(Not sure how much this needs a CW for alcohol, drugs, and abuse, given the thread in general…)
And prefacing by saying I don’t agree with the whole line of logic. Also, none of this is intended to be judgemental of anyone.
TLDR: Its a harm reduction hypothesis.
Historically (like pre-1800s), alcohol was often consumed at a higher-frequency, lower-quanity, lower-dose level. Small beers often were 1-3% and were very common for literally everyone to drink. It was a preservative of calories and often involved boiling the water, sterilizing it by accident. Romans (at least in writing) were all about diluting their wine something like 8 parts water to 1 part wine. They’d mock the “barbarians” they sold wine to for drinking it straight or even 2-4 to 1. There was a perceived “gradient” of use, proper Romans diluted the most, direct subjects less, Germanic allies less, and their enemies little or none at all. Alcohol at various concentrations was considered a medicine for a variety of ills.
Overconsumption was usually tied to social events. Moralists always were complaining, but it was largely done from the view of “lazy drunk peasants” and not “this is an actual problem for this person/community”. Communities could more effectively self regulate actual misuse. Misuse certainly was semi-common, but wasn’t a consistent large scale social crisis until the 1700-1800s. This is somewhat similar to other drugs such a opium, cannabis, coca, etc, etc.
This leads to the semi-common interpretion that humans consume alcohol and other drugs naturally. Humans and many animals do often use drugs. But the problem is that traditional alcohol/drug consumption has been embedded into modern consumption and industry. Modern alcohol is cheap and easy. A modern human “peasant” understands how to make a lot of hard liquor, and has access to the tools to do it.
I’ve considered making applejack in my freezer. My great great grandpa would have had to wait until winter to make it. I could make a still easily. 10,000 years ago, no one had metal to make one. I can go online and buy a kit to make any drink and get it in a few weeks. Or I could go work a few hours and get a bottle of the strong stuff. Modern consumption is also easier to do both very isolated and very publically, while also having added dangers like driving. Its easier to misuse now, which doesn’t mesh with the idea that everyone can use “just some” safely.
As mentioned by other posters, modern (~1920s) temperance was as much about reducing consumption as eliminating it. The idea was to reduce it “back” to a “normal” level. Some wanted use completely gone. Others wanted a “return” to a “healthy” level. They could accept parents, partners, family, and friends using some. But they did not want to see them harming themselves and others.
Note that historical consumption and effects are kinda hard to know exactly. Especially 100 years ago, it’d be hard to tell what your 5x great granddad was doing. So some of the “return to normal” would have been subjective and might not have reflected historical reality. Which is why I put quotes around some of the above.
(Not sure how much this needs a CW for alcohol, drugs, and abuse, given the thread in general…)
And prefacing by saying I don’t agree with the whole line of logic. Also, none of this is intended to be judgemental of anyone.
TLDR: Its a harm reduction hypothesis.
Historically (like pre-1800s), alcohol was often consumed at a higher-frequency, lower-quanity, lower-dose level. Small beers often were 1-3% and were very common for literally everyone to drink. It was a preservative of calories and often involved boiling the water, sterilizing it by accident. Romans (at least in writing) were all about diluting their wine something like 8 parts water to 1 part wine. They’d mock the “barbarians” they sold wine to for drinking it straight or even 2-4 to 1. There was a perceived “gradient” of use, proper Romans diluted the most, direct subjects less, Germanic allies less, and their enemies little or none at all. Alcohol at various concentrations was considered a medicine for a variety of ills.
Overconsumption was usually tied to social events. Moralists always were complaining, but it was largely done from the view of “lazy drunk peasants” and not “this is an actual problem for this person/community”. Communities could more effectively self regulate actual misuse. Misuse certainly was semi-common, but wasn’t a consistent large scale social crisis until the 1700-1800s. This is somewhat similar to other drugs such a opium, cannabis, coca, etc, etc.
This leads to the semi-common interpretion that humans consume alcohol and other drugs naturally. Humans and many animals do often use drugs. But the problem is that traditional alcohol/drug consumption has been embedded into modern consumption and industry. Modern alcohol is cheap and easy. A modern human “peasant” understands how to make a lot of hard liquor, and has access to the tools to do it.
I’ve considered making applejack in my freezer. My great great grandpa would have had to wait until winter to make it. I could make a still easily. 10,000 years ago, no one had metal to make one. I can go online and buy a kit to make any drink and get it in a few weeks. Or I could go work a few hours and get a bottle of the strong stuff. Modern consumption is also easier to do both very isolated and very publically, while also having added dangers like driving. Its easier to misuse now, which doesn’t mesh with the idea that everyone can use “just some” safely.
As mentioned by other posters, modern (~1920s) temperance was as much about reducing consumption as eliminating it. The idea was to reduce it “back” to a “normal” level. Some wanted use completely gone. Others wanted a “return” to a “healthy” level. They could accept parents, partners, family, and friends using some. But they did not want to see them harming themselves and others.
Note that historical consumption and effects are kinda hard to know exactly. Especially 100 years ago, it’d be hard to tell what your 5x great granddad was doing. So some of the “return to normal” would have been subjective and might not have reflected historical reality. Which is why I put quotes around some of the above.