Monday, Dec. 15, 2008

Prohibition didn't end 75 years ago

By Dan Berger, Wine Press Northwest

So the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition passed on Dec. 5 without a great deal of fanfare. No bells ringing, no parties with revelers toasting each other with Champagne, no page-one headline stories.

I am not surprised.

The fact is that the United States is still one of the world's most anti-wine cultures in the world and still has a dedicated subculture of people who have dedicated their lives to banning "demon rum" in all of its incarnations. Most of them sound benign enough, using the word "health" or other beneficent-sounding terms.

One such group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, masquerades as a science-based pro-consumer group. However, its busybody, holier-than-thou approach often twists the truth, as if it is sounding a warning cry. But among its activities is a Prohibitionist philosophy that would require a skull and crossbones on every bottle of Chateau Latour.

I am not an alarmist. Prohibitionists are in every major city in the world in one guise or another. Indeed, France recently placed severe restrictions on wine advertising and is considering a ban on sampling in tasting rooms!

The fact that the wave of Prohibition-era anti-alcohol hysteria of the 1990s in the United States has diminished does not mean that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is any less a force today than it was then.

And although it is clear that drinking and driving are two activities that ought never to be undertaken at the same time, one thing also is clear: There is a vast difference between whiskey consumed out of a flask on a street corner from wine consumed out of a wine glass with dinner.

The problem with Prohibition, whether it was the sort of attacks waged by the Women's Christian Temperance Union or the Anti-Saloon League of the 1920s and 1930s or the modern version that manipulates facts to make arguments that sound sane, is that it ignores a number of crucial issues that make dry table wine different from so many other alcoholic beverages.

Here are a few:

- Context. We consume wine slowly with meals, and in this manner gain health benefits that do not accrue to abstainers.

- Dose. Yes, a five-ounce glass of wine may equate in terms of ethanol to a shot of whiskey, but shots of whiskey are rarely sipped for a half hour; usually they're tossed back in a few seconds. Almost no one consumes wine that way.

- The buffering effect: Consuming wine over longer periods of time than other alcoholic beverages, and with food, means that some of the alcohol will be processed by the body without a negative effect on vital organs.

Jim Trezise of the New York Wine and Grape Foundation wrote in his regular newsletter in December that the 18th Amendment enabling the 1919-1933 period of Prohibition was "a truly stupid law." But he added that problems remain.

"The problem was and still is that wine was included in the definition of 'intoxicating liquors' " and that a crucial aspect of alcoholic beverage control was ignored by the federal government. Trezise pointed out that in passing the 21st Amendment to repeal Prohibition, "the federal government punted, leaving it to each state to determine how to deal with 'intoxicating liquors'.

"That's why the United States is, in effect, 50 different countries (states) in terms of where wine is sold (at the winery and/or through direct shipment to consumers and/or direct distribution to retailers [which may be liquor stores, grocery stores, drug stores, convenience stores, etc., depending on the state] and restaurants and/or through wholesalers).

"Each state is different - with different laws and regulations, bureaucracies and tax structures - so the bureaucratic nightmare is overwhelming for most … wineries, which are primarily small farm family businesses.

"It is truly amazing that so many people of passion have elected to get into this business and stay in it, given all the obstacles our various levels of government have thrown at them." Trezise added, "It is important to realize that there are many people … who essentially want to revive Prohibition (without actually saying the word) through taxes, trade barriers, sampling regulations and other means."

The establishment of the three-tier system of wine distribution in this country was a way to remove unsavory elements as well as pressure from the way wine, beer and spirits were sold. And with the latter two beverages, most of which are nonvintaged commodity items, such a distribution was fine in 1933 and still fine for the most part today. But wine is basically vintaged and used in a much different manner.

Sad that a bottle of Leonetti Cellar Merlot is equated with illegal substances, as in the phrase "wine and other drugs."

Table wine may have alcohol and may be abused, but any abuse is related more to the abuser than to the beverage. It's like suggesting that thousands die every year from auto accidents, so we should outlaw cars.

So yes, let's raise a toast to the end of Prohibition, a sane move - but vow to be more vigilant against unfair and insidious attacks on the beverage of moderation, the tonic of health, the brew of conviviality, and the elixir of reflection.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer