How Vehicle Registration Locates People

Using Vehicle Registration to Find People

The Foundation for American Communications (FACS)

(Excerpted from “Find Them Fast!” (c) Copyright 1994 by Dave
Farrell
)

Reporters spend a good deal of their time trying to find people. One
of the best ways to locate people throughout the United States is through
the use of driver’s license and vehicle registration information.

Thousands of “missing” people are located each year through the
departments of motor vehicles located in each of the fifty states. If the
person you’re looking for is of legal driving age, this should be one of
the first places you look for them. A driver’s license has become one of
the most important pieces of identification carried by Americans over the
age of sixteen. It is generally the first piece of I.D. asked for by
police officers, retailers, bankers and just about everyone else
requiring proof of identification.

In recent years, a few states have enacted laws restricting public
access to driving and vehicle registration records, but in most states,
the information is available for the asking (and a nominal fee). One nice
thing about driving records: You can get a wealth of information out by
putting very little information in. Two pieces of information that are
vital to begin the search, however, are the subject’s name (make sure it
is spelled correctly!) and, if possible, a date of birth.

Given a person’s name and birth date, the motor vehicle department
should be able to give you a current address; last known address;
personal information, such as height, weight, eye and hair color;
previous names, if any; the numbers and types of vehicles owned by that
person as well as any traffic tickets they may have accumulated in recent
years. These records also can be used to “skip-trace” missing persons who
may have moved in recent years. Each motor vehicle department maintains
records going back from two to 30 years, indicating what state the
person’s license was surrendered to.

States also keep records of licenses issued to women under their
maiden names, so it is possible to find women whose last names may have
changed through marriage. Appendix A lists the address for the agency in
every state that handles driver’s license records. I’ve also included a
sample letter you can use to request the records for your subject. When
writing to obtain driver’s license records always ask for all available
public information on your subject. You may receive some data you deem
unimportant, such as eye color and other physical characteristics, but
you also will get much valuable information.

If your subject has a common name, it will save you a lot of time if
you can provide the DMV with his or her date of birth. That will help the
clerks in the computer room figure out which John Smith you’re trying to
find.

Vehicle registration
Sometimes, after obtaining a subject’s driving records, I discover the
address on their license is not current. When that happens, I immediately
contact the DMV and request a list of all motor vehicles listed to my
subject’s name.

Vehicle registration records are a great way to zero in on someone.
They almost always yield current addresses. That’s because driver’s
licenses are renewed every few years (some states allow eight years
between renewals). But motor vehicle registration must be renewed
annually. Consequently, the address you obtain from registration records
is at most only a year old.

To obtain registration records, use the sample DMV request letter in
this booklet and modify it to request the appropriate records. You can
search vehicle registration records several different ways: By owner’s
name; by license number and by vehicle identification number.

Searching by name is simple. You simply ask the DMV in the appropriate
state for a list of all the vehicles registered to your subject’s name.
If you know the license number of a vehicle owned by your subject, you
can ask the DMV to trace that number and give you the address of the
person who owns the plate.

Finally, if you know the vehicle identification number (VIN) of a car
or truck owned by your subject, you can ask the DMV to trace ownership of
that vehicle. (VIN numbers are often included in divorce records and
bankruptcy filings where assets are listed). Since the ownership of motor
vehicles is tracked so carefully by the government, vehicle registration
records can also lead you to a subject who has moved some time ago. If
you know a specific vehicle your subject owned, even if it was some years
ago, you may be able to use that information to find him today.

Here’s how: Request a “vehicle history” or a “body file” on the
vehicle from the DMV. That packet of information will include the names
and addresses of everyone who ever owned the car or truck. Working back
from the current owner, you should be able to contact all the previous
owners of the vehicle. The person who dealt with your subject may recall
information about them that can help lead you to them. Appendix B
contains the addresses of the agency in all 50 states that handles motor
vehicle registration.

Case study
A colleague once traced a valuable source down using precisely this
method. The man he was looking for was divorced. My colleague called the
man’s ex-wife, who had no idea where he was. She did, however, have
information about the sports car he got in the divorce, a car they
jointly bought when they were married. My friend obtained the vehicle
history and learned that his subject had sold the car to a young college
kid. The kid recalled that the man he bought the car from said he had to
sell it because he was moving to Wyoming and he needed a truck. Tracking
the man down in Wyoming was easy.

Traffic tickets
If your subject is the kind of person who doesn’t give accurate or
proper information on licenses or other official documents, check to see
if he or she has any traffic tickets. You can do that when you ask for
driving records. If there are tickets on your subject’s record, write to
the city or jurisdiction where the ticket was issued. Ask for a copy of
the citation. It will include the make, model and license number of the
vehicle involved in the incident.

Go back to the DMV and find out who owns that vehicle. Most likely, it
will be someone who knows your subject and can supply information about
his current address.

Accident reports
If you discover your subject was involved in an accident, you may be
sitting on a gold mine of information, especially if lawsuits were filed
as a result of the crack-up. You can find out from the DMV where the
accident occurred. Contact that city or jurisdiction and obtain a copy of
the police report that was filed for the accident.

Note all the parties involved in the accident. The report will include
addresses and other information for all of them, of course. You can find
out a lot more about everyone involved (including your subject) if any
lawsuits were filed as a result of the mishap. Take the names of everyone
involved in the accident to the local courthouse. Ask the clerk there to
check to see if any of those people are involved in any lawsuits. If so,
review all the paperwork involved. It will give you loads of information
about each party, particularly if the damage was deemed to be
extensive.

If the other party filed suit, you can bet that the addresses for your
subject in the court documents will be accurate, since the injured party
has filed the suit with the intent of collecting damages.

RV’s, ATV’s and snowmobiles
Like their on-road cousins, most types of off-road vehicles are also
licensed by the state. Recreational vehicles, all-terrain vehicles and
even snowmobiles can all be used to lead you to their owners. In most
states, the Department of Motor Vehicles licenses these types of
vehicles. Check with your state DMV office to see how you can obtain
registration records.

Boats
You can track ownership records for boats much the same way you track
motor vehicle records. You can search for people using their names, or
you can search for ownership and registration of vessels, using the I.D.
number of the boat. You can even order a vessel history and trace
ownership of the boat the same way you can for motor vehicles. Appendix D
lists the addresses of agencies to write to for boat and vessel
registration records.

Airplanes
Airplane records are kept by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. If your subject is a pilot or owns an
aircraft (either fixed wing or helicopter) the FAA will have records on
him or her. As with cars and boats, you can trace the ownership of
aircraft as well as receive license information about pilots.

The FAA records on pilots includes the pilot’s address, type of
aircraft the pilot is licensed to fly and the date of the pilot’s last
medical examination. Airplanes don’t have license plates. They are
identified by their so-called “N-number,” which is written in large
letters on the body and tail of the plane. You can trace planes using
that number. As with motor vehicles, you can trace the history of a
plane, a technique that can give you past owners and addresses.

You can search FAA records by mail. Write Federal Aviation
Administration Mike Monroney Aero Center, 6500 South MacArthur Drive,
P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. To check pilot records by
phone, call (405) 954-3261. To check on aircraft, call (405)
954-3116.

———————————————————————-

3800 Barham Boulevard, Suite 409, Los Angeles, CA , 90068
Questions? Suggestions? email us: [email protected]

DUI Attorneys


Driving While Suspended Study

Observational Study of the Extent of Driving
While Suspended for Alcohol Impaired Driving

A T McCartt1, L L Geary1 and A Berning2

1 Preusser Research Group, Inc, Trumbull, Connecticut

2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington

———————————————————————-

Correspondence to:

A T McCartt, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1005 North Glebe
Road, Arlington, VA 22201–4751, USA;

[email protected]

———————————————————————-

Objective: To determine the proportion of first time driving while
alcohol impaired (DWI) offenders who drive while their
driver’s license is suspended.

Design: Systematic, unobtrusive observations were conducted by
surveillance professionals from Pinkerton Investigative Services, Inc, of
first time offenders in the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Bergen
County, New Jersey. Observations included two four hour periods during
suspension (one weekday morning, one Friday/Saturday evening) and two
four hour periods after license reinstatement (matched by day of week and
time of day). Focus groups of first time offenders were conducted in each
site.

Setting: New Jersey laws pertaining to license suspension for DWI and
driving while suspended are stronger than Wisconsin laws.

Subjects: 93 recently convicted first time DWI offenders (57 in
Milwaukee and 36 in Bergen County).

Main outcome measures: Proportion of subjects observed driving during
suspension and after license reinstatement, with reference to all
subjects and subjects observed traveling by any means.

Results: Of subjects observed traveling while suspended, 88% of
Milwaukee subjects compared with 36% of Bergen County subjects drove.
Five percent of Milwaukee subjects and 78% of Bergen County subjects
reinstated their driver’s license. Bergen County
subjects were significantly more likely to drive after reinstatement
(54%) than during suspension (25%).

