was one way theyCHOSEto relieve some
of that pressure
College administrators were not sur-prised by the findings of the two studies The Harvard study reported that an overwhelming majority of the supervisors
of security, deans of students, and direc-tors of health services at the colleges surveyed considered heavy alcohol use a problem on their campuses Plus, a survey
by the Carnegie Foundation revealed that college presidents considered alcohol abuse their most pressing challenge College presidents and administrators have had practical reasons to be concerned about student drinking Reports of drunken brawls, sexual assaults, even deaths attribut-able to alcohol create public relations nightmares for schools competing for students There has also been the issue of
LIABILITY: Is a college responsible for injuries inflicted by a drunk student? In addition, much of the drinking on campus has been done illegally by students who are under age
Trang 6Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 (27 U.S.C.A.
§ 215) The act requires all alcoholic beverage
containers to bear a clear and conspicuous label
warning of the dangers of alcohol consumption
The United States’ long history of
ambiva-lence toward the consumption of alcoholic
beverages shows no sign of abating At the
same time that manufacturers are required to
warn consumers about the health risks inherent
in liquor, some medical studies indicate that
certain health benefits may be associated with
moderate imbibing
FURTHER READINGS Alcoholics Anonymous World Services (AAWS) Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions New York: AAWS.
Bartell, Donald J., and Anne D ImObersteg 2007 Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests Santa Anna, Cal.: James.
Blocker, Jack S., ed 1979 Alcohol, Reform and Society.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Boyd, Steven R., ed 1985 The Whiskey Rebellion Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Cochran, Robert F., Jr 1994 “‘Good Whiskey,’ Drunk Driving, and Innocent Bystanders: The Responsibility
of Manufacturers of Alcohol and Other Dangerous Hedonic Products for Bystander Injury.” South Car-olina Law Review 45 (winter).
Academic administrators have found
particularly disturbing the increases in
drinking among women According to
female students, the desire to compete with
men in all arenas, including social, is one
reason they feel the need to demonstrate
their equality by drinking as much as or
more than their male peers A study
conducted by Virginia’s College of William
and Mary indicated that the number of
women at the college who had five or more
drinks at one sitting increased from 27
percent to 36 percent during the early 1990s
Both men and women students have
cited intense peer pressure to join the
partying that takes place on college
campuses, which may begin as early as
Wednesday or Thursday night and last
through the weekend At some schools,
alcohol-centered gatherings can readily
be found any night of the week
Admin-istrators acknowledge that partying may
have been just as hearty in the past but
note that before the late 1980s, it was
generally confined to the weekend
The fallout from uncontrolled
drink-ing has been felt throughout campus life
According to the report issued by the
Commission on Substance Abuse at
Col-leges and Universities, 95 percent of violent
crimes and 53 percent of injuries on
campus are alcohol related In 90 percent
of all campus rapes, the assailant, the
victim, or both had been drinking Sixty
percent of college women who acquire
sexually transmitted diseases, including
herpes and AIDS, report that they were
drunk at the time they were infected The
financial costs are high as well Students
spend $5.5 billion on alcohol each year, more than they spend on books, coffee, tea, sodas, and other drinks combined Al-though athletes might be expected to take fewer risks with their health than other students, the commission concluded that they were equally affected by alcohol abuse
