Michael Rodman

Dr. Dierenfield

HON 227 A

31 January 2013

Alcoholics Go to Meetings, Drunks Go to Parties

The stigmatization of alcohol consumption within American society has been an

interesting yet controversial topic throughout history. While praised for its medicinal and

analgesic qualities, as well as for its temporary effects of elevated mood and boisterousness,

alcohol has also acquired a negative connotation from the crimes, laziness, and disorder resulting

from its powerful influence. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the increasingly adverse

associations with alcohol were therefore further promoted by the growing popularity of

alcoholism, or “drunkenness.” In response to this developing phenomenon, American leaders

attempted to educate the masses about the debilitating and sinful effects of alcohol, initiating the

first temperance movement in 1785. At this time, Dr. Benjamin Rush’s “Inquiry into the Effects

of Ardent Spirits” denounced the use of distilled spirits, yet approved of alcoholic beverages

produced by fermentation, such as beer and wine. It can be noted, however, that these two

fermented beverages were later stricken from his “Inquiry” during subsequent publications, thus

promoting absolute sobriety. Forty years later, Reverend Beecher’s 1826 sermon completely

rejected the consumption of all alcoholic beverages, and explicitly stated that any form of

alcohol consumption was indicative of intemperance. Therefore, both temperance advocates

address the deleterious effects of alcohol on the human body and the larger society, attempting to

trace the origins of alcoholism and remedy the worsening situation in America.

Before the birth of the United States in 1776, alcoholism and drunkenness were not

considered a disease; people chose to drink in accordance with their own free will, and would

often consciously decide to become inebriated. In effect, those citizens deemed “drunkards” were

primarily sought of as natural and frequent members of society – they did not pose any grave

threat or nuisance to civilization. Additionally, the substance itself was not stigmatized during

this colonial period because it was often proposed that people became “habituated to

drunkenness, not to liquor” (Levine, p. 4). Therefore, citizens considered to be drunkards were

simply infatuated with the temporary high induced by drunkenness, not the liquid. However, this

insinuates that people had ultimate control over their alcohol consumption, and meant that

people’s actions could be met with accusation and repercussion. Levine indicates that some

drunkards in colonial times were severely penalized, and the selling of alcohol to known

drunkards was often punishable by fine. Ultimately, Levine indicates that drunkards were often

“sick or injured, and they tended to ignore their economic, religious, and family responsibilities”

(Levine, p. 4). Even though drunks were considered normal members of colonial society and did

not have a dependency on alcohol itself, people still recognized the detrimental and animalistic

behaviors induced by this substance.

Due to the increasing awareness and curiosity of the effects of alcohol within the human

system, Dr. Rush and Rev. Beecher began to advocate notions of temperance in order to quell

sin, disease, and disorder in society. Both advocates were curious as to the processes and causes

of alcohol addiction, especially Dr. Rush, a prominent doctor who had signed the Declaration of

Independence and practiced throughout the yellow fever epidemic of 1793 in Philadelphia. Each

temperance leader revealed the immediate problems of alcohol consumption, such as rage and

immodesty, and Rush notably mentions the degradation of the Native American society due to

alcohol throughout the colonization of America. Unsurprisingly, while Rush primarily focuses

on the immediate biological and physical effects of alcoholism, Beecher continually reiterates

the immorality and sinfulness of alcohol. Beecher rejects even occasional drinking, stating: “no

sin has fewer apologies than intemperance . . . there is no sin so naked in its character” (Beecher,

p. 45). Therefore, it is evident that his fundamental concept of intemperance was more of an

offense against God and morality than against oneself; alcohol consumption was of the vilest and

most exposed type of sin, perhaps even mortal. Rush’s definition of intemperance, however, was

more concentrated on the detrimental physicalities of drunkenness.

In continuation, both leaders attempted to locate the fundamental origins of

intemperance, and subsequently identified numerous chronic diseases originating from

alcoholism, including gout, epilepsy, and liver obstruction. For example, each work mentions the

consumption of distilled spirits for manual labor, mental fortitude, and medicinal purposes. Since

spirits tended to fill the stomach and relieve stress, they were perceived as perfect elixirs for

farmers, college students, and suffering patients. However, as Dr. Rush notes, the laboring horse

“requires nothing but cool water, and substantial food” (Rush, p. 32). In this instance, it is

evident that ardent spirits are not required for the rejuvenation of physical strength, and Beecher

goes so far as to say the usage of spirits during manual labor simply shortens one’s overall

lifespan. Additionally, Rush and Beecher both indicate the growing presence of iatrogenic

addicts, noting the dangers of overprescribing alcoholic bitters and medications to patients.

According to temperance movement ideals, alcoholic substances should be used primarily for

emergency medical situations; Dr. Rush illustrates edible substitutes for every other instance,

such as tea for the mental laborer. Therefore, responsibility for the problem of intemperance lies

within the society as a whole – farmers, physicians, students, and vendors all play a role in

advocating inebriety. Sobriety can be achieved only through the active participation of all

members of society, especially those believed to be addicted to drunkenness.

In their attempts to trace and quell the origins of alcoholism, both Rush and Beecher

propose sound arguments for their eras, and establish useful relationships between humans and

alcohol. Yet, their arguments lack today’s scientific research and would require extensive

revision before acceptance in today’s society. For example, Dr. Rush indicates that smoking

tobacco renders one predisposed to sinful habits, which ultimately stimulate the body to desire

alcohol as well. King James I similarly indicates tobacco’s addictiveness within his 1603

“Counterblaste to Tobacco,” claiming, “it precedes that many in this kingdom have had such a

continual use of taking this unsavory smoke, as now they are not able to forbear the same no

more than an old drunkard can abide to be long sober without falling into an incurable weakness”

(James I, p. 5). Rush and King James’ relationships between tobacco and alcohol are still

justifiable today because many times addicts have compounded issues or addictions, such as

alcohol and drug abuse. However, these colonial and 19th-century temperance advocates had no

knowledge of chemicals such as nicotine and dopamine – the direct causes for some addictions.

Moreover, both advocates had a tremendous knowledge of human anatomy, and indicate the

obstruction of the liver, or cirrhosis, as a long-term effect of alcoholism. Beecher states, “the

stomach is the great organ of accelerated circulation to the blood,” which is in accordance with

the fact that the stomach absorbs some alcohol upon consumption; however, most alcohol is

absorbed in the small intestine. Therefore, both temperance advocates express accurate and

sound arguments for their times, even though they did not have access to today’s methods of

research.

Finally, Dr. Rush and Rev. Beecher’s devotion to the temperance movement definitely

raised awareness to the detrimental and addictive consequences of substance abuse. These

temperance leaders noted the problems associated with addition – although they believed it was a

matter of free choice – and related the destructive habit to other substances such as tobacco and

medicinal prescriptions. Today, for example, destructive habits are often formed from the

overconsumption of prescription drugs, such as Adderall. Overprescription of drugs often creates

iatrogenic addicts: a growing population in today’s society where the abuse of prescription

medications is on the rise. Perhaps 21st-century students should drink four cups of tea, as

prescribed by Dr. Rush, instead of alcohol or Adderall.