Conclusion: Prevalence of driving while suspended among first time
offenders is high and can vary substantially between jurisdictions.
However, the license suspension can have a positive impact on the driving
patterns of offenders during suspension, relative to after license
reinstatement. Lower prevalence of driving while suspended in New Jersey
may partly be attributable to that state’s tougher
laws.

DUI Attorneys


Chances of Getting Stopped for DUI

Measuring the Chances of DUI Arrest

In a project to measure the probability of getting arrested for
driving under the influence of intoxicants as it relates to blood alcohol
concentration, the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City, MO, has
explored public awareness about the extent to which DUI laws are enforced. Once discerned, this
information could be useful to increase public awareness, help the police
force in locating drunk drivers, aid in the evaluation of possible DUI
candidates, and help provide quantification of intoxicated drivers on
public roads.

Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAP), a workshop funded by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), conducted interviews of thousands of people
in order to ascertain the level of public understanding of DUI law
enforcement. Interviewees were asked several questions, including what
they speculated the possibility was that they may be stopped by the
police after having had several drinks.

Unfortunately, the question does not have an accurate answer,
especially if the intoxication level, or blood alcohol content (BAC), is
not designated. While general ideas of such probabilities do exist,
in-depth research had not been previously carried out on this topic.
Estimates from previous reports calculate that for a 10-mile ride with a
BAC above
0.10% the probability of arrest would be about one in 670, while the
Midwest Research Institute states in their recent report that in fact
that chances are about one in 200.

After measuring this probability of a DUI arrest under controlled
conditions of patrolling and traffic counts, then one can also assess how
many drivers would possess a set BAC range. A random survey of volunteer
motorists driving in the same patrol area provided the outcome of BAC in drivers
who were not arrested, while police records gave the BAC distribution of
those who were arrested. Once this probability can be firmly established,
then communities without ASAPs could avoid expensive roadside surveys and
also be convinced of the value of ASAPs in their communities.

This information could greatly assist police patrols with managing DUI
patrols as it would offer a fixed standard to use in ascertaining the
performance of his unit. More importantly, precise calculation of the
probabilities of being arrested for DUI will aid in garnering the trust
and confidence of the public in carrying out future public education
campaigns against drunk driving.

See the entire study from “Injury Prevention Online” (2000;6:158-161),
entitled “Probability of arrest while driving under the influence
of alcohol
“.

DUI Attorneys


State D.O.T./DMV's Online

WWW D.O.T. (DMV) Resources:


THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

THE ALASKA D.O.T.

THE ARIZONA D.O.T.

THE
CALIFORNIA D.O.T.

THE
CALIFORNIA D.M.V.

THE CALIFORNIA DRIVERS HANDBOOK

CALIFORNIA MOTORCYCLE RIDER’S HANDBOOK (from the CA.
D.M.V.)

CALIFORNIA DMV FORMS YOU MIGHT NEED

THE CONNECTICUT D.O.T.

THE FLORIDA D.O.T.

THE GEORGIA D.O.T.

THE HAWAII D.O.T.

THE IDAHO D.O.T.

THE ILLINOIS D.O.T.

THE INDIANA D.O.T.

THE KANSAS D.O.T.

THE KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET

THE LOUISANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION &
DEVELOPMENT

THE MARYLAND D.O.T.

THE MASSACHUSETTES HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

THE MICHIGAN D.O.T.

THE MINNESOTA D.O.T.

THE MONTANA D.O.T.

THE NEVADA D.O.T.

THE NEW JERSEY D.O.T.

THE NEW YORK D.O.T.

THE
NORTH CAROLINA D.O.T.

THE NORTH DAKOTA
D.O.T.

THE OHIO D.O.T.

THE OKLAHOMA D.O.T.

THE OREGON D.O.T.

THE PENNSYLVANIA D.O.T.

THE RHODE ISLAND D.O.T.

THE SOUTH DAKOTA D.O.T.

THE TEXAS D.O.T.

THE UTAH D.O.T.

THE VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION

THE
VIRGINIA D.O.T.

THE
WASHINGTON STATE D.O.T.

THE WEST VIRGINIA D.O.T.

THE WISCONSIN D.O.T.

THE WYOMING D.O.T.


State Laws

Here are some states Vehicle Codes. Unfortunately, all states are not
available as yet.

Alaska vehicle code (~420k)

Arizona vehicle code (~280k)

California laws (searchable index)

Colorado laws (searchable index)

Florida laws (searchable index)

Idaho laws (searchable index)

Indiana vehicle code

Michigan vehicle code (3+ MB)

Minnesota laws (searchable index)

New York vehicle code

Utah laws (searchable index)

Washington vehicle code

Wyoming laws (searchable index)

U.S. Military


Last updated on 7/4/05

DUI Attorneys


Is America Sleep Deprived?

America Needs More Sleep, Study Says

Copyright © 1998 Nando.net
Copyright © 1998 Scripps Howard
* The Web site of The National Sleep Foundation.

By MICHAEL DOUGAN, San Francisco Examiner.
Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.

(March 27, 1998 01:13 a.m. EST ) —
Like hypnosis subjects in a campy old movie, Americans are getting sleepy
— very, very sleepy. Meanwhile, they blithely work and drive as if they
were well-refreshed. The consequences are predictable.

So say the savants at the National Sleep Foundation, which has
released a study revealing that 64 percent of people in the U.S. sleep
less than the recommended eight hours a night, while 32 percent log fewer
than six hours. And how do they feel when awake? Tired, according to the
report, based on a nationwide survey of sleeping habits.

More than a third said they were drowsy during the day. Nearly that
many said it interfered with their on-the-job performance (a figure that
rose to more than half for night-shift workers).

Of special concern, said experts at the foundation in Washington,
D.C., is that people drive when deprived of sleep. Some 100,000 crashes,
involving 1,500 deaths and 71,000 injuries, are caused by drivers who
drift off, according to an estimate by the National Transportation Safety
Board. This is not news to the pros who pilot big rigs on U.S. highways,
said Deborah Whistler, editor of Heavy Duty Trucking Magazine, published
in Irvine, Calif.

“(Sleep deprivation) is a huge issue in the trucking industry,” said
Whistler. Drivers are particularly prone to “microsleep, where they just
kind of go in and out of sleep (while driving).”

She said one transportation company is experimenting with a
computerized gadget that alerts drivers — as well as their home office
— whenever they start to sleep at the wheel. “I would hazard a guess
that within a couple of years every trucker in America is going to have
one of these things, if they work,” Whistler said.

Lack of sleep also can cause less obvious health hazards, said Clete
Kushida, director of the Stanford University Center for Human Sleep
Research.

“There’s evidence that if there’s sleep deprivation and a person has a
sleep-related breathing disorder, it can make the breathing disorder
worse,” said Kushida.

He said the breathing disorder, known as sleep apnea, afflicts 24
percent of men and 9 percent of women between ages 30 and 60.

Professional competence is also a victim of short sleep hours, Kushida
added. “Your work performance deteriorates significantly,” he said. “You
become irritable. You have short-term memory problems and concentration
difficulties.”

Just one night of sleep deprivation can bring on these symptoms,
Kushida said. For those who routinely cheat themselves of vital slumber,
“the sleep debt accumulates over time … eventually the person just
crashes.”

The foundation survey — based on interviews with more than 1,000
people — blamed two tools of technological society — TV and the
Internet — on some of America’s collective sleep debt. “Fifty-one
percent of men and 42 percent of women would go to sleep earlier if they
didn’t have a TV or access to the Internet,” said the foundation
statement.

What’s more, getting enough sleep is not a status symbol in
competitive society, said foundation researchers.

Noting that the sleepiest Americans are in their late teens and 20s,
Thomas Roth, head of sleep research at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and
a foundation adviser, said: “Eighteen- to 25-year-olds think they can get
by with four to five hours of sleep because Margaret Thatcher can and
they are twice the man she is.” How can we tell when we’ve have had
enough sleep? That’s easy, said Kushida. You’ve had enough sleep when
you’re no longer sleepy.

The survey was done to launch National Sleep Awareness Week, March
30-April 5, which includes National Sleep Day on April 2.

DUI Attorneys


A Complete Reference for Alcohol, Drugs and Tobacco

Web of Addictions
Fact Sheets

The fact sheets below were developed by many different authors. In
some cases, the fact sheets were placed on the web by a different
organization than the one that wrote the document. However, all of the
fact sheets are in the public domain to encourage wide distribution. You
are free to copy and use these fact sheets.

The following list of abbreviations was used to indicate the source of
the document in the links provided on this page. Many of the sites listed
contain additional information beyond the fact sheets that are listed on
this page. We encourage you to explore each site.

