Maine colleges taking action to prevent alcohol harm

We applaud the efforts of Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin Colleges to take preventative steps to decrease the negative effects of underage drinking and high risk drinking on their campuses.

The Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 was set back in 1984 to reduce the death toll from high risk drinking in youth and young adults. This is now considered one of the most successful public health policies in United States history saving an estimated 900 lives/year. Youth drinking rates have also steadily declined over this period of time as youth’s access to alcohol through only slightly older siblings and friends has been stymied.

The good news for educators is that, if they’re determined to make a difference, they can. A new report out by Children’s Hospital Boston says that when tough campus policies are consistently enforced, they “can reduce underage drinking and heavy episodic drinking on campus - without a ‘compensatory’ rise in marijuana use.”

By creating and enforcing rules against underage drinking, colleges are helping young people develop social skills without drinking, as well as teaching them to respect the law. More importantly, by waiting to consume alcohol until after 21, youth and young adults will be less likely to have negative alcohol outcomes—like injury, dependency, and other physical and mental health consequences.

Princeton Reviews Encourage Illegal and Dangerous Behavior

According to a Portland Press Herald article, the well-known Princeton Review Top Party Schools list for the 2010-2011 academic year has been released-- and this year the University of Georgia ranks in at #1. Despite increasing police force on underage drinkers since 2006, the University of Georgia is up from its #4 spot in last year’s ratings, and school officials are finding it hard to believe that they would acquire this title. The University says they take student alcohol education programs seriously, and they find it very disconcerting and surprising that their efforts aren’t presenting the results they had hoped for.

However, while many are looking at colleges to blame for underage drinking and partying, it’s surprising how little responsibility is being put on the Princeton Review itself for reporting and reinforcing the idea that the purpose of college is heavy drinking.

Why does there need to be a ranking list? Promoting where the best party schools “rage,” and where the “reefer madness” occurs, as described on Princeton’s website, is not only hurtful to the school’s reputation itself, as Georgia feels, but it is also a risky venture. Glorifying and perpetuating the idea of “party schools” as a positive thing only encourages high school kids to look for schools where drinking is heavily prevalent. College drinking puts students at risk of death, injury, assault, academic problems, and more, according to College Drinking Prevention statistics.

So, how are students or colleges truly gaining from the publication of such material? The catchy titles and popularity of the Princeton rankings actually encourage the illegal and dangerous behavior and can attract students to these colleges purely for non-academic reasons.

Creating a sense of shame associated with making it to the top party school position may further help move forward college efforts to reduce and prevent high-risk drinking, and at the same time we should always be pushing for college administrations to curb the drinking activities and tone down the party atmosphere on campuses. But maybe we should also be looking at the instiller of the problem itself—cultural expectations.

Alcohol Metabolism Testing: Harmful or Helpful?

According to a recent New York Times article, the University of California at Berkeley is giving incoming freshmen students a unique way to bond with each other before the first day of school: sending in a DNA sample to be analyzed for an individual’s ability to metabolize alcohol, lactose and folates. The school’s stated intention is to help students think critically about genetic testing, but their choice of alcohol as an “innocuous” gene test topic is questionable.

According to the schools FAQ section for students about the test:

The second gene encodes an enzyme called aldehyde dehydrogenase. This is one of a series of enzymes involved in metabolizing (digesting) alcohol. We will test for a variant of this gene that is associated with flushing (red face) and nausea after drinking alcohol. Since most of you are below the legal age for drinking alcohol, we strongly suggest that you not drink regardless of the results of this gene test.

Despite the school’s disclaimer, giving this kind of test to first-year students, most of whom are 18 or 19 and years away from legally drinking, sends a message that drinking is expected. We’re not the only ones who think so.

There’s also the risk that someone might misunderstand the results, test negative and not think any guidelines pertain to them, therefore assuming they can drink as much as they want.

