Younger drinkers risk ruining their lives

As a college president, I have many reasons to be concerned about the consumption of alcohol by my students. Perhaps the most clear-cut reasons are legal. Students who consume alcohol under the age of 21 are breaking state law. Furthermore, even those who are of legal drinking age might cause civil liability to accrue to the college if they drink to excess and cause harm to themselves or others.

However, the most important issues surrounding excessive and underage student drinking are, for me and my fellow presidents, not legal. Of much greater concern are the potential adverse consequences to the students themselves. Nationally almost 2,000 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from unintentional injuries in which alcohol was a factor. Additional hundreds of thousands of students are injured; many of them seriously. These deaths and injuries are avoidable.

Every empirical study I have seen in 25 years of studying the issue in Canada and the United States confirms that there is a direct relationship between the legal drinking age and the incidence of alcohol-related death and injury. For that reason, I would not support any reduction in the legal drinking age. This was one of the alternatives posited by the Amethyst Initiative as a way of combating underage and binge drinking. It is unfortunate that the drinking age has attracted the most attention, especially since it seems doubtful that lowering the drinking age would lead to any appreciable amelioration of the most serious consequences.

In the first place, patterns of high-risk drinking behavior are already typically well-established before students arrive at college. Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, published in the Journal of American College Health (Volume 50, No.5, 223-236), state that in 2001, 43.6 percent of underage college students were classified as binge drinkers, meaning consumption of at least five drinks in a row for men or four drinks in a row for women during the two weeks before completion of the study questionnaire. The vast majority of these began drinking in high school and, increasingly, underage drinking and binge drinking are regularly occurring as low as the eighth grade or earlier.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse has found that the reported first use of alcohol went from age 17 1/2 in 1965 to 14 in 2003. Research further shows that the earlier students begin consuming alcohol, the more likely they will engage in behavior harmful to themselves and others.

Clearly this problem is as wide-ranging as the adverse consequences it brings about. Unsafe sexual practices, sexual abuse, health problems, drunk driving, property damage, vandalism, assault and alcohol dependence can all be added to the list.

And then there is the often less visible but very real matter of academic consequences. In the 1980s I reviewed thousands of files from students applying to Canadian law schools. Hundreds of those revealed a similar pattern: poor grades in the freshman year, a modest GPA increase in the sophomore year and then substantial improvement in the junior and senior years. Usually no explanation would be given for this other than a vague reference to "problems of adjustment."

Requests for a more detailed explanation typically yielded a rueful account of how the first year and a half of college were spent in a beery fog before reality intervened. Sadly too late for those whose grades, averaged over four years, were uncompetitive for law school or graduate school and who had to lower their expectations as a result. What a waste of human capital, individually sad but cumulatively tragic.

How do we as a society deal with this? Senate President Richard Codey has asked New Jersey's colleges to provide details of their alcohol policies. It is a fair request and one to which we should be glad to respond given the extensive policy frameworks, policing regimens, educational programs and health intervention measures we have developed. More importantly, it holds out the opportunity to frame the discussion properly.

Why are so many — but by no means all — college students acculturated to abusing alcohol? It can't just be about "adjustment" and new-found freedom since many of our students are sophisticated and experienced in ways that previous generations were not. We also need to go further and ask why alcohol abuse has been matched by a similar abuse of prescription pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants and sedatives. And why are these drugs so accessible?

I and my fellow presidents look forward to making progress in answering these questions.
___________
Dr. Peter P. Mercer is president of Ramapo College of New Jersey.
______
source: My Central Jersey, http://www.mycentraljersey.com

Fear of alcohol addiction 'pandemic'

Every dollar spent on alcohol and drug treatment could save taxpayers at least $5, say experts.

They warn of a "pandemic waiting to happen" if the country's addiction problems are not addressed.

A paper released by the National Committee for Addiction Treatment (NCAT) yesterday revealed what one member called "horrifying" statistics, detailing devastation wrought by alcohol and drug addicts.

It also cited a 2005 United Kingdom study, which found that money spent on standard treatment therapies for alcohol problems saved about five times that amount in expenditure on health, social and criminal justice services.

National Addiction Centre director Doug Sellman said the difference was even more marked for drug addicts, where $8 could be saved for every dollar spent.