Alcohol

Go to Main FACT
Menu


Other Drugs

  • Searchable On-Line Dictionary of Street Drug Slang –
    IPRC
  • Drug Slang – CESAR
  • A – Cl
  • Co – Ha
  • Hc – Mi
  • Mo – R
  • Drug Slang by Drug Type
  • Amphetamines – MoDADA
  • Amphetamines – CESAR
  • Amphetamine2 – CESAR
  • Amphetamines – ARF
  • Amphetamines – IPRC
  • Amyl Nitrite – MoDADA
  • Barbiturates – MoDADA
  • Barbiturates – ARF
  • Benzodiazepines – ARF
  • Butyl Nitrite – MoDADA
  • Caffeine – MoDADA
  • Caffeine – ARF
  • Cocaine – MoDADA
  • Cocaine – CESAR
  • Cocaine – IPRC
  • Cocaine – CESAR
  • Cocaine – VATTC
  • Cocaine – ARF
  • Cocaine – NFIA
  • Codeine – MoDADA
  • Crystal Meth – Alice
  • Designer Drugs – CESAR
  • Ecstasy – NFIA
  • DMT – MoDADA
  • Glue – MoDADA
  • Hallucinogens – MoDADA
  • Hallucinogens – CESAR
  • Hallucinogens – ARF
  • Heroin – MoDADA
  • Heroin – CESAR
  • Heroin – NFIA
  • Ice – NFIA
  • Inhalants – MoDADA
  • Inhalants – CESAR
  • Inhalants2 – CESAR
  • Inhalants – ARF
  • Inhalants – IPRC
  • Inhalants – NFIA
  • LSD – MoDADA
  • LSD – ARF
  • LSD – NFIA
  • Magic mushrooms – Psilocybin – Alice
  • Marijuana – MoDADA
  • Marijuana – CESAR
  • Marijuana 2 – CESAR
  • Marijuana 3 – CESAR
  • Marijuana – VATTC
  • Marijuana – IPRC
  • Marijuana – NFIA
  • Cannabis – ARF
  • Marijuana and Cancer – Alice
  • Mescaline – MoDADA
  • Methcathinone – IPRC
  • Ritalin – methylphenidate – IPRC
  • Nitrous Oxide – Alice
  • Opiates – MoDADA
  • Opiates – ARF
  • PCP – MoDADA
  • PCP – CESAR
  • PCP2 – CESAR
  • PCP – ARF
  • PCP – NFIA
  • Psilocybin – MoDADA
  • Rohypnol – Rophies – WOA
  • Rohyphol – CESAR
  • Rohypnol – DATNet
  • Rohypnol – NIDA
  • Rohypnol – NFIA
  • Sedative-Hypnotics – MoDADA
  • Sedative-Hypnotics – CESAR
  • Special K and X – Ketamine and MDMA – Alice
  • Steroids – MoDADA
  • Steroids – CESAR
  • Steroids – CESAR
  • Steroids – NFIA
  • Stimulants – MoDADA
  • Tramadol/Ultram – MSB
  • Tranquilizers – MoDADA
  • Tranquilizers – ARF
  • Valerian – CESAR
  • Vivarin – Caffeine – Alice

Go to Main FACT Menu


General Substance Abuse
General Information on Addiction – CESAR
Teens: Alcohol and Other Drugs – FF/AACAP
How to Help Your Friend – IUIDIC
Making Decisions About Substance Abuse Treatment – FF/AACAP
What is your Risk for Substance Abuse – UMH
Alcohol, Drugs and Violence – Alice
Treatment Benefits – MoDADA
Women and Substance Abuse – MoDADA
Go to Main FACT Menu


Tobacco
Tobacco – IPRC
Smokeless Tobacco – MoDADA
Quitting Smokeless Tobacco – Alice
Cigarette Smoking – MODADA
Cigarette Smoking and Adults – Oncolink
Health Facts about Tobacco – WHO
Tobacco – NFIA
Costs of Tobacco Use – WHO
The Public Health Implications of the Economics of Tobacco – WHO
Smoking and Cancer – Oncolink
Environmental Tobacco Smoke – Oncolink
Second Hand Smoke: Mothers and Their Children – Oncolink
Second Hand Smoke and Cancer – Oncolink
CDC Smoking Information Page – CDC
Go to Main FACT Menu


The Web of Addictions pages Copyright © 1997 by Andrew L.
Homer Ph.D and Dick Dillon . All rights reserved. If you have comments or
suggestions for the fact sheets – write us. If you would like to develop
additional fact sheets, send us a copy.

Fact Sheet Citations Alice Go Ask Alice, Columbia University Health
Sciences
ARF Addiction Research Foundation
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CESAR Center for Substance Abuse Research , University of Maryland
DATNet DATNet
DEA Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
FF/AACAP Facts for Families. American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry
IPRC Indiana Prevention Resource Center
IUDIC Indiana University Alcohol and Drug Information Center
MoDADA Missouri Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
MSB Medical Sciences Bulletin
NCI National Cancer Institute
NFIA National Families in Action
NIAAA National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
NIDA National Institute on Drug Abuse
Oncolink Oncolink at the University of Pennsylvania
UICC University of Illinois Counseling Center
UMH University of Montana HEALTHLINE
VATTC Virginia Addiction Technology Transfer Center
WHO World Health Organization
WOA Web of Addictions

DUI Attorneys


History of Drinking in America

Drinking in America
A History
Mark Edward Lender, James Kirby Martin
The Free Press, 1982
Copyright© A Division of Macmillian Publishing Co.
Inc.


“Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with
thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan, the wine is from God,
but the Drunkard is from the Devil”.

Increase Mather, Wo to Drunkards (1673)


p. 2-38
Chapter One

The “Good Creature of God”: Drinking in America.

Plymouth, 1621

The Mayflower’s crew belonged to this tradition. Moreover, the sailors
knew that if they continued to share their meager beer supplies with this
band of religious dissenters, there would probably be no alcohol left for
the voyage home. They were not prepared to take that risk, and matters
came to a head. William Bradford, the faithful diarist of Plymouth and
for years its able governor, recorded the scene. The settlers “were
hasted ashore and made to drink water,” he lamented, “that the seamen
might have the more beer.” Bradford’s pleas from the shore for just a
“can” of beer brought refusal. If he “were their own father,” one sailor
responded, “he should have none.” It was an inauspicious beginning to the
new venture. (Most versions of the Pilgrim story pass over the beer
crisis in favor of the traditional tales of Plymouth Rock and the first
Thanksgiving. The modern brewing industry has overlooked an advertising
bonanza.) The suffering on the beach finally became too much for the
Mayflower’s captain; he sent word that there would be “beer for them that
had need for it,” particularly the sick, even if it meant his drinking
water on the way back to England. His humanitarian gesture assured the
Pilgrims that as they faced the “starving time” of Plymouth’s first
winter, they would have an occasional taste of the Old World.

But the basic problem remained. The last major source of beer
disappeared with the Mayflower, and over the rest of the winter alcohol
became scarce indeed, nonexistent for many. There was a small supply of
gin and other spirits, but not enough to go around, and most of the
settlers quickly learned to drink water. The logic that dictated liquor
rations aboard ship, however, remained compelling in Pilgrim eyes and
prompted efforts to secure a reliable flow of alcohol for Plymouth. This
real concern ultimately was shared by all the early colonists.

It was clear from the start that the only sure solution lay in local
production. Relying exclusively on imports was impractical on a number of
counts. England was a long way off, and in the early colonial period
contacts with home were irregular at best. Shipping costs were also high,
a problem compounded as second- and third-generation settlers moved
inland, away from the coastal ports. Besides, the colonial
population-even that of tiny Plymouth-quickly grew too large to supply
through ordinary shipping channels. In the early 1620s there were only
two or three thousand people scattered throughout Virginia and New
England. With the Great Migration of the 1630s and forties, the American
population rapidly climbed upward (as many as seventy thousand people
left England for the New World; many went to the considered themselves
until the Revolution – dearly loved their beer. By the time the Mayflower
sailed, the most popular brew was a dark, hearty drink, about 6 percent
alcohol, that was made from barley malt and flavored with hops (this
potion evolved into modern porter and stout). The beers carried to
America, then, were hardly similar to the pale brews preferred in the
United States today, but they were the most popular beverages in the
colonies in the years following the arrival of the first settlers.

Local brewing began almost as soon as the colonists were safely
ashore. Colonial wives incorporated brewing into their household
routines, and beer became a dietary staple. “Common brewers,” who sold
wholesale and retail, appeared in short order as well, and many tavern
owners also produced their own supplies. In addition, the evolution of
commercial ties with the Old World generally made some imported beer
available to those who could afford it. But while it was soon apparent
that nobody was going to die of thirst, quality control was a persistent
problem. Although brewers used traditional ingredients when they could,
hops and malt from the parent state were not always available, especially
inland. Accordingly, the provincials used whatever domestic substitutes
they had on hand to fill the gap, even if this meant doing considerable
violence to English recipes. A verse from the 1630s applauded this early
ingenuity:

If barley be wanting to make into malt,
We must be content and think it no fault,
For we can make liquor to sweeten our lips,
Of pumpkins, and parsnips, and walnut-tree chips.

