AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Warner, J.
Right arrow Articles by Rehm, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Warner, J.
Right arrow Articles by Rehm, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Law
Right arrow Health Policy
Right arrow History
Right arrow Socioeconomic Factors

American Journal of Public Health, Vol 91, Issue 3 375-384, Copyright © 2001 by American Public Health Association

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Can legislation prevent debauchery? Mother gin and public health in 18th-century England

J Warner, M Her, G Gmel and J Rehm
Department of History, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. jessica_warner@camh.net

The "gin epidemic" of 1720 to 1751 in England was the first time that government intervened in a systematic fashion to regulate and control sales of alcohol. The epidemic therefore provides an opportunity to gauge the effects of multiple legislative interventions over time. Toward that end, we employed time series analysis in conjunction with qualitative methodologies to test the interplay of multiple independent variables, including real wages and taxes, on the consumption of distilled spirits from 1700 through 1771. The results showed that each of the 3 major gin acts was successful in the short term only, consistent with the state's limited resources for enforcement at the local level, and that in each instance consumption actually increased shortly thereafter. This was true even of the Gin Act of 1751, which, contrary to the assumptions of contemporaries and many historians, succeeded by accident rather than by design. The results also suggest that the epidemic followed the inverse U-shaped trajectory of more recent drug scares and that consumption declined only after the more deleterious effects of distilled spirits had been experienced by large numbers of people.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Public Health Association