Choose Responsibility

The results of a nationwide survey looking at the social context of underage alcohol use, performed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, were released today.  This National Survey on Drug Use and Health looked at many aspects of alcohol use and drinking behaviors amongst 12-20 year olds, and the major finding capturing the headlines is that underage drinkers are obtaining alcohol from adults, including parents and guardians.  Blaming parents and adult family members for underage alcohol use and labeling them as “enablers” may be a hasty conclusion, however.  The study indicates that 40% of underage drinkers obtained alcohol from an adult (someone over 21) for free in the past month.  However, one in four youths received alcohol from an unknown adult, and only one in twelve youths received alcohol from a parent or guardian. 

More importantly, the study does not clearly specify how parents are giving their kids alcohol.  A glass of wine at a family dinner might be statistically the same as a mother buying a keg for a son’s graduation party; however, the implications of these actions are much different.  Conclusions from the study stress that parents should be involved by providing proper guidance and ensuring their kids’ safety by preventing them from the dangerous act of drinking.  Is it possible, however, that allowing a son or daughter a glass of wine with dinner helps teach responsible drinking, and thus can be considered parental guidance?  A recent Time Magazine article discussed in a June 20^th post does an excellent job debating this issue.

In general, we are having a hard time seeing how the results of this study support a legal age 21.  Kids are finding alcohol and drinking underage, and one in five underage drinkers have binged at least once in the last month.  Moreover, this drinking is happening in private, unsupervised locations, and over half of underage drinkers have drank in someone else’s room or house during the past month.  If you ask us, that is more scary than the fact that some youths are sharing a beer with mom and dad. 

We encourage you to visit this ABC article for more information, links, and comments.

We were shocked to read about last month’s scandal at El Camino high school in

San Diego, CA, where highway patrol officers visited the school one Monday and told students that many of their classmates had been killed in drunk driving crashes over the weekend.  The news frightened students, resulting in a hysterical frenzy in classrooms and hallways as students grieved for 26 of their classmates, who they believed had died.  Later in the day, the “dead” students returned to school, revealing that the entire plan was a hoax that was intended to scare students away from drinking and driving.  School officials claim that scare tactics, like this, are effective in preventing dangerous behavior:  “[Students] were traumatized, but we wanted them to be traumatized,” said guidance counselor Lori Tauber.  “That’s how they get the message.”  However, putting severe psychological distress on students is an unethical and irresponsible way to try and teach a positive message about drinking.  The community would be much better served by trying to teach students about responsible and safe drinking, so that they can make educated choices about drinking and driving.  When a student learns about the consequences of drinking and driving, that knowledge will stay with them for life.  Scare tactics, on the other hand, create fears that can fade over time, possibly leading to dangerous decisions in the future. 

The PBS show “In the Mix,” produced by teens, for teens, will be airing “Alcohol: What You Don’t Know” during the week of June 7-14, 2008. The show will present the facts behind alcohol use and abuse and explore the effects of alcohol through interviews with victims of drunk driving accidents and alcoholics. A sample high school program in which upperclassmen teach responsible drinking workshops for younger students will also be presented. We encourage you to tune in to see what these young people have to say, and welcome your feedback and comments.  Check your local listings for more information on “In the Mix” and to see when it will be broadcast in your area.

It is difficult to miss “alcopops” in grocery stores — they are sweet alcoholic beverages, usually fluorescent in color, and marketed primarily to girls. Many allege that these beverages disguise the taste of alcohol, while still fuelling intoxication. While containing liquor, alcopops are sold in the beer aisle of most grocery stores, blurring the distinction between hard alcohol and beer and more concerning, making them more accessible to true underage individuals. Alcopops serve as a tool of intoxication rather than appreciation, and mix sweet, often caffeinated substances with alcohol as a means of facilitating that process.

Recently, many have called for a recategorization of alcopops as liquor rather than beer, enabling an alcohol tax and transferring the purchase of these substances to designated liquor establishments. We at Choose Responsibility strongly support these efforts, and believe that alcopops help encourage binge drinking and run counter to the goals of alcohol education.