One suspects that the beers produced from such recipes were little
better than the poetry. Certainly, however, the new American beer rapidly
became a highly diverse creature. Tastes varied sufficiently to provoke
an official response by the mid-1600s, as local governments, concerned
over uniform quality, stepped in more than once to regulate the
ingredients of commercial brews. Most beer, however, was made at home,
and no government could dictate a housewife’s recipe.

Nor did official scrutiny discourage some truly searching experiments
to replicate the original English product. In 1662, for instance, John
Winthrop, Jr., governor of Connecticut and son of Governor John Winthrop
of Massachusetts, brewed a palatable beer from Indian corn. This novel
contribution ultimately got the younger Winthrop elected to the Royal
Society of London -perhaps the highest honor the

From the beginning, distilled spirits were potent enough to raise
concerns over misuse. Aboard the Arbella Puritan elders noted that some
of the youth were ‘ rone “to drink hot waters very immoderately.” But
spirits had real advantages in the colonial view. Those who moved inland,
for example, could carry a potent beverage with relative efficiency; one
cask of hard liquor could have as much absolute alcohol as ten casks of
beer and would keep as long as the travelers refrained from drinking it
up. The premium placed on distilled beverages also allowed them to be
used as wages in the early years. In fact, when the town fathers of
Boston moved to halt the practice in the 1640s-it seemed to them that
workers became somewhat less productive after a few sips of their “wages”
-one group of laborers responded with what may have been America’s first
strike. The authorities backed down and restored their liquor. So while
strong drink was not as popular as beer in the first decades of American
settlement, many colonists liked it better than did their Old World
brethren.

Some of this so-called strong water was probably gin, which, like
beer, had deep roots in English culture. Unlike beer, however, gin had a
dubious reputation. Introduced in the 1530s by soldiers returning to
England from the Low Countries, gin-grain spirits flavored with the
juniper berry-was produced cheaply and easily and became highly popular
among the urban poor (a profitable mass market for distillers, who could
sell gin at prices lower than those of good beer). Gin drinking grew to
an alarming extent and, in the view of many Englishmen, was thoroughly
out of control by the 1730s. The “gin epidemic” ravaged the poorer
districts at least until 1751, when a vexed government stepped in and
placed controls on sales. By then, however, the problem, immortalized in
Hogarth’s Beer Street-Gin Lane series of prints, had caught the public
imagination. Gin itself was never again wholly respectable with the
middle and upper classes. The drink retained a number of faithful
imbibers throughout England, but it never caught on in the colonies: The
early colonists drank some, and so did the Dutch in New Amsterdam and
elsewhere, but seventeenth-century America lacked a large urban
population, the traditional stronghold of gin. (This spirit remained a
relative pariah until the twentieth century, when combined with vermouth
and optional olives or onions it came into its own as the martini.)

As the colonists turned to distilling hard liquor, they proved as
adaptable as they had been in their search for bee. In fact, it was
technically easier to use local ingredients – grains or fruits – in
producing quality spirts than it was in getting a consistenly good beer.
In addition of making home brew, many colonial households began to opeate
backyard stills called “limbecs.” This not only assured a supply of
distilled liquors but also generally diffused the skills necessary in
production. And as the colonials started to standardize their distilling
operations and to introduce their own beverages, a preference for hard
liquor developed.

The movement toward strong waters in domestic production ws evident by
the late 1600s, as witnessed in the rise of respectabel regional liquors,
some of which later became popular throughout much of North America. In
New England, pears emerged from the vat as “perry”, while settlers in the
territory that ultimately became Vermont distilled honey into a mead so
good, as local tradition had it, that drinkers could bear the buzzing of
the bees (indeed, after a quart of so one could probably hear all sorts
of buzzing). In the Back Country, which ran down the eastern slopes of
the Appalachians from New England to Georgia, grains like corn and rye
(as well as potatoes and berries) offered a “buzz” of their own (these
grain liquors assumed a central role in shaping American drinking
patterns in the eighteenth century – a story to which we will
return).

p. 9.

Even the apple provided a major impetus in distilling. The fruit was
not native to North America, but European seeds did well in the
hospitable climate, and orchards flourished. Hard cider, naturally
fermented to about 7 percent alcohol content, became especially popular
in the Northern provinces (although Tennessee took a liking to it later
on as well), where the drink ultimately rivaled beer in popularity. By
the early 1700s, and probably before, Anglo-Americans were distilling
their cider into a potent applejack. Applejack found a particularly loyal
following in the Middle Atlantic colonies, and the best came from New
Jersey. “Jersey Lightning” was stuff fit for the serious drinker: Too
much could bring on “apple palsey,” although one aged connoisseur
recalled that he downed a quart a day over the years “without the
slightest inconvenience.”

In the South, particularly in Virginia and Georgia, the peach
-introduced into Florida by the Spanish and spreading north over the
decades -also became a distilling staple. Peach brandies emerged as great
favorites, and a bit of this popularity still lingers.


“Wo to Drunkards “: Early Use and Abuse

All these drinks had their partisans, and drinking constituted a
central facet of colonial life. Indeed, two of the key characteristics of
early drinking patterns were frequency and quantity. Simply stated, most
settlers drank often and abundantly.

Most colonial drinking was utilitarian, with high alcohol consumption
a normal part of personal and community habits. In colonial homes, beer
and cider were the usual beverages at mealtime. In fact, alcohol was more
common at the family table in the colonial era than in our own; even
children shared the dinner beer. This practice of taking beer or cider at
dinner made steady drinkers of most Americans, a pattern reinforced by
activities outside the home. In New England, communal projects such as
clearing the common fields or raising the town church seldom proceeded
without a public cask of spirits to fortify the toiling citizenry.
Private labor also called for a steady pull at the jug. Farmers typically
took a generous liquor ration into the fields historian of the late
nineteenth century, took a dim view of such customs. “You may easily
judge the drunkenness and riot,” he noted soberly, “on occasions less
solemn than the funerals of old and beloved ministers” like ordinations,
for instance. After Thomas Shepard was ordained head of the church at
Newtowne, Massachusetts, the celebration that followed would have made
Dorchester cringe. Attended by local parishioners and civil and clerical
dignitaries, the celebrants feasted for

The drinking habits of the Founding Fathers attracted the attention of
nineteenth-centur ‘ y temperance advocates, a concern demonstrated in
these Currier and Ives prints. In thefirst engraving, from 1848,
Washington bidsfarewell to his officers over a toast; a supply of liquor
rests on the table. A reengraved versionfrom 1876 reflects the influence
of the temperance movement: A hat now graces the table and Washington no
longer clasps a glass.

The Old Tun Tavern, Philadelphia. The Old Tun was considerably
biLT-aer and more elaborate than were small-town drin”i 9 establishments,
but it was typical of colonial taverns in that it Offered not only food
and drink but also lodgings and aforumfor public gatherings.

and they served as rallying points for the militia and as recruiting
stations for the Continental army. Innkeepers ideally reflected the high
public status accorded their establishments, and in reality they often
did. Publicans were commonly among a town’s most prominent citizens and
not infrequently were deacons. And if they were good hosts, they did
their best to make patrons comfortable. While some taverns were only rude
structures with plank bars -there were a lot of these in port towns like
New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston and on the sparsely settled
frontier-others were well-appointed, pleasant places to spend time. The
Reverend Dorchester is again helpful at this point, describing a tavern
scene common any time between the late seventeenth and the early
nineteenth century -although we can doubt that he intended to make the
picture as appealing as he did. In the winters, alcoholism did not exist.
People have developed problems from drinking only beer and wine (we note
in this regard that in 1975 the average American consumed less absolute
alcohol overall than the average colonial consumed through only beer and
cider). So the potential for alcohol addiction was certainly present.

The social standards of the day had an important restraining effect on
intemperance. As we have seen, much, if not most, colonial drinking was
family and community oriented. And family and community conduct fell
under the governance of social norms inherited, like drinking behavior,
from England and the rest of Europe. These norms defined a largely
traditional society whose members shared a common loyalty to and an
identity with the community and its standards of individual conduct.
People were taught to accept their stations in life without complaint and
to defer in matters of leadership to society’s “betters,’ whether
seventeenth-century Puritan “saint” or eighteenthcentury Southern planter
‘aristocrat.” In sum, prerevolutionary America more often than not
represented a traditional deferential society.

