For the real truth about Alcohol Prohibition (as it was done in America under the Eighteenth Amendment), see for example
Ernest B. Gordon, Brewers and "Billionaires" Conspire Against the Working Classes: The Secret of The Present Propaganda Against the Eighteenth Amendment (New York, N.Y.: Alcohol Information Committee, 1930)
Ernest B. Gordon, The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment (Francestown, NH: The Alcohol Information Press, 1943)
Deets Pickett, LL.D., Then and Now: The Truth about Prohibition and Repeal
(Columbus, Ohio: School and College Service, 1952).
The books help make the distinction between political prohibition (as managed / mismanaged / knowingly sabotaged by politicians) and what would be medically valid, i.e., Dr. "Thacher's suggestion that we made a mistake not to cut off tobacco first," before adopting Prohibition!—Pryns Hopkins, Ph.D., Gone Up in Smoke: An Analysis of Tobaccoism (Culver City, CA: The Highland Press, 1948), p 222. Not the film The Untouchables (Kevin Costner, 1987), wherein the law enforcers typically smoked, thus calling attention to the politicization, not focusing on the starter drug tobacco. "Sublatâ causa, tollitur effectus: Otez la cause, l'effet disparaît."—Dr. Hippolyte Adéon Depierris, Physiologie Sociale (Paris: Dentu, 1876), p 328.
Bottom line, notwithstanding the mismanagement and politicization, Prohibition was a success, despite the many efforts to sabotage it. And it was repealed BECAUSE it was succeeding, thus resented by moneyed "special interests."
Gordon cites evidence including from Thomas Edison. Edison reported that, prior to Prohibition, women would seek his help on Mondays after their husbands had "drank up" the week's pay received the previous Friday, over the weekend. During Prohibition, said Edison, such incidents ceased. Gordon cites many other examples, including a substantially increased rate of savings.
"Mr. Ralph White, Secretary for a law enforcement committee in Connecticut, stated at the House Judiciary Committee Hearings, 1930 (p. 852): 'Our experience has been that the Prohibition Law is really an easy law to enforce in itself. It is a very much easier law to get convictions under than many other necessary laws. You can get from 70% to 90% convictions from the Connecticut liquor laws whereas we can only get 70% for reckless driving and I do not think it runs over 50% in our cities. It is an easier law to enforce than drunken driving for the matter of evidence is more easily handled. It is much better enforced than the laws concerning gambling.' Prohibition enforcement, with all it had to contend with from official treachery and newspaper clamor, compared well with that of other laws." Wrecking, supra, p. 183.
Gordon shows that Prohibition succeeded, that is why corrupt interests (called "special interests" nowadays) had it repealed, by means/methods including
getting rid of honest enforcement agents, and
bribery of officials and legislators. (For background on bribery, see our bribery site).
"Laws as to reporting of expenditures of candidates for political office have been made a mockery and only the most flagrant violations of election laws have proved susceptible of prosecution and punishment. Are such laws, therefore, to be classed as unenforceable?" Wrecking, supra, p. 184.
 And note rebuttal of the myth that “you cannot legislate morality.” “The example often given to support that position is the [alleged] failure of [Prohibition]. It is even maintained that people consumed more alcohol during the Prohibition era of the 1920's because liquor was made more exciting by being taboo. One writer went so far as to argue that prohibitions have caused most of our addictions. In fact, for all the speakeasy nightclubs and bathtub gin, consumption was actually less during the Porohibition era than before or afterwards because alcohol was less available—and availability remains the first condtion for consumption, albeit not the only one. When something becomes illegal and thereby less accessible, consumption may not cease altoghether but it drops—if the law is enforced," says Prof. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Land of Idols: Political Mythology in America (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993), Chapter 1, "Myths of Political Quietism," p 8.
And: "If it were true that legal prohibition introduces the enticement of taboo, than we would expect consumption to decline when a substance is legalized and becomes less of a forbidden fruit. In fact, after Prohibition was repealed, consumption increased as did the incidence of alcohol-related diseases. So with narcotics. As the supply becomes more abundant, in part because of the corrupt cooperation of law enforcement agencies, consumption increased. . . . In short, when the law or the market makes something more available, consumption tends to increase; when less available, consumption tends to decrease," Parenti, Myths, supra, pp 8-9.
"Actually, Prohibition Was a Success," says Criminal Justice Prof. Mark H. Moore, Harvard Kennedy School of Government (New York Times (16 October 1989). Prof. Moore says, "Close analyses of the facts and their relevance is required lest policy makers fall victim to the persuasive power of false analogies and are misled into imprudent judgments.
. . . The lesson drawn by commentators is that it is fruitless to allow moralists to use criminal law to control intoxicating substances. Many now say it is equally unwise to rely on the law to solve the nation's drug problem. But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts. . . . "
Prevention was then the order of the day, as distinct from merely dealing with effects. See, e.g., Prof. Irving Fisher, Ph.D., and Eugene Lyman Fisk, M.D., How to Live (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co, 1915).
When prevention fails, here is one example of a foreseeable effect, by Magnus Landgren, MD, PhDa, Leif Svensson, MSa, Kerstin Strömland, MD, PhDb, Marita Andersson Grönlund, MD, PhDb, "Prenatal Alcohol Exposure and Neurodevelopmental Disorders in Children Adopted From Eastern Europe" (Pediatrics (12 April 2010): "Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, that is, fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), partial FAS, and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders, were identified for 52% of children; FAS was found for 30%, partial FAS for 14%, and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders for 9%. Alcohol-related birth defects were found for 11% of children, all of whom also were diagnosed as having FAS. Mental retardation or significant cognitive impairment was found for 23% of children, autism for 9%, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for 51%, and developmental coordination disorder for 34%. . . . Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders were common in this long-term follow-up study of children adopted from orphanages in eastern Europe. Maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy has long-lasting adverse effects, causing structural, behavioral, and cognitive damage despite a radically improved environment."
“I have no hesitation in saying with emphasis that the Volstead Act . . . have been very beneficial to the industry of this country, and to the workmen connected with it, and their families.” (Judge Elbert Gary, Chairman of the Board, U. S. Steel Corp., New York Timtes, 7-21-1923).
“Evidence has accumulated on every hand that prohibition has promoted public health, public happiness, and industrial efficiency.” (Charles W. Eliot, Pres., Harvard U., in a letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, 2-17-1922).
“I am not a prohibitionist myself, but look upon this matter purely from a scientific and commonsense standpoint. In my own business, conditions have been greatly improved….I am convinced that the theory that the country in general would be benefited by Prohibition has been proven a fact.” (Edward Freschi, President, Holeproof Hosiery, Milwaukee, in the Manufacturer’s Record, 1922).
“Gangs and Syndicates did not originate with Prohibition….The names which loomed large in the Chieftanship of the bootlegging industry were traceable to gambling and vice-syndicates which existed under dynasties of rulers or bosses for years prior to Prohibition.” (Annals of the American Academy of Political Science and Social Science, Sept. 1932).
Early Prohibitionists recognized what drove people to saloons. It was the despair and misery caused from the then economic system with its low pay, no health care, no retirement, no workmen's compensation. Just work until you drop. And until then, suffer the deplorable working conditions, e.g., long hours, lack of heating/air conditioning, unsafe machinery, no job security, etc.
