You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Sun, Aug 2, 2009 : 10:01 p.m.

And the big, bad, "P" word is...

By Eric Arsenault

“P” is for PROHIBITION Just saying the word makes me cringe. If you think it is truly behind us, I’d like you to think again. Our society today is defined by media. Whether you are sitting in your living room, driving your car, listening to the radio, or reading a magazine at the doctor’s office, there is nearly nowhere you can go today without being subjected to advertisement for wine, beer, or spirits. Marketing people spend their whole careers seeking new ways to get their product in front of you. As a man whose livelihood revolves around fine wine and spirits, that’s a good thing for me. However, there is so much sensory contact with alcohol through advertising that most people forget how recently it was that alcohol was illegal in our land of the free.

Prohibition was repealed on Dec. 5th, 1933 - just over 75 years ago. It’s really a short period of time in U.S. culture when you think about it. In fact many of us still have family members who lived through Prohibition, who are still very much a layer of our cultural fabric. Though they may feel differently about it now, they were all at some point supposed to believe that alcoholic consumption was morally wrong; associated with aggression, antisocial behavior, and inevitable criminal activity. Supporters of prohibition taught (some might say brainwashed) their children alcohol would turn them evil. They even went so far as to blame the Great Depression and World War I on alcohol. So, while we may SEEM a long ways away from that period, in fact there are at least several generations in our society that, whether they realize it or not, harbor some negative impressions of wine or any other alcohol as a result of some lasting effects of Prohibition mentality.

So where are we now? Surely we’ve come a long way from branding wine drinkers as criminal heathens, right. We may no longer be outcasts in our society, but are we Americans still reluctant? It is remarkably common to see diners concerned about ordering a second or even a single glass of wine with a meal because of a genuine fear of intoxication. Many people see the enjoyment of alcohol with a meal as irresponsible, unnecessary, sometime even reckless. Think I’m exaggerating? Consider some statistics.

  • The percentage of adults who drink alcohol in European countries varies between 80% and 90%.
  • In the United States, approximately 65% of adults drink alcohol.
  • American per capita consumption of alcohol by volume before Prohibition was nearly double what it is today.
Many Europeans would argue a little wine with every meal makes them healthier and happier. In France and Italy, wine is often as important to setting the table as the silverware. Being a Sommelier, I’ll insist until I’m out of breath that every meal is better with the right wine and occasionally a good beer (I even cook with a little bit of wine in my eggs every morning). As I mentioned in my first blog, this is part of what drives me to write about wine. In addition to teaching a thing or two to people who already have an interest in wine, I have sincere hopes that blogging can help save at least a few of the third of Americans that will otherwise sadly go through life missing out on one of man’s greatest creations. Europeans were exploring the art of fine dining before our country was even born, so it’s at least slightly understandable why more of them get it. But we are Americans. It’s not in our nature to be so behind for so long. So wake up people! Pull the cork on a bottle of wine with your next meal. And if someone around you doesn’t like it, hand them the cork and tell them what they can do with it.

Eric Arsenault is the Sommelier for The Chop House and the Director of Wine and Spirits for Mainstreet Ventures

Comments

Eric Arsenault

Tue, Aug 4, 2009 : 9:08 p.m.

Joel, I hear what you're saying. Restaurant wine pricing is a hot topic - easily a subject for the next blog topic. I can't speak for other restaurants and their practices, but I can tell you that few people realize the reasons behind a restaurant charging double or more than what a consumer pays for the same bottle retail. Keep in mind that retailers don't have to pay for the labor that serves it, the managers or sommelier who orders, stocks, and maintains it, the glassware that can often cost as much as the wine itself, and all the other costs that go into running a restaurant. There's a reason that more than half of restuarants fail in their first year - it's outrageously expensive to run one. I'm sure it would surpise most people to know that most restaurants see less than a 10% return on their total food and beverage sales. These kinds fo margins aren't to rob anyone, their usually just what is required to keep the lights on. And what about the occasional restaurant with lower markups? Simple, it is usually made up in the food that they're charging you an even higher margin on.

Patti Smith

Mon, Aug 3, 2009 : 1:42 p.m.

Let's not forget the "blue laws", which I completely forgot about until I was at a Lions game a few years ago. I pranced up to get the swill-beer that they serve, only to be told that I couldn't buy it until after noon. Did I mention that this is the *Lions* and I really needed a "helper" to get me through? :) Seriously though, New Holland Brewery couldn't even be open on Sundays until VERY recently. Prohibition very much affected beer in this country. Obviously, it wasn't legal for those years, which affected it! But after Prohibition was repealed, brewers found that folks' palates had changed. (These are the brewers who managed to survive, btw, most didn't). Beer recipes changed to meet the watered down palates of the consumers, add in mass production and here we are being force-fed Bud Light (or whatever) at Lions games. To go back even further, I think that much of the anti-alcohol attitude is from the Puritan days. (Likewise, American attitudes towards sex and other "vices"). There are just too many people out there who are concerned that someone, somewhere is having a good time and this makes them mad b/c, well, they aren't having a good time.

Laura Bien

Mon, Aug 3, 2009 : 8:04 a.m.

Michigan has wrestled with the alcohol question throughout its history. Some highlights: 1790: Law passed that no one residing in or passing through the Northwest Territory give liquor to any Native American 1790: Law passed that no one may sell liquor to soldiers in the Northwest Territory within ten miles of a military post 1795: Law passed preventing saloonkeepers from selling liquor to minors, servants, or slaves 1800: In order to get a liquor license, a potential tavern-keeper must be recommended by "twelve respectable freeholders" 1812: Law passed that anyone selling/giving liquor to Native Americans be fined not less than $5 or more than $100 1815: Law passed that intoxicating drinks may not be sold to soldiers without written permission of officer in command 1815: Law passed that liquor may not be sold on Sundays, "except to lodgers and travelers" (hmm, day trip to Ypsilanti?) 1845: Law passed that residents of townships and cities could vote on whether to allow liquor in their municipality: this was called "local control." If you will please excuse a self-link, more on the topic, and a jaw-dropping tour de force of typesetting concerning one alcohol-related vote in 1888, may be seen at "1800s ASCII Art": http://ypsiarchivesdustydiary.blogspot.com/2009/05/1800s-ascii-art.html