Most colonials willingly conformed to community values, and if some
refused to do so voluntarily, the majority accepted the community’s right
to compel prescribed behavior. Thus, anything deemed inimical or
offensive to the community, be it drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, or
even Roman Catholicism, could be restrained for the good and safety of
all. Viewed from an egalitarian perspective, the world was inflexible in
many ways. Deference, however, characterized the age, although its
strength varied in degree from region to region and was probably weakest
on the frontier. And it had its advantages: If individual behavior was
circumscribed, residents had the security of knowing where they stood in
society, of enjoying its protection from internal and external threats
(both spiritual and physical), and of knowing what their local
communities and leaders permitted or expected of them.

Such was the context of early American drinking. The colonials had
assimilated alcohol use, based on Old World patterns, into their
community lifestyles. As long as mores remained intact, communities held
drinking excesses largely in bounds. (Whether these norms could have
restrained intemperance in a population favoring distilled beverages,
however, is debatable.) Society would simply not allow things to get out
of hand, even though it permitted plenty of drinking at the same time.
Most people restricted their consumption primarily to the use of beer and
cider; they very rarely became problem drinkers. Even

Each colony developed an extensive legal code to combat all aspects of
liquor violations. These laws told tavern owners, for example, what they
could sell, to whom, when, and even at what prices. Plymouth forbade
sales to chronic drunkards, and Virginia, pursuing a similar goal, made
any credit innkeepers extended topers unrecoverable by law. Authorities
also frowned on breaches of the peace in the taverns. In an attempt to
maintain decorum, Pennsylvania once outlawed the drinking of toasts. An
even more serious expression of concern emanated from Boston in the
1670s, when the town exiled Alice Thomas after the courts had had her
jailed, flogged, and fined for permitting conduct in her tavern so
scandalous that it resulted in the first Massachusetts law against
prostitution.

Strictures against individual tipplers could be severe. Drunkenness
was a crime throughout the colonies, and the penalties against such
behavior were potentially extreme. In order to emphasize community
control, magistrates could (and did) set examples with jailings, fines,
the stocks, and the lash. Recidivism brought heavier fines and longer
imprisonments -or brutal corporal punishment. In Massachusetts, the
unregenerate ways of one Robert Cole, perhaps a spiritual ancestor of
Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne, finally provoked the colony to disfranchise
him and order him to wear a scarlet “D,” for drunkard. Clearly, then,
colonial statutes gave officials the power, if they chose to exercise it,
to deal sternly with alcohol related infractions.

Even drinking at home could become an official concern, especially in
New England. The early Puritans stressed the importance of well-ordered
families in maintaining stable, godly societies, and they were not about
to let excessive drinking disrupt their world. Massachusetts expressly
forbade drunkenness in homes in 1636 and again in 1654. But the law
apparently had little impact, so in 1675 the Bay Colony established the
post of tithingman. These officers, who as “sober and discreet men” were
to oversee the conduct of ten or twelve families each, were to report on
any liquor violations they found. Later, convinced that the roots of
social vice lay in family sin, authorities directed the tithingmen to
record infractions of all types. These men, however, were neither
primitive secret police nor spies; rather, they did their jobs openly and
were appointed to their positions at public meetings. Their neighbors
knew who they were, and it is doubtful that they proved effective in
checking drunkenness, which perhaps explains why the office was not long
continued.

The tithingmen were probably unnecessary anyway. As we already Coales
for his calling.” In spite of other drinking violations, he received at
least one other opportunity to cut wood on public lands. We do not know
if he stopped drinking. He is found on a list of “disparat debts” in 1680
(a debt he might have paid, since he was not on the following lists). The
point here is that Puritan selectmen rarely applied the harsh letter of
the law. Dorchester authorities looked closely at Birch’s conduct and,
instead of constant punishment, found understanding just as effective not
only in helping him, but also in maintaining good order in the community.
And the Birch case was not an isolated instance: Alice Thomas and Robert
Cole were examples of others who had regained the good graces of local
New England magistrates.

One would suspect that the Southern colonies, lacking in well-ordered
communities by comparison to New England, were more given to
individualistic behavior. However, the evidence on early drinking
patterns in that region suggests a strong desire to control the drunkard
and “unseasonable drinking.” During the 1620s in Virginia, for example,
the General Court (and later the county courts) focused squarely on
excessive drinking as a threat to peace and harmony among the widely
dispersed settlers. Indeed, the fact that settlements were not compact
may have made the early Virginians as concerned as New Englanders about
controlling deviant behavior.

A number of General Court cases are revealing. A decision in 1624, for
instance, went against John Roe, James Hickmote, and Nathaniell Jeffreys
for “having kept company in drinking, and committing of a riot.” It was
the rioting that bothered the court, and each man had to pay a heavy
fine. In a case heard in 1625, Robert Fytts and John Radish faced not
only the charge of drunkenness but also that of being so “disorderd in
drink” that they were not “able to go home contrary to the proclamation
made against drunkenness.” Radish also had to stand up on the charge that
he, at an “unseasonable time of the night,” had taken Sir George
Yeardley’s servants to his house “and there gave them entertainment and
made them drink.” Fytts had to pay a stiff fine. Radish, who must have
been the instigator of the reveling, also was fined. Finally, the court
mandated that Radish “lie neck and heels or . . . make a good and
sufficient pair of stocks” for punishing yet other disturbers of the
peace.

Early Virginia cases demonstrate that magistrates did not worry about
drinking but rather about drunkenness and its impact on cornmunity
stability. The strange case of Thomas Godby serves to under canons of
wedlock. In the end, the drinking bout and its aftermath had not
threatened the public peace, and there was really no basis for judicial
action in the name of community stability.

It is very important to recognize that colonial magistrates, in both
the North and the South, rarely let concerns over excesses in drinking
spill over into attacks on the consumption of alcoholic beverages in
general. No one, at least no one willing to put themselves on the public
record, considered a broad legal prohibition as necessary for communal
harmony. That argument would have flown in the face of the entire
European heritage. If people denounced cases of individual intemperance,
they did not directly intimate that the fault lay in liquor itself; the
problem was one of isolated deviants misusing what society viewed as a
wholesome, healthful, and even necessary product.

The Exceptions: Indians and Blacks

While English colonists remained comfortable about alcohol for
themselves, they did not see it as a “good creature” for some other
groups. In fact, they could be very leary of liquor in the wrong hands.
As we have seen, in closely supervised colonial communities, drinking
sometimes was associated with social disorder and violence; and colonial
leaders feared that drinking-related problems in groups potentially
beyond community control could have serious implications.

In the port towns, for example, the authorities occasionally had
trouble with sailors who did not share the common social concern over
chronic intoxication. Plymouth once temporarily revoked all tavern
licenses in Yarmouth when some mariners got particularly rowdy; the inns
reopened after the seamen sailed away. There was also concern over the
behavior of those who slipped beyond the control of established
communities to the frontiers. But, most of all, white colonials worried
about Indians and blacks-groups not only racially and culturally
different but also frequently hostile. The colonists feared that alcohol
consumption among these peoples could be dangerous to over all societal
stability.

The Indians of eastern North America were unfamiliar with beverage
alcohol before the invasion of the whites. Most tribes got their first
taste from the explorers and adventurers who preceded the influx of
settlers, just as they learned about other aspects of European culture
from these initial harbingers of change. In some early cases, Indian

drinking did not seem to pose a problem. Some Indians appreciated the
colonial beverages and did not drink to excess. Samoset, for instance,
the tribesman who helped the Pilgrims survive their first winter, was
particularly fond of beer. The first Thanksgiving saw red and white men
happily downing gallons of liquor together. But the picture changed
rapidly as the settlers became convinced that Indians, for reasons the
Europeans could not explain, were especially prone to drunkenness.
Alcohol seemed to hit Indians hard and fast, and they allegedly became
unpredictable and even violent-at least it so seemed in the eyes of
whites. The colonial view of Indian drinking, that red men could not hold
their liquor, was in fact the beginning of a long-standing stereotype of
the impact of alcohol on the tribes. Many early settlers believed Indians
to be uncivilized -nothing more than “savages”; therefore, any sign of
intemperate behavior served to confirm that image. Some modern
anthropologists have termed the so-called Indian drinking problem the
“firewater myth.” This stereotype not only followed the white frontier
line to the Pacific but in many respects has survived into the
present.

Modern research has failed to explain the firewater myth. Some Indian
groups today do have unusually high rates of alcoholism, while others do
not. There is no positive evidence indicating a greater physiological
propensity to alcoholism in Indians than in whites, nor is it absolutely
clear how cultural conditioning factors may have distinguished Indian
drinking reactions from those of other groups. Thus, it is difficult to
say why the first reports of convivial Indian drinking in early Plymouth
(and almost everywhere else) soon gave way to a litany of recorded
abuses.

