Frequently Asked Questions

What is your book about?

The Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet is about how American culture shifted towards alcohol after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. How did the United States shift over these past 75+ years from a country where abstinence was once the ideal, to one where two-thirds of adults now drink? Today alcohol is considered an important part of most social occasions. It’s also a nearly $200 billion industry that accounts for several million jobs.


Who is your audience?

The Prohibition Hangover is targeted at what I call the NPR demographic. They are college educated, NPR-listening, craft beer, cocktail, or fine wine drinking newspaper or blog readers. Many of them work in the alcoholic beverage industry. This is a broad demographic that encompasses several million people.  

The book is meant for general readers – it’s a popular study, rather than an academic work. I wrote it from a journalist point of view, interviewing hundreds of people from all sides of the alcohol debate, to get numerous perspectives.


How did you come up with the idea for the book?

I had a moment of epiphany one Christmas when I noticed how differently three generations – my grandmother, mom, and myself – approached a bottle of wine. My grandmother got a little uppity about the fact that I had brought wine, which my mom and I shared. The light bulb went on: I realized that she came from a generation that stigmatized alcohol (she was born in 1913 and lived through Prohibition), but the stigma had largely fallen away by my mom’s generation. That epiphany launched me on more than four years of travel, research and interviews to write this book.


How long did it take you to research, write and publish your book?

Nearly six years in total from start to publication. It was like going to college and grad school. I started it after Christmas 2003, and Rutgers University Press published it in September 2009.


Where can I buy it?

The Prohibition Hangover is published nationwide in the U.S. It is available both in bookstores in your neighborhood as well as online. It will also be available electronically, but a bit later than the publication date. Links to many publishers can be found at www.prohibitionhangover.com/buy.html.


Explain the theme.

The Prohibition Hangover is about the changing role of alcohol in American society since we repealed Prohibition more than 75 years ago. The temperance movement, the country’s first faith-based initiative, stigmatized alcohol, and that continued long after Prohibition ended and the temperance movement had faded away.

Today we have convoluted laws, such as dry counties, Blue Laws (Sunday closing laws), and state alcoholic beverage control (ABC) regimes that date to Prohibition and beyond. Prohibition left the U.S. with a “hangover” – distrust and an uncertain relationship with alcohol, even as we become an unapologetic drinking nation again.


And the subtitle, Alcohol in America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet?

"Demon Rum" was once a handy name for alcohol. It was a way for the temperance movement to demonize drinking – they just didn’t oppose alcohol, but felt it was a tool of the devil.

"Cult Cabernet" refers to today’s worship of everything craft: $65 Cabernet Sauvignons from Napa Valley, craft beer, craft distilling. We all know people who name-drop Gray Goose Vodka as a status symbol. Others drink single malt Scotches – and can talk your ear off about the virtues of Highland versus Speyside whiskies. Still others can argue for hours over 60 minute or 90 minute India Pale Ale, or what constitutes a “session” beer.

This is quite a significant shift in American culture since Repeal. We no longer demonize drinking, but instead embrace it as something that defines us as Americans and as consumers. Alcohol is a player, an unspoken character, if you will, that is an essential part of how Americans socialize with one another.


How is the book organized?  

The book is organized thematically, rather than chronologically. Each chapter is a standalone narrative covering one topic. For example, I wrote a chapter called “So What Are We Drinking?” about how sophisticated American drinkers have become, and another called “Alcohol and Your Health.” The final chapter, “Not Till You’re 21,” discusses the drinking age. You can read a chapter overview at www.prohibitionhangover.com/overview.html.


Why did you dedicate the book to Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Granholm v. Heald, the case that required states to handle interstate wine shipments on an even-handed basis, rather than discriminating against out-of-state wine. Because of his opinion, the direct-to-consumer wine market has opened significantly. Consumers have many more choices now for wine, and we are one step closer to a “virtual wine store.” Kennedy’s decision was the right decision for consumers, and the wine industry owes a debt of gratitude to him.

Kennedy has a lengthy history of deciding against discrimination. He wrote the majority opinions in both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, two cases with enormous significant for the gay community. As I’m a gay man, I am personally grateful for his being on the court and for being a decisive voice for fairness and equal treatment. Dedicating my book to him was the least I could do to express thanks from my community.

