Customer Reviews

Dying to Drink: Confronting Binge Drinking on College Campuses

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

We are so immersed in a national cult of alcohol that we can't, or won't, see the forces at work. This book peels back the façade so that we can make our own decisions about were we want to go as a society. The myth that the personal choice to abuse alcohol is a sacred right that harms only the user, is exploded. The authors put a human face on a steady stream of well-researched statistics that run throughout the book. I was afraid that this was going to be yet another preachy tome but found myself intrigued, angered, disgusted, yet often uplifted and enlightened by the vignettes presented in this lively-written narrative. Personally, I abhor cynicism and knee-jerk accusations that use conspiracy to explain away every societal ill - but the authors' indictment of the alcohol industry and its accomplices is so compelling, and upon reflection, so obvious, that the word "conspiracy" is too weak in this case. Sadly, they show that even the purity of "good science" is being prostituted by certain social-pschology academics; as a scientist I find this shocking. The ultimate obscenity is that, more than ever before, our children are being systematically used as "societal gateways" to infuse violence, tragedy, and irresponsible behavior into the bedrock of our culture. And we are willing and compliant.

Few people realize that alcohol is involved in the deaths of six times more Americans under the age of 21 than all the other illicit drugs combined. Underage drinking is the #1 youth drug problem in our country, but far too many parents, teachers and administrators look the other way and view it as a rite of passage. "Dying to Drink" does an outstanding job laying out the true scope of underage drinking and its consequences. As a long-time advocate against drunk & drugged driving and underage drinking and as a state lawmaker, I believe this book is a great resource to students, schools, parents and communities. Many thanks to the authors for telling the truth about underage drinking and for giving concerned citizens guidance on how to take action.

In their efforts to rally the public to action, the authors have exaggerated the actual magnitude of alcohol abuse on American college campuses. Federal surveys consistently report a continuing decline in alcohol consumption rather than an "epidemic." Their own data fail to make the case and they are forced to use anecdotal interviews of students who do abuse alcohol. But anecdotal evidence does not constitute science or a sound basis for public policy. Their suggestions for reducing the problem consist of demonstrably ineffective policies along with some that appear to constitute unconstiitutional infringements upon personal liberties. Much more useful is H. Wesley Perkins' The Social Norms Approach to Prevening ...."

In spite of the federally-documented continuing decline in alcohol use among American college students, the authors promote the view that there is an epidemic of collegiate alcohol abuse. They rely heavily on anecdotal rather than systematically-collected evidence to support this view. Wechsler and Wuethrich contend that this alleged dangerous epidemic requires a number of strong public policies against alcohol that are prohibitionist in nature. However, attempts to impose total abstinence on adults age 18 to 21 would not likely to be successful and would almost certainly be counter-productive. Prohibition has always been a failure and led to less frequent but heavier and more dangerous consumption..

Henry Wechsler, the Harvard alcohol researcher who in 1993 redefined the term "binge drinking" to a mere 5 drinks in a night (4 for a female) is at it again. You oldsters may remember the term used to describe a multi-day bender instead, but Wechsler's definition is now the dominant one in the United States, despite the fact that one can "binge" in this way and remain relatively sober if done slowly enough. He grossly exaggerates (and inadvertently normalizes in the process) the very real problem of truly heavy drinking on college campuses.

OK, if this guy is right, college drinking is way out of control, and has implicitly gotten worse since the eighties, we need to crack down even harder on those damn underage drinkers, right? Haven't we been doing that, increasingly so? But maybe, just maybe, that proves once and for all that raising the drinking age to 21 was an ignominious failure. Oh! But the statistics show that both drinking overall and binge drinking is down? Then let's not mess with success, the neoprohibitionists say. Look, you can't have it both ways folks. True, federal surveys generally do show (except for a brief increase in the first half of the 1990s) a decline in both drinking and binge drinking for high school students and 18-22 year olds NOT in college, that began in 1979-81 (predating the national drinking age hike), but for college students it remained remarkably steady over the decades. That's no surprise since both Millennials and Generation X tend to be more responsible overall than Generation Jones by just about every OBJECTIVE statistical measure (crime, violence, drug use, drug overdoses, teen pregnancy, sexual activity), regardless of what the media pundits may say. However, binge drinking is defined as 5/4+ or more drinks in a night in such surveys, and there has been no longitudinal study to my knowledge on the prevalence of "extreme" drinking (10/8+ drinks). A study of first-semester college freshmen by White et al. in 2003 found that 20% men and 8% of women exceeded these levels at least once in the past two weeks, compared to 41% of men and 34% of women who had 5/4 drinks, respectively. Researchers even had the gall to suggest (vaguely and ambiguously of course) in that study that the minority of drinkers (and even of "binge" drinkers) that are "extreme" are the ones causing the real problems. But the neoprohibitionists continue to bark up the wrong tree yet again.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the "extreme" drinking rates have increased (despite stable or declining "binge" and total drinking rates) since the drinking age was raised to 21. When you criminalize normative drinking and force it ever deeper underground, you will inadvertently (but inevitably) normalize truly dangerous drinking. This is exacly what happened during Prohibition. And we all pay a heavy price for it.

OK, you say, but didn't drunk driving fatalities plummet as a result of raising the age? Actually, not all studies agree on that point either, despite the apparent media and political pseudo-consensus. Check out Miron and Tetelbaum, 2007, or Dee and Evans, 2001, some of the best studies on the topic IMO. The first one says, after adjusting for numerous confounders, only the first few states to raise the age voluntarily (before federal coercion) for whatever reason had a significant fatality decline, thus skewing the national results. Most of the rest so no statistically significant change or an increase in fatalities after adjusting for confounders. And even the "early adopting" states had a rebound effect just a few years later. That last fact is also similar to what happened in 1920-21, the first two years of Prohibition. Alcohol consumption declined at first with only minimal law enforcement, primarily among the working class who could not afford overly price-inflated illegal hooch, then rebounded with a vengeance and continued to rise, despite ever-increasing enforcement of Prohibition. Some researchers even go so far as to say that the first two years were lifesaving, but we all know what happened next. The second study suggests that a drinking age of 21 reduces fatalities slightly for 18-19 year olds, but raises them for 22-24 year olds, merely delaying fatalities for a few short years. Turns out the "miracle" was really just a dividend that had to be paid a few years down the line when those subjected to age prohibition reached the new drinking age! And several studies show the remainder of the fatality decline can be better explained by other factors (safer cars, seat belt laws, tougher drunk driving laws and enforcement, public awareness, etc.).

By the way, Miron and Tetelbaum also find that high school drinking survey results are only minimally affected (if at all) by the drinking age. Again, only the early adopting states give statisitcally significant results after adjusting for confounders such as beer tax.

In other words, there is no NET benefit to having an unenforceably high drinking age of 21, and throwing more money at it and passing more ridiculous laws to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition is absurd. It is hardly a solution since it is part of the problem. It would be far more intelligent, fair, and lucrative to lower the drinking age to 18, raise the alcohol taxes (especially beer), restrict advertising, and increase HONEST alcohol education if one really wants to reduce abusive drinking and its attendant problems in the short and long term. Sound crazy? That is exactly what we did with cigarettes, and smoking rates have declined for all ages by more than half since 1976 despite relatively poor enforcement of the smoking age. And stop letting drunk drivers off so easily compared to other countries--it is not difficult to do unless those in power are pansies (or habitual drunk drivers themselves). Remember, the real (pink) elephant in the room is the behavior of older adults whose example is followed by America's youth regardless of the drinking age. And it isn't very good.

I believe a functional definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?