One possible explanation is that some tribes learned to drink from the
wrong whites: fur traders, explorers, or fishing crews, all of whom drank
hard and, frequently, in a fashion not condoned by the social no ‘ rms in
traditional, settled colonial communities. This model might have inclined
the Indian-without prior experience with the effects of alchohol-toward
problem drinking from the very beginning. But even if true in some
instances, this represents at best only a partial explanation of the
situation. Indeed, evidence suggests that both reactions to alcohol and
drinking behavior varied markedly among tribal groups. At any rate, we
know too little about the role of alcohol in initial white-red contacts
to reach any solid conclusions. Nor can one be sure that the colonists
were not exaggerating their accounts of Indian drunkenness. Perhaps they
misunderstood Indian drinking behavior

11 , “I ,) I)olel liquor, and Indians. Scenes similar to this provoked
the Plymouthraid against Thomas Morton @ band at Merrymount.

dane poetry in which he satirized the Pilgrims with as free a hand as
he gave the Indians drink. Then he went too far; he gave his Indian
friends guns. For most colonists, savages with alcohol were bad enough,
but redmen with alcohol and guns were intolerable. “0, the horribleness
of this villainy!” Bradford wailed, and, after obtaining the support of
other settlements, he dispatched Captain Standish (Morton called him
“Captain Shrimpe”) to clean out Morton’s nest. There could have been a
nasty fight at Merrymount. When the “invasion force” arrived, Morton’s
men were under cover and well armed, but they were also so drunk that
they could not handle their weapons. Morton was taken and shipped in
chains back to England (where he was ultimately freed). Merrymount was
finished, but its demise illustrated the gravity of the problem of
Indian-colonist relations.

Although the authorities fined and jailed many colonists over the
years for illegal beverage sales, in general white officials were very
inconsistent in enforcing regulations. While they sought to restrain
private liquor trade with the Indians, they were not above entering the
traffic directly when it suited their purposes. Often they saw to it
that

Colonial governments also kept a watchful eye on drinking among
blacks. The floodgates of black slavery had opened in the English
mainland colonies by the end of the seventeenth century. Drinking
patterns, like most other aspects of slave life, were largely a matter of
what white masters would allow. Like the Indians, blacks were perceived
in terms of heathenism. Even more threatening, they lived among the
whites, so that the consequences of violence were omnipresent and
internal rather than sporadic and external (as in the case of the Indian
nations). Furthermore, blacks played a functional role in providing
back-breaking labor for whites, while Indians came to be viewed as a
menace to be removed or exterminated.

But masters did permit a certain amount of controlled drinking among
their chattel laborers-normally on special occasions. In the South, the
end of harvest and the Christmas season generally saw holiday
celebrations, with slave owners providing a day off for music, dancing,
extra food, and drinking (largely of cheap distilled spirits). Some
masters also used liquor to reward slaves for special service; still
others, if they allowed their slaves time to work for themselves, let
them purchase spirits with part of their wages (the extent of this
practice remains unclear).

Unless a master specifically granted his slaves -or for that matter,
his white indentured servants as well -permission to drink, the general
rule was to keep the alcohol away. The demands of discipline in the slave
and indentured labor forces necessitated such a policy. An imbibing slave
did less work and was worth much less as a chattel. Thus, from the
owner’s point of view, keeping the slaves and servants sober was. an
exercise in protecting his investments and property while avoiding
disruption of the labor force, particularly if drunken slaves fell to
fighting among themselves. Overall, bonded laborers probably received
just enough alcohol to keep them healthy -as defined by the wisdom of the
day -but there were laws to prevent them from getting more than what was
minimally medicinal. For example, lest either slaves or indentured
servants spend time away from their masters in the taverns, local
authorities carefully regulated the circumstances under which they could
enter inns and, quite often, barred them altogether. Nor were these
regulations confined to the South. A Connecticut statute of 1703, typical
of New England policy, called for the flogging of slaves, indentured
servants, and apprentices caught in taverns without their masters’
permission. Other Northern statutes levied fines (some as high as E 30)
on whites selling liquor to any blacks, free or slave groups. They also
represented further testimony that if alcohol was all right for the white
community, others could only drink by permission. Social control and
societal stability remained the preeminent values among free whites
attempting to conquer the North American continent.

The slave trade, as depicted in a nineteenth-century Print. While
historians now doubt the existence of the “triangle trade, “rum and other
liquor didfigure in the international commerce in human chattels.

Library of Congress

has generally received most of the credit for weaning the colonials,
once and for all, from the tastes of the Old World. It would be easy to
overstate this case, however. Distilled drinks, such as applejack and
other fruit brandies, were already popular, as was cider, and many of the
colonial beers were not good replicas of those brewed in England. So the
triumph of cheap rum seems hardly surprising in retrospect, but it was
important nevertheless: This trend indicated that the AngloAmericans were
evolving as a separate people, discarding some of their most familiar
European cultural baggage. In fact, by the dawn of the eighteenth century
(if not earlier), Americans were a people becoming confirmed in their
love of hard liquor.

Rum found a major competitor as settlement spread to the frontiers.
Both molasses and finished rum were too bulky and expensive to ship far
inland, and as the eighteenth-century settlement line advanced,
frontiersmen shifted their loyalties to grain whiskeys. Indeed, whiskey
was particularly suited to the frontier. Grain was plentifulmuch more was
harvested than farmers could eat or sell as food -and a single bushel of
surplus corn, for example, yielded three gallons of whiskey. This assured
a plentiful liquor supply for Westerners and gave them a marketable
commodity, which both kept longer and was easier to transport to market
than grain. The advantages of whiskey were, therefore, such that it
rapidly eclipsed rum as the staple drink in the Back Country. The arrival
of the Scotch-Irish, who flocked to the frontier beginning in the 1730s,
dealt rum a further blow. These immigrants had enjoyed reputations as
whiskey lovers in their northern Irish homes, and they brought their
distilling skills across the Atlantic with them. By the late 1700s they
had given American grain spirits a new quality in taste.

The American Revolution also accelerated the shift from rum to
whiskey. During the war years, the Royal Navy blockaded American ports,
and both rum and molasses imports from the West Indies (much of which was
British and thus enemy territory) became scarce. Domestic grain whiskey
stepped in to fill the demand for spirits. And the demand, for both
civilian and military purposes, was huge. Profits were handsome indeed,
and so much grain ended up as whiskey that the Continental Congress,
fearing food shortages, occasionally moved (although in vain) to limit
distilling.

One of the biggest whiskey consumers was the Continental army, which
attempted to provide a daily liquor ration of roughly four ounces.
Spirits rations were normal in the armies and navies of the pe-

33

tionally legislated end of the slave trade in 1808, and thus of the
commerce in rum associated with it, also hurt. So by the end of the
eighteenth century, rum had passed its zenith; whiskey was fast becoming
the premier American beverage.

It must be noted that the distiller’s art was a highly varied
phenomenon. Some vats turned out perfectly awful stuff. “Red-eye” was the
slang for much of it, probably after Proverbs XXIII: “Who hath redness of
eyes? They that tarry long at the wine.” On the other hand, there were
excellent spirits whose partisans have become legion over the years.

In this latter category, the first distinctly American whiskey was
rye. While we do not have the original recipe (if indeed there ever was a
formal first one), this whiskey today is distilled from a combination of
rye, corn, and barley malt, with at least 51 percent of the mixture rye.
Who distilled the first batch is also obscure. One version gives credit
to farmers in western Maryland and Pennsylvania-Scotch-Irish territory.
On the other hand, a more pleasing account honors none other than George
Washington. One of Washington’s overseers, a Scot, supposedly persuaded
him to plant some otherwise unprofitable land in rye for the express
purpose of distilling. The resulting spirit is said to have made a fine
impression on Mount Vernon’s guests, including the Marquis de Lafayette.
Rye whiskey then spread to Maryland, so this story concludes, when the
overseer set up shop there after Washington’s death. In any case,
Maryland and Pennsylvania soon became national centers of rye
production.

Corn also made fine whiskey. Frontier Kentucky made the best, although
colonists since the earliest years at Jamestown had distilled limited
amounts. Corn whiskey itself is about 80 percent corn, with a balance of
rye and barley malt. Before use, the distillate is stored in oaken
barrels to make a clear beverage, but corn whiskey has never been as
popular as bourbon, a whiskey of 65 to 70 percent corn and a distinctive
flavor and dark color imparted through aging in charred oak barrels.
Bourbon was born in Kentucky, taking its name from Bourbon County, where
it was first produced in 1789. Allegedly, the original distiller was the
Reverend Elijah Craig, and Kentuckians quickly took a liking to his
innovation. By the early nineteenth century, bourbon had become an
important regional industry, and the renown of the liquor became such
that, as much as any single beverage could, it assumed the mantle of the
indigenous American national drink. Kentucky still retains a special
place in America’s heart for its bourbon.

