The piece touches on the impact of the American dry movement at the turn of the twentieth century - its message (and the corruption of said message) is discussed heartily. The work can most certainly be applied to modern substance abuse prevention programs (Above The Influence? C'mon, now) and the villain's face they attach to the use of, well, anything.
---
To suggest that alcohol has done no wrong in this world is quite the fallacious statement; however, to say it can be blamed for every wrong a person can commit is even more false a declaration. During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the temperance, or ‘dry’, movement gained a notable amount of steam within American society, impacting the grand ranges of life from the office to the bedroom via the use of the printed word. Beforehand, it had been believed that alcohol had never been a truly acceptable social practice; problems in the developing industrial nation of the United States were blamed on drunkenness, as opposed to the root ailments of poverty, crime and unemployment. One would hope, obviously, that objective information about alcohol would be provided in order to better educate the public about their own choices concerning the matter. However, as history has shown, the exact opposite of what should have happened did indeed happen, and a plethora of skewed information based on scaremongering and shock value was printed and distributed in an effort to promote specific moralistic viewpoints that happened to clash against the imbibing and sale of alcohol. The Anti-Saloon League, which was the organization behind much of the gathering of the temperance movement at the time, consisted mostly of highly moralistic American citizens with a religious slant as well as politicians with an axe to grind or blame to place.
The temperance movement was massively popular among the middle class during the late 1800’s and promoted often by religious figures, doctors and more noted employers (Levine 1). True to their reputation at the time, the Republican Party’s constant pushing of ‘moral views’ culminated in the formation of the Prohibition Party shortly after the end of the Civil War that had engulfed the United States. Soon, another organization known as the ‘Anti-Saloon League’ was formed and operated in a similar fashion to a modern corporation in that it collected political debts and wrote laws with the use of hired lawyers (Levine 1). The Anti-Saloon League, in this situation, can easily be compared to anti-drug and anti-alcohol organizations such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and others in that they act as company entities, collecting donations and influencing law-making while promoting very specific political viewpoints.
One famous document printed by the Anti-Saloon League detailed an occurring at the trial of a man charged with the ‘willful murder of (his) wife’, ‘firing the fatal shot that killed the wife (he) had sworn to love, cherish and protect’; the document is, as could be guessed, complete with many loaded and moralistic statements (Murder 1). Unsurprisingly, the man (an admitted alcoholic) claims that he is calling upon his church’s pastor as well as God himself (further examples of the Anti-Saloon League’s pushing of their own agenda) in admitting that alcohol is to blame in his actions against his wife and that the only reason she is dead is because of the bars open in the town in which he had lived (Murder 1). He goes on to claim that he had attempted to reform his sinful ways but with the presence of a saloon in his town, his ‘weak, diseased will power’ could not put up a fight against alcohol; later, he attempts to turn his case around by blaming the murder on the local government which had voted saloons into existence and had effectively caused thousands of possible deaths (Murder 1). This document is one of many documents printed by the Anti-Saloon League which promote its heavy-handed, conservative viewpoint against alcohol. This document is similar in its attempted message that alcohol is to blame for many of life’s problems when compared to literature released by organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which is at its core a religiously-motivated organization dedicated to the recovery of alcoholics.
Alcohol was compared to the heroin in its utter addictiveness as well as the inherent evil that the substance contained due to its capacity to destroy lives (Levine 1). Let’s stop here and ponder that last statement: alcohol is just as addictive as and more harmful than heroin. Outwardly, people may balk at this statement; however, a closer look would not hurt. There is no doubt that both substances are highly addictive, and every person has heard stories about how either has ruined a life close to their own at a surprisingly rapid rate with a low turnover rate for those already affected by the substances. According to the research of Daniel M. Perrine, an associate professor of chemistry at Layola College, alcohol can indeed be compared to heroin in its capacity for addiction with only nicotine topping both of them (Perrine 1). In mild disagreement with Perrine are Jack Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Neal L. Benowitz of the University of San Francisco, who teamed up for a study on the addictiveness of six well known drugs and found that while heroin and alcohol are both addictive, heroin sits on a altogether higher level than alcohol does in terms of dependence and tolerance (Henningfield 1). The weighted information presented by the Anti-Saloon League draws similarities to modern anti-drug campaigns, especially in terms of pre-90’s movements against drugs which proclaimed of harms caused by drugs which did no such harm. One of the more extreme examples of this would be the infamous film Tell Your Children (better known as Reefer Madness) which displays marijuana as a “violent narcotic” that causes families to fall apart in an instant and causes death (either the user’s, or a passer-by’s) to occur within seconds of ingesting the substance (Tell Your Children). One of the better-known quotes of the movie, which was presented as nothing but a factual interpretation of the drug’s effects upon an everyday person, is the following.
“Yes. I remember. Just a young boy... under the influence of drugs... who killed his entire family with an axe.” (Joseph Forte, Tell Your Children)
Please note that this is a (n) (now) obvious exaggeration as to what marijuana actually does to a person. (11/10/08: I actually meant horribly incorrect, but I was trying to phrase it in a way that didn't make me think the film makers were propagandist assholes, as I think they're comedic genuises). According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse the negative effects of ingesting marijuana upon a human being include short term memory loss, loss of coordination and distorted perception (NIDA 1). Nowhere on the site, which is officiated by the US government, does it suggest that the urge to slay one’s family with a wood-cutting implement is a common side effect of marijuana use. This is an example of the same sort of scaremongering used by organizations such as the Anti-Saloon League and their ‘Charged with Murder’ pamphlet.
Without a doubt, alcohol and modern drugs have very distinct problems which can be addressed through proper campaigns concerning them. However, as seen in the examples of modern campaigns as well as the works of the Anti-Saloon League, this does not occur in enough of a realistic, truthful capacity. Perhaps a more objective campaign format would benefit modern temperance movements; in the very least, it would be harder to find faults with them if they actually presented the facts.
Works Cited
Levine, Harry G., and Craig Reinarman. "Temperance, Prohibition, Alcohol Control." DrugText. DrugText Foundation. 05 Mar. 2007
Perrine, Daniel M. The Chemistry of Mind-Altering Drugs. Baltimore: American Chemical Society, 1997.
Henningfield, Jack E., and Neal L. Benowitz. "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use." New York Times 2 Aug. 1994.
Charged with Murder. Westerville: The American Anti-Saloon League P Bureau, 191-.
---
At least I used footnotes now. It's still a decent essay, I'd say.
No comments:
Post a Comment