Early Prohibitionists fought to get the national focus off the then pusher-dominated
"blame the victim" ideology. Early Prohibitionists knew that the public needed to hear the opposing view, the pusher role, so blamed the pusher, blamed the perp, not the victim! Early Prohibitionists understood that the "blame the victim" ideology does not, can not, and will not ever eliminate the problem. The "blame the victim" dogma is wholly ineffective. The only effective alternative is "blame the pusher," blame the perp, blame the starter drug perp.
In war, you know to target your fire upon the enemy. You do not target your own wounded! wounded by the enemy's action. Likewise, the solution to alcoholism and drug abuse is to target the enemy, the pushers of alcohol and drugs, not their victims! the users, targeted into the starter drug as children, thereby beginning the addiction process
For additional background, see
- Fletcher Dobyns, The Amazing Story of Repeal (Chicago and New York: Willett, Clark & Co, 1940);
- David Leigh Colvin, Ph.D., Prohibition in the United States: A History of the Party and of the Prohibition Movement (New York: George H. Doran Co, 1926);
- Prof. Irving Fisher, Prohibition At Its Worst (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1926);
- Irving Fisher, The Noble Experiment (New York: Alcohol Information Committee, 1930) (p 238, personal savings increased a billion dollars); and
- David J. Hanson, Ph.D., “Repeal of Prohibition in the U.S.” (abbreviated background)
- Edward Behr, Thirteen Years That Changed America (New York: Arcade Pub, 1993). One example in the latter is that after pay days, absenteeism dropped from 10% pre-Prohibition, to 3% during Prohibition.
our website on crime as 90% by smokers (refutes the anti-Prohibition mythology with respect to 90% of crimes)
One purpose behind Prohibition was to end sad laments such as the following from a child born in 1878: “In my home the father of the family was drinking himself to death; it was [politician-abetted] saloon-keepers who sold him the liquor; it was [said] politicians and . . . police force which guarded these saloons while they violated a dozen different laws. In that city, hundreds of thousands of children were wondering, just as I wondered, why all powers of the state [government] were used for their destruction, instead of for their aid. With the dope-rings and the bootleggers flourishing as they are today, there must be ten times as many children asking this question; and with exceptions so rare as to be hardly worth mentioning, all the power of the schools and the colleges, as well as of the pulpit and the press, is devoted to keeping these children from finding out. They kept me from finding out until [years later].”—Upton
Sinclair, The Goslings:
A Study of the American Schools, Chapter 13, p 60 (1924). See also his Profits (1917), §§ 2.10 - 2.11, pp 75-80, and Eric Burdon, et al., "Tabacco Road" (1967).
Here is some medical background data on what underlies 90% of the alcohol problem, alcoholism, the same 90% factor as underlies 90% of crime—tobacco.
“Nearly all alcoholics, recovered or otherwise, are heavy smokers,” says Arthur Cain, M.D., The Cigarette Habit: An Easy Cure (1964) p 4.
Dr. Forest S. Tennant, Jr., “pointed out that in almost every case adults who have problems with alcohol are cigarette smokers,” in vol. 27 Smoke Signals (#1), p 1 (Jan 1981).
You can assist in opposing alcoholism
Cigarettes contain toxic chemicals, many smokers suffer, then some self-medicate with alcohol. This analysis may seem unusual, but for details, see our alcoholism prevention site.
Re the cigarette-alcoholism link, note that Dr. Frank L. Wood cites a 100% factor, "all of those who become alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer ([Wood] were first tobacco addicts."--Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 143.
Like an infectious disease, the prevalence of smoker alcoholics later came to infect nonsmokers to a small extent (about 10% of alcoholics are nowadays nonsmokers). "Smoking prevalence among active alcoholics approaches 90%."--J. T. Hayes, K. P. Offord, I. T. Croghan, D. R. Schroeder, R. D. Hurt (ASAM), and D. E. Jorenby, "Alcoholism and Nicotine Dependence Treatment," 15 Journal of Addictive Diseases 135 (1996).
We already know why the cigarettes-alcoholism link exists. We already know that smoking is the No. 1 cause of disease, suffering, and premature death. Many suffering smokers are self-medicating with alcohol to mask their suffering.
"When we take a thorough drug history, we are forced to admit that nicotine—not alcohol or cannabis—is the drug of entry for most young people."—Emanuel Peluso and Lucy Silvay Peluso, "The Challenge of Treating Teenagers," 9 Alcoholism & Addiction (2) 21 (December 1988).
This is not new information. The tobacco-alcoholism link was reported over two centuries ago.
The Surgeon General under George Washington was Dr. Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, opposed "the habitual use of tobacco, which he thought led to a desire for strong drink and was injurious both to health and morals."--Dr. Carl Binger, Revolutionary Doctor: Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) (New York: Norton, 1966) p 201.
The tobacco-alcoholism link is cited in the book by Meta Lander, The Tobacco Problem, 6th ed. (Boston: Lee and Shepard Pub, 1885), pp 84-87, 255, and 284-288.
- At 284 is the bottom line: "it is the prevailing testimony of medical authorities that tobacco-using leads naturally to liquor-drinking, that it is the 'facilis descensus Averni.'"
- P 87 says it thus: "the exceptions are very rare, when a user of tobacco in any of its forms is not ultimately led to use alcoholic liquors; and . . . the use of tobacco is the great [No. 1] cause of both moderate and excessive alcoholic drinking," quoting Dr. Cowan.
"'The professors in the University and High School at Ann Arbor, Michigan, who have had a long experience among thousands of young men, regard tobacco as having a worse effect than even liquor, affirming that more young men break down in body and mind and finally go astray as a result of smoking than of drinking, while the former often leads to the latter.' In this view concur Dr. Parker, Dr. Rush, and a multitude of medical men," Lander, supra, pp 86-87.
"It is the testimony of Jerry McAuley, who has rescued multitudes from drunkenness, that it is extremely rare to find a reformed man that continues a slave to tobacco who does not fall back into the gutter. This fact is so patent that it is coming more and more to be taken for granted that the [recovering alcoholic] when giving up drink, will also give up [tobacco]. The case is related of one who, being persuaded to smoke a single cigar, relapsed into drunkenness," Lander, supra, p 286.
"Smoking leads to drinking," quoting Dr. Chalmers, p 152. ". . . tobacco . . . is one of the things I most inveigh against, believing it to be the most important factor in inducing the liquor habit," quoting Dr. Pennoyer, Pennoyer Sanitarium, Kenosha, Wisconsin, p 152.
"The rapid increase of nervous people, nerve pain, neuralgia, and obscure nervous disease is seen by the physician every day, and it is my belief that tobacco . . . is the most prominent cause. It is from this class [of people] that drunkards are mostly recruited," quoting Dr. L. G. Alexander, p 144. P. 150 linked tobacco and delirium tremens.
"The tendency of . . . tobacco . . . is to undermine both the health and morals of the young. It is the direct road to intemperance in the drinking habit," quoting Principal Sheldon, Normal and Training School, Oswego, New York, Lander, supra, p 153.