 Another camp wants to legally define alcopops as beer rather than liquor on the basis of taxation and regulation. Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland endorses such a bill in his state, thereby pandering to the alcohol industry and helping to further the problem of binge drinking amongst young adults.

 As more states take on the issue of Alcopops, we encourage you to voice your concerns about the implications of maintaining the status quo.

Crackdowns are simply not working. Enacting prohibition for 18-20 year-olds has pushed the consumption of alcohol out of public view and into those private settings where risky drinking practices flourish. The Portland Press Herald describes tactics colleges and communities are using to curb “underage” drinking, only to see binge drinking flourishing behind closed doors. Risky drinking will only be minimized, and education possible, when laws are brought in line with social reality. We encourage you to peruse the Portland paper’s coverage of binge drinking and share your thoughts.

Vermont lawmakers are considering adding mandatory ignition interlocks to the possible punishments for individuals convicted of DUI. The Burlington Free Press reported today that the legislature would be studying the use of the devices in other states and may consider legislation in the next session, which begins in early 2009.  This discussion comes in response to the tragic death of 18 year-old Nick Fournier who was killed when a thrice convicted drunk driver slammed into his vehicle.  The man responsible for the accident is 33 and had consumed eight or nine beers at a nearby bar before getting in his brother’s car and driving the wrong way down the interstate.

In this case, the use of an ignition interlock may have saved a life.  If the convicted drunk driver had had an ignition interlock in his vehicle, he would have been unable to even start it that night. The devices work simply and effectively by blocking the ignition if the driver’s BAC is over an established limit.   While most states make use of ignition interlocks in DUI sentencing, only a few require it for first time DUI offenders.  In their Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, MADD strongly supports state-level legislation that would make installation of ignition interlocks mandatory for all DUI convictions.

Choose Responsibility strongly supports ignition interlocks.  Research has shown that drunk drivers are 60 percent less likely to reoffend if they have been ordered to install an interlock as part of their sentence, and also that 65 percent of the public supports interlocks for first time offenders.  That proportion jumps to 85 percent when considering repeat offenders. Unlike Legal Age 21, ignition interlocks present a specific and tailored solution to dealing with the scourge of drunken driving.  

Choose Responsibility Summer Internship Program

Looking for an engaging and hands-on summer internship? Interested in public policy, education, and social change? Want to work with a dynamic new non-profit organization?

Choose Responsibility is a new non-profit organization based whose mission is promote general public awareness of the dangers of excessive and reckless alcohol consumption by young adults through a program of research, publication, education, and related activities seeking to engage young people, their parents and public officials in serious deliberation on the role of alcohol in American culture. We seek to engage American society in a debate over the successes of the 21 year-old drinking age, and to offer policy alternatives. In a short time and with limited resources, Choose Responsibility has succeeded in drawing national attention to the once-settled question of the drinking age. Through articles in major publications like Newsweek, The Washington Post, USA Today, PARADE Magazine, and many others around the country, Choose Responsibility, has stirred debate about the drinking age and reality-based alcohol education.

We are looking for motivated and enthusiastic individuals who are committed to Choose Responsibility’s mission and eager to contribute their skills and energy to the organization. Positions available include office and web assistant, research assistant, and educational liaison. All positions are paid and will be based in our home office in Middlebury, VT. Please contact Grace Kronenberg for detailed job descriptions and information on how to apply.

Choose Responsibility
P.O. Box 507
Middlebury, VT 05753
www.chooseresponsibility.org

On a Fox News panel on Monday April 7, Candy Lightner, Founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, shared her belief that young adults “don’t think for themselves.” Lightner used this as a justification for why the drinking age should not coincide with the age of enlistment. Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have heard members of the MADD network stereotyping young adults as immature. The same argument has been put forth by several of Lightner’s colleagues, including a 19 year-old M.I.T student (who, interestingly, is considered mature enough to sit on the Board of a large national organization), as well as MADD representatives on local panels.

The moment, naturally, was captured by YouTube,  and we have provided a rough transcript below.

