The Earlier The Better - NOT!

Here's some solid research for those who think the Europeans have it right by introducing alcohol to children. Responsible drinking is created by modeling, not by introduction at an early age.

Early tipple 'breeds alcoholism'
Parents who introduce their children to alcohol in the hope of encouraging responsible drinking might be doing more harm than good, work suggests.
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found drinking before the age of 15 increased a child's risk of becoming a heavy drinker.
A teenager's fast-developing brain becomes programmed to link alcohol with pleasure, experts believe.
Research shows that by the age of seven most children will have tasted alcohol.
A poll of 11 to 15-year-olds in England in 2007 by the NHS Information Centre found around 640,000 were likely to have drunk alcohol in the past seven days.
Of hospital admissions in 2006/7 specifically due to an alcohol-related diagnosis, almost one in 10 were in under 18 year olds.
The NIAAA study matched information on the teenage drinking habits of more than 22,000 Americans with the development of alcohol-related problems.
Starting young
The men and women were divided into three groups - those who first drank under the age of 15, between 15 and 17, and 18 or older.
People who started drinking before the age 15, and to a lesser extent those who started drinking at ages 15 to 17, were more likely to become dependent on alcohol as adults than people who waited until 18 or older to start drinking.
This link remained even when they took into account factors like duration of alcohol exposure, family history and a wide range of other risk factors.
Research also shows the likelihood of developing alcohol-use disorders in adulthood is about 50% higher for people who start drinking before the