"Nicotine is one of the most powerful of the 'nerve poisons' known. Its virulence is compared to that of prussic acid. . . . . It seems to destroy life not by attacking a few but all of the functions essential to it. . . . A significant indication of this is that there is no substance which can counteract its effects. . . . the use of tobacco in even the smallest amount impairs the functional action of the liver on the blood passing through it, and that the abnormal state of the blood thus caused will manifest itself by disturbance in the brain." "Thus the nerves are under the constant influence of the drug and much injury to the system results." Wherefore, "A desire, often a craving, for liquor or some other stimulant is experienced," says C. W. Lyman, 48 New York Medical Journal 262-265 (8 Sep 1888).
Dr. Anthony Smythe in 1857 had said likewise. This fact of "the well-established association between smoking and drinking" was recited anew by Dr. Joseph Stokes III in 308 New Engl J Med (7) 393 (17 Feb 1983). See also W. Moodie, "Smoking, Drinking, and Nervousness," 2 Lancet 188-189 (1957).
Smokers are suffering from tobacco effects, thus attempting, even unconsciously to self-medicate themselves with substances including alcohol. Smoking constricts blood vessels; alcohol is an antidote and dilates them. Unfortunately for smokers, the constricting effect of nicotine is much more powerful than the dilating effect of alcohol, see Alton Ochsner, M.D., Smoking and Your Life (New York: Julian Messner Pub, 1954 rev 1964), p 58. So for those smokers engaged in the desperate effort at self-medicating, the process leads to increasing useage ending in alcoholism, i.e., the 90% factor herein noted.
Around 1901, Dr. Dabbs in essence admitted his malpractice in failing to successfully treat alcoholics referred to him. He admitted "the prohibition of tobacco by [professionals] was exactly the vital prohibition omitted by [himself]." So he conceded "that in vetoing alcohol we must also veto tobacco."
Dreher and Fraser showed that almost all smokers of two or more packs of cigarettes per day were alcoholic. Dreher, KF, Fraser, JG, "Smoking habits of alcoholic outpatients. I," 2 Int'l J Addict 259-270 (1967).
Drivers "who smoke are arrested for drunken driving more than three times as often as nonsmokers," DiFranza JR, Winters TH, "Smoking and Drunk Driving," 313 N Engl J Med 1421-1422 (1985), and DiFranza JR and Guerra MP, "Alcoholism and Smoking," 51 Journal of Studies on Alcohol (2) 130-135 (1990).
"The close association of cigarette smoking and alcoholism has been well documented . . . pharmacologic interactions between alcohol and nicotine have been demonstrated." DiFranza JR and Guerra MP, J Stud Alcohol, supra, p 130.
Also, "children who smoke were six times more likely to have been drunk than were other children and were five times more likely to have always drunk alcohol without parental supervision." Revill J, Drury, CG, "An assessment of the incidence of cigarette smoking in fourth year school children and the factors leading to its establishment," 94 Publ Hlth 243-260 (1980), cited in DiFranza and Guerra, supra.
Another way of saying some of this is as follows, alcoholism generally arises from a preceding mental disorder and the pain from tobacco effects. Smoking, due to the vast quantities of toxic chemicals including nicotine and other poisons, causes brain damage (creating a biochemical impulse to drink more. See Dzung Anh Lê, et al, Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research (15 Feb 2000)). Smoking is now officially recognized as a mental disorder in authoritative references.
Thus slogans and platitudes such as "don't drink and rive" are scams, frauds, not intended to work, not capable of working. Slogans and platitudes do not, can not, override organic "biochemical impulses," "mental disorder."
Note that "the first American antismoking movement peaked in the early twentieth century as a sister crusade to the fight against alchohol. The early movement was led by Protestant-based organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the Young Men's Christian Association, and the Salavation Army, and prominent individuals, including Henry Ford and John Wannamaker. The prominent leader of of antismoking at the beginning of the century . . . was Lucy Page Gaston, a . . . reformer who founded the Anti-Cigarette League of America in 1899 and believed smoking repesented a moral and physical evil. Gaston preached that smoking caused the condition 'cigarette face,' stunted the development of boys and inexorably led to more depraved crimes and misdeeds. Other members of the movement linked cigarette smoking to a hole host of maladies, including heart disease, emphysema, digestive problems, and nervous disorders. Lung cancer . . . was seldom mentioned since its incidence was very rare until later in the century. Although a handful of scientists and goverment officials lent their support, this early antismoking movement was primarily a grassroots campaign led by private citizens and religious organizations who were very often the same individuals and groups that supported the campaign for prohibition of alcohol. The moral impulses of the Progressives fostered the movement and persuaded many Americans that cigarettes were 'a mark of deviancy,'" says Prof. Pamela E. Pennock, Ph.D., Advertising Sin and Sickness: The Politics of Alcohol and Tobacco Marketing, 1950-1990 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 2007), p 96.
More from The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment
|
"Rhodes in his History of the United States says that in 1834 a third of the population . . . was of Puritan descent. . . . ministers . . . developed and shaped the higher education of the nation, who gave the country its peculiar idealist quality. . . . They played their part in the fight against slavery, the Parkers and Beechers. They would have lifted the burden of alcoholism from America if they had not been checkmated and cheated by Wall Street" (p 141)."
And "ministers were, in the 19th century, a chief driving force behind the whole [progressive] forward movement,--abolition . . . factory reform, extension of suffrage, popular education . . . and all the rest" (p 140).
"The rank and file of Abolitionism was dry; so were most of its leaders. Thus Horace Greeley proposed to 'cut off that liquor dog's tail back of his ears.' In a . . . speech in Congress [N.Y. Abolitionist Representative] Gerrit Smith . . .said (July 22, 1854): 'It so happened, Mr. Speaker, that my first act on this floor after taking the oath of office, was to present a memorial praying Congress to empower the City of Washington to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks.'" [Abolitionist] Wendell Philips lined up with 'the temperance men'" (p 143).
"Of the Emancipator [Abraham Lincoln] himself Lord Charnwood says: 'His social philosophy was one that contemplated great future reforms, abolition of slavery and strict temperance policy among them.' 'All such questions,' he is reported to have said, 'must find lodgment with the most enlightened souls who stamp them with their approval. In God's own time they will be organized into law and woven into the fabric of our institutions'" (p 144)
"Lincoln looked forward to 'a complete victory,' a time 'when there shall be neither a slave nor a drunkard on the earth.' 'How proud the title of that land which may truly claim to be the birthplace and cradle of both these revolutions'" (p 144).
"And what was lined up against this moral élite? . . . everything in American life that is offensive and anti-social and dangerous . . . the gamblers, the pimps, the gangsters . . . the race-track bookies, the depraved politicians . . . the degenerates . . . the underworld of lust . . . the venal . . . everything that is hateful and repulsive" (p 142).
|
Other Sabotaging the Law Data
"Social reformers liked to claim that it was sometimes difficult to tell the difference between crime and big business in the 1930's," says Robert Lacey, Ford: The Men and the Machine (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1986), Part 4, Chapter 22, p 367.
