You have more control than you think

Losing one’s inhibitions and judgments has been ingrained into our culture as natural and inevitable effects from consuming alcohol. We teach our young people these things, and coincidentally, they end up displaying them as they grow older and begin experimenting with alcohol.

The idea that alcohol takes control over people and forces them act certain ways has not always been the prevailing idea. In fact, before the temperance movement picked up steam in the mid 1800s, alcohol was seen as a healthy, necessary and nutritious part of a rugged frontiersman lifestyle. However, strong and radical religious groups began to campaign against alcohol itself as the migration into cities that occurred around the industrial revolution broke down the social controls around behavior and the importance of being sober when using new machinery took hold in the workplace. Before then alcohol was seen as pretty much entirely beneficial.

Now, due to modern temperance political organizations, alcohol still has the same intense stigma that was attached to it leading up to prohibition. The idea that (a) once someone drinks they will most likely not be able to stop themselves from becoming alcohol-dependent and (b) once someone drinks they are no longer in control of their actions or emotions are puritan-based ideologies that in fact have no roots in medical science.

Just this week, more research from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions shows that people may in fact be much more in control of their drinking habits than originally believed. In fact, about 70% of those who experienced serious alcohol-related dependence problems entirely recovered on their own and, more importantly, cut back to responsible consumption patterns, and did not give up alcohol entirely. Dr. Mark Willenbring, director of treatment and recovery research at NIAAA, said in the LA Times that "It can be a chronic, relapsing disease. But it isn't usually that.”

The controversy around alcoholism wages on as the medical and scientific community is not in agreement as to how alcohol-dependence can manifest itself into a physically addictive condition. This research however, which is the largest alcohol-related study ever done in the US, suggests that we are moving forward to a better understanding of alcohol and behavior.

The idea that all people loose control with alcohol is a commonly accepted, though incorrect, assumption. It has, however, become totally ingrained in our society. Throughout the country, it is actually the bartender’s personal responsibility (and legal liability) to not serve anyone who is visibly intoxicated (a rule rarely, if ever, followed). The idea being that once someone begins drinking, they can no longer control whether they continue drinking. The excuse “Well I was drunk, what did you expect?” is a frustrating phrase heard all to often where people, rather than taking responsibility for their actions, blame the alcohol, much as was done during temperance.

Just this week, a trending topic on Twitter was “patrondidit,” expanded to Patron (a brand of Tequila) did it, i.e. alcohol being blamed for whatever the person might’ve done. Tequila itself actually takes the position of the most often quoted alcohol to relieve one of responsibility, even though its effects, and actually this goes for all types of alcohol of comparable alcohol content, are exactly the same, and the difference in behavior between different types of alcohol are entirely influenced by social expectations. Throughout history, there have even been nations that grant legal immunity to people who are drunk, while there are cultures, some that still exist, that do not accept intoxication as a social excuse for any social misbehavior.

The landmark study by acclaimed Brown University Anthropologist Dwight B. Heath in 1958 on the Camba of Eastern noted that “None of the stereotypes that are often applied to heavy drinkers was salient for the simple reason that behaviour while drinking was so little different from the normal behaviour during the long intervals between drinking.” The information from the recent NIAAA study reinforces the idea that the effects of alcohol on behavior (note: alcohol has serious effects on motor coordination and in some cases memory) are far more influenced by social expectations around acceptable behavior than anything biological or inherent in consuming alcohol.

I have mentioned the word responsibility multiple times, and it is a very important theme regarding how we educate, propagate cultural norms and set our state and national policies.

Instead of creating legislation that seeks to forward a moral stance, and is ignorant to the massive unintended consequences that are a degrading culture around responsibility, rising alcohol problems among our youth and rising incidents of drunk driving, we need to focus on creating policy that accurately sets standards of responsibility in our culture. By changing our current culture of repressive irresponsibility around alcohol into a socially-accepted and controlled culture of responsibility we can have positive lasting impacts on the safety and health of our young people.

Note: I do not support lowering the drinking age, but rather comprehensive enhanced alcohol policies that are based off of the fundamentals our successful graduated drivers license programs. Yes that means a graduated drinking age. Read more here.

Crucial Doctor in 21 Drinking Age Establishment Joins Founder of MADD In Speaking Out Against 21

Dr. Morris Chafetz, a psychiatrist who, in the early 1980s, sat on the presidential commission in that recommended raising the national drinking age from 18 to 21 now regrets his decision.