I also dedicated the book to federal workers everywhere. Many of my friends work for the government – I live in the Washington, DC area – and they do a tremendous job. People rarely consider how important our government is until a fire burns down your home or a hurricane overwhelms your city. It’s often thankless work. Our government of the people is what defines us as a free, democratic society.


Do you drink alcohol?

Yes. I drink daily. In the vernacular of the temperance era, I’d be considered a “wet.” I’ve collected wine for more than twenty-five years (my mom gave me my first bottle when I was 16, and joked that she was contributing to my “delinquency”). I’m fond of whiskey and craft beer as well. But honestly, I’m a lightweight.

I primarily drink with food – for me, it’s about enhancing the dining and social experience. And since food is seasonal, so are my drinking habits. In the summer I eat lots of veggies from the farmers market, and wash them down with white wines and rosés, lager, or gin. In the winter I shift toward medium-weight reds and whiskey (I tend to drink mine neat, though I love a good Manhattan). I like Argentinean Malbecs for their complexity and tremendous value, and often wonder why California can’t produce outstanding wine at the $12-15 price range – or a nice dry rosé for that matter.

I turned 40 in 2008. I’ve noticed over the years how the drinking habits of my friends and me have moderated. Even when someone offers a full open bar with plenty of choices, no one seems to get stupidly drunk. Instead, most people drink moderately. This is where most Americans are: we are social drinkers.

One thing I’ve sworn off: rail drinks and light beer specials. I’ve had too many bad experiences from buying cheap booze. It’s worth paying a little extra for better quality.


What is your perspective on alcohol?

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention how faith informs my views on alcohol. I’m Methodist, not Mormon or Muslim. It’s peculiar: we Methodists were once leaders in the temperance movement, but no longer. In fact, very few people in my own congregation in Washington, DC don’t drink. It’s just not an issue anymore.

I’m fine with abstinence on a personal level. There are many people who shouldn’t drink, based on their family background or medical history. But as a public morality issue, temperance was a failed ideology.

Ultimately my perspective is a consumer’s one. Consumers want good choices and low prices. I often wonder why restaurant wine prices are so high, why you can’t buy beer and wine in the supermarket in some states, why you can’t buy alcohol on Sundays in some places, or why consumers have to buy alcohol from the state in Control States.  I don’t believe these obstacles serve consumers well.


How did you get into writing?

I’ve written since I was a kid, and contributed occasionally to my college newspaper. But I didn’t get serious about writing as a potential vocation until the WorldCom meltdown in 2002 (yes, that WorldCom). I was an employee at the company at the time, and began thinking what else I could do if I were laid off.

I’ve dabbled in screenwriting for awhile as a hobby, and hope to return to that someday. I mostly write period pieces (e.g. historic), as I’m a history nerd.

As I mentioned above, the idea for The Prohibition Hangover came to me at Christmas 2003, and I’ve been like a bulldog with a bone pursuing this story ever since.


What were the key influences in writing the book?

William Rorabaugh’s The Alcoholic Republic was published in 1979. He’s a professor of history at the University of Washington. His book is really definitive: he explained how the temperance movement emerged as the country’s first faith-based initiative. It was a response to the great whiskey binge of the early American republic. Thirty years after publication, his book has really stood the test of time for its validity. I hope to be considered in such good company.

You could fill several bookshelves with all the books written about Prohibition, but the most interesting one I’ve read in recent years is Michael Lerner’s Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City (2007). It’s a very well researched tale about how impossible it was to enforce Prohibition in New York, and it’s a wonderful read as well. His book is a significant addition to the history of Prohibition.

I put a number of my favorite Prohibition-related books on my website at www.prohibitionhangover.com/goodbooks.html.


What did you learn while researching and writing the book?

Alcohol was once part of a culture war. Led by evangelicals, the temperance movement tried to impose its middle class, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant vision of a dry country in the face of a rising tide of Catholic immigration. They framed this as a Christian crusade and thus demonized alcohol drinking. For the temperance movement, abstinence was the only way toward a sober, more godlike country. They formed the country’s first faith-based initiative. Their greatest triumph was Prohibition – which turned out to be a resounding defeat. The temperance movement was discredited, and has largely faded away.