Example: "the Detroit Police were easy to bribe." "The city's police force reached such a low ebb in these years that the recruited intake of 1928 averaged 83 on a mental test equivalent to the modern I.Q. The Detroit Fire Department required a minimum score of 100 in this test, but the police department was satisfied with 65," says Lacey, p 363, citing Robert Conot, American Odyssey: A Unique History of America Told Through the Life of a Great City (New York: William Morrow, 1974), pp 265-266.
Wayne B. Wheeler [1869 – 1927], Lawyer, who ignored the tobacco role in alcoholism. Note Dr. "Thacher's suggestion that we made a mistake not to cut off tobacco first," before adopting Prohibition!—Pryns Hopkins, Ph.D., Gone Up in Smoke: An Analysis of Tobaccoism (Culver City, CA: The Highland Press, 1948), p 222.
Around 1901, Dr. Dabbs had tried to treat alcoholics without first dealing with their smoking. He later admitted that that is malpractice. He admitted "the prohibition of tobacco by [professionals] was exactly the vital prohibition omitted by [himself]." So he conceded "that in vetoing alcohol we must also veto tobacco."
|
Early Anti-Intoxicant Court Precedents:
A History of Pertinent Court Decisions
Lunt's Case, 6 Me 412 (Maine, May 1830) (delegation to local authority to further regulate liquor control is not unconstitutional)
Beall v State, 4 Blackf 107 (Indiana, Nov 1835) (delegation to local authority to further regulate liquor control is not unconstitutional)
New York v Miln, 36 US (11 Pet) 102; 9 L Ed (Jan 1837) (citing government's full, unimpaired, absolute police power to regulate/ban anything in that sphere) (cited in Santo v State, 2 Iowa 165, 189 (8 April 1856))
Comm of Massachusetts v Thurlow, 41 Mass (24 Pick) 374-381 (8 Nov 1837)
State v Peckham, 3 RI 289, 294 (Rhode Island, Sep 1838) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors, valid for purposes such as "prevention of vice and pauperism")
Com v Kimball, 38 Mass (21 Pick) 373 (Nov 1838) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
Peirce v State of New Hampshire, 13 NH 536-586 (July 1843)
State v Moore, 14 NH 451 (New Hampshire, Dec 1843) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors, case involved arrest for selling one pint of rum)
State of Tennessee v Retailers, 1 Southwestern Law J and Rep 8 (Dec 1843) (unlawful to sell liquor in quantity under one quart size)
Ingersoll v Skinner, 1 Denio 540, 543; 16 NY Com Law Rep 887, 888 (NY, Oct 1845) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors, in one sentence)
State of Rhode Island v Fletcher, 1 RI 193-198 (March 1846)
Fletcher v State of Rhode Island, 46 US (5 How) 504; 12 L Ed 256 (Jan Term 1847). SCB: 1 RI 193-198 (March 1846)
Peirce v State of New Hampshire, 46 US (5 How) 504; 12 L Ed 256 (Jan Term 1847). SCB: 13 NH 536-586 (July 1843) (also jury law decision power)
Thurlow v Comm of Massachusetts, 46 US (5 How) 504; 12 L Ed 256 (Jan Term 1847). SCB: 41 Mass (24 Pick) 374-381 (8 Nov 1837)
City Council v Ahrens, 35 SC (4 Strob) 241; 15 SC Annot Ed 126 (South Carolina, Feb 1850) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
Hirn v State, 1 Ohio St Rep 15 (March 1852) (government has authority to revoke outstanding liquor licenses, but hadn't done so in that case)
Jones v People, 14 Ill 196 (Illinois, Dec 1852) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors, and presuming that one is master of one's own premises)
People of New York v William Landon, 7 Am St Trials 893-953 (NY, 1855)
Perdue v Ellis, 18 Ga 586 (Georgia, Aug 1855) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors) ("That the State has a right to prohibit absolutely the sale of whiskey, is no longer an open question.")
Com v Clapp, 71 Mass (5 Gray) 97 (Oct 1855) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
People v Quant, 12 How Pr 83 (New York, 31 Dec 1855) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
Calder v Kurby, 71 Mass (5 Gray) 597 (March 1856) (a liquor license is not a contract, but subject to the police power, revocable even during its term )
Santo v State, 2 Iowa 165, 189 (8 April 1856) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
Saunder v State, 2 Iowa 230 (8 April 1856) (cited in State v Donehey, 8 Iowa 396 (June 1859))
State v Brennan's Liquors, 25 Conn 278 (Sep 1856)
State v Wheeler, 25 Conn 290 (Sep 1856) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
State v Holmes, 1 Chand 225 (Sep 1856) (cited in LaCroix v County Com'rs, 50 Conn 321; 47 Am Rep 648 (Oct 1882))
State v Bryan, 4 Iowa 349 (23 April 1857) (ban authority is a settled issue) (cited in State v Donehey, 8 Iowa 396 (June 1859))
Keller v State, 11 Md 525 (Maryland, Dec 1857) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
State v Holmes, 38 NH 225 (Jan 1859) (liquor license can be overruled by a later adopted law)
Geebrich v State, 5 Iowa 491 (25 June 1858) (cited in State v Donehey, 8 Iowa 396 (June 1859))
State v Donehey, 8 Iowa 396 (June 1859) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors, as a settled principle)
State v Intoxicating Liquors, 50 Me 506; LRA 1916E, 354 (Maine, 1862) (warehouse aiding and abetting illegal sales cannot interpose to prevent forfeiture)
U.S. v 396 Barrels of Distilled Spirits, Fed Cas #16,504; LRA 1916E, 353 (1865)
Met Bd of Excise v Barrie, 34 NY (7 Tiffany) 657 (March 1866) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors; a license is not a contract, conferring no vested right)
Burns v Keas, 21 Iowa 257; LRA 1916E, 353 (1866) (homestead liable for illegal liquor use)
Dingman v People, 51 Ill 277 (Illinois, Sep 1869) (government may tax or license notwithstanding a charter clause to the contrary)
Downham v Alexandria Council, 77 US (10 Wall) 173; 19 L Ed 929 (6 Dec 1870) (challenge to city business tax affecting liquor stores, issue of delegation to local authority to further regulate liquor control as to constitutionality)
Com v Certain Intoxicating Liquors, 107 Mass 396; LRA 1916E, 354 (1871) (unlawful-to-sell items can be confiscated)
Harrison v Wisdom, 54 Tenn 99 (1872) (destruction of whiskey and liquors ahead of military occupation)
State v Common Pleas, 36 NJ (7 Vroom) 72; 13 Am Rep 422 (Nov 1872) (cited in State v Bott, 31 La Ann 663; 33 Am Rep 224 (June 1879) )
State v Morgan, 40 Conn 44 (March 1873) (place of liquor sale can be deemed a nuisance)
Moore v State, 48 Miss 147; 24 Miss Annot Ed 53 (April 1873) (state policy is against lotteries; a franchise can be overturned pursuant to the police power) (cited in LaCroix v County Com'rs, 50 Conn 321; 47 Am Rep 648 (Oct 1882) )