The commission also found that stu-dents who belong to fraternities and sororities drink three times more than their non-Greek counterparts, averaging 15 drinks per week Indeed, fraternity drinking has been blamed in several disciplinary actions and at least one death In July 1994 the national office of Alpha Tau Omega (ATO) announced it was closing 11 of its chapters for violating rules against hazing and alcohol abuse ATO had already closed its chapter at Wittenberg University, in Springfield, Ohio, after a newly recruited pledge was hospitalized in January 1994 for alcohol poisoning Similarly, the national office of Beta Theta Pi (BTP) announced in
1994 that it would intensify enforcement of rules against hazing and alcohol use in its chapters According to Erv Johnson, direc-tor of communications for the national office, BTP was concerned not only about the legal issues involved but also about the image of the fraternity and the national office’s desire to emphasize that the primary purpose of going to college is to learn
Excessive drinking has a direct effect on academic performance Students with an A average generally have 3.6 drinks per week,
C students average 9.5 drinks per week, and
D and F students consume almost 18 drinks per week According to college officials, alcohol is implicated in almost half of all
academic problems and is an issue for more than one-fourth of dropouts
Excessive drinking has obvious nega-tive consequences for the students who engage in it, but it also affects those who do not partake During the early 1990s some students and school officials began to speak out against the damage and disorder that binge drinkers cause Just as nonsmokers brought awareness of the effects of second-hand smoke, moderate and nondrinking students called attention to the results of
“secondhand bingeing.” Likewise, admin-istrators, who had traditionally tried to downplay the severity of the problem, began to acknowledge it and tried several approaches to controlling it One method involved having peer counselors educate students about the dangers of excessive drinking and about the effects of their actions on others Another program pro-vided students with recreational options that did not include alcohol Some schools offered houses or sections of dorms where residents pledged not to drink or smoke However, most administrators stopped short of preaching abstinence, acknowledging that most students have begun to drink before they enter college Concern over binge drinking on college campuses continued to rise at the beginning of the twenty-first century In
2002 the Task Force on College Drinking
of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) released a study indicating that 1,400 college students died and another 500,000 were injured per year
as a result of alcohol abuse The study also found that more than 600,000 college
Trang 7Cordes, Renee 1992 “Alcohol Manufacturer Held Partially Liable for Student ’s Death.” Trial 28 (December).
Goldberg, James M 1992 “Social Host Liability for Serving Alcohol ” Trial 28 (March).
Gorski, Terence T 1989 Understanding the Twelve Steps.
New York: Prentice-Hall/Parkside.
Jacobs, James B 1989 Drunk Driving: An American Dilemma Chicago, Ill.: Univ of Chicago Press.
Khoury, Clarke E 1989 “Warning Labels May Be Hazard-ous to Your Health: Common-Law and Statutory Responses to Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturers ’ Duty
to Warn ” Cornell Law Review 75.
Kyvig, David E., ed 1985 Law, Alcohol, and Order.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Lender, Mark 1987 Drinking In America: A History New York: Free Press.
Moore, Pamela A 1993 “Lee v Kiku Restaurant: Allocation of Fault between an Alcohol Vendor and
a Patron—What Could Happen after Providing ‘One More for the Road ’?” American Journal of Trial Advocacy 17: 1.
Smith, Christopher K “State Compelled Spiritual Revelation: The First Amendment and Alcoholics Anonymous as a Condition of Drunk Driving Proba-tion ” 1992 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 1 (fall).
Taylor, Lawrence, and Steve Oberman 2006 Drunk Driving Defense New York: Aspen.
