Choose Responsibility

Brian Threet was not a big drinker, but one night of heavy drinking – a seemingly normal event in the life of a college student — was one too many. Brian, a 20-year-old student at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, lost his life to alcohol – not as a result of drinking and driving, but because of excessive alcohol consumption itself. 

 The drinking environment that led to Brian’s tragic death was risky, underground, and unfortunately, all too common in college settings. America’s youth needs to change its attitude towards alcohol, and we need to provide them with the means of doing so.

From ‘Toga’ to ’Dirty Professor/Naughty Schoolgirl’ to ‘Sports Pros/Hoes,’ sexually-charged themed parties are growing in number and visibility on college campuses. The behavior of young women at these functions is particularly noticeable, unlike their clothing, as they dance scantily clad and drink to excess. The dangerous combination of revealing dress, assumed character, and risky drinking was the subject of a recent study conducted by San Diego State University and the University of Michigan. Researchers found that themed parties represent one of a few places where women outdrink men. The resulting loss of inhibition, coupled with revealing and attention-grabbing costumes, and a parade of bare skin, pose problems for the safety and well-being of young women.

 Not only do such parties promote the submissive role of the female, but they are also frequently coupled with competitive drinking. An associated finding of the study, which observed 1,304 students at 66 college parties over three semesters,  suggests that parties with drinking games result in higher blood alcohol levels.

Binge drinking is widely acknowledged as a concern amongst young adults; however, its consequences are exacerbated when intertwined with sexualized themes and costume, particularly amongst young women. Themed parties, often thought to be controversial but hardly harmful, deserve campus-wide discussion and more critical examination.

Two recent New York Times opinion pieces shed light on the relationship between binge drinking and the responsibilities faced by parents and their young adult children. The dangers of binge drinking  are reinforced by Paul Steinberg, who stresses that activity’s significant negative effect on cognition and brain development. Citing research conducted by Fulton T. Crews at the University of North Carolina Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, Steinberg notes the “diminished capacity for re-learning and maladaptive decision-making” amongst binge-drinking subjects. This research raises red flags as binge drinking practices gain greater prominence on college campuses and youth environments around the country.

The dangers of binge drinking –  not the consumption of a mere beer, but rather, five, ten, or more drinks in a setting — have raised concerns for parents, as well. Michael Winerip provides an account of a parental checkmate – trying to teach his children responsible drinking practices as they inevitably face risky drinking environments, yet understanding that drinking under the age  of 21, though widespread, is illegal. Winerip proves prohibitionist programs such as D.A.R.E to be ineffective and untimely in equipping young adults with the skills to act responsibly.  However, in the face of increasingly high-risk drinking, even those parents who would never think of allowing their children to consume alcohol, are assuming less prohibitionist and more realistic stances. Other parents, who chose to turn a blind eye, have attempted to establish household policies that place harsh punishments on binge drinking offenses, rather than the consumption of a single alcoholic beverage in a controlled environment. Prohibition does not work. Without state-level adjustments in the legal age of alcohol consumption, parents must continue to walk this fine line between guidance and safety, prohibition and binge.

Science does not stand alone — its findings become meaningful when viewed at large, not selectively, and when its formulas are placed in an everyday context, and its principles critically evaluated. By claiming that science rests on one side of the drinking age question, and neglecting the scientific and mathematical findings that disprove its case, the authors of yesterday’s editorial in USA Today illustrate a narrow-minded view of science. The authors’ attempts to crouch behind science are even more disappointing, having admitted in the first half of their article the dangerous unintended consequences generated by Legal Age 21.

If science supports the pro-21 argument, then why do the other 50 studies (surely, not cited by the newspaper) fail to support a cause-and-effect relationship between a higher drinking age and lower fatalities? If science proves that the 21 year-old drinking age is responsible for a decline in traffic fatalities and consequently, lives saved, then why have more lives been saved by seat belts and airbags in 2004 and 2005 than in the entire history of Legal Age 21? And further, how would the authors and MADD explain the (scientific) fact that alcohol-related fatalities have reached their highest level in the last decade?

 Then there is the social reality of alcohol in the lives of young adults — made more difficult and dangerous by Legal Age 21.  Drinking has been forced out of the open, into unsupervised venues where risky binge drinking has become the norm. Why are young adults, excelling in many other ways, choosing to put their lives at risk by consuming dangerous quantities of alcohol? The answer is tied to a scientific term called reactance motivation, and a certain historical movement called Prohibition. If we infantalize individuals who in all other instances are considered adults, it is not a surprise that we receive increasingly infantile behavior. Over 1,000 young adults aged 18-24 die every year from alcohol-related causes taking place off the roads and highways — victims of risky drinking practices. These dangerous consumption patterns are documented and widespread, and bear anatomical and neurological consequences far outweighing those associated with the moderate consumption of alcohol.

 Science does not rest on either side of the question, and needs to be evaluated seriously and realistically. There are too many questions left unanswered, and too many lives lost, to risk using limited science as a shield from social reality.

