The Center for Alcohol Policy (CAP) is now accepting entries for its Eighth Annual Essay Contest. The topic for this year’s contest is:
2015 marks the 10 year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Granholm decision, which ruled against two states’ laws that discriminated against out-of-state alcohol producers but also affirmed that “The three-tier system is unquestionably legitimate.” How has this “unquestionably legitimate” system fostered competition, increased new products available to consumers and worked to protect consumers and the public?
“The CAP Essay Contest is intended to foster debate, analysis and examination of state alcohol regulation and its implications for citizens across the United States,” said CAP Advisory Council member and Samford University Cumberland School of Law Professor Brannon Denning. “We can learn a lot from our nation’s history with alcohol, especially looking at the societal problems that led to national Prohibition and the public policy initiatives that were put in place following the passage of the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition and began today’s system of state-based alcohol regulation.”
WHO CAN ENTER: The contest is open to all persons who are over the age of 18 as of December 2015. Students, academics, practicing attorneys, policymakers and members of the general public are encouraged to submit essays.
HOW TO ENTER: Essays may be emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org or mailed as a hard copy to: Center for Alcohol Policy; Attn: Essay Contest; 1101 King St., Suite 600-A; Alexandria, VA 22314. Essays must be accompanied by an entry form.
DEADLINE: The deadline for entries is December 5, 2015. Winners will be announced in early 2016.
AWARDS: Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third place winners in the amounts of $5,000, $2,500 and $1,000 respectively.
Read the winning essays from the 2014 Center for Alcohol Policy Essay Contest:
The topic of the 2014 contest was: “As states contemplate the legalization of prohibited products, like marijuana, what are some lessons policymakers and regulators can learn from the movement to end alcohol Prohibition in the 1930s?”
Cuffman’s winning essay outlines the legal, social and geopolitical differences between national alcohol Prohibition and the present prohibition of cannabis. He explains, “While national alcohol Prohibition in the United States was a function of a constitutional amendment (with the corresponding Volstead Act that governed enforcement), the national prohibition of cannabis is simply a function of federal law (while many states have parallel state regulations). Consequently, the method of repeal is different in each case.”
Cuffman asserts that there are three lessons that present-day policymakers and reformers can derive from the movement to end Prohibition:
- If there is to be lasting and stable cannabis reform, it is necessary to repeal or reform cannabis policy at the national level rather than simply the state level.
- It is necessary to balance regional restriction with federal de-prohibition and restriction.
- Through substance regulation, it is necessary to balance individual freedoms with public interests.
“Now the better part of a century removed from Prohibition, it seems as though American policymakers have yet to adequately account for the lessons of the Twenty-first Amendment and the circumstances surrounding Prohibition’s repeal,” Cuffman concludes. “Even critics of the federal government’s prohibition of cannabis seem to have failed to fully account for the differences between the two contexts, such that we could draw reasoned and incisive conclusions.”
Roni Elias, a student at Florida A&M University College of Law, was awarded second place for his essay, which describes the history of temperance reform; the culmination of the temperance movement with the passage of the 18th Amendment; the benefits versus the problems of Prohibition; the regulation and post-Prohibition changes in the culture of alcohol use; and the lessons of alcohol prohibition for drug prohibition.
“The primary lesson of Prohibition is that it is possible to regulate personal conduct if the regulations focus on controlling how, when, and where that conduct takes place, not whether it takes place,” Elias argues.
Elias concludes, “The regulation of personal conduct also cannot work on a large scale … Prohibition’s attempt at regulation was too ambitious, both in terms of the severity of the restriction and the extensiveness of its application … regulation works when it is narrowly targeted and flexibly adaptable, especially regarding local conditions.”
Daniel Bruggebrew, a student at Berkeley Law, and Corinne Snow, an attorney from New York City, were both awarded third place.
Bruggebrew’s essay focuses on the medicolegal history of alcohol until repeal, the medicolegal history of marijuana through modern day and lessons for policymakers and regulators considering marijuana research for medicalization.
Bruggebrew concludes that, “with the AMA [American Medical Association] suspending judgment pending further research, policymakers and regulators should engage the Association to harness its deep understanding, working alongside the Association to develop medically current and politically accountable marijuana policy.”
Snow’s essay focuses on the relationship between state and federal laws and discusses some of the possible avenues to regulate products like marijuana.
“Today we have come to think that federal law is the primary driver behind our public policies,” Snow notes. “But as the debates and legal changes in the years surrounding the end of Prohibition demonstrates, state law can be far more influential than federal regulation on the use of controlled substances … The debates and resulting regulatory decisions at the end of Prohibition demonstrate the variety of tools and powers that states can use to impact when, where, and how their residents use certain substances.”
For more information, please call (703) 519-3090.