Sinclair v State, 69 NC 47 (North Carolina, June 1873) (government may tax or license notwithstanding a charter clause to the contrary)
Bartemeyer v State of Iowa, 85 US (18 Wall) 129; 21 L Ed 929 (4 March 1874) (pp 140-141 discuss Fourteenth Amendment purpose, to protect all Americans)
Com v Certain Intoxicating Liquors, 115 Mass 153 (3 June 1874) (license)
People ex rel Presmeyer v Board of Com'rs of Police and Excise, 59 NY 92 (NY, Nov 1874) (cited in LaCroix v County Com'rs, 50 Conn 321; 47 Am Rep 648 (Oct 1882) )
People ex rel Beller v Wright, 10 NY Sup Ct Rep (3 Hun) 306 (NY, Dec 1874) (a permit once issued can be revoked) (cited in LaCroix v County Com'rs, 50 Conn 321; 47 Am Rep 648 (Oct 1882))
Butler v Walker, 80 Ill 345 (Illinois, Sep 1875) (the State has power to alter a corporate charter at any time, a precedent later cited at 28 L Ed 696 to affirm constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
Com v Moylan, 119 Mass 109 (18 Nov 1875) (license revocation) (cited in LaCroix v County Com'rs, 50 Conn 321; 47 Am Rep 648 (Oct 1882))
Fell v State, 42 Md 71 (Maryland, Dec 1875) (requiring a license is constitutional; licenses can be modified or revoked)
One Hundred and Ninety-Nine Barrels of Whiskey v US, 94 US 86; 24 L Ed (1876)
People v Commrs, 69 NY 92 (NY, March 1877) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
O'Dea v State, 57 Ind 31, 34 (Indiana, May 1877) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors) (constitutionality so settled, no need to even cite any precedents)
Village of Gloversville v Howell, 70 NY 287 (NY, Sep 1877) (voting, enabling acts)
State v Cooke, 24 Minn 247; 31 Am Rep 344 (26 Oct 1877) (voting on issuing licenses is not unconstitutional, even revoking all outstanding licenses)
Higgins v Rinker, 47 Tex 393 (1877) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors)
Boston Beer Co v Com of Massachusetts, 97 US 25; 24 L Ed 989 (13 May 1878)
Bertholf v O'Reilly, 74 NY 509; 15 Am L Reg (NS) 119 (NY, 12 Nov 1878) (affirming constitutionality of regulating / prohibiting intoxicating liquors; and supporting the principle of awarding damages to an injured party regardless of whether the sale of liquor is legal or illegal)
State v Bott, 31 La Ann 663; 33 Am Rep 224 (Louisiana, June 1879) (Sunday ban ok)
Com v Hamer, 128 Mass 76 (6 Jan 1880) (verbal notice of license revocation is adequate notice) ( cited in LaCroix v County Com'rs, 50 Conn 321; 47 Am Rep 648 (Oct 1882) )
State v Thomas, 47 Conn 546; 36 Am Rep 98 (March 1880) (nuisance where liquor sold, and jury issue)
Stone v Mississippi, 101 US 814, 817-820; 25 L Ed 1079 (10 May 1880) (lottery case later cited for liquor control; government and legislators cannot bargain away the police power; any permit is subject to any future law; a state-chartered lottery was later rendered valueless by subsequent ban on lotteries. This precedent followed Charles River Bridge v Warren Bridge, 36 US (11 Pet) 420, 432; 9 L Ed 773 (1837) (charter to operate a bridge is subject to legislative power to charter a competitor); Phalen v Virginia, 49 US (8 How) 163, 168; 12 L Ed 1040 (1850) (applying police power principles against gambling); Patterson v Kentucky, 97 US 501; 24 L Ed (1878) (police power case); and Northwestern Fertilizing Co v Village of Hyde Park, 97 US 659, 667-670; 24 L Ed 1036 (11 Nov 1878) (value of state-chartered fertilizer company was impaired by a ban on transporting fertilizer). A modern analysis is found in Troy Ltd v Renna, 727 F2d 287, 295 (CA 3, 1984).)
Albrecht v State, 8 Tex Ct Crim App 216; 34 Am Rep 737 (1880) (even prescribing a specific method of liquor tax collection, e.g,. a "bell punch" register, is constitutional)
Intoxicating Liquor Cases, 25 Kan 751-768; 37 Am Rep 284 (Kansas, 21 June 1881) (ban is constitutional, and, at 763, adhere to the spirit/intent of the law)
City of East St. Louis v Trustees of Schools, 102 Ill 489; 40 Am Rep 606 (18 Jan 1882) (licenses are constitutional)
State v Barrett, 27 Kansas 213-222 (June 1882) (dual objects in one bill issue)
Ex parte McClain, 61 Cal 436, 437; 44 Am Rep 554 (Calif, 29 Sep 1882) (the government can make it a misdemeanor to sell intoxicating liquor within certain geographical limits)
LaCroix v County Com'rs, 50 Conn 321; 47 Am Rep 648 (Oct 1882) (requiring a license is constitutional)
State of Kansas ex rel Johnston, State Attorney General v Foster, County Prosecutor, 3 P 534 (Kansas, 2 April 1884) (removal of prosecutor for refusing to enforce Prohibition law; prosecutors must enforce the law regardless of personal desires and clamor of others, for reasons including that those for the law count on them doing so; 'mistake of law' is not a defense)
Martin v Probate Judge, 32 Kans 146; 4 P 158 (13 June 1884) (liquor license denial unreviewable)
Foster v Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 112 US 201; 5 S Ct 8; 28 L Ed 629 (27 Oct 1884). SCB: 3 P 534
Foster v State of Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 112 US 205; 5 S Ct 97; 28 L Ed 696, 697 (10 Nov 1884) (prosecutor removed for non-enforcement of liquor control law). SCB: 3 P 534
State v John Fleming, M.D., 32 Kans 588; 5 P 19 (28 Nov 1884) (physicians can't receive a fee if they prescribe liquor)
Weil v Calhoun, 25 F 865-880 (ND Ga, 16 Dec 1885) (can't discriminate by wine state of origin)
State of Kansas v Bradley, Saloon-Keeper, 26 F 289 (CCD Kansas, 31 Dec 1885) ("A state may absolutely prohibit the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors. No state supreme court has ever denied the power, and the supreme court of the United States, both before and after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, has often and expressly affirmed it. License Cases, 5 How. 504; Bartemeyer v Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; Beer Co. v Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25; Foster v Kansas, 112 U.S. 205; S. C. 5 Sup Ct. Rep.7. This power, comprehensive and absolute, carries with it everything which is merely incidental. . . . Bartemeyer v State, 18 Wall. 129 [says] 'The weight of authority is overwhelming that no [clause] would prevent state legislatures from regulating and even prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating drinks. . . . no case has held that such a law was void as violating the privileges or immunities of citizens of a state, or the United States. If, however, such a proposition is seriously urged, we think that the right to sell intoxicating liquors, so far as such right exists, is not one of the rights growing out of citizenship of the United States. . . .'"
