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 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 benign DIVERSION. The Temperance Movement ‘Mid pleasures and palaces, though we may roam, Be it ever so humble, there’snoplacelike 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. Average amount consumer spent Year 375 300 225 150 75 0 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2007 $275 $269 $301 $309 $372 $459 $457 525 450 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 208 ALCOHOL 1990 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 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. 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 becam e 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 a SYNDICATE of criminals. Perhaps the most famous of the bootleggers was Al Capone, who ran liquor, PROSTITUTION, and RACKETEERING 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 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 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. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION ALCOHOL 209 citizens 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 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 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 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. 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 PLAINTIFF whose 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. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 210 ALCOHOL Noce, 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’sdegreeof 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’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- indulgence. Enforcement of the laws regulating alcohol and taxing it is carried out by the BUREAU 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 as MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MAD D) and Studen ts 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 served JAIL time 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 DWI CONVICTION on their driving records. 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 (7th Cir. 1982), held that the DEFENDANT did 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 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ALCOHOL 211 moderate consumption of alcohol over a six-year period. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s products were “unreasonably dangerous” be- cause consumers were no t 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? 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 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 presidentsof100 majoruniversitiesand colleges threw up their hands andproposed 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 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- 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 practic al reasons t o b e concerned about student drinking. Reports of drunken brawls, sexual assaults, even deaths attribut- able to alcohol create pub lic r elations nightmares for schools competing for students. There has also been the issue of LIABILITY: Is a college responsib le for injuries inflicted by a drunk student? In addition, much of the drinking o n campus h as beendoneillegallybystudentswhoare under age. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 212 ALCOHOL Beverage 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 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 women at the college who had five or more drinks at one sitting increased from 27 percent t o 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, 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 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 a nd F students co nsume almost 18 d rinks 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 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 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 betw een an Alcohol Vendor and aPatron—What Could Happen after Providing ‘One More for t he 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 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 pointed out, however, t hat social n orms advertising might simply send the wrong message t o administrators and othe r 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 h ad mixed results after tackling the problem. For- mer Middlebury College president John McCardell formed t he @Amethyst I nitiative in 2007 for the sole purpose of starting a debate on lowering the drinking age. B y 2008, he had recruited 100 college pre- sidents to agree that a discussion begin about lowering t he drinking age to 18 in hopes of reducing binge drinking. (Changing stat e l aws 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 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: 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) GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 214 ALCOHOL Vartabedian, 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 (TT B). Effective January 24 , 2003, the ATF became part o f 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 p artner wit h t raditional law enforce - 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 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 v oluntary, 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 tothosewithadesiretostopdrinking. 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 alc ohol to them- selves, to God, and to their friends and families. They attempt to make amends for any wrongs they have committed bec ause of alcohol abuse. Finally, through prayer, meditation, and daily self- evaluation, AA members strive f or a r adical transformation or spiritual awakening, which results in changed perceptions, thought processes, and actions. Finally, participants share their experie nces 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 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 the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU), a forerunner of the ATF, formally took over the bureau’sjobwhen 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 the INTERNAL 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 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 U.S.C. §2778); n Portions of the Arms Export Control Act (1976); n Trafficking in Contraband Cigarettes Act (1978) 18 U.S.C.A. 23 41–2346; n Anti-Arson Act of 1982 (amended title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 841 note, 844; n Armed Career C riminal 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’slabel,which 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 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 thattheBranchDavidianshadbeentippedoffby 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 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 . of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average amount consumer spent Year 375 300 225 15 0 75 0 19 84 19 88 19 92 19 96 2000 2004 2007 $275 $269 $3 01 $309 $372 $459 $457 525 450 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF. addition, much of the drinking o n campus h as beendoneillegallybystudentswhoare under age. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 212 ALCOHOL Beverage Labeling Act of 19 88 (27 U.S.C.A. § 215 ) 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