Binge drinking continues to be a serious health problem in the both the US and the UK and solutions to curb dangerous alcohol consumption are allusive. A study released in the UK earlier this month found that when parents provided alcohol to their children in a family environment, children were less likely to engage in binge drinking and experience negative drinking outcomes. The findings come from a survey of 10,271 15-16 students in North West England published in the online journal Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy.

“Such family consumption,” writes lead researcher Marc Bellis, “may help open up an early dialog about alcohol between parents and children. It allows youths to experiment with alcohol in a family setting with positive parental role models rather than outside the family with pressure from peers to consume to excess.” And it is from this experiential learning that these young adults come to learn responsible drinking practices.

This past week the Columbia University’s Center for Alcohol and Substance Abuse (CASA), headed by the former Secretary of Health Joseph Califano Jr., released a report on the state of alcohol and drug use on the college level. The full, text can be found here. Though this is not the first CASA report on the subject of college student substance abuse, it does appear, at least by first glance, to be more broadly accepted as legitimate scholarship in the field. The previous study released by CASA caught the attention of several major scholars and media outlets cooking its statistics to inflate the crisis of college drinking. Here’s a brief review of that criticism.

In my initial read of the CASA report titled, Wasting the Best and Brightest, I had very little trouble with their statistics. They are, in short, expected and not substantially different from other sources. In short, CASA reports that close to 50% of college students report abusing alcohol (binge drinking), illicit drugs, or prescription drugs. Previous research (2001) say binge drinking levels are about 40%. The way CASA compiles the all rates of abuse into one figure it is easy to mistake that figure for 25% increase in the rate of binge drinking (from 40 to 50 percent) in the past 5 years. That is definitely not the case. However, I do find it difficult to believe that 10% of the college population abuses illicit or prescription drugs but are not guilty of binge drinking. It’s possible, but rather unlikely. The take away point of all of this? The headlining statistic of their report, may not be as high as they report. It’s not the end of the world but if someone has the time it is definitely worth investigating in greater detail.

The other striking thing about the CASA report is the disconnect between the report itself and the accompanying statement by its director Joe Califano. The report proper is written well, and reflects the staid discussion of findings and recommendations that is expected from a college-funded study. That language is sharply contrasted by the rhetoric of Califano’s opening statement. “Too many [college presidents, deans, and trustees] assume a Pontius Pilate posture, leaving the problem in the hands of the students.” How that caustic attack on college administrators is supposed to solve the problem of abuse on college campuses is lost on this reader. The comparison is foolish, if not impudent.

Competing editorials in the Bennington Banner of Vermont show the complexity of the drinking age question. On one hand is a high school administrator, who in his interactions with high school students experiences the problems and tragedies that occur with underage drinking. His reaction is understandable: strengthen enforcement of the current law. After all, the logic holds, if we want young adults to stop drinking, then cracking down on them hard would seem like way to do it. The following day, the editorial board of the Bennington paper, responded to the op-ed, taking the opposite view.

“Ultimately, when those simplistic and repressive controls are finally lifted, there are no internal controls left to take over. . . . As a society, we somehow have to allow teens to drink, if they wish, in supervised, controlled venues — and we have to educate them — before they are allowed into bars and package stores. We can’t just hide the booze away and hope they wait until they are 21. Unfortunately, that’s what we are doing today.”

And so we are left with two choices, to maintain the status quo, to accept that this is the best we can do, or to try something different, something new and innovative. On the surface, a 21 year-old drinking ought to help keep alcohol from reaching minors, by the fact that it makes alcohol illegal to consume and difficult to obtain. In certain cases that may very well be the case. But more often than not, those classified by the law as “underage” are obtaining and drinking alcohol. In the end, we are faced with a law that is out of step with our cultural attitudes towards alcohol, which encourages violation and breeds disrespect for law.

In the more than two decades that have passed since its implementation, the 21 year-old drinking age has created a climate in which terms like “binge” and “pregame” have come to describe young peoples’ choices about alcohol. The goal-oriented drinking that is now common under the current law, though dangerous, may more importantly be a consequence of the law itself. In an environment where drinking must be kept hidden from the law, the rituals surrounding alcohol consumption come to reflect those environmental pressures. As those rituals become empowered, they come to define and give weight to the culture of drinking itself. Thus, as drinking to evade the law inherently becomes an act of drinking as quickly as possible, those acts of goal-oriented drinking become part of a unique culture.

Many people think of binge drinking as a “kid’s” problem, as something young people grow out of as they mature, get a job, and start a family. A recent case study of New Mexico, completed using national survey data, indicates that substantial proportion of the adult population drinks excessively. 16.5% of New Mexicans over 18 binge drink regularly, while only 1.8% of that same population can be classified as alcohol dependent. Binge drinking is a national, population-wide public health problem, and by pigeon-holing it as a plague of college campuses we risk over simplifying the problem.

Interestingly, the authors point to lopsided expenditures between treatment for alcoholism and prevention of excessive drinking–nationally, about $4 billion is spent on treatment, while only about $1 billion is spent on prevention efforts. The authors hope that their findings, as well as those nationally, will equalize the monies being spent on treatment and prevention and help send the message that binge drinking among adults is a serious public health concern.