Historian contributes to Liquor Review hearings

A congressman was once asked by a
constituent to explain his attitude

toward whiskey. "If you mean the demon
drink that poisons the mind, pollutes the
body, desecrates family Life and inglames
Sinners, then I'm against it. But 44 you
mean the elixir of Christmas cheer, the
Shiekd against winter chill, the taxable
potion that puts needed funds into public
coffers to comfort Little crippled
children, then I'm for it. This is my
position and I will not compromise."

The Liquor Policy Review hearing which are
being conducted right now in B.C. are
getting a lot of attention in the press.
Most of the submissions to the commission
fall into two categories—groups that make

a living from liquor such as producers,
distributors, hotels, pubs, etc. and those
who pick up the pieces afterwards, i.e.
health care agencies and others who deal
with drug and alcohol abuse. One exception
to this general rule is a submission by
History instructor Robert Campbell who, as
he points out, has no vested interest in
the subject.

"IT am a historian and not generally a
policy advocate," he said. "In 1984 I
received a grant from the Secretary of
State to write a history of government
control of liquor. When I began this study,
I had no particular axe to grind. Yet, the
longer I analyzed the evidence, the more
sense government control made to me. It is
not perfect, but it is better than further
privatization of liquor distribution."

Campbell's submission, which was presented
when the commission met in Vancouver,
reviews the background of liquor in B.C.
(both private sales and public licenses),
and touches on some problems that ethanol
causes in our society. (In 1982, for
instance, a Ministry of Health consultant
calculated that alcohol abuse in B.C. was
attributable to 40% of all court cases,
41% of homicides, 62% of domestic
violence, and 70% of thefts and robberies.
The Vancouver Health Department has
estimated that the costs associated with
alcohol abuse for treatment, accidents,
crime, and lost productivity, annually run
to some $2 billion. By comparison, in the

1985/86 fiscal year, the government made
about $400 million from liquor sales.)

Among Campbell's recommendations were that
the current distribution system be improved
by such innovations as chilled beer and
wine and Sunday opening, but that no
further privatization take place; and that
alcohol education should be expanded in
the school system.

If you are interested in further
information or a copyof the brief, contact
Campbell through the Social Sciences
Division.

Liquor Quiz - test your booze savvy

1. If a 140 pound woman and a 140 pound
man each have one drink, will their blood
alcohol levels be the same after half an
hour?

2. If you ought to weigh about 140 but you
put on 30 pounds, should you count your
weight on a blood alcohol chart as 170?

3. Which has more alcohol in it—a standard
(5%) beer or a gin and tonic (1% ounce
shot)?

ANSWERS:

1. No. Women, unfortunately, have a lower
alcohol tolerance than men. If a 120 1b.
man and a 120 1b. woman each have two
drinks, his blood alcohol reading will be
roughly .06 and hers will be .08. Most
charts are set up for men and the readings
are about 75% of what they would be for a
woman of equal weight.

2. No. Alcohol is metabolized by muscle
tissue, not fat, so increasing fat does
not significantly alter the rate of alcohol
metabolization. Charts of blood alcohol
levels are set up assuming your ideal
weight.

3. The beer by a ratio of 1.2 to 1. (A
light beer at 4% would be just about equal.)