35

necessary places, but under the influence of hard liquor and a
“prevailing depravity of manners throughout the land” they were fast
becoming nothing more than dens of iniquity. The future president readily
admitted that his concerns carried little weight. In fact, he thought
that they were earning him the “reputation of a hypocrite and an
ambitious demagogue.”

If the public generally disregarded the thinking of men like
Oglethorpe or Adams, concern over the social ill effects of strong drink
soon became more clamorous. In 1774, Anthony Benezet, a Philadelphia
Quaker with numerous philanthropic interests, published The Mighty
Destroyer Displayed-the first full-scale assault on American drinking
habits. Benezet argued that distilled liquor was not only unhealthy but
also degrading and ultimately immoral for individuals and society. The
Mighty Destroyer was widely read, although with undetermined effect.
However, we know that by 1784 both the Quakers and the Methodists had
urged their members to abstain from hard liquor and to take no part in
its manufacture or sale. Like Benezet, they drew clear connections among
drinking, personal moral decline and health complications, and social
instability.

The bitterest denunciation of distilled spirits came in the immediate
aftermath, and as part of the zeitgeist, of the Revolution. The
Revolutionary period witnessed heightened concern that society’s
traditional values were being lost -that luxury and vice were threatening
public virtue and liberty itself. A great many people traced these
unwanted developments to American links with the British nation, which
supposedly had grown increasingly decadent over the years, thus
representing a corrupting influence on America. The result was what
Revolutionary leaders often described as a rise in social dissipation and
a decline in public spirit. The most zealous in this view were the
ideological republicans-men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and
Patrick Henry-who finally came to agree that national salvation lay only
in independence. They hoped that the Revolution would represent a
cleansing process for Americans and that it would fire a rebirth of
individual and public virtue.

“Virtue” was the catchword of republicanism. It dictated that citizens
act, vote, and think not out of hopes for personal gain but out of a
sense of public duty and concern for the general good. A nation founded
on this premise had to maintain traditional concerns about order and
stability, and republicans believed that true liberty could exist only in
a society composed of such a virtuous people. Providence,

37

as a Pennsylvania delegate, and served for a time as Continental army
surgeon general. Rush enjoyed a reputation after the war as perhaps the
new nation’s foremost physician. His interests ranged widely- his
writings on mental illness earned him the title “Father of Psychiatry”
but most Americans of his time came to know him for his work on behalf of
temperance. Rush had spoken out publicly against the use of hard liquor
since at least 1772, but his masterpiece was the Inquiry.

The tract represented a radical challenge to previous thinking; it
assaulted the old dictum that alcohol was a positive good. Rush had no
quarrel with beers and wines, which he believed healthful when consumed
in moderate amounts, but he correctly pointed out that Americans were now
drinking primarily “ardent spirits,” and, he argued, these did more than
cause drunkenness. Consumed in quantity over the years, they could
destroy a person’s health and even cause death. More important was how
alcohol went about its lethal business: For Rush was the first American
to call chronic drunkenness a distinct disease, which gradually, but
through progressively more serious stages, led drinkers to physical doom.
In fact, he described an addiction process and specifically identified
alcohol as the addictive agent. As Rush claimed, once an “appetite,” or
“craving,” for spirits had become fixed in an individual, the victim was
helpless to resist. In these cases, drunkenness was no longer a vice or
personal failing, for the imbiber had no more control over his drinking
-the alcohol now controlled him. In Rush’s view, the old colonial idea
that drunkenness was the fault of the drinker was valid only in the early
stages of the disease, when a tippler might still pull back; once
addicted, even a saint would have a hard time controlling himself.

The Inquiry was a powerful indictment, and it conveyed a sense of
urgency. The threat of hard liquor, Rush believed, called for immediate
action. As a doctor, he was genuinely concerned about personal health.
Drinking habits as they were, many people did risk addiction and a host
of related medical complications. Long-standing friendships with Anthony
Benezet and early Methodist leaders had also convinced Rush of the moral
and social threats posed by hard liquor. His republican ideology,
moreover, had so affected his reactions to public behavior that he saw
clearly in American drinking patterns what others had only hinted at and
what we have traced in retrospect: The Americanization of drinking -that
is, the movement from beer, cider, and other light alcoholic beverages to
distilled spirits-had not resulted in new social controls to limit
drinking excesses. Not only was

A MORAL AND PHYSICAL THERMOMETER.

Gallows.

The “Moral and Physical Thermometer” of temperance and intemperance.
Rush did not insist that particular levels of drinking corresponded
precisely to the matching vices and medical and legal complications.
Ivevertheless, he did try to convey, in a way that a popular readership
could understand, the progressive nature of alcohol addiction and its
personal and social implications. In this regard, Rush @ news come
strikingly close to modern conceptions of alcoholism.

gressive nature of alcohol addiction, outlining the disease’s social,
medical, and moral complications. Rush wrote other tracts on temperance,
and he made some headway in pressing his views on the Protestant
churches. A minority of the American elite, certainly citizens of
republican leanings themselves, adopted his position on strong drink and
either banned it from their homes or limited its use. There was some
comfort in knowing that men like James Madison had also denounced “the
corrupting influence of spiritous liquors” as “inconsistent with the
purity of moral and republican principles.”

DUI Attorneys


A Good DUI Bibliography

DUI Bibliography

I found this on the Internet and as soon as I remember the ‘source’
I’ll give credit to whomever made this up! …it was so good I wanted to
put it up right away.

Reduce Drunk Driving for Everyone’s Sake.

1 Jacobsen, P. – (American journal of public health. 06/01/96)

2 (The reader’s digest. 06/01/96)
Drunk Driving: A License to Kill.

3 Mastrofski, Stephen – (Justice quarterly : jq 06/01/96)
Police Training and the Effects of Organization on D..

4 Brown, Robert W. – (Southern economic journal. 04/01/96)
Endogenous Alcohol Prohibition and Drunk Driving.

5 IMiyoshi, Stephanie – (Loyola of Los Angeles law review.
04/01/96)
Is the DUI double-Jeopardy Defense D.O.A.?

6 Applegate, Brandon K (Justice quarterly : jq 03/01/96)
Determinants of Public Punitiveness Toward Drunk Dri…

7 Gilchrist, Stephen (The solicitors’ journal 02/09/96)
Crime Reporter.

8 (The news media & the law. Fall 95 )
Texas.

9 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Sum 95 )
Alcohol Industry Escapes Criticism at Drunk Driving

10 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Sum 95 )
Zero Tolerance in One Approach, but Coors Says There…

11 (Wayne law review. Spr 95 )
Drunk Driving as Second-Degree Murder in Michigan.

12 (University of Dayton law review. Spr 95 )
On a Collision Course: Procedural Due Process and Oh…

13 Sines, Nina J. (Wisconsin lawyer : official publ… 12/01/95)
Double Jeopardy: A New Tool in the Arsenal of Drunk

14 Hernandez, A. C. R. (Journal of studies on alcohol. 07/01/95)
Types of Drunk-Driving Intervention: Prevalence, Suc…

15 Taylor, Lawrence (Trial. 06/01/95)
Drunk Driving License Suspensions.

16 Graham, Sandy (Traffic safety. … 05/01/95)
Do Police Take Drunk Driving Seriously?

17 Applegate, Brandon K (Crime & delinquency. 04/01/95)
Public Support for Drunk-Driving Countermeasures: So…

18 (Restaurant business. 03/01/95)
The Waiter Made Me Do It.

19 (Juvenile and family law digest. 02/01/95)
Parent Child – Generally.

20 Yu, J. (Journal of studies on alcohol. 01/01/95)
Drunk-Driving Recidivism: Predicting Factors from Ar…

21 Kauffman, Myles A. (Widener journal of public law. 1995 )
The Coming Of Subsection (A)(5) of Pennsylvania’s Dr…

22 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Wint 94 )
USA Weekend Magazine Reveals Results of Annual Back-…

23 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Wint 94 )
A Challenge to Current Thinking about Drunk Driving….

24 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Fall 94 )
Drunk Driving: Still a Killer.

