De nieuwe drooglegging

Zonder dat het gros van de mensheid het in de gaten heeft zijn de voorbereidingen voor de grootste drooglegging sinds de dertiger jaren van de vorige eeuw al aan de gang. De aanpak is gelijk aan de aanval op tabak: nep-onderzoeken, seminars, media-campagnes en de steun aan actiegroepen tegen alcohol.

En natuurlijk allemaal met farmaceutengeld!

Alcoholrantsoenen voor volwassenen, verplichte wegversperringen, een verbod op advertenties en nog veel meer… Een nieuwe, informatieve site zet alle plannen voor de volgende aanval op de privé levensstijl op een rijtje.

“I think this would be a good time for a beer.” So said President Roosevelt upon repeal of the 18th Amendment which enforced Prohibition for fourteen long years. Seventy years ago today, the 21st Amendment was ratified by two-thirds of the states, ending Prohibition nationwide.

Prohibition has passed into history but a subtler and more insidious movement is now using a back-door approach to de-legitimize social drinking. Some people call it “Prohibition drip by drip.”

This movement is eerily similar to the movement that gave us Prohibition. Like the early twentieth century movement, it is well organized, it is self-righteous, and it has sympathetic ears in the media. And considering that nearly all of its supporters seem to be bankrolled in some way by the $8-billion Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), it’s even better funded than its pre-Jazz Age forbear.

The RWJF has contributed more than $265 million over five years to notable anti-alcohol organizations, which have used that money to fund “studies,” seminars, media campaigns, and community outreach programs that attack adult beverage consumption in various ways. These multimillion-dollar checks have financed an army of like-minded advocacy, activist, grassroots, and “research” organizations—all aimed at reducing even responsible consumption.

The collective result is a simultaneous, multi-pronged offensive on the way adult beverages are perceived, distributed, sold, and consumed—an assault designed not to address product abuse but simply to get everyone to drink less.

At the recent “Alcohol Policy Conference XIII,” a modern prohibitionist conference underwritten by RWJF, activists endorsed an alcohol rationing system, whereby government limits the quantity of alcohol each individual may consume; a government monopoly on adult beverage distribution; a total advertising ban; and zoning ordinances to restrict the number and location of “alcohol outlets”—which, astonishingly, they define to include family restaurants.

Anti-alcohol organizations justify these draconian measures with a number of RWJF-funded “studies” that bizarrely (and incorrectly) conclude that alcohol abuse is endemic. Moreover, these reports are nearly unanimous in their calls for everyone to reduce their consumption of adult beverages in order to address underage drinking.

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Download poster


  • "Es ist schwieriger, eine vorgefaßte Meinung zu zertrümmern als ein Atom."
    (Het is moeilijker een vooroordeel aan flarden te schieten dan een atoom.)
    Albert Einstein

  • "Als je alles zou laten dat slecht is voor je gezondheid, dan ging je kapot"
    Anonieme arts

  • "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
    Sir Richard Doll, 2001

  • "Een leugen wordt de waarheid als hij maar vaak genoeg wordt herhaald"
    Joseph Goebbels, Minister van Propaganda, Nazi Duitsland

  • "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  • "There''s no such thing as perfect air. If there was, God wouldn''t have put bristles in our noses"
    Coun. Bill Clement

  • "Better a smoking freedom than a non-smoking tyranny"
    Antonio Martino, Italiaanse Minister van Defensie

  • "If smoking cigars is not permitted in heaven, I won't go."
    Mark Twain

  • I've alllllllways said that asking smokers "do you want to quit?" and reporting the results of that question, as is, is horribly misleading. It's a TWO part question. After asking if one wants to quit it must be followed up with "Why?" Ask why and the majority of the answers will be "because I'm supposed to" (victims of guilt and propaganda), not "because I want to."
    Audrey Silk, NYCCLASH