Either as an aside or at length, wine-writing friends often call out “neo-Prohibitionists.” These are people my colleagues they see as not liking wine and who seek bliss in denying it to others.

Myself, I can’t get alarmed by “neo-Prohibitionists.” There are few of them, for one. Prohibition has been tried. It failed. No one seriously thinks it can be revived.

This illustration was created by the artificial-intelligence platform NightCafe when prompted to make a painting of someone with a glass of wine in the style of the late Sacramento artist Wayne Thiebaud.

There are people, however, who would like to see access to alcoholic beverages be more restrictive. They are losing that battle. You can’t go anywhere these days – barber shop, nail salon, bike store, art gallery – without someone offering you a beer, a cocktail or a glass of wine as soon as you walk in. Haven’t been to a PTA meeting in decades, but wouldn’t be surprised if libations also were on the agenda there.

“Neo-Prohibitionists” who get my friends riled do exist, but they are more well-intentioned than menacing. The term “neo-Prohibitionist” doesn’t really fit them, if it is to be applied literally. They aren’t out to ban or even restrict harshly access to alcohol. Rather, they are people heavily into wellness. They fret that alcohol – too much of it – could compromise well-being, and they have evidence to back them up.

While some studies show that a bit of wine a day or every other day may do a person more good than harm, other studies suggest otherwise. Whatever studies conclude, they are ever evolving, ever coming up with tweaked recommendations on how people should approach alcohol. Some see no harm in consuming wine in “moderation.” Others try to pin down just what “moderation” means in terms of amount and frequency to best safeguard a person’s well being.

There is one strain of neo-Prohibitionist who would be better recast as a school traffic guard – someone watching out for people who aren’t aware of dangers lurking about them in the form of vehicles and, more significantly, in the form of the people who drive them. These are neo-Prohibitionists concerned about the impact of alcohol on drivers of motor vehicles. What’s that figure I heard the other day, that 32 people a day are killed in vehicle wrecks involving drunk drivers? Yes, that’s the figure, amounting to nearly a third of the nation’s annual vehicle-related fatalities, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Daily deaths by firearm, around half of them suicide, range between 111 and 123, depending on who is doing the tracking; daily deaths by drug overdose are around 250.)

Restrictions on the availability of alcohol could help correct drunk driving, though not likely. People who need or want alcohol still will get it, even if they have to make it themselves, as they did during Prohibition.

This illustration was created by the artificial-intelligence platform NightCafe when prompted to produce a painting of people with wine in the style of El Greco.

Technology is available, however, to help reduce the number of people killed in alcohol-related vehicle accidents. “Ignition interlock devices” can sense whether a driver is inebriated, and when the result is positive the car can’t be started.

Such devices currently are strictly voluntary, and the automotive industry has been slow to make them more readily available, or mandatory, despite all the other gadgetry they add to cars and trucks nowadays. That could change before long, however. That massive infrastructure bill that Congress passed last year and President Biden signed directs the Secretary of Transportation to set standards to require new vehicles to be equipped with “advanced impaired driving prevention technology.” Who knows, perhaps the lobbying of “neo-Prohibitionists” helps account for that directive, a turn toward potentially safer motoring.

But I digress, though I really did set out to write an essay about the myth of the threat that “neo-Prohibitionists” pose to the American wine trade. To brush up on effective essay writing, I even pulled from the bookcase my old copy of Lucile Vaughan Payne’s “The Lively Art of Writing,” the most concise and helpful manual I have found on putting together a persuasive essay. (You can find it at AbeBooks and Powell’s Books.)

Then I got lazy, and remembered my new best friend ChatGPT, the “artificial intelligence” tool to help the uninspired write just about anything. I put in this prompt: Write a 500-word essay on why neo-Prohibitionists don’t pose a threat to wine sales in the United States.

In 59 seconds, this is what it spit out:

“Neo-prohibitionists, or those who advocate for stricter alcohol regulations or even a return to prohibition, do not pose a significant threat to wine sales in the United States for several reasons.

“Firstly, wine consumption in the United States has been consistently on the rise for the past several decades. According to data from the Wine Institute, wine consumption in the U.S. has grown by over 50% since 2000, with American adults now drinking an average of 2.6 gallons of wine per year. This trend is expected to continue in the future, with the U.S. wine market projected to reach $63 billion in value by 2027.

“Secondly, the U.S. wine industry has become a significant contributor to the national economy. The wine industry supports over 1 million jobs and contributes over $220 billion to the U.S. economy annually. This includes not only the production and sale of wine, but also the tourism and hospitality industries that are heavily dependent on wine. As such, any efforts to significantly restrict or prohibit the sale of wine would likely be met with significant opposition from both the industry and the public.

“Additionally, the political landscape in the United States is also not conducive to a neo-prohibitionist movement. The 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed prohibition and gave states the authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders. This has led to a patchwork of regulations across the country, with states having varying levels of control over the sale and distribution of alcohol. Additionally, alcohol is a significant source of tax revenue for many states, and any efforts to restrict or prohibit alcohol sales would likely lead to a loss of revenue for state governments.

“Finally, it’s worth noting that the neo-prohibitionist movement is not a cohesive or well-organized group. In general, the movement’s advocates are isolated individuals, scattered groups or organizations which does not have a significant impact on the public opinion and policy making.

“In conclusion, while the neo-prohibitionist movement may exist in the United States, it does not pose a significant threat to wine sales. The U.S. wine market is a growing and significant contributor to the national economy, and any efforts to restrict or prohibit the sale of wine would likely be met with significant opposition. Additionally, the political landscape in the United States is not conducive to a neo-prohibitionist movement, and the movement itself is not a cohesive or well-organized group.”

Rather flat, flabby and colorless, but it has data and logic going for it. Unfortunately, it let me down in failing to broaden the definition of neo-Prohibitionist to include well-meaning folk who simply seek a rational, wholesome approach to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Their most obvious and serious concern is the consequences of combining alcohol with driving, though they also worry about other health threats related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. I can think of no reason why research toward a better understanding of alcohol and health should be discouraged. If that’s what neo-Prohibitionists stand for, great.

To learn where my newly published book “The Signature Wines of Superior California: 50 Wines that Define the Sierra Foothills, the Delta, Yolo and Lodi” can be found, please go to my website SignatureWines.us.