25 Kroeker, Bernhard (Guidance & counselling. Fall 94 )
Grief, Anger, Social Action: Experiences of the Wind…

26 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Fall 94 )
Quadriplegic Jockey at the Center of Drunk Driving C…

27 Kedjidjian, Catherin (Family safety and health. Sum 94 )
Sober facts about drunk or drugged driving.

28 (Temple law review. Sum 94 )
Criminal Procedure – Pennsylvania’s Overwhelming Nee…

29 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Sum 94 )
Ice beer sweeping the market and higher alcohol cont…

30 Haines, Martin L. (St. Thomas law review. Spr 94 )
Under The Influence: Responses Of The New Jersey Sup…

31 Cochran Jr., Robert (South Carolina law review. Wint 94 )
“Good Whiskey,” Drunk Driving, and Innocent Bystande…

32 Little, Robert (Journal of alcohol and drug educa… Wint 94
)
Young, Drunk, Dangerous and Driving: Underage Drinki… **FAX 1HR*

33 Husak, Douglass N. (Philosophy & public affairs. Wint 94
)
Is Drunk Driving a Serious Offense?

34 Hickey, Mary C. (Ladies’ home journal. 12/01/94)
Asleep At the Wheel.

35 Peck, R. C. (Journal of studies on alcohol. 11/01/94)

36 Wolfinger, Nicholas (Journal of applied social psychol…
09/16/94)
Reexamining Personal and Situational Factors in Drun…

37 Valera, Eve M. (Journal of applied social psychol…
08/01/94)
Parent and Teen Perceptions Regarding Parental Effor… **FAX 1HR*

38 Mullahy, John (Economic inquiry. 07/01/94)
Do Drinkers Know When to Say When? An Empirical Anal…

39 Griffin, Katherine (Health. … 07/01/94)
MASS Again.

40 (Safetyline 07/01/94)
Navy Releases Drunk-Driving Video Tape.

41 Nolan, Yola (Psychological assessment. … 03/01/94)
Personality and drunk driving: identification of DUI… **FAX 1HR*

42 (Restaurant business. 01/01/94)

43 Davis, Kirsten K. (Ohio state law journal. 1994 )
Ohio’s New Administrative License Suspension for Dru…

44 Yu, Jiang (Journal of criminal justice. … 1994 )
Punishment Celerity and Severity: Testing a Specific… **FAX 1HR*

45 Rubin, Elizabeth F. (University of cincinnati law revi… 1994
)
Trying To Be Reasonable About Drunk Driving: Individ…

46 Klitzner, M. (The American journal of drug and … 1994 )
A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Students Against

47 Stacy, Alan W. (Health psychology : the official… 1994 )
Attitudes and Health Behavior in Diverse Populations…

48 (The Bottom line on alcohol in soc… Wint 93 )
Ignition interlock system catching on as deterrant t…

49 Neustrom, M.W. (Journal of safety research. … Sum 93 )
The Impact of Drunk Driving Legislation in Louisiana… **FAX 1HR*

50 O’Neil, Shannon (Honolulu. 12/01/93)
DUI Gridlock.

51 (The Reader’s digest. 12/01/93)
Drunk Driving: A License to Kill.

52 Thurman, Quint (Social science research. 09/01/93)
Drunk-Driving Research and Innovation: A Factorial S…

53 Rehm, C. G. (Annals of emergency medicine. 08/01/93)
Failure of the Legal System to Enforce Drunk Driving…

54 Smith, Chris (New York. 07/19/93)
The Worst Crimes of ’93 (So Far).

55 Kenkel, D.S. (Journal of health economics. 07/01/93)
Do drunk drivers pay their way? a note on optimal pe…

56 Davis, Susan (Step-by-step graphics. 07/01/93)
Graphic Themes From Thin Air: See how, year after ye…

57 Kenkel, D. S. (Journal of health economics. 06/01/93)
Do drunk drivers pay their way? A note on optimal pe…

58 Humphrey, Richard S. (Rhode Island bar journal [microf… 05/93
)
Punishment Before Conviction – The Effect of Automat…

59 Nack, William (Sports illustrated. 04/19/93)
From Fame To Shame: Bill Shoemaker, a casualty of hi…

60 Head, William C. (Trial … 03/01/93)
Five Myths About Defending Accused Drunk Drivers.

61 (Safetyline 03/01/93)
Motor Vehicles.

62 Grasmick, Harold G. (Criminology. … 02/01/93)
Reduction in Drunk Driving as a Response to Increase…

63 Pangman, William A. (Wisconsin lawyer : official publ… 02/93
)
New Law’s `Get Tough’ Provisions Fall Short of the M…

DUI Attorneys


Driving on the Right Side of the Road

Why Do We Drive on the Right

According to Guinness: The Book of Answers:

‘Of the 221 separately administered countries and territories in the
world, 58 drive on the left and 163 on the right. In Britain it is
believed that left hand driving is a legacy from the preference of
passing an approaching horseman or carriage right side to right side to
facilitate right armed defence against sudden attack. On the Continent
postillions were mounted on the rearmost left horse in a team and thus
preferred to pass left side to left side. While some countries have
transferred from left to right, the only case recorded of a transfer from
right to left is in Okinawa on 30 July 1978.’

Notes from listeners

People in much of the Far East pass each other by stepping to the
left, and it has nothing to do with swords or Romans – or even cars or
chariots. They do it for religious reasons. The right side of the body is
the clean side and the left side is the unclean side. By moving to the
left when you meet someone coming the other way you present your right
side to them. In Nepal, for example, it is good manners even to walk
backwards past a prayer wall to keep your right side towards it if there
is no way to walk by it on the other side. The clean/unclean idea about
the sides of the body is to be found very widely in different cultures,
not just in the Far East. The Romans have given us the word ‘sinister’
from their word for ‘left’, and we ourselves associate ‘right’ with
things that are good and correct. Surely, the Romans went on the left as
a matter of religious etiquette.

Just consider a single horse rider and their method of mounting their
steed. The great majority of riders mount a horse by putting their left
foot on the stirrup and swinging the other leg over. (If you don’t ride a
horse, think of getting on a bike!) If mounting from a bank at the side
of a lane or from a mounting block the rider will then find themselves
facing down the road on the left-hand side of the highway (however
narrow). What more natural than to ride off on the left and to negotiate
oncoming traffic by keeping to the left?

America: by the time Europeans went there in numbers they defended
themselves with firearms rather than swords, and it was probably more
important to pass a stranger on horseback left side to left side. This
made it easier to turn in the saddle and cover your back. It also helped
the person riding ‘shotgun’ on the stagecoach. The matter was eventually
resolved by Henry Ford. His ideas of mass production deemed that not only
was the famous Model T Ford to be available only in black, but it was
only to have the steering-wheel on the left.

It seems likely that the reason for the placing of the steering-wheel
on the right side of the car was for the purposes of competition. Almost
all motor racing circuits are driven clockwise; thus the driver is placed
on the inside of the track for most of the time. In Italy, even after the
advent of driving on the right-hand side of the road, the majority of
sports cars were built with their steering-wheel on the right, in case
they were to be used in competition.

The reason Napoleon decreed that his troops should march on the
right-hand side of the road was as follows. During the Napoleonic period
vast numbers of troops were moving around Europe. When two columns passed
each other on the narrow roads of the time, with their muskets or pikes
slung over their right shoulders, these weapons would crash into each
other and cause disruption and delay. The obvious solution was to make
the troops march on the right-hand side of the road so that the weapons
were slanted away from the approaching column.

Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/

DUI Attorneys


Drunk Driving and Alcohol Research

Bicyclists and DUI
Chances of Getting Stopped for DUI
How Vehicle Registration Locates People
Where Does the Word Alcohol Come From?
NHTSA .08 Assessment (PDF Download)
Check Out State D.O.T./DMV’s Online
BJS Special Report – DUI/DWI Offenders – Great National and State Statistics for Reports (PDF Download)
A Short History of Alcohol Temperance and Prohibition
Colonial America (1800-1855) Alcohol Consumption
A Complete Reference for Alcohol, Drugs and Tobacco
Insurance Institute Report on DUI – Great for Students
History of Drinking in America
Alcohol and Taxes
Why Do We Drive on the Right
Driving While Suspended Study
Sociology Dept at Potsdam University DUI Information
Is America Sleep Deprived?
Alcohol and the American Experience
A Good DUI Bibliography
Of Interest – Biblical References to Alcohol
Old German Drinking Pictures 1600’s
Related Articles in Other Libraries
.08 BAC Limit for Every State
Drunk Driving: Seeking Solutions (PDF Download)
2/3 Children Killed in Auto Were With Drinking Driver
Join Together Online – Excellent Resource
Drunk Driving Fatalities – #’s the same
MADD Reports DUI Deaths Up
Gallup Poll – Drink and Driving
Lasting Effects of a DUI / DWI, and What To Do About Them
Study Says Health Insurance to Rise 30%
Drinking and Ethnicity
Research On Why Two Drinks Help The Heart
India Looks to Prohibition
Alcohol and Drug Resources – Links
The DMV: Department of Motor Vehicles
Field Sobriety Tests
NSDUH 2005 DUI Report (PDF Download)
Ad Campaigns Reduce Drunk Driving
National DUI’s Up 4%
Increase Speed Limit and Death Rate – Lower!
Highest Road Deaths Worldwide
Highest DUI Related Deaths in U.S.
Drunk Driving Accidents Up
Alcohol Consumption and Recession
An Excellent A.A. Article – 60th Birthday from the New Yorker
Research on Prevention in Adolescents DUI
Addiction Bibliography
Last Update: Sunday, March 25, 2007
DUI Attorneys