Saturday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1915, No. 70 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “70,” is another interesting one that tackles the prohibitionists’ argument that all alcohol consumption is bad, while the truth is that its excessive drinking that can cause problems, and in fact it’s the position of at least one research doctor that excesses in food, and even water, can be “harmful.” His position is that “Excess of any kind is the is the direct opposite of temperance.” The ad goes on to look at how Europe reacted during World War I, and how the nations at war sent alcohol to the troops fighting. Why? “The beverages are not given as medicine, but as nourishment.”

Friday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1915, No. 69 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “69,” is another interesting one that tackles the prohibitionists’ argument that men are driven to drink, and most just can’t help themselves, so the only way to “cure” them is take away their alcohol. But the science of the day said no, that instead drunkards were the result of a mental defect or weakness, and in 99% of cases this was the cause. “Normal men do not desire alcohol in excess. It is only the abnormal who are driven to drink.”

Thursday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1916, No. 68 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “64,” is another interesting one because it talks about drinking causing poverty, and how prohibitionists were arguing that in states that were dry, there were less people in poorhouses, or almshouses, than in “wet” states where alcohol was still permitted. It’s weird to think that there were such places all over the country, and in fact one of my favorite author’s first novels — John Updike — was “The Poorhouse Fair,” is set in the fictional “Diamond County Home for the Aged.” But the statistics offered by the ad contradicted the prohibitionists’ arguments, showing that in at least four dry states, per capita residency in poorhouses was higher than in four comparable wet states. They go on to cite another series of studies that further contradict the prohibitionists, and showing that sickness is the most common cause of poverty in America, and not drinking, which is in fact a vert small percentage of the total.