rallydurham
Suspended
11317 Posts
user info
edit post |
This is an excerpt from an essay I wrote many years ago detailing the War Against Alcohol. This seems to be a touchy subject around here on occasion, so I thought shedding some light on the subject might be helpful.
| Quote : | "
In the 19th century a temperance movement began in America as a group called the "teetotalers" emerged and encouraged total abstinence from alcohol. These groups rose in power and eventually led to the Prohibition in the United States. Prohibition lasted from 1920-1933 and ultimately caused a rise in organized crime and the distribution of dangerous, unregulated alcoholic beverages. Prohibition was repealed 70 years ago, but the United States still enforces the strictest underage drinking laws in the world and some of the strictest laws pertaining to the distribution and consumption of alcohol of any nation. Alcohol policy is not a result of scientific evidence, but from an ongoing struggle between those who wish to use alcoholic beverages and those who don't want them to.
Special interest groups such as MADD (Mothers against Drunk Driving) and CAMY (Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth) continue to promote anti-alcohol agendas despite their claims and supposed objectives.
The 'War Against Alcohol' has generally been waged by the use of alarming statistics in the media. Claims such as "95% of violent crime on campus is alcohol related" or "the number of women who admit to drinking to get drunk tripled between 1977 and 1993" are constantly released through the media. These statistics from unsubstantiated studies are often exaggerated and sometimes entirely made up. These "statistics" are usually reported by special-interest groups who hae underlying social agendas. The groups generally offer proposed solutions for these problems solely to draw more funding and acquire more organizational prestige. These groups include federal and state alcohol agencies, alcohol treatment facilities, therapists, alcohol educators, and former alcohol abusers. All of these groups have a vested financial interest in the public's perception of alcohol.
Remarkably, reported statistics such as "98% of students have never been in trouble with an administrator due to behavior resulting from alcohol use" never seem to surface in alcohol information sessions and advertisements. Of course these groups do not draw attention to studies like the one conducted at the University of Michigan that concluded "the proportion of non-drinkers among college students in the U.S. recently reached a record breaking all-time high". These groups carefully select which statistics they report and knowingly release unfounded statistics in order to influence public policy. This is a highly unethical practices, and more importantly, does not contribute to the reduction of alcohol abuse in the United States.
The use of the term "binge drinking" has become a staple in the 'War Against Alcohol'. The term is used liberally and its connotations far exceed its true meaning. The word "binge" literally means to go on a self-destructive drinking (or drug) bout for a minumum of two days where one ignores all social responsibility and engages in harmful activities. Physicians and clinicians agree that it "is the combination of prolonged use and the giving up of usual activities that forms the core clinical definition of the word binge". However, the term "binge drinking" has been defined by sociologists as "four to five alcoholic drinks on occasion". It should be noted that the operational definition of "binge drinking" is intentionally misleading and has greatly exaggerated the problem. In fact, if a person were to drink four alcoholic beverages over the course of a six hour social event, they would be classified as a "binge drinker" despite not necessairly having any alcohol in their system at the end of the event.
One of the most influential anti-alcohol groups in the US is Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The group was founded in 1980 by a mother whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver. The original purpose of the group was to lower the amount of people killed every year by drunk drivers. This objective was very successful as MADD proceeded to raise public disapproval of drunk driving. The amount of fatalities due to drunk drivers decreased dramatically as a result. In fact, the group once reported that "the problem of drunk driving has been reduced to hard core alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal".
While most alcohol-related auto accidents involve people whose blood alcohol content (BAC) is over twice the legal limit, MADD has shifted its focus from going after hardcore alcoholics to targeting social drinkers. Despite evidence that legal BAC limits are too low (and are contributing to MORE alcohol-related crashes), MADD is looking to lower them further and even propose a ZERO tolerance policy. This is a sharp transition from a group that once wished to raise awareness about a social problem to a Neo-Probitionist movement.
The zero tolerance laws that MADD supports have proven to be ineffective and costly in terms of resources. The group has lost sight of its original goals and is now considered a radical movement. They have extended their agenda from reducing drunk driving to preventing underage drinking. Their website consistently reports "junk science" and offers anecdotes, biased surveys, and fabricated statistics to promote their cause. MADD has also aligned itself financially with insurance companies who donate large sums of money to campaign in their best interest. In fact, MADD has actually fought against legislation that would offer aid to the victims of drunk driving accidents. The organization spends approximately 66% of its annual intake of donations on subsequent fund-raising. The American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) barely recognizes MADD as a charitable cause because of its shift from a "public service organization into an anti-alcohol bureaucracy".
Another group that is counterproductively trying to combat alcohol consumption by minors is the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY). The mission statement of CAMY is to monitor "the marketing practices of the alcohol industry to focus attention and action on industry practices that jeopardize the health and safety of America's youth." The group believes that "reducing the high rates of underage alcohol consumption requires limiting the appeal of alcoholic beverages to young people and their access to them." CAMY is also known for using conclusions from invalid studies to promote their objectives.
Scientific studies have resoundingly concluded that alcohol advertising does not lead non-drinkers to drink alcohol, increase the consumption of alcohol, or lead to alcohol abuse. The reason brands advertise their product is to increase market share rather than increase overall consumption of alcohol. Companies do NOT have the ability to increase the market demand for alcohol and have very little incentive to waste resources trying to do so. Instead, producers and distributors focus on creating loyalties within their brands and to get those who choose to consume alcohol regularly to switch to their brand.
One of CAMY's main issues against alcohol advertising is that it "normalizes" the idea of drinking for young people. However, this also serves to decrease the "mysterious appeal" of alcohol that gives young people the urge to experiment with alcohol unsafely. It has been proven that their is no correlation between the amount of alcohol consumed in a country and the problem of alcohol abuse within it. If CAMY actually wished to solve the problems associated with alcohol abuse they would take these facts into consideration when promoting their agendas. However, CAMY's true agenda is to eliminate drinking in the United States entirely. This neo-prohibitionist movement has chosen to ignore the problems caused nearly a century ago by this agenda and continues to push its campaign.
The evidence from scientific studes clearly suggests that social scientists have no idea how to resolve the issue of alcohol abuse in the United States. There is clear dissension between the two groups, due in large part to the stubborness of special-interest groups to accept the information made available to them. The issue of alcohol consumption causes such an emotional response from the population that this issue seems nearly impossible to resolve. The only conclusion that may be drawn from these debates is that as long as alcohol exists there will be people who choose to consume it at all costs, and those who will adamantly fight against their right to do so. " |
[Edited on April 8, 2006 at 1:34 AM. Reason : a] 4/8/2006 1:30:16 AM
|
