5 ms·

| Modern estimates place the annual amount consumed by the colonists somewhere in the range of five to six gallons of pure alcohol (by comparison, per capita co

by nimos 11y ago

| Modern estimates place the annual amount consumed by the colonists somewhere in the range of five to six gallons of pure alcohol (by comparison, per capita consumption in the United States in 2007 came in around 2.3 gallons). It would be interesting to know the distribution of this. I wonder how much of it is individual people drinking more vs more people drinking. Take away video games and TV and I bet a lot more people would end up at the bar.

WaxProlix 11y ago
And methodology; how to know how much of what was drank when, and what contents it had? Seems like a tough estimation.
- scott_s 11y ago
  My guess would be estimates of the size of the adult population, and the amount of alcoholic drinks produced and imported.
  - benbreen 11y ago
    That's right; estimates of imports of alcoholic drinks are actually fairly accurate because 18th century governments had a very strong financial incentive to keep track of them due to tariffs and special taxes. (I've studied that a bit myself in the context of shipments of medicinal drugs between Portugal and colonial Brazil). I would guess that estimates for domestic production within colonial North America are much more impressionistic though.
mcdougle 11y ago
Also consider DUIs (now that we have motor vehicles), office work (where drinking during the day - at least heavily - is typically forbidden), and to some extent possibly the suburban lifestyle (most people don't live a few steps from a bar) and I can see why the amount would be higher back then.
- msrpotus 11y ago
  A big part of it is about sanitation--since pure water wasn't so safe to drink, people drank far more tea (boiling kills bacteria) and beer/wine (fermentation has a similar effect).
  - trentmb 11y ago
    Isn't alcohol a diuretic?
    - saint_fiasco 11y ago
      It depends on concentration. If the concentration is low enough, then the alcohol will exit your system in the same sweat that keeps you cooled down, and the same pee that gets rid of other stuff (pee is rarely saturated). It's only when you drink enough alcohol that you start sweating/peeing specifically to get rid of alcohol that you get diuretic effects.
      - abandonliberty 11y ago
        If you're a bit dehydrated, 1L of 4% beer won't make it worse, and 2% supposedly does nothing. Alcohol isn't just a toxin that your body eliminates; one of its effects are to override our excretion pathways. http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24t7hr/at_what_percentage_of_alcohol_would_the_hydrating/ http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24t7hr/at_what_p... The science in this field is interesting. Poor test subjects had to drink a litre of 4% beer. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/4/366.full http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/4/366.full
  - duaneb 11y ago
    > A big part of it is about sanitation--since pure water wasn't so safe to drink, people drank far more tea (boiling kills bacteria) and beer/wine (fermentation has a similar effect). This is a massive myth.[1] It has historically been very rare to not have access to clean water. Beer and alcohol are nutritionally more dense than water, and for much of western europe's history they were watered down to the point of not working to sterilize. It was simply more of part of the meal than alcohol is today and may have tasted better. In addition, alcohol is easier to preserve during the winter, especially when most of your heat is for keeping people alive. Cider was probably the staple drink for much of rural new england during early colonization, and could have ranged anywhere from highly sugary (like modern unpasteurized cider), highly alcoholic (like an ale or, as applejack, as a liqeur; George Washington was a fan), to something more fiber-oriented (not all apples would have been very sugary, and you end up with something like a sour beer that had lots of flavor but was not super alcoholic). Finally, let's not forget that people love to drink. It's addictive, at least to some subset of people and situations. People have always drank alcohol because it's been easy to prepare (literally just leave sugar and water out in the air) and easy to drink. This doesn't mean they were drunk all the time (there are a ridiculous number of laws about being drunk in public), but it was through and through a part of the lifestyle in a way that it is difficult for modern, post-christianization western europe to grasp. It was only when real alternatives to alcohol in terms of nutrition and cost were cheap enough people could get away with moralizing about it when it became separated into a "drug". Sauces: [1] http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-water-myth.html http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-wate...
nhebb 11y ago
According to the Ken Burns documentary Prohibition [1], it was both - especially if you replace "people" with "men". I don't remember all the facts and details leading up to Prohibition, but the documentary did make me more sympathetic to the temperance movement. [1] http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-video/ http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-video/
- walshemj 11y ago
  Does it cover the sectarian, nativist element to the temperance movement?