The statistics included:

89 per cent of serious offences are committed under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of weekend crime is alcohol-related.

Up to 50 per cent of men who physically abuse their partners have substance-abuse problems.

Alcohol plays a role in 30 per cent of fatal car crashes.

70 per cent of Emergency Department admissions are caused by alcohol abuse.

This happened in an environment where only 22,000 of New Zealanders with addictions accessed treatment services in any given year, leaving an estimated 138,000 unaided, NCAT co-chair Christine Kalin said.

Treatment costs ranged from $80 for an intervention for a low-level problem to more than $8000 for months of residential treatment.

Kalin, who released the paper at the Cutting Edge Addiction Treatment Conference in Christchurch, said staff in the sector were sick of turning away people who needed help.

"Anecdotally, I know that there are services that have waiting lists. Rather than building prisons, having health budgets overspent, having police resources stretched, let's put some of that money into services at the front end rather than the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

"At a very minimum, we need to have the capacity to treat the 160,000 who we know need special help, and help now," she said.

Alcohol Healthwatch director Rebecca Williams said the problem was probably worse than it appeared because people who could not access services were likely to be incorrectly recorded.

"This is a sort of pandemic waiting to happen ... I think services, if they were actually presented with all of the cases that needed help and support, they would simply not be able to cope."

Experts warned that turning people away often meant the window of opportunity to help them was missed.

Kalin said investment in the sector could take the form of community-based treatment options, aimed at specific high-risk groups such as schools and prisons.

Only one third of alcohol or drug addicts were thought to receive treatment while incarcerated, she said.

Associate Minister of Health Damien O'Connor, who addressed the conference yesterday, said the Government had increased its spending from $65 million in 2001 to $94m last year.

National health spokesman Tony Ryall said the party also recognised it was an issue, particularly for families of drug-affected young people, and would address it in its health policy.
_____________
source: Stuff NZ, http://www.stuff.co.nz/

Alcohol + loud music = more alcohol

Trying to limit your alcohol intake is tougher when you're drinking in a bar with loud music, according to a new study.

Researchers have already shown that listening to fast music can speed up the rate of drinking. But now they say loud music has the same effect. Both fast and loud music can heighten arousal, causing people to drink faster and order more drinks, say the authors of the study, published online today in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. And there's another reason why people drink more when the band is blasting: They can't converse.

"...loud music may have had a negative effect on social interaction in the bar, so that patrons drank more because they talked less."

The authors of the study suggest that bar owners tone it down a little so that people won't overindulge. Since we know that won't happen, you may have to monitor yourself. If your ears are ringing, slow down before the room starts spinning.
________
source: Los Angeles Times Blogs, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com

Time to re-assess attitude to alcohol

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was right when he said recently that alcohol abuse was a growing problem and that the "epidemic of binge drinking" he had witnessed was "not good".

Interestingly, our Prime Minister's remarks make for a fascinating juxtaposition with those of someone in the alcohol service industry. The owner of the Normanby Hotel (in Queensland), defending his hotel's record on public safety, was recently quoted as saying: "If we're so bad, why are we so popular?"

It's not rocket science to realise that popularity is not necessarily an indication of whether something is good. All it shows is that it is popular. After all, smoking is popular. So is junk food. But neither of them is "good".

Furthermore, being good doesn't always guarantee popularity – if that was the case, carrots and celery would be in much higher demand. And why do we tend to lean towards popular – even when we know that, sadly, carrots are better for us than chocolate.

One thing our society is generally good at, supported by underlying philosophies such as individualism and materialism, is elevating short-term pleasure over long-term benefits. Hence, a smoker will tell you that they know cigarettes are bad for them but they still smoke.

It's why I choose a chocolate bar instead of an apple for a mid-afternoon snack, or sleep in instead of getting up and exercising. I know what is good, but the good is not always popular. And being popular does not make it good – no matter what the owner of the Normanby may hope.

And so we find that alcohol abuse and binge drinking have become popular, and is a fast-growing problem for Australian society.

Figures recently quoted in The Courier-Mail, and sourced from the National Health and Medical Research Council, suggest there are staggeringly high levels of binge drinking occurring in young Australians. More than 40 per cent of 16 to 17-year-old drinkers consume alcohol at hazardous levels.