Other critics say that it is irresponsible to provide any genetic testing outside of a medical setting, because there is no chance for those receiving the results to get feedback or ask questions. Once a student learns whether or not they have a gene that makes their face flush when they have alcohol then what? Who do they go to? Even if there are, as the New York Times article states, follow up “lectures and panels with philosophers, ethicists, biologists and statisticians exploring the benefits and risks of personal genomics,” this does not take the place of individualized counseling.

Alcohol is a critical discussion topic for any freshman orientation. Presenting such a serious topic as a harmless genetics issue, lumped together with lactose and folate, is inappropriate and potentially harmful. What do you think? Should UC Berkeley use genetic testing in this way? Should genetic testing related to alcohol be a part of it?

In the news: "Icing" trend

We’ve seen a few articles recently, from both Time magazine and the New York Times, about a new trend called “icing”. Essentially, it’s a drinking game that involves men (“bros”) surprising other bros by handing them an alcopop – the person then has to go down on one knee and chug the entire drink at once. If the dude already has a bottle with him, the guy originating the “icing” must drink both bottles. As the Time article mentions, if you refuse to play, you’ll lose credibility with your friends. The author of the Time article talks about this ironically, but it’s not hard to see that some people could take it seriously.

There’s been some question as to whether this is a new marketing technique by Diageo (the parent company), although they have denied it. Even if it wasn’t dreamed up by the advertising execs themselves, those who join thinking it’s all in fun end up being used to virally market a product. And there are several other issues - as 21 Reasons staffer Jen says, “…the sexism of humiliating a guy by making him drink a “girly” drink on his knees, the binging-DUI-open container aspect…”

Essentially, although it sounded like a bogus trend to us at first, it appears that the game has gained a following, and parents and those who work with teens should be aware that it promotes unhealthy drinking: the alcopop must be chugged immediately, regardless of the situation that the “ice-ee” finds himself in—and the game could require two or more drinks in a row. For an average-sized male, that could put them dangerously close to exceeding the legal driving BAC.

Not only that, but the game has ties to pop culture icons in addition to the college party scene, making it potentially more appealing to teens.

UPDATE: As of last weekend, Ad Age is reporting that the Bros Icing Bros website has been taken down, mostly likely due to a push by Diageo. Although Diageo’s statement said that the game “does not comply with our marketing code”, they didn’t mention much about the potential that the game has to increase unhealthy drinking. And while it’s great that they’re distancing themselves from this trend, it seems like they might be more concerned with copyright infringement and the fact that the game “disparages” the alcopop rather than the dangerous drinking behavior the game promotes.

The New York Times published the following editorial on June 30, taking a closer look at the Amethyst Initiative and the legal drinking age.

This piece makes the important point that binge drinking has risen among college-attending young adults, while it has fallen among their non-college-attending peers. Perhaps the drinking age is not the problem.

Editorial

Binge Drinking on Campus

Published: June 30, 2009

College presidents who have been blaming drinking-age laws for drunkenness at their schools had better look at their own policies. While the amount of binge drinking — downing five or more drinks in a row — remains high at colleges, it has dropped sharply among people of the same age who do not attend college.

Last year, more than 100 college presidents and chancellors called for reconsidering the legal drinking age, which was raised to 21 by all states during the 1980s.

Their reasoning seemed to be that by making it illegal for most college-age students to drink, the laws had inadvertently made it more likely that students would engage in clandestine — and difficult to supervise — binge drinking. There was some talk that the minimum age for drinking should be reduced back to 18.

Now comes new evidence that the age-21 requirement has been generally effective in reducing binge drinking — except among college students. That was the conclusion of a study by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

The study, based on information collected over a 27-year period by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, found that binge drinking by men between 18 and 20 years old who did not attend college dropped by more than 30 percent over that period but remained statistically unchanged among similar-aged men on campus. There was no difference between college and noncollege women in the 18- to 20-year age group but a big upsurge in binge drinking by older college women.

Just why the college crowd continues to drink so heavily is not clear. Students are less likely to live with parents or spouses who can ride herd on their drinking. Most have older friends who can legally buy alcohol. Fraternities and sororities may also foster irresponsible drinking. Whatever the causes, the solutions almost certainly lie mostly within the colleges — perhaps with better counseling or stronger bans on under-age drinking — not by lowering the legal drinking age.