by nimos 11y ago

WaxProlix 11y ago

And methodology; how to know how much of what was drank when, and what contents it had? Seems like a tough estimation.

scott_s 11y ago
My guess would be estimates of the size of the adult population, and the amount of alcoholic drinks produced and imported.
- benbreen 11y ago
  That's right; estimates of imports of alcoholic drinks are actually fairly accurate because 18th century governments had a very strong financial incentive to keep track of them due to tariffs and special taxes. (I've studied that a bit myself in the context of shipments of medicinal drugs between Portugal and colonial Brazil). I would guess that estimates for domestic production within colonial North America are much more impressionistic though.

mcdougle 11y ago

Also consider DUIs (now that we have motor vehicles), office work (where drinking during the day - at least heavily - is typically forbidden), and to some extent possibly the suburban lifestyle (most people don't live a few steps from a bar) and I can see why the amount would be higher back then.

msrpotus 11y ago
A big part of it is about sanitation--since pure water wasn't so safe to drink, people drank far more tea (boiling kills bacteria) and beer/wine (fermentation has a similar effect).
- trentmb 11y ago
  Isn't alcohol a diuretic?
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    It depends on concentration. If the concentration is low enough, then the alcohol will exit your system in the same sweat that keeps you cooled down, and the same pee that gets rid of other stuff (pee is rarely saturated). It's only when you drink enough alcohol that you start sweating/peeing specifically to get rid of alcohol that you get diuretic effects.
    - abandonliberty 11y ago
      If you're a bit dehydrated, 1L of 4% beer won't make it worse, and 2% supposedly does nothing. Alcohol isn't just a toxin that your body eliminates; one of its effects are to override our excretion pathways. http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24t7hr/at_what_percentage_of_alcohol_would_the_hydrating/ http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24t7hr/at_what_p... The science in this field is interesting. Poor test subjects had to drink a litre of 4% beer. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/4/366.full http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/4/366.full
- duaneb 11y ago
  > A big part of it is about sanitation--since pure water wasn't so safe to drink, people drank far more tea (boiling kills bacteria) and beer/wine (fermentation has a similar effect). This is a massive myth.[1] It has historically been very rare to not have access to clean water. Beer and alcohol are nutritionally more dense than water, and for much of western europe's history they were watered down to the point of not working to sterilize. It was simply more of part of the meal than alcohol is today and may have tasted better. In addition, alcohol is easier to preserve during the winter, especially when most of your heat is for keeping people alive. Cider was probably the staple drink for much of rural new england during early colonization, and could have ranged anywhere from highly sugary (like modern unpasteurized cider), highly alcoholic (like an ale or, as applejack, as a liqeur; George Washington was a fan), to something more fiber-oriented (not all apples would have been very sugary, and you end up with something like a sour beer that had lots of flavor but was not super alcoholic). Finally, let's not forget that people love to drink. It's addictive, at least to some subset of people and situations. People have always drank alcohol because it's been easy to prepare (literally just leave sugar and water out in the air) and easy to drink. This doesn't mean they were drunk all the time (there are a ridiculous number of laws about being drunk in public), but it was through and through a part of the lifestyle in a way that it is difficult for modern, post-christianization western europe to grasp. It was only when real alternatives to alcohol in terms of nutrition and cost were cheap enough people could get away with moralizing about it when it became separated into a "drug". Sauces: [1] http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-water-myth.html http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-wate...

nhebb 11y ago

According to the Ken Burns documentary Prohibition [1], it was both - especially if you replace "people" with "men". I don't remember all the facts and details leading up to Prohibition, but the documentary did make me more sympathetic to the temperance movement. [1] http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-video/ http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-video/

walshemj 11y ago
Does it cover the sectarian, nativist element to the temperance movement?