Legal Drinking 2.0, 75 years and counting

November 25, 1:16 PMChicago Drinks ExaminerCharles Cowdery

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Chicago Drinks Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The 75th anniversary of legal drinking is next Friday, when we will celebrate the ratification of the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition. This is (probably) the final installment in my series about Prohibition and its aftermath. Scroll down to pick up any of my posts that you missed.

Legal Drinking 2.0, the era that began in 1933, was different in many ways from the pre-Prohibition period. Technology had improved in the years since Prohibition began. America was more urban and less rural than it had been. New laws prevented many of the familiar pre-Prohibition practices that had made Prohibition seem like a good idea at the time. Many of those laws still exist. For example, the rule that alcohol producers may not own either distributors or retailers, which eliminated the so-called "tied house."

Another change was that employers somehow found the courage to insist that their employees remain generally sober for the entire workday, although in time the working man's "free lunch," funded by the shot-and-a-beer he paid for, gave way to the legendary three martini expense account lunch. Changes in tax laws and in drinking behavior generally got rid of that, for the most part, in the 1980s. Drinking on the job, or in the midst of the workday, is considered bad behavior almost everywhere. I'm the rare exception.

One of the great peculiarities of Legal Drinking 2.0 is how much liquor laws vary from state to state. The heavy regulation is justified as necessary to protect children but it's mostly about protecting tax revenues. Liquor is one of the most heavily taxed products there is.

Another feature of Legal Drinking 2.0 is that there are still a lot of people who want it to end, in favor of Prohibition 2.0. Some are motivated by their religious beliefs. H. L. Mencken defined Puritanism as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

Mencken drank.