Dr. Chafetz now considers his role in pushing for the drinking age "the single most regrettable decision" of his career, reports the Los Angeles Times. Dr. Chafetz believes the 21 year-old drinking age has not worked, and, "To be sure, drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982. But they are lower in all age groups. And they have declined just as much in Canada, where the age is 18 or 19, as they have in the United States." Additionally, Dr. Chafetz recognizes the immense harm caused by the unintended consequences the drinking age has caused in American drinking culture, including the 1,800 deaths per year among college-aged youth in deaths related to alcohol.

Dr Chafetz is not in fact the first person (nor most likely the last) who has changed their mind being originally involved in supporting the drinking age, and now being outspoken against it.

Candice Lightner was the mother of 13 year-old Cari Lightner, who was killed by a drunk driver in 1980, the event which prompted Lightner to start Mothers Against Drunk Driving later that same year. The driver, Clarance William Busch, who killed young Cari, had 22 traffic citations on his record, including four for drunk driving (for which he had served at most 48 hour in jail). His fourth drunk driving accident, another hit and run, occurred just two days before killing Cari Lightner. Interesting, or ironically, for the drinking age argument, Busch was 46 years old at the time of the accident.

Busch had despicable track record that anyone would agree should be warrant enough to permanently revoke one’s driving privileges. After what happened to her daughter Lightner became concerned with the lack of severity for repeat offenders, and saw it as her duty to push for tougher drunk driving laws, especially for repeat offenders. However, Lightner soon left MADD and became one of the most outspoken critics of how purely “anti-alcohol” MADD has become. She stated that MADD “has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the
issue of drunk driving." Lightner left MADD in 1985, just one year after MADD lobbied the federal government to raise the drinking age to 21.

The issues surrounding youth alcohol abuse and drunk driving are serious, complicated and have historically convoluted explanations. As more people feel comfortable taking the political heat dished out by organizations like MADD (Who earlier this month criticized a New Jersey brewery for having New Jersey Turnpike exits themed microbrews) more academics, scientists and public officials will come out in support of a new solution. At a certain point, we will hit a tipping point and finally be able to move into an effective public policy discussion that will finally help keep both our roads and American youth safe.

Sources & Reading:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/underage-drinking.html

MADD Lambasts Brewery over New Jersey Themed Beer

Mothers Against Drunk Driving on Friday criticized a New Jersey Brewery of helping contribute to the drunk driving problem by offering New Jersey themed beer.

Flying Fish Brewery, based in Cherry Hill, NJ, is receiving flak from MADD because of a new line of beers that they recently announced. This line of beers, celebrating New Jersey, will be comprised of many different beers to be released periodically, each one named after an exit on the New Jersey Turnpike. The first brew released "Exit 4" is named after the exit closest to where Flying Fish calls home. Reports the Associated Press, "The next beer, Exit 11 Hoppy American Wheat Ale, is scheduled to start hitting bars and stores in the region on July 15. The intersection of styles is a tribute to Woodbridge's exit, where the Turnpike meets the Garden State Parkway."

However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is criticizing the brewery for encouraging drunk driving. Mindy Lazar, the executive director of MADD, New Jersey said "The combination of a roadway and advertising for any kind of a beer doesn't make any kind of sense," she continued. "This is almost a mockery."

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority also has responded over concerns that the organization may be seen as endorsing the beer. Flying Fish has since released a disclaimer that no endorsement is implied.

Responding to MADD's concerns, Brewery president Gene Mueller said this not at all true, "The one thing that both of us agree is drinking and driving is never an option," he said. He also commented that they were originally going to base the alcohol content off of the exit number of the beer, but quickly realized that once you get around exit 16 or 17 it would become "dangerous."

Does naming a beer after sentimental or historically significant exits off of a state highway really create any problems? Is it likely that someone will see this beer and feel more comfortable getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming too much of it? Not likely, at all. Rather, this seems to be more of an attack by MADD against alcohol in general.

Since the organization's founding in 1980, MADD has gone through a few eras of leadership. Candice Lightner was the woman who founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Originally called Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) after her 13 year-old daughter was killed by a hit and run drunk driver who had four previous DUIs, including another hit and run just days earlier. Lightner started MADD to crack down on repeat offenders and provide support for families or friends of people who have met tragedy because of drunk driving accidents. However, just five years later (only one year after MADD lobbied for the 21 year-old drinking age) Lightner left MADD, becoming an outspoken critic accusing MADD of becoming "anti-alcohol". Lighnter said, after leaving MADD, that the organization "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

Is it possible that MADD has seriously over-reacted to the Flying Fish Brewery's beers, which are meant to celebrate unique history and culture of New Jersey? Most likely, MADD is using anything it can to lobby against alcohol and its enjoyment, whether it be responsible, irresponsible, over 21 or under 21.*




*An interesting fact: MADD does not consider responsible alcohol consumption to literally exist for anyone under the age of 21.