students were assaulted annually by
another student who had been drinking,
and more than 70,000 were victims of
alcohol-associated sexual assaults or date
rapes
Also in 2002, the Harvard School for
Public Health College Alcohol Study issued
its fourth and final report on college
drinking It put the number of binge
drinkers on college campuses at 44
per-cent—the same amount as in the school’s
1994 report This indicated that almost a
decade of trying to combat binge drinking
by colleges and universities had not
succeeded in driving down the number of
binge drinkers Indeed, the 2002 survey
found an increase in binge drinking among
several groups, including binge drinkers at
women’s colleges, which rose from 24
percent to 32 percent of the population
The 2002 College Alcohol Study found
the number of frequent binge drinkers,
defined as students who binged three or
more times over a two-week period, had
also remained steady at 20 percent These
frequent binge drinkers accounted for 70
percent of all alcohol consumption on
campus Drinking rates were highest among
incoming freshmen, males, members of
fraternities or sororities, and athletes
Stu-dents who attended two-year institutions,
religious schools, commuter schools, or
predominantly or historically black colleges
and universities drank the least
In response to the failure to bring down binge drinking rates, colleges and universities tried innovative approaches to tackle the problem One was the use of
“social norms” advertising, telling students that drinking on colleges was less prevalent than they thought, to convince students that most students do not binge drink, and that
it is socially acceptable to abstain Critics pointed out, however, that social norms advertising might simply send the wrong message to administrators and other policy makers—that drinking on campus was no big deal
Other universities tried harsher en-forcement policies, banning alcohol from college-run housing, even eliminating so-rorities and fraternities Some colleges also tried to curb alcohol related advertising on campus, refusing to allow sponsorship of university activities by beer producers and asking bars and taverns near campus to limit promotions to college students
Several reinstated Friday and Saturday morning classes as a way to encourage students not to drink on weekends
College administrators have had mixed results after tackling the problem For-mer Middlebury College president John McCardell formed the @Amethyst Initiative
in 2007 for the sole purpose of starting a debate on lowering the drinking age By
2008, he had recruited 100 college pre-sidents to agree that a discussion begin about lowering the drinking age to 18
in hopes of reducing binge drinking (Changing state laws would first require Congress to repeal a federal highway law that requires states to maintain the drinking age at 21 or lose all federal highway funding.) McCardell believed the current laws were routinely evaded and that they discriminated against young people Orga-nizations such as Mother Against Drunk Driving oppose the lowering of the drinking age and complain that colleges refuse to enforce campus policies as well as state law Other college presidents disagree with the lowering of the drinking age It is clear that the idea of allowing 18-year-olds to drink legally remains a volatile issue
FURTHER READINGS College Drinking: Changing the Culture National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism website: http://www.college drinkingprevention.gov (accessed Mar.
31, 2010) Okie, Susan 2002 “Study Cites Alcohol Link
in Campus Deaths; 1,400 Die Yearly in Accidents ” Washington Post (April 10) Russell, Jenna 2002 “Little Improvement Seen in College Binge Drinking ” Boston Globe (March 25).
Sullivan, Michelle 2002 “Students at Risk Due to ‘Culture of Drinking.’” Clinical Psychiatry News (June 1).
CROSS REFERENCES Alcohol “Alcoholics Anonymous” (Sidebar).
Drinking on Campus: A Rite of Passage Out of Control?
(Continued)
Trang 8Vartabedian, Ralph 2002 “Some States Resist Lower
Alcohol Limits ” Los Angeles Times (December 30).
Wagenaar, Alexander C., and Traci L Toomey 2000 “Alcohol
Policy: Gaps Between Legislative Action and Current
Research.” Contemporary Drug Problems 27 (winter).
CROSS REFERENCES
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Bureau of;
Automobile Searches; Blue Laws; Organized Crime; Product
Liability.