State v Walruff, 26 F 178-202 (CCD Kansas, 22 Jan 1886) (manufacturer alleged denial of constitutional rights by being banned from selling in-state, court said not so)
State v Chandler, 31 Kan 201 (bond for good behavior, constitutional)
Feineman v Sachs, 33 Kan 625; 7 P 222 (sale outside state case)
Distilling Co v Nutt, 34 Kan 724; 10 P 163 (sale outside state case)
State v Whisner, 34 Kans 277; 10 P 852 (7 May 1886) (liquor sales allowed only by druggists)
Mugler v Kansas, 123 US 623; S Ct; L Ed (1887) (case stating that abatement of nuisances is one of the historic funcitons of courts of equity; states have a right to prohibit the liquor traffic, to declare any building used in connection with it a nuisance, to enjoin such use, and if necessary, to forbid its use for any purpose for a year [the 'padlock' provision])
Bowman v Chicago & Northwestern Ry Co, 125 US 465; 8 S Ct; 31 L Ed (19 March 1888) (beer shipment via Iowa to Illinois)
McClure v Braniff, 75 Iowa 38; 39 NW 171; LRA 1916E, 353 (1888) (liquor business, lien for nuisance, "The homestead is made liable by reason of the illegal occupation or use, which is 'with the consent and knowledge of the owner.'")
State v Croedan, 78 Iowa 556; 43 NW 673; 7 LRA 295; LRA 1916E, 353-4 (1889) (shipping compnay not allowed to aid and abet the unlawful business nor interpose to preent forfeiture and destruction of the contraband)
State v Reno, 41 Kansas 674; 21 P 803, 807 (7 June 1889) (nuisance, sale or possession)
Wasserboehr v Boudier, 24 A 808; 30 Am St Rep 344 (12 Jan 1892) (cited in State v C. C. Taft Co, 183 Iowa 548; 167 NW 467; 9 ALR 390 (7 May 1918, a cigarette ban case)
State v Campbell, 50 Kan 433; 32 P 35 (7 Jan 1893) (places selling intoxicating liquors are a nuisance)
State v Lindgrove, 1 Kans App 51, 59; 41 P 688 (18 Sep 1895) (liquor in nuisance law context, citing State of Kansas v Bradley, supra)
Donald v Scott, 76 F 554 (2 Dec 1895) aff'd 165 US 58; 17 S Ct; 41 L Ed (18 Jan 1897)
State v O'Connor, 3 Kans App 594; 43 P 859 (6 Feb 1896) (upholding constitutionality of law identifying place where liquor is sold as nuisance)
State v Woodard, 7 Kans App 421; 53 P 278 (19 May 1898) (bond for good behavior)
Westheimer v Weisman, 8 Kans App 75; 54 P 332 (17 Sep 1898) reversed 60 Kan 753; 57 P 969 (8 July 1899) (sale outside state case; state law has no extraterritorial force)
City of Topeka v Raynor, 8 Kans App 279; 55 P 509 (15 Dec 1898) app dism 60 Kan 860; 61 Kan 10; 58 P 557 (7 Oct 1899) (place of liquor sale is a nuisance)
State v R. T. Webb, 7 Kans App 423; 53 P 276 (19 May 1898) (many sales are a nuisance, bond for good behavior)
State v Owens, 9 Kans App 595; 58 P 240 (16 Sep 1899) (all sale locations are nuisances)
West v Bishop, 81 NW 696 (Iowa, 29 Jan 1900)
Pabst Brewing Co v Crenshaw, 198 US 17; 25 S Ct 552; 49 L Ed 925 (South Carolina, 1905)
Osborne v State, 77 Ark 439; 92 SW 406; LRA 1916E, 353 (1906) ("When it is shown . . . that the liquor is being sold contrary to law, the nuisance exists . . . The proceeding is in rem. The liquor is the offender, so to speak; it is contraband, and to be destroyed when it is being used, no matter by whom, contrary to law.")
Delamater v South Dakota, 205 US 93; 27 S Ct 447; 51 L Ed 724; 10 Ann Cas 733 (1907) (alcohol withdrawn from protection against state interference uniuversally accorded to other commodities, due to their inherent nature and the results which flow from use; case cited in LRA 1918B, 988 in course of distinguishing tobacco in Post Printing & Pub Co v Brewster, 246 F 321, on banning ads from another state, entering state wherein tobacco was illegal)
In re Juggenheimer, 81 Neb 836; 116 NW 966; 18 LNS 386 (4 June 1908) (liquor license denial case, cited in tobacco license denial case, Bernstein v Marshall, Iowa, 248 NW 26 (4 April 1933))
Clement v Liquors Seized, 62 Misc 27; 115 NYS 162; LRA 1916E, 354 (1909)
Conley v Dilley, 133 NW 73 (Iowa, 18 Dec 1911)
State v Maire, 66 Wash 591; 120 P 87; 39 LNS 1051 (15 Jan 1912) (liquor package case)
Farley v Liquors Seized in Car, 80 Misc 32; 141 NYS 696 (NY, 1913)
Bird v State, 131 Tenn 518; 175 SW 554; Ann Cas 1917A, 634 (10 April 1915) (liquor transportation prosecution, law loophole, no ban on transportation of intoxicating liquor for personal use only)
State ex rel Black v Delaye, 193 Ala 500; 68 So 993; LRA 1915, 640 (1915) (alcohol withdrawn from protection against state interference uniuversally accorded to other commodities, due to their inherent nature and the results which flow from use; case cited in LRA 1918B, 988 in course of distinguishing tobacco in Post Printing & Pub Co v Brewster, 246 F 321, on banning ads from another state, entering state wherein tobacco was illegal)
Skinner v Thomas, 1916E, 338, 353 (1916) (issue of levying legal process on intoxicating liquors)
Hines v Stahl, 20 LNS 1118; 1916E, 353 (1916) (issue of mortgagee interest re vehicle used for transporting liquor)
Clark Distilling Co v Western Md R Co, 242 US 311; 37 S Ct 180; 61 L Ed 326; LRA 1917B 1218; Ann Cas 1917B, 845 (8 Jan 1917) (upheld constitutionality of more comprehensive liquor banning law)
Crane v Campbell, 245 US 304; 38 S Ct 98; 62 L Ed 304 (10 Dec 1917) ("power absolutely" to ban liquor)
Liquor Transportation Cases, Hall and Kizer v State, 140 Tenn 582; 205 SW 423 (9 Aug 1918) cites Clark Distilling and Crane absolute power cases, convictions upheld)
Grogan, Com'r of Internal Revenue v Hiram Walker & Sons, Ltd, 259 US 80; 42 S Ct 423; 66 L Ed 836 (15 May 1922). SCB: 275 F 373 (ED MI, rev'd)
Cunard S S Co v Mellon, Sec'y of the Treasury, 284 F 890 (SD NY, 23 Oct 1922)
International Mercantile Marine v Stuart, 285 F 79 (SD NY, 26 Oct 1922)
Cunard S S Co v Mellon, Sec'y of the Treasury, 262 US 100; 43 S Ct 504; 67 L Ed 894 (30 April 1923) (ban on ships at port upheld)
Kling v U.S., 8 F2d 730 (CA 6, 1925), cert den 269 US 587; 46 S Ct 203; 70 L Ed 426 (1925) (abating the nuisance of a building used for liquor). Cf. Denapolis v U.S., 3 F2d 722 (CA 5, 1925). IAW BOR, Amend. 7, n 262.