“…That’s exactly why the draft age is 18…because these kids are malleable. They’ll follow the leader. They don’t think for themselves. And they are the last ones that I want to say, here’s a gun and here’s a beer…they are not adults.”

Happy “New Beer’s Eve!” (Well, a bit belated).  75 years ago yesterday, April 7, beer started flowing legally in America for the first time in 14 years. Under the 18th Amendment and Prohibition, all “alcoholic” and “intoxicating” beverages — defined by the Volstead Act as substances containing more than 0.5% alcohol — were banned.  While the amendment to repeal Prohibition was brewing before Franklin D. Roosevelt stepped into office, ratification was still months away, and the president decided that it was time to take an important first-step towards repeal. The Cullen-Harrison Act raised the threshold of alcohol “intoxication” from 0.5% to 3.2%, thereby permitting the sale and consumption of 3.2% beer — the only alcoholic drink permitted for the next 8 months. 

 Beyond representing a victory of “wets” over “drys,” the legalization of 3.2% beer helped moderate what had become an excessive and reckless use of alcohol by the American public under Prohibition. Bathtub gin in underground speakeasies was replaced by beer in public gatherings, and a covert and corrupt production network by a regulated industry offering economic and employment benefits.  The result? An era of greater responsibility and a healthier national attitude towards alcohol.

Sound familiar? We have a lot to learn from 3.2% beer today, as 18 to 20 year-olds face a modern-day prohibition. Surely, the majority of them continue to drink, but their behavior, like that of their counterparts under the 18th Amendment, has become reckless, excessive, and geared towards the product that is most readily accessible and potent to them — hard liquor.  The act of “pre-gaming” with shots of vodka in basements or dorm rooms has become the norm, as young adults no longer have access to public gatherings where alcohol is served in moderation. Parents and educators lose their capacity to educate young adults about the risks and rewards of drinking, and as a result, the instructor role has been transferred to fraternity brothers and college roommates — hardly pillars of moderation. Further, as in the 1920s and 1930s, enforcement is lax, helping to breed disrespect for law.

 Americans in the 1930s realized that laws must reflect reality, and that safety and moderation are more important than lofty yet unattainable social experiments. It is for this realization that we celebrate April 7, 1933 and continue to work to find our own equivalent middle ground of 3.2% beer.

 Interested in learning more? Try these.

Los Angeles Times

NPR

The last few weeks have seen a considerable amount of discussion about the drinking age in Boulder, CO. Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner spoke out on his views about Legal Age 21.  In a memo to the Boulder City Coucil, Beckner argued “I believe we should consider returning the legal drinking age to 18, and then spend our resources on programs to reduce abuse of alcohol and the effects it has on behavior.”  Beckner’s memo was prompted by an interview he gave to 60 Minutes, which will be included in the upcoming drinking age segment featuring Choose Responsibility Director John McCardell. Two Colorado papers, the Boulder Daily Camera and the Colorado Springs Gazette, have taken editorial positions in favor of Beckner’s stance.

We applaud Beckner’s courage in taking a stance against Legal Age 21 and have been please by the follow-up discussion that has taken place in Boulder since. From columns and letters in the local paper, to a community discussion on underage drinking which took place last night, what is going on in Boulder exemplifies what could be going on in every community in the US.  Perhaps this is best put by Boulder City Manager Frank Bruno, who says:

“In my view, the part of Chief Beckner’s message that is most important is that when we do have a community-wide conversation, we need to have the courage to consider new approaches. The debate should consider all facts and research and should not be solely about lowering the legal drinking age. Instead, young people, community members, experts and political leaders must work together to explore solutions to the primary issues of binge drinking, over-consumption, driving while under the influence, and the violence and damage that typically accompanies such behavior.”

Proponents of a lower drinking age need to be bold enough to speak out, ruffle feathers, and prompt discussion.  [CR] will continue to do that on as many levels as we can, but we need each of you to bring this debate to your communities, just as Mark Beckner has in Boulder, CO.   Cheers to Chief Beckner!

If you’re looking for ideas on how to speak out and get more involved, check out our new Volunteer Center!