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS,
AND EXPLOSIVES, BUREAU OF
For more than 80 years, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms was an agency of the U.S
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The Homeland
Security Act of 2002, Pub L No 107-296, 116
Stat 2135, divided the agency into two bureaus:
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (still referred to as ATF) and the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) Effective January 24,
2003, the ATF became part of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, while the TTB remained part of the TREASURY DEPARTMENT The move of the ATF to the Justice Department would allow ATF agents and inspectors to partner with traditional law enforce-ment agencies, such as the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION With this change, the TTB became responsible for revenue collection and regulation
of legitimate alcohol and tobacco industries
The ATF itself was established on July 1, 1972, but it traces its roots to the days of PROHIBITION The legendary Eliot Ness and his Untouchables, famous U.S revenue agents remembered for their dramatic surprise raids on illegal alcohol opera-tions, were predecessors of twenty-first century ATF agents The Untouchables earned their name
Alcoholics Anonymous
T
B
he courts have long struggled with the problem of
what sanctions to impose on people who violate
the law while under the influence of liquor Punishing
these offenders fails to address the root cause of the
behaviors, the uncontrolled consumption of alcohol
Many judges order offenders to undergo
alcohol-dependency treatment or counseling as part of a
sentence or as a condition of probation
One of the most popular programs for treating
alcoholism is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) AA was
founded in 1935 by New York stockbroker Bill
Wilson and Ohio surgeon Robert Smith Wilson and
Smith recognized their inability to control their
drinking and were determined to overcome their
problem They developed the Twelve Steps, on
which AA is based and which have become the
foundation for similar self-help and recovery
programs AA comprises ninety thousand local
groups in 141 countries Participation is voluntary,
and there are no dues or other requirements
Members attend meetings run by nonprofessionals,
many of whom are recovering alcoholics The
meetings offer fellowship, support, and education
to those with a desire to stop drinking
Participants in AA declare that they cannot
control their drinking alone, and invoke a higher
power to help them overcome their dependence
on alcohol AA’s Twelve Steps require a fundamen-tal change in personality and outlook Members admit their powerlessness over alcohol to them-selves, to God, and to their friends and families
They attempt to make amends for any wrongs they have committed because of alcohol abuse
Finally, through prayer, meditation, and daily self-evaluation, AA members strive for a radical transformation or spiritual awakening, which results
in changed perceptions, thought processes, and actions Finally, participants share their experiences with others
Although AA’s Twelve Steps speak of God, a higher power, and spiritual awakening, AA main-tains that it is not a religious organization However, the group’s religious underpinnings and the tone of its meetings, which may begin with the Serenity Prayer and generally end with group recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, are objectionable to some Courts have split over the issue of whether forced participation in AA violates the First Amendment religion clauses
CROSS REFERENCES First Amendment; Religion.
Trang 9because of their reputation for high moral integrity and resistance to corruption
Before the division of the bureau in 2002, the ATF had a long and somewhat complex history
With the passage of the EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT, the manufacture, sale, transportation, importa-tion, and exportation of “intoxicating liquors”
from or to the United States or its territories became illegal This amendment ushered in Prohibition, an era of ORGANIZED CRIME and underworld syndicates that controlled an illicit liquor business with violence and intimidation
In an attempt to stanch the flow of WEAPONS
to these criminals, Congress passed several laws
to regulate the firearms and ammunition indus-tries Originally, the Bureau of Prohibition was responsible for administering these laws In 1942 the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU), a forerunner of the ATF, formally took over the bureau’s job when the bureau was disbanded following repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment In 1952 the ATU added enforcement of tobacco tax laws to its list of responsibilities and changed its title to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) of theINTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE(IRS)
During the 1960s Congress recognized the need to control destructive devices other than firearms The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of
1968, 18 U.S.C.A § 921 et seq., superseded earlier firearms control laws and placed bombs and other explosives as well as firearms under the strict control of the government The ATTD was given jurisdiction over the criminal use of explosives and was renamed the Alcohol,
Tobac-co, and Firearms Division (ATFD) of the IRS
In 1970 the Organized Crime Control Act, 18 U.S.C.A 841-848, which included the Explosives Control Act, 18 U.S.C.A § 842, provided for close regulation of the explosives industry and desig-nated certain arsons and bombings as federal crimes With the additional responsibility of enforcing these new laws, the ATFD redefined its mission in order to distinguish itself from the IRS On July 1, 1972, the ATFD was given full bureau status within the Treasury Department and acquired the name, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
The ATF and TTB are responsible for enfor-cing and ensuringCOMPLIANCEwith the following laws:
nFederal Alcohol Administration Act, 27 U.S.C.A § 201 et seq (1935);
nInternal Revenue Code of 1954, as it relates
to distilled spirits, tobacco products, and firearms (26 U.S.C.A §5001 et seq.);
Three Bureau of ATF
agents display
firearms outside an
ATF office in
Maryland The ATF
is an agency of the
U.S Justice
Department.
