In 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 tow a rd 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

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

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 on
PUBLIC POLICY. I t 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 powe rful 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 t he
PROHIBITION P ARTY,workedwithin
established political parties to support candidates
who were s ympa thetic to theleague’s goals. B y 1916
the league, with the help of the Prohibition party
and the WCTU, had sent en ough 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 with
VICE and crime.

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 other s 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 t he 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

they had
PROBABLE 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-state
RATIFICATION process, 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

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
ACTION
against 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’shusband’sdeath
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
NEGLIGENCE was a substantial factor in creating the
circumstances that led to the husband’sdeath.

the host and the guest jointly liable when the guest
had an accident after drinking at the host’shouse.
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 by
ALEXANDER HAMILTON in 1791:
They provide a source of revenue for the
government and, theoretically, discourage over-

MADD was formed by mothers of children
who had been kill ed 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 state s 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

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?
A
lcohol 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-agepeople,age18to23,drank

(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 o n 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’sCam-
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 they
CHOSE to relieve some
of that pressure.
College administrators were not sur-

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 Dr iving Tests. Santa Anna, Cal.: J ames.
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. Accordin g to
female stu dents, the de sire to compete with
meninallarenas,includingsocial,isone
reason they feel the need to demonstrate
their equality by drinking as much as or
more than their male peers. A study
conducted b y V irginia’sCollegeofWilliam
and Mary indicated that the number of

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, f raternity 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 h ad already closed
its chapter at Wittenberg University, in
Springfield, Ohio, after a newly recruited
pledge was h ospi talized 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 toemphasize that theprimary

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
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ALCOHOL 213
Cordes, 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

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 S tudy found
the n umber 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 o f a ll alcohol consumption on
campus. Drin kin g rates were highest a mong
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 th at
it is socially acceptable to abstain. Critics

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 o f the drinking
age and complain that colleges refuse t o
enforcecampuspoliciesaswellasstatelaw.
Other college presidents disagree with the
lowering o f the drinking age. It is c lea r tha t
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: lege
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

ment ag encies, such as t he
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIO N
. 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 Untouch ables ear ned their na me
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 r ecognized their inability to control their

its meetings, which may begin with the Serenity
Prayer and generally end with group reci tation 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.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, BUREAU OF 215
because 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

and acquired the name, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms.
The ATF and TTB are responsible for enfor-
cing and ensuring
COMPLIANCE with the following
laws:
n
Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27
U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. (1935);
n
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as it relates
to distilled s pirits, 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
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
216 ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, BUREAU OF
n
Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18
App. 26 U.S.C.A. § 5801 et seq.;
n
Title XI of the Organized Crime Control
Act (1 970) (Explosives Control Act) (22

listed the product’salcoholcontent,aviolationof
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.Asof1991,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

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 be ar arms. The
NATIONAL 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.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, BUREAU OF 217