U.S. v Olmstead, 277 US 438; 48 S Ct 564; 72 L Ed 944 (1928) (wiretapping case, overruled by Katz v U.S., 389 US 347 [1967])
See also the massive case lists and analysis in
Volume 33, Corpus Juris, pp 480-802 (1924)
and 48 Corpus Juris Secundam (1946)
available at most law libraries.
Hostetter v Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp, 212 F Supp 376 (SD NY, 1963) aff'd 377 US 324; 84 S Ct ; 12 L Ed 2d (1 June 1964)
Cooper v Alcohol Comm'n of City of Memphis, 745 SW2d 278 (Jan 1988) (no prejudice re delay sending record/transcript)
If this information is new to you, be aware of the rampant pro-tobacco media censorship. The media's wide-spread censorship of tobacco-facts, to the extreme of printing of gross disinformation, has been cited since at least 1930, see Charles M. Fillmore, The Tobacco Taboo (Indianapolis: Meigs Pub Co, 1930), pp 88-89; Lennox Johnston, "Cure of Tobacco-Smoking," 263 The Lancet 480, 482 (6 September 1952); and George Seldes, Never Tire of Protesting, (New York: Lyle Stuart Inc, 1968), Chapters 7-10, pp 61-99. (Seldes founded www.infact.org).
When rarely (as normally "the press has suppressed or withheld the facts concerning tobacco toxicity from the American people"), something is published, the material often goes unread as the tobacco taboo goes to the extreme of widespread refusal "even to read any book or article which refers to the harmfulness of tobacco . . . or in any other way exposes the evils of the drug." See Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), pp 33 and 63. Our tobacco taboo website opposing pro-tobacco censorship has more details.
Michigan Governor John Engler [1 Jan 1991 - 31 Dec 2002] and staff were paper supportive of cigarette control, for example, see
You have the advantage of having available to you, the above-cited medical data and context, an advantage not available to the people being deceived into thinking Prohibition was a failure. No. It was succeeding. The next step was tobacco control. As you see, Michigan in 1909 chose that medical-fact-based approach. But, as you see by the non-enforcement, it too is being seriously politically mismanaged. There are people ("special interests") who make money off the suffering and tragedies of others. Please pass the word.
Carrie Nation was a leader in the cause. For a recent overview of her work, see Fran Grace, Carrie Nation: Retelling the Life (Indiana University Press, 1 May 2001).
Historical Background Sites On Carrie Nation
Above, is reference to our bribery site. Please read it. You will have a better basis for understanding what follows: a list of court precedent examples of judges inventing excuses to evade mention of the tobacco-alcoholism link, of special interests having the financial ability to fight laws that the public does succeed in getting adopted, of sabotage of those laws, and, here and there, a rare success.
Current Pertinent Court Precedents:
Note The Contrast With Past Precedents
Warth v Southern Ohio Coal Co and Dir, OWCP, Case 94-2635pv2, (CA 4, Ohio, 31 July 1995). Notice that the court gives the medical opinion of Congress and rule writers greater weight than the examining physician. When you are sick, do you go to your Congressmen or a bureaucrat for their medical opinion? Wouldn't that be practicing medicine without a license?!! What honest judges would do, is say, the medical opinion of doctors has total weight; the medical opinion of Congress has none, and those politicians in Congress who dare to 'spout their amateurish medical opinions' should be arrested for practicing medicine without a license!!
USA v Vernell Armfield, Case 95-2978 (CA 8, ED Missouri, 9 April 1996). Courts ok a drug forfeiture case, in marijuana cigarette situations. Why not in the underlying gateway drug (cigarette) situations?!
United States v Adams, Case 95-16510 (CA 2, ED New York, 15 May 1996). The government calls it a racketeering case, when someone does a robbery of a cigarette wholesaler! A reaction like the old harassing of Carrie Nation! More defense of those who hurt the public, none for the public, to prevent the pusher even being in business.
Cleoria Thompson v Carthage School, Case 95-2276 (CA 8, ED Arkansas, 28 June 1996). Courts say that contraband cigarettes in a school search of students lack Fourth Amendment protection. Let's search cigarette stores, confiscate their illegal cigarettes! So why is that never done?
Anheuser-Busch v Baltimore Mayor Schmoke, 101 F3d 325 (CA 4, Maryland, 13 Nov 1996). Distillers have the resources to fight even the slightest prevention action! Here, the case is on remand from the Supreme Court. It' s a cigarette billboard advertising case, trying to head off the process whereby children become hooked on cigarettes, starting many into the road to alcoholism. How many cases have you had, or heard of, of people suing to get prevention done!! But it's easy for the special interests to fight prevention! Lucky for us, this was one of the rare losses for the opposition.
Mrs. Binh Chiglo v City of Preston and Mike Sveen, Case 96-1066; 104 F3d 185 (CA 8, D Minnesota, 6 Jan 1997). This started out as a victory. Preston passed a cigarette ban ordinance, "tombstone style" only would be allowed. That'd help prevent the alcoholism process beginning. Did the special interests like that? Oh no. Chiglo sued! Got the minimal action overturned by a compliant judge!! The judge alleged that under federal preemption law, 15 § 1331, et seq., Preston couldn't even do the minimal action it did! Now the loss worsens. The City did not even appeal. Concerned parents intervened to try to be allowed to do so. Oh no, said the courts!! No to the parents, you cannot intervene even to help protect your own children!
Philip Morris, Inc v Mass. Attorney General Harshberger, Case 97-8022; 122 F3d 58 (18 Aug 1997) and Case 98-1199 (CA 1, D Massachusetts, 6 Nov 1998). Massachusetts simply asked for a list of some of the ingredients in tobacco! All other manufacturers are happy to say! Not these people. They have money. They can fight even the most minimal action our side can devise! This drains resources, and saps politicians' will to do any more than the little they do, lest they be embroiled in another fight! Lucky for us, we won! Some win! What Massachusetts asked was so little, the problem still continues!
Beatie v City of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Case 96-9131; 123 F3d 707 (CA 2, New York, 2 Sep 1997). Here's another fight to a minimal action. NYC passes a clean air law. That helps us all! Good, huh? Oh no, says some smoker. Any smoker can fight even a minimal action? How many of us can? Here, a cigar smoker challenged the NYC clean air law. Luckily he failed, the court did summarize some of the hazard evidence. But again, what was done (a mere clean air law, not even needed as it is already the common law but politicians don't know this due to the tobacco taboo) compared to what needs doing, it's hardly a victory worth mentioning. But better than a loss!
Wm. P. Todd, et al. v Rush County Schools, et al, 983 F Supp 799 (SD Indiana, 2 June 1997) aff'd Case 97-2548, 133 F3d 984 (CA 7, 12 Jan 1998). In the past, schools told children about cigarettes and their link to alcoholism. Now they won't even do that much! Instead, a scam is devised (see our scam exposé site). This school's scam was to do random drug testing for students in extracurricular activities. Naturally, this absurdity (misses the whole point, prevent cigarettes = prevent alcoholism and drug abuse) was challenged. What the court should do is say, 'school, you're doing a scam. You are hereby charged with criminal fraud. And set up a proper program.' But oh no, the court upheld the nonsense. The court disregarded the medical fact of cigarettes as the gateway drug, obviating need to test beyond that, i.e., upheld welfare for drug testers).