The stigma against alcohol was once a powerful force that demanded we keep a tight leash on booze. That stigma has largely worn off as the people who lived through Prohibition have mostly passed on from this world. The generations that followed them didn’t embrace abstinence from alcohol.

The most profound conclusion I realized was how normalized drinking alcohol has become in three or four generations since Repeal. Two-thirds of American adults now drink. It’s highly unlikely that the forces of temperance will ever come back – they were discredited by Prohibition, and Americans have taken to moderate alcohol consumption as part of our everyday lives. This is a huge shift, as American society rejected abstinence in favor of moderation. We’re now a drinking nation again, and unapologetic about that fact. Indeed, as we look back through history, alcohol has been fundamental to American society – since the Pilgrims landed at what is now Provincetown, Massachusetts for water so they could brew more beer.

Drinking is cyclical. Few consumers stay with the same drink all of their lives, but rotate into new drinks as their needs change. For example, the baby boom generation started off favoring beer, but as they reached their fifties, they embraced wine as being healthy, especially since learning about the “French paradox.” There is also another cyclical side in that, whenever rates of alcohol consumption rise, particularly during war or economic stress, there will always be reformers who try to tamp down on it. We’re witnessing this today with the campaign against underage drinking.

Alcohol fuels socialization. Even with just a drink, people drop their inhibitions and open up and speak their minds. Alcohol helps build community, even if we don’t drink to get inebriated. That would probably be a surprise to temperance advocates of yore, who believed that anyone who drinks is on a slippery slope towards becoming a “drunkard” (what we’d call an alcoholic today). In fact, most people who drink don’t become alcoholics.

Finally, I concluded that the country’s legal age for drinking at 21 is unreasonable. Alcohol is easy to get for teenagers and young adults, and taking a principled stance defending the drinking age is counterproductive: we only drive them to drink more. A more rational policy is to let people drink at 18 – the year they legally become adults in the U.S. – and shift the responsibility to the parents to raise their children to respect alcohol. Like it or not, most Americans have chosen to drink alcohol, so public policy should be framed pragmatically, not ideologically.


What do you expect the response will be to your recommendation to lower the drinking age from 21 down to 18?

I suspect Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) won’t be terribly happy. They advocated for the drinking age to be raised in 1984, and they remain its staunchest defender today. Yet there is a significant public discussion underway about the long-term effects of the drinking age, in particular the Prohibition culture of binge drinking on college campuses.

The alcoholic beverage industry will largely remain mute on the issue – they have nothing to gain by getting involved. Many people will admit privately that the current drinking age isn’t much of barrier from keeping teenagers and young adults from drinking, yet publicly the companies have to maintain a position of supporting the 21 drinking age. If they don’t, groups like MADD will hammer them for targeting their products at children.

My discussion in the book about the drinking age is very pragmatic. I’m not here to make anyone the bad guy – I just believe that there is another way to combat underage drinking, rather than continually push enforcement. Enforcement will only go so far in a society that has broadly accepted drinking alcohol as one of our fundamental freedoms. The problem isn’t that young adults drink – rather, the problem is with binge drinking. We have to recognize that the drinking age and our heavy-handed enforcement has helped create this problem. The harder we enforce it, the worse the problem gets, as we simply drive the behavior underground.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with youth drinking in moderation – particularly when it’s done under the auspices of their parents. You need look no further than Jewish families for a great model on how parents can raise their kids to drink moderately. Wine is considered essential to Judaism, and every Friday Sabbath, Jewish families gather with a bottle of sacramental wine over dinner. Even children get a little glass of wine. The result is that Jews grow up with a healthy attitude toward wine as part of a meal, not something to get drunk on. You see a very low rate of alcoholism and alcohol abuse among Jews. I think the Jewish community points the way to where our country needs to be.

Ultimately, for me the drinking age is a question of fairness. When you’re 18 in the U.S., you have every single right as an adult with this one exception: buying alcohol. Do you know you can smoke at 16? Smoking kills far more people than alcohol does, yet we’ve made alcohol taboo for young people, and then we’re somehow surprised that they binge drink.