10 realities not reflected in the song "I love college"

10 Realities Not Reflected in the Song “I Love College”

This is song by Asher Roth which is receiving a lot of play on radio, TV, and online--especially in programs geared towards young adults.

The song “I Love College” portrays concerning messages about high-risk alcohol use and its role in college life. High-risk drinking is a behavior which negatively impacts the health, safety, and success of many of Maine’s (and our nation’s) college students and communities.

While college drinking is an issue which warrants attention and evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies, it should be noted that the frequency and extreme nature of the alcohol use and related behaviors depicted in the song “I Love College” reflect the behavior of the minority, NOT the majority, of college students.

You may preview the music video at:
http://www.mtv.com/videos/asher-roth/339182/i-love-college.jhtml

You may read the song lyrics at:
http://www.elyricsworld.com/i_love_college_lyrics_asher_roth.html

Reality #1: 6 out of 10 students reported they had not had 6 or more drinks per occasion when (and if) they drank alcohol in the past month. 25% reported they had not consumed any alcohol in the past 30 days.*

This means that the song’s lyrics which make it seem like college students typically drink to the point of intense intoxication and/or passing out is not the reality- MOST never drink enough to get to this point.

Reality #2: 8 out of 10 students reported drinking alcohol on 5 or fewer days in the past 30 days.*

This means that the song’s lyrics which make it seem like college students drink heavily 2 or more times a week is not the reality of what MOST college students do.

Reality # 3: 8 out of 10 students reported that when (and if) they drank in the past 30 days, they typically took one or more measures to reduce their risk of becoming intoxicated- such as not drinking on an empty stomach, alternating between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, limiting themselves to one or fewer drinks an hour, and keeping track of how many drinks they consumed.*

This means that the song’s depictions about competitive drinking are not reflective of what most college students are doing when (and if) they drink– and especially not at the frequency the song portrays.

Reality #4: 8 out of 10 students reported that in the past 30 days they had chosen not to drink alcohol at a party where it was present.*

This means that the song lyrics which make it seem like everyone at parties is really drunk is not accurate.

Reality # 5: 8 out of 10 reported they had not chugged alcohol in the past 30 days. 9 out of 10 had not funneled alcohol in past 30 days. Only 2 out of 10 reported playing table-top drinking games (i.e. beer-pong, beer-die, Beruit) on a weekly basis. About 50% do not regularly play these table drinking games: 25% of students reported never playing, and another 25% reported only playing a few times a year.*

This means that MOST college students are not engaging in competitive drinking when (and if) they use alcohol.

Reality #6: 8 out of 10 students reported that they had not consumed alcohol at a fraternity or sorority house in the past 30 days.*

This means that the song and video’s depiction of an Animal House -reminiscent frat party is not the setting MOST college students regularly drink alcohol in- if they drink at all.

Reality #7: 7 out of 10 students reported that the use of alcohol had not interfered with their academic performance.*

MOST college students don’t let drinking interfere with their efforts to work towards graduating.

Reality # 8: 8 out of 10 students reported they had not used marijuana in the past 30 days.*

This means that the lyrics which make it seem like most college students smoke pot regularly simply is not a reality.

Reality # 9: Most students – about 8 out of 10- reported they had not had sex in the past year with someone whom they were not previously in a relationship with.*

This means that the promiscuity referenced in the song is not behavior most college students typically engage in.

Reality # 10: Most students – over 9 out of 10- reported they had not gambled in the past 30 days.*

MOST college students don’t engage in poker despite it being shown as part of “college life” in the video.

