Heroin, LSD, and marijuana are prohibited in the United States today, in part on the ground that they are dangerous and in part

on the ground that they serve no useful medical purpose. The prohibition of the barbiturates, the nonbarbiturate depressants, and

the minor tranquilizers despite their potential hazards is rarely suggested even by antidrug extremists; their unquestioned

importance as medicines stands in the way. But what about alcohol? Should it not be banned on the same grounds that heroin,

LSD, and marijuana are prohibited?

Let us put aside the weighty arguments against alcohol prohibition, and try to consider seriously for the moment the arguments

in its favor.

Alcohol addiction is second only to nicotine addiction in incidence and prevalence in the United States today. A conservative

estimate is that five million Americans are alcoholics, but figures of as high as seven to nine million alcoholics and "problem

drinkers" are also cited. 1 Alcohol addicts are unable to refrain from their drug even though they decide to, want to, and try to

quit drinking alcohol; those who succeed for a time remain in imminent danger of relapse. * To the millions of alcohol addicts

must be added millions of "spree drinkers" who are not addicted but who get roaring drunk from time to time. Alcohol

prohibition, if enacted and effectively enforced, would keep these addicts and drunks away from their drug; and it would prevent

new cohorts of young people from becoming addicted or so it might be logically argued.

* It is commonly supposed that alcohol addicts, like narcotics addicts, are weak willed and that it is

their weakness of will that led them to become and to remain addicts. The evidence is superficially

plausible: even though two people may drink alcohol (or take barbiturates) in precisely the same

pattern, it is said, only one of them may become addicted. The difference between the two may not

be in strength of will, however; it is at least equally plausible to hypothesize a difference in enzymes or

in other biochemical factors distinguishing the metabolism of alcohol in the addict and in the similarly

exposed nonaddict. Nobody really knows. The preponderance of the evidence currently available

favors the view that the difference lies in the childhood of the two drinkers, in their social environment,

and in the stresses to which they are exposed as adults. But, as noted with respect to narcotics (see

Chapter 10), most researchers through the decades have been looking for psychological and

sociological evidence; it is hardly surprising (or convincing) that that is what they have found. If as

much research, energy, and ingenuity were devoted to the search for biochemical factors, the

preponderance of evidence might soon shift to the biochemical explanation. There has recently been a

small increase in biochemical studies of alcoholism, but it is still too early to review or evaluate the

findings here.