Why did you hone in on alcohol advertising in your book?

This is a long-term issue that began shortly after Repeal in 1933, and I predict will still be with us years from now. There will always be those who want to limit or eliminate alcohol advertising, but this comes up against the First Amendment – as well as basic economic issues. The alcoholic beverage industry needs to advertise to survive.

With the Great Recession, many former voluntary prohibitions that television networks adopted fell by the wayside. Absolut Vodka advertised at the Grammys on network television. Sports leagues, long the venue for beer advertising, have opened up to distillers. The National Basketball Association has accepted spirits ads, and the National Football League and Professional Golfers’ Association are considering them as well. They aren’t doing this out of ideology, but because so many other advertisers have fallen by the wayside, and the television networks need to make money. It’s a basic business decision.

The alcoholic beverage industry has a threshold for advertising, requiring that 70 percent of its audience be 21 or older. This is a voluntary standard: there is no law banning alcohol advertising.

I don’t think an advertising ban on alcohol would ever be found constitutional. It’s a freedom of speech issue. After all, Congress once tried to require public libraries to install filters blocking pornography to protect children, but that was blocked on First Amendment grounds. How likely is it that an advertising ban on alcohol would be upheld? Not likely at all.

Technology is changing so rapidly that it’s challenging older advertising and print media models. Today’s audiences are moving away from print media and towards the Web and social networking, and they expect to get content online for free. Alcohol brands will use the Internet more to engage their audience. This means young people will have greater access to alcohol advertising.

I find age indicators on websites to be a bit of a joke: anyone can just make up a date. Anyone can become a fan of a brand on Facebook, or follow a brand manager on Twitter. But we also have to question: does it harm young people by having access to brand materials? Access to information is not the same as having access to the product itself. No one can get drunk by reading a website.


Do you see any future issues over alcohol emerging in the U.S.?

The debate over labeling will likely be resolved within a year or two, as a consensus is emerging about what should go on a label. But there are a number of larger issues that we’ll see in coming years. As I said above, advertising will be a perennial fight.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is calling for ignition interlock devices to be installed in the car of anyone convicted of drunk driving on the first offense. The alcoholic beverage industry has pushed back, asking for more leniency or targeting only those who are hard-core drunk drivers (more than half of drunk driving deaths are caused by drivers whose blood alcohol concentration is twice the legal limit).

Some people are calling for these devices to be installed in all future cars, not just for those convicted of drunk driving. This issue will raise civil liberty and privacy concerns, not to mention the significant impact it will have on the hospitality industry. Brace yourself for a fight over this.

On the other hand, mandatory ignition interlock devices on all cars could undermine MADD’s support for the 21 minimum legal drinking age. If the point of the drinking age is to prevent highway fatalities, does it matter at what age people drink as long as they’re prevented from drinking and driving?

As I mentioned above, the drinking age itself will be an ongoing debate. MADD treats 21 as gospel, while others such as Choose Responsibility are calling for lowering the drinking age as a way to combat underground binge drinking.

And of course, there’s always the debate over taxes.


What about taxes?

This is not a popular view, but as social policy, taxes can in fact steer consumers in certain directions or even reduce consumption. When Great Britain faced the Gin Craze in the 1700s, its response wasn’t prohibition or abstinence, but licensing and increased taxes. Consumption dropped remarkably.

In the U.S., our first experience with an alcohol tax led to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Congress eventually lifted the whiskey tax, but left the tax on imported rum in place. This had an unintended consequence: Americans shifted over to whiskey in droves, leading to the great whiskey binge of the 1820s – and the subsequent rise of the temperance movement as a faith-based response.

After Prohibition ended, Congress raised spirits and wine taxes to raise revenue for the New Deal – but reduced the beer tax so as to give the working man a break. Since then, federal alcohol excise taxes have only been raised twice: in 1955 and 1991. Today the tax takes in about $10 billion in revenue annually for the Treasury Department – a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.

The alcoholic beverage industry has strong national lobbies, and they have effectively prevented any national alcohol excise tax increase since 1991. Things are different at the state level. States continue to notch alcohol tax rates higher, especially when there’s a budget gap to fill. During the recession in 2009, many states raised excise taxes – not because alcohol is considered a “sin” to tax, but because they desperately needed the money.