* Based on preliminary analysis of a student survey conducted in 2008 which had over 6,000 Maine college students respond

For more information about college drinking, how to reduce it, or Maine’s Higher Education Alcohol Prevention Partnership, please e-mail HEAPP’s Director Becky Ireland at Rebecca.Ireland@maine.gov

60 Minutes on the MLDA

Sunday night's coverage on 60 Minutes (you can watch it here ) of the conversation about the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) was disappointing, to say the least. The piece unfortunately framed the discussion as a debate between John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College, and Chuck Hurley, Executive Director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). While the news program accurately represented McCardell's view as an unpopular and unlikely one, it also showed some disturbing support for his ideas.

Their biggest mistake was the repeated footage showing young people--some as young as 15--drinking, interacting with police and EMTs, and involved in alcohol-related car crashes. It the show's producers were trying to demonstrate consequences to watching youth, they were misguided: these tactics are proven to have no impact on youth drinking rates, and in some cases may actually increase them.

The arguments were presented lopsidedly as well, allowing McCardell and other supporters of an 18 MLDA, to repeatedly call the current law "unenforceable," an "abysmal failure," and linking the law to the extreme drinking that goes on at college.

While Hurley was allowed some rebuttal, arguing that changing the law would push the problem down to high school students, and demonstrating support by an influential list of specialists and officials, it seems that an opportunity was missed to talk about how alcohol affects the development of young adult brains, how early drinking leads to greater risk of alcoholism, and looking at our social culture that allows and encourages unhealthy drinking.

Click here for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's recommendation for changing the culture of drinking at US colleges and universities.

What did you think of the 60 Minutes piece? Post your thoughts in the comments below, or email them to 21reasons@mcd.org and we will continue the conversation online.

60 Minutes takes on the drinking age

According to their website, this Sunday on 60 Minutes,

Lesley Stahl examines the debate over lowering the drinking age to 18, a controversial idea embraced by some people and roundly criticized by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Ruth Streeter is the producer.

The show airs at 7pm EST on CBS.

We'll be watching with interest to see how 60 Minutes portrays this very important countrywide conversation—and check back with us Monday for our response!

Learn more about the Amethyst Initiative and why it's critical that the drinking age remain at 21 at our website: www.21reasons.org/mlda21.html

NCAA’s alcohol advertising policy “flimsy”

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has called for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to further restrict its alcohol advertising policy. The nonprofit compared advertising shown during the NCAA’s “Final Four” games and advertising shown during the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The results demonstrated that

"a higher percentage of beer ads appeared during the 2008 NCAA “Final Four” than during the 2009 BCS games. We found that 12% of all ads aired during the three NCAA “Final Four” games promoted beer, and beer represented the 2^nd most advertised product category. In contrast, only 6% of all BCS game ads we monitored promoted beer, which was the 7^th most-advertised product category."

Sports events are some of the most closely youth-watched television, and present an important opportunity for sports figures to role model for youth. “Collaborating with beer marketers and broadcasters to push beer consumption,” says NCIS, “undermines any prevention messages and demeans the missions of higher education and college athletics.” In addition, research has linked teens’ exposure to alcohol advertising with more frequent and heavier drinking.

More than 1/3 of NCAA member schools have signed a pledge to eliminate alcohol advertising from college sports. Doing so would help to create a safe, positive, alcohol-free environment for youth and college students on the screen and in the stadium.

(via JT Direct)

UMaine Greek Students Participating in Alcohol-Free Week

This week (October 19-25) University of Maine students are participating in an alcohol-free week hosted by the Greek Peer Educators Program. The point of the week—which falls during homecoming this year-- is to encourage students to spend a week alcohol-free. "This is offering you an opportunity to figure out what kind of role alcohol plays in your life," says Greek Peer Education Founder and Director Sarah Caron.

In the past, participation has been between 1,000 and 3,000 students; this year’s goal is for participation by 2,008 students.

The University of Maine student paper covers the event in depth.

While college drinking is a serious national problem, it’s good to keep in mind that many college students don’t drink at all. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, nearly 40% of 18-24 year olds reported no alcohol use in the past month, and only 14.9% reported heavy alcohol use.

Maine’s Higher Education Alcohol Prevention Partnership has some great resources on preventing and reducing campus alcohol use available on their website.