Some dismiss those who are warning of the dangers of youth drinking patterns, and argue that young people have been drinking illicitly for generations. There is a level of truth to that, however, the nature and environment in which alcohol consumption is taking place now is fundamentally different from even five years ago.

So what can we do? Part of the problem lies in the fact that the nature of alcohol being consumed by young drinkers has changed drastically. Young drinkers are not experimenting with beer or wine. They are choosing spirits and mixers, and the pre-mixed drinks such as UDLs and Vodka Cruisers are hugely popular. When alcohol doesn't taste like alcohol, such as with drinks like these targeting the teenage market, you get young people underestimating the effect of what they are drinking. It's a recipe for disaster.

Of course, during the teenage years, and early 20s, many people are also struggling with issues of identity, insecurity, peer pressure and fear of rejection. A substance, which promises – even temporarily – to remove inhibitions, embolden the drinker and include them in a socially popular activity, is one that is difficult to resist.

Further complexities arise when you consider the social environment in which young people are being raised. Over-arching community ideas, such as short-term gratification, throwing off restraint and self-determination all combine to create a cocktail of impending disaster.

If we care about reducing the binge drinking happening among our young people, we should consider carefully the words of Geoff Munro, spokesman for the Australian Drug Foundation. He said: "The whole culture impels people into believing that drinking is important, that it should be a part of every social occasion."

We know this to be true – so how do we expect young people to "just say no" if the rest of society is saying yes. What can we do? Well, in a recent interview, Munro encourages us to "re-assess the role alcohol plays or should play in society".

That is something that Rudd and Health Minister Nicola Roxon can take a governmental approach to. But it's also something we can all do – as individuals.

After all, I could think about how my implicit assumptions regarding alcohol create the shared community experience we have and how I could help bring about a change personally. When you think about it, that's a really good idea – and perhaps, we could even help make it a popular one.

source: http://www.news.com.au/

Students & alcohol — Coast to coast

Stories from campuses in South Carolina, California shed light on dangers of drinking

Here's hoping college faculty in Kansas and across the nation take good notes about something 40 professors at Fresno State have started doing in their classrooms.

Or, more accurately, something the professors aren't doing.

As part of a campaign by the university to combat irresponsible drinking, the Fresno State instructors have taken a pledge to watch what they say to students about drinking.

No more jokes during Monday morning labs about weekend hangovers. No more TGIF talk during the last lecture of the week.

Michael Caldwell, an associate music professor who organized professors to take the pledge, said he took the initiative partly in reaction to the alcohol-poisoning death of a 19-year-old Fresno State student in January 2006.

In taking the pledge, Caldwell and 39 of his colleagues agreed to become familiar with laws and campus policies about alcohol, and become aware of programs and services for students seeking help for alcohol problems. They agreed to promote responsible attitudes toward alcohol in classroom discussions, and they further pledged not to make comments suggesting that all college students drink to excess. Caldwell said students have told him their instructors have made comments to the effect of, "Everybody enjoy partying this weekend," and, "OK, it's the weekend. Let's go party."

"It's easy to make flippant comments about alcohol, and bring your own life or the college atmosphere into the classroom," Caldwell said. "It's usually very innocent and unintentional."

Although Caldwell said the pledge isn't designed to blacklist anyone or make faculty uncomfortable, the initiative has caught on with only a tiny fraction of the university's 1,300 part-time and full-time faculty. One faculty member said the pledge was a restriction on speech and raised questions about academic freedom.

What a sad reaction.

It's hard to see how taking a voluntary pledge would cause any harm.

What's not so hard to see is that excessive drinking is a problem on college campuses.

The same day The Associated Press distributed a story about the pledge, the AP also circulated a story saying three fraternity members at Clemson University were charged in connection with the alcohol-related death of a freshman during an off-campus party.

The fraternity members' activities weren't directly connected to the student's death, a prosecutor said, but the three were charged with transferring beer and liquor to a minor and using fake identification to buy alcohol. The students facing charges are 19, 20 and 21 years old.

The deaths at Clemson and Fresno State happened a nation apart, but they're not isolated incidents. Alcohol abuse has led to medical problems and fatalities on campuses elsewhere.

In reaction, college administrators are taking steps to curb excessive drinking.

The pledge at Fresno State is a grassroots step in that direction, and it's worth pursuing on other campuses.

source: Topeka Capital-Journal