Alcohol isn’t tobacco. The health impacts from smoking far, far outweigh those from alcohol. Since only 20 percent of Americans smoke (versus two-thirds who drink), most people don’t have a problem heavily taxing tobacco, especially since it impacts other people. That’s not the case for alcohol.

There is a discussion underway about raising federal alcohol excise taxes, along with other things such as soft drinks, to pay for expanding nationwide health care. But there’s a huge difference between nudging the tax rate up a bit to raising revenue, and a draconian increase that will significantly curtain consumption.


How have consumers shifted their drinking behavior in the Great Recession?

Consumers are drinking as much as they did before – alcohol’s demand is relatively inelastic, meaning you’ll buy it, just like food, gasoline, or your cell phone, regardless of the economy. But people have shifted to other drinks that provide better value. They find substitutes for their preferences, and in some cases, they are trading back down to less expensive brands. They also eat out less, and drink more at home.


Do you see parallels between Prohibition and the war on drugs today?

I sure do. Prohibition attempted to impose abstinence from alcohol on the nation by regulating private behavior. In economic terms, it cut off the supply – but never dealt with the demand side. Americans still wanted to drink, and they found ingenious ways to buy booze. Thirteen years after Prohibition became law, we repealed it. The noble experiment was a failure.

We’ve now been fighting the war on drugs since the Nixon administration, a “war” that we’re obviously not winning. Thousands of people were killed by rivaling Mexican drug cartels in 2008, largely over marijuana, and all of it because of America’s drug habit.

I’m not advocating drug use, but I do think we need another approach besides just going after drug dealers and smugglers. Enforcement isn’t enough – tackling the supply side has only filled our prisons with people for drug-related offenses. Yet the drugs keep coming because Americans still want to get high – and there is so much money to be made. At some point we have to address the demand side of the equation. We do that through education, outreach, and treatment.


The book is a very comprehensive overview of the alcoholic beverage industry. But do you think you missed anything?

Craft distilleries are an emerging story that merit greater attention. Craft wine lifted the wine industry from the doldrums in the 1960s, and craft brewers did the same for beer in the 1980s. But it’s only been very recently that craft distillers have come to fore, and they are admittedly late to the game. That didn’t really come to my attention until after the book was complete.

I mentioned craft distillers in my book in just one paragraph, but there are some really interesting stories out there. Many of them are literally mom-and-pop operations. The Karakasevic family makes Charbay, the only distillery in all of Napa. Andrew Auwerda and his nephew Rob Cassell run Philadelphia Distilling, the maker of Bluecoat Gin. Many are focusing on craft vodka and gin, two spirits that don’t require aging, which is capital-intense. They all have interesting, compelling stories as they bring their products to market and start to get distribution.


Did you get alcohol industry or public health advocacy funding to write this book?

No. I thought it was important to approach the subject independently and reach my own conclusions. I don’t work for any company in the alcohol business industry, nor for any of the various public health advocacy groups or industry watchdogs. I paid for the research and travel completely out of my own pocket.


Will you be doing a book tour?

Yes. I will be giving talks and signings in fall 2009. You can see a list of events at www.prohibitionhangover.com/events.html


So I see you’re a horror writer.

Actually, no! There is another author named Garrett Peck. We spell our names identically, but I swear, we are two different people. He writes horror; I write nonfiction. There are a number of other people on Facebook also named Garrett Peck – same spelling and everything. Who knew?!


Can I add you as a friend on Facebook?

Only if we’ve actually met and can be considered acquaintances. But if we haven’t, then I’d encourage you instead to join The Prohibition Hangover group on Facebook. I administer the group, and keep my readers informed of news and events. Plus it’s a Web 2.0 interface, so readers can leave comments and interact with one another and me.


I’d like to have you speak at my book group, writers group, or business.

Great! I’m especially excited about meeting with small groups. This will give us a chance to have a good discussion in a more intimate setting. You can contact me directly from my website, www.prohibitionhangover.com/contact.html. Note the Events tab, as well as the suggested list of topics. I customize every presentation for every group, so I will work with the host to create a program that best meets your needs.