AP IMAGES
Trang 10nGun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18
App 26 U.S.C.A § 5801 et seq.;
nTitle XI of the Organized Crime Control
Act (1970) (Explosives Control Act) (22
U.S.C §2778);
nPortions of the Arms Export Control Act
(1976);
nTrafficking in Contraband Cigarettes Act
(1978) 18 U.S.C.A 2341–2346;
nAnti-Arson Act of 1982 (amended title XI
of the Organized Crime Control Act), 18
U.S.C.A §§ 841 note, 844;
nArmed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18
App U.S.C.A §§ 1201, 1202
In the area of alcohol and tobacco regulation,
as of 2003, the TTB controls production, labeling,
advertising, and the relationships between
pro-ducers, wholesalers, and retailers The
responsi-bility was previously under the PURVIEW of the
ATF TTB efforts are directed mainly at
protect-ing consumers against products that are impure
or mislabeled or otherwise potentially harmful
During the 1980s alcohol-related activities of
the ATF focused on the promulgation and
enforcement of labeling regulations For example,
in March 1994, the Miller Brewing Company
replaced an advertisement for one of its beers in
response to concerns raised by ATF officials The
advertisement showed the beer’s label, which
listed the product’s alcohol content, a violation of
the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAAA),
27 U.S.C.A § 201 et seq., one of the laws the ATF
enforces However, the strength of that act was
diluted later by a 1995 Supreme Court decision
declaring the restriction unconstitutional In
Rubin v Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S 476, 115
S Ct 1585, 131 L Ed 2d 532 (1995), the Court
held that the subsection of the act that prohibits
brewers from advertising the alcohol content of
their beers was unnecessarily broad and violated
the FIRST AMENDMENT The Court stated further
that the government’s legitimate interest in
preventing manufacturers from competing by
increasing the alcohol content of their beers could
be accomplished through less restrictive means,
such as by directly limiting the alcohol content of
beer or by banning the advertisement of alcohol
content of high-alcohol brews
During the 1980s and 1990s, ATF
enforce-ment duties were increasingly focused on
fire-arms as alcohol and tobacco regulation became
mainly a matter of TAXATION As of 1991, an
estimated 270,000 dealers, importers, and manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and explosives were licensed in the United States
Approximately 140 million to 200 million fire-arms were in circulation The ATF must oversee enforcement of the laws regulating these items
The ATF functioned with relative anonymity until February 28, 1993, when it became involved
in an ill-fated raid that tainted its reputation and called its future into question Acting on reports
of stockpiled weapons and explosives at the headquarters of a religious sect, the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas, ATF agents executed
a military-style raid of the compound The agents proceeded with the raid even after discovering that the Branch Davidians had been tipped off by
an informant In the ensuing gunfight, four ATF agents were killed and fifteen wounded The Davidians refused to surrender, and the agents refused to back down The standoff continued until April 19, when ATF agents again moved to take the compound by force The raid turned into
a shoot-out and conflagration in which
85 members of the cult, including 17 children, perished
The bureau was widely criticized for its actions at Waco A report on the incident issued
by the Treasury Department concluded that the decision to proceed was wrong and that those in charge of the operation knew it was a mistake to proceed with the raid because the element of surprise was missing The bureau’s director, Stephen E Higgins, retired early from his position, and two agents, Phillip J Chojnacki and Charles D Sarabyn, were suspended for their roles in the botched raid Chojnacki and Sarabyn appealed their suspensions, and, in December 1994, they were reinstated with full back pay and benefits, although they were demoted In addition, the incident was removed from their personnel files
The incident at Waco aroused the ire of many U.S citizens, particularly right-wing MILITIA groups who saw the raid as an example
of government intrusion upon their right to keep and bear arms TheNATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIA-TION sent out membership solicitation letters in
1995 described ATF agents as “jack-booted government thugs.” Some believe that an April
1995 bombing of a federal building in Okla-homa City, which took place exactly two years after Waco, was planned in retaliation for the ATF raid on the Branch Davidians