The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1929-02-01

The wet arguments used in the recent
election are here analysed into four
"plankS," namely: ID State legislation Of
sale and alcoholic concentration Of
legalized liquors to be determined by ref
erendum; Cd sale in wet states con-
Quoted by the state; CD Federal protec-
ton of dry states; I'd medical opinion to
determine what constitutes an alcoholic
beverage"
The first three panks were too vaguely
outlined in the campaign to afford ground
for discussion. They are here dismissed
with these observations:
The methods by which the dry states
would be shielded from the wet states.
and interstate bootlegging eliminated,
was left IN tate d. Imagine
Maryland voting wet and Virginia
voting dry. This would leave the coast
of Maryland open to normal import OF
alcoholic liquors and the coast of Vir-
ginia closed to the same import. The
more one undertakes to'picture to one
self the possible mechanism and regu-
lations Of state sale, and state protec-
ton, the more intangible becomes the
entire proposition.
But the appeal to medical opinion pro-
posed by Governor Smith is examined in
detail.
that there is representative and con-
cordant medical opinion faVOring or
tolerating the beverage use of alcohol.
= This inference is without foun-
dation in medical history and practice.
AS far as we are aware, medical opinion
in the United States and abroad has
nowhere gone on record in defining a
permissible allowance of alcohol.
It has been frequently remarked that
q man who has had one drink is one
drink drunk. This may be an extreme
statement applied to the confirmed
drinker but it is sound when applied
to children, to adolescents, and to a
large proportion of adult women and
men. The difference between a drink
and a drunk has always been problem
in individual instances in hospitals, but
it is nowadays a continuously recurring
question in traffic courts. The mech
anization of society in general, and of
industry in particular, especially the
universal use of automobiles, consti-
tutes the safety-frSt basis of prohibi-
ton It is impracticable to issue
drivers license on the basis of double
skill-skill in handling the car or skill
in carrying liquor.
Again, if the state were to lay down
limits for individuals how would they be
determined? "In terms of concentration
of alcohol or in terms of amount Of al
cohoI permitted to the individual per
day? If one were to accept any
tolerance limit for the beverage use of
alcohol, the so-called light wines and
beer would occupy no preferable position
over whisky and brandy, since alcoholic
concentration at the time of drinking and
volume of alcohol taken during the day
are in all cases reducble to a common
level"
Some adults have high tolerance for
alcohol, others have little or none and
never acquire tolerance through use OF
alcoholic beverages. Women commonly
have a lower tolerance than men; chill
dren have lower tolerance than adults.
In attempting, through state sale and
regulation, on the basis of medical
opinion, to provide alcoholic beverages
for the people of commonwealth, to
what part of the population should
regulation be addressed? To those who
bear alcohol relatively well or to those
who tolerate it badly? If rationed for
those who bear alcohol well, how would
the susceptible be protected and society
safeguarded from excuses? If rationed
for those who tolerate alcohol poorly.
would the permitted use be satisfactory
to those Injured to heavy doses?
It is futile to propose the sale of all
coholic beverages by the state on the
IF y1oadipa1 nY1iy1iOn There is M