Underage Drinking...is not the problem

Here's a blog post from New Zealand that repeats what I've been saying, and what other (smart) Kiwis* have been saying: underage drinking is not the problem.The problem is how we, as a society, choose to drink, and that's something you and I have to face: not those Bud drinkers, or those drunks, or those frat boys: it's all of us. Not least because if we don't face it, and frame the problem and solution in a way that we find right, the New Drys are going to do it to us -- I mean, for us.

This is a serious problem. Look, MADD is right about one thing: drunk driving kills people, and it's preventable. Drunkenness and alcohol abuse are terrible problems, and if you can't acknowledge that, you've got your head in the sand up to your navel. Addressing parts of it -- underage drinking seems to be catching a lot of the hysteria, but there's energy booze drinks, there's cheap booze, there's high-ABV beer and wine: take your pick -- fails miserably because the demand for alcohol is hydraulic: push it down in one category, and it will simply pop us in another.

What we need to do...is have a serious national discussion about why so many Americans drink solely to get drunk; not lightly buzzed, or socially lubricated, or blissed, but loose-limbed nasty drunk. We need to talk about why we do it, about how dangerous that is in the short and long term, and about how we can stop. We need to change the drinking culture in this country...and no one has a clue on how to do that without Prohibition-type thinking.



*Here's something I posted on my old website five years ago, when the hand-wringers were first trying to jack up the drinking age: "I give you the comments of a police area commander in New Zealand, Pat Handcock, who says that "raising the age will not curb underage drinking...and that 'our generation' has to take responsibility for setting the drinking culture of today's young people. 'What we have to do is actually encourage a community culture that really lives the slogan that we've got to be careful with alcohol, because it can cause a lot of problems,' Inspector Handcock says. 'I don't think our generation and generations before mine have actually educated our children very well in terms of personal safety and alcohol. We've set the culture that binge-drinking is okay.'" Bingo.

MADD and ignition interlocks: follow the money

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on drunk driving today, part of what appears to be a series on the topic. In it, they question the position of distillers' business group The Century Council on drunk driving; TCC feels that the next step in stopping drunk driving deaths should be stiffer penalties for drivers who are caught at 0.15 BAC and over. The article has some very interesting looks at the numbers behind that, which made me question my position on this, which has been similar to TCC's. Good job, and thoughtful.

However, they talk about MADD's support for ignition interlocks (MADD wants interlocks in the cars of everyone arrested for DUI), evaluate it, and give it tacit approval...without pointing out MADD's financial links to the company that makes ignition interlocks; a major MADD donor. Actually, the WSJ is not particularly lax: no one ever mentions it. Check it out, folks: follow the money.

PIRE admits keg registration doesn't work!

Amazing! In an article that's so new I can't even find it online*, keg registration is found to have no effect in reducing underage drinking and driving fatalities. That's actually admitted in a press release put out by the Substance Abuse Prevention Research Program today. It's not the main thrust of the article; that's about laws that do work. (BTW, I contacted the folks who put out the release: you'll find the full cite below.)

Sorry this is kind of disorganized, but it's wild to see that right there in the middle of the press release, James Fell of PIRE (Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, noted New Dry screamers) says “We didn’t find that laws mandating that beer kegs be registered to the purchaser made any difference in reducing underage drinking and driving fatal crashes. In fact with this particular law, we saw 12 percent more drinking-related traffic fatalities amongst those under 21.” Keg registration doesn't work, dopes, I've been saying that for years!

It's almost as interesting to note the main point of the piece. According to their research, the most effective laws in preventing underage drinking-and-driving fatalities are: the 0.08 BAC DUI law, automatic license suspension for driving with 0.08 BAC, primary offense seatbelt laws (allowing officers to pull drivers over for failure to wear seatbelts, not just citing them for it if they find it after pullovers for other reasons), and the 21 LDA. I'm not getting into the LDA law, but I will note that the other three laws affect all ages of drinking-and-driving. I'd also like to know the difference they found between fatalities under 0.1 BAC laws and 0.08 laws, whether individual state drinking culture/attitudes or enforcement budgets and priorities were taken into account, but if I ever see the article, there will be time for that.

For now, could we get the main message out? Stop wasting time and money and effort on keg registration laws, because they don't work. Period. Tell your legislators. I already have, and as I said in that e-mail, "I'm against keg registration laws because they are unfair to beer drinkers, they are a bureaucratic annoyance, and they are invasive of privacy. But primarily, I am against them because they don't work, and I would much rather see the Commonwealth spend what money and effort we have on programs that DO work."



*I'm not the only one who can't find the article: SAPRP was so excited to get this press release out the door that it includes neither the title of the article or the authors, exactly the kind of sloppy research we're all familiar with from the New Drys, and thanks for keeping the faith, guys. It's also interesting to see that the only person quoted in the press release is a researcher from PIRE. Is Fell one of the authors? [yes, see below] Maybe, but the inkslingers at SAPRP fail to make that clear. Good job, folks.

Just more proof that there is a vast, New Dry conspiracy, connected by funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and they maintain separate agencies and foundations in part to look more numerous and important (and believable) than they are, and quote and comment on each other to look smarter. Even if the newspapers aren't on to this scam, I am.

I also have the full cite for the article: The Impact of Underage Drinking Laws on Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes of Young Drivers, in the online version of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research (though it doesn't appear to actually be up yet), authored by James C. Fell, M.S., Deborah A. Fisher, Ph.D., Robert B. Voas, Ph.D., Kenneth Blackman, M.S., A. Scott Tippetts, B.A. The authors, BTW, are all members of PIRE; I've seen Voas's work before.

Kentucky Bourbon Festival: MADD postscript

As I was waiting for the shuttle, being responsible and all, I heard an airplane flying overhead. I looked up and saw it was towing a banner:

DESIGNATE A SOBER DRIVER - MADD.ORG

Well, that was a good thing. That's actually a great thing, and I wish MADD would stick to that kind of non-insane program. Way too much of what MADD does now is, well, suspect. They plug away at getting ignition interlocks put in DUI arrestee's cars...and accept large donations from the company that makes them. They are actually pushing for every car to have alcohol sensors; won't that be a bonanza for their sponsor! Do I really think MADD's that mercenary? Not really; I think they honestly believe this is a good idea, and the company is donating to them because they're fellow travelers. But that's exactly the kind of accusatory crap they throw at the booze industry all the time. The 21 LDA: what the hell is MADD doing with that? You want to cut back on kids driving drunk? Raise the ridiculously low driving age! Lowering the legal BAC: how about pushing for real punishment for higher BACs, the people who are shown time after time to be the truly dangerous drunk drivers? How about some programs to prevent licensees overserving patrons? How about some rewards for compliance and proactive actions instead of always being focused on punishment for non-compliance?

The thing is...as other folks commented here, all this stuff makes perfect sense if you posit that MADD is not an anti-drunk driving organization, but an anti-drinking organization.