Noonan v The Winston Co, et al, 135 F3d 85 (CA 1, D Massachusetts, 2 Feb 1998). Here's one for the books. There's an activist police officer. He's educating against smoking. A French subsidiary of tobacco company uses his picture in advertising! How outrageous! This is an obvious deception! The officer sued, an easy win, you think?! Think again. Courts claim to have world-wide jurisdiction; they don't mind jailing a Noriega of Panama! Evidently Noriega didn't have enough money to impress and persuade the judge! Leave it to someone who does! Sit down for this one! Unlike in the Noriega case, this court (when the tobacco defendant objected) denied it had jurisdiction to deal with the matter! Can't deal with a case of an incident outside the country affecting our citizen!! Remember, just recently, Spain and Britain and their courts, had jurisdiction to deal with the former ruler of Chile, Augusto Pinochet; Spain had him arrested in Britain! But our courts CLAIM, 'no can do.' If Noriega had been a cigarette pusher, he'd still be free!
USA v Jane Doe (R.S.W.), Case 97-30042 (CA 9, D Montana, 12 Feb 1998). Here's a case where the little person involved, a student, didn't have the big bucks it takes to wow a court! This girl started a fire in school. The court jumped down her throat! It invoked the technicality that 'proof of knowledge of effect of fire-starting is not necessary for conviction.' And said, no doubt accurately, that it's known cigarettes are useable for arson, lighting a cigarette has no legal basis when banned. Now how about invoking some technicalities against some big pusher company with a lot of money!!
Charlotte J. Kraft v Ingersoll-Rand Co, CA 8, D Minnesota, 19 Feb 1998). Here's another truthful situation. It's an on-job injury case. A new worker was hurt on the job. The court said that people do not "assume the risk" when unfamiliar with the danger, here, one week on the job. But in regard to cigarette hazards (really unknown to most people), there are judges who invoke every technicality they can, to help the pushers blame the unknowing smokers! or prevent prevention! Just goes to show, it helps to have deep pockets when you go see a judge! For you, he'll find a way to rule! For the rest, look out!
Bad Frog Brewery v NYS Liquor Authority, Docket No. 97-7949 (CA 2, 15 Jan 1998) (treating a case involving an insulting label as a "significant" freedom of expression case!!)
Brown & Williamson v FDA, 153 F3d 155 (CA 4, MD North Carolina, 14 Aug 1998). Some concerned people had sued the FDA and got an order telling it that it has authority to deal with nicotine as the drug it is! The FDA fought them hard, said it can't!! "Big Tobacco" and the FDA have been in bed together for a long time. But the concerned people finally won one, got an order to tell FDA to act. Slowly, finally, it did: saying, no more sales to kids!! Some victory, that's already illegal anyway. But I suppose it is nice for the FDA to issue a duplicate rule!! Oh no, said the pushers!! And here are some compliant judges saying, 'no, it can't, FDA was right after all, it can't do a thing on the No. 1 drug!!' And you thought other drug companies had clout! Nothing compared to tobacco drug pushers! The FDA can regulate any drug but the big one!! And the Supreme Court agrees.
If you are thinking, 'perhaps you should get around to reading our corruption site about now,' perhaps you should!
USA v Milner, Case 98-1970 (CA 3, MD Pennsylvania, 15 Sep 1998). This is a heroin case. The evidence included a cigarette pack with a bottle cap, which government officials and judges recognized as a device used to mix heroin prior to injection. Amazing that they know that fine point, but not a thing about the big ones, for example, the cigarettes-alcoholism link, and the cigarettes-drugs link!! Oh, you say, they're not that ignorant! Let's find out what they SAY!
Barnes v American Tobacco Co, Case 98-1999a (CA 3, ED Pennsylvania, 16 Nov 1998). This is a cigarette case citing, e.g., smoker addiction. Of course, cigarettes' addictiveness has long been known. for example, at our citation of the 99½% factor site, we reference evidence that smoking is [beyond a reasonable doubt, 99½%] "always" addictive. "Always," you run a red light, 199 times out of 200 (99½%), that's pretty much "always." You won't be running any red lights after the first one!! But oh no, that's too difficult for judges to understand, or so they say!! The judges (perhaps practicing medicine without a license?) claim to believe that "addiction" is not amenable to being resolved on a "class action" basis. They say "always" -- but people are convicted every day on less certainly than 99½%!! Judges drive every day, knowing that. But in the courtroom, oh no, they don't know a thing!!
Laborers Local 17 Health Benefit Fund, et al. v Philip Morris, Inc, et al., Case 98-7944, 172 F3d 223 (CA 2, SD New York, 9 April 1999). We all know that cigarettes make people sick, and run up medical bills. This writer was one of the pioneers citing cigarette costs. If tobacco companies had to do like other manufacturers of products that injure or kill, they would have to pay for the harm they cause. And here is a sensible case. A health care institution wants the money it has paid out for sick smokers. Seems obvious to any sensible person! (And recovering the money means less insurance premiums for us all.) Oh no, said these fine specimens of judges!! They threw the case out of court! They mean, 'Let's you nonsmokers keep paying higher premiums to treat sick smokers.' You see, we didn't have the big bucks to protect our premium dollars!
Oregon Laborers-Employers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v Philip Morris, Inc, Case No. 98-36024 (CA 9, Oregon, 14 July 1999) (cost recovery case rejected, on the pretext that "smokers . . . direct victims of the alleged wrongful conduct . . . can be counted on to vindicate the injury caused by defendants' alleged wrongful conduct . . ." (The Barnes court says 99½% isn't enough to act on; this speculates and fabricates 100%!, though well knowing to the contrary that only an ultra-tiny percent of the 37 million casualties take remedial action). SCB: 17 F Supp 2d 1170.
Jennings v BIC Corp et al., Case 95-2963 (CA 11, MD Fla, 22 July 1999). Everybody knows that cigarettes cause fires!! Tobacco was so dangerous in terms of fires, some countries banned it centuries ago. An obvious solution. At least the tobacco pushers could make tobacco products and lighters less prone to start fires! At least, let's have that minimal action. Here's a case to say that. Some poor child was burned by a lighter fire, the child's pajamas caught on fire. Oh no, said the judges! Not even a minimal action is allowed. The high danger is ok! It's ok to leave the danger out there, your neighbor's house could burn tonight, and take yours (and you) with it, but that's ok!!
Are you disgusted yet! This is a request that you help, by joining our letter-writing campaign. Please go to our alcoholism prevention site. Send letters asking for action to enforce the Michigan alcoholism prevention law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216.
Remind officials that "Smoking prevalence among active alcoholics approaches 90%," according to Hayes, et al., Alcoholism and Nicotine Dependence treatment, published in the Journal of Addictive Diseases, Vol 15, page 135 (1996). Tell them that the cigarettes-alcoholism link occurs because many smokers are suffering, then self-medicating with alcohol. The alcoholism prevention act, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, prevents that smoker suffering leading to 90% of alcoholism.
The alcoholism prevention act, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, if enforced, would prevent that. It forbids "any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ." Please ask that the Michigan State Police enforce it, and aid county sheriffs and local police departments to do likewise.
|
Here's Evidence