Sources and Reading:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/mothers_against_drunk_driving.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TURNPIKE_BEER?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Describing the Divide

"Gradually I began to understand how different a place Hamilton had become..."
- Barrett Seaman. Former Time Magazine editor, author of Binge and trustee of Hamilton College.

Drinking has always been a part of college life. Indeed the mere fact that alcohol has been associated with the idea of rebelling is partly what has contributed to it being seen as the root of many problems. The truth is, that as residential colleges started to become more common in the US, problems started to arise. These problems, including violence, sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drug abuse, destruction of property and other similar 'immature' decisions and behaviors started to become serious problems that campuses have to deal with. Because these young people were able to live some of their youth years away from parental - or really any - oversight, they naturally become, well, more rambunctious than they had been. Alcohol was as much a part of that as anything else, though it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to conclude that alcohol itself (with no distinction as to how its drunk) was the cause. More likely, excessive and abusive alcohol use (which may lead to some of those problems) became the norm on college campuses.

When discussing the problems that college campuses face now, especially in regards to alcohol, I sometimes forget that my college experience is very different than the college experience of many of those whom I'm speaking with, who may have gone to school 30 years ago. (A time when my alma mater was just being built!)

This was brought up to me at my recent lecture/discussion "Rethinking 21" in Lake Luzerne, NY by a friend/audience member, who reminded me that there may be a large discrepancy of how people define campus life and alcohol culture.

Barrett Seaman lays down an very accurate view of modern college life in his book Binge: What Your College Student Won't Tell You. He sums this up well by saying, after spending two weeks living in student housing at Hamilton, "My two-week stay made me realize how very different student life was compared to what I had experienced."

When I speak about the problems of youth alcohol abuse with people older than myself they often share stories about crazy drinking parties when they went to college, yet as Seaman also notes, those events rarely, if ever, led to emergency room visits, stomach pumping or death. Unfortunately, college campuses are too often visited by ambulances, and as a student leader for four years, helping to organize many campus events, the goal is to reduce the number of ambulance visits from the previous year. Off the record, staff and organizers will use the number of ambulance visits on campus during an event to measure an events success. Many larger schools see multiple ambulance visits as inevitable and often specifically reserve ambulances to standby on campus. That didn't used to happen.

Although drinking culture on college campuses has existed for decades, if not more, in the US, the problems facing young people are vastly different than before and require a serious re-examination of the state of our college campuses to fully understand the problems that exist. I'll end with a quote from my thesis, Breaking Taboo:

Some studies may correlate – sometimes very loosely - certain behaviors, but until you’ve been on the wrong end of the drinking age, and are leaving a party of high school students and have actually watched groups of intoxicated kids pull out their cell phones as they drunkenly climb into their cars trying to find the next party so they can drink more, you are missing a critical perspective regarding the drinking age.

Further Reading
Binge, By Barret Seaman

The Problem Is Getting Worse

When talking about the problems associated with youth alcohol abuse, many consider the problem getting worse, which may in fact point the current philosophies and policies being fundamentally misguided.

Today, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Part of the National Institute of Health) released a study which describes the increasingly severe problem of youth alcohol abuse. Some quick stats:

Number of alcohol-related accidental deaths
1998: 1,440
2005: 1.825

Percentage of 18-24 year-olds who report drinking and driving
1998: 26.5
2005: 29

Percentage of 18-24 year-olds engaging in heavy and episodic drinking practices
1998: 42
2005: 45

Each of these statistics independently would be more than cause for alarm. However, all three? Not to mention the countless more statistics that have recently been reported: The number of drunk driving incidents is on the rise, the age that people start drinking is getting younger, and the ratio of excessive drinking practices to responsible drinking practices is increasing.

Is the drinking age effective? Maybe our more basic, underlying assumptions were false to begin with. Looking at how best to reduce the problems and harm associated with heavy drinking by people at all ages, and especially young people, requires more than "How can we enforce the drinking age better?" To really provide effective policy, we need to ask "Is the 21 year-old drinking age based on true and effective policy foundations?" We need rethink our initial assumption - we need to "rethink 21."

Study:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/joso-cdp061009.php

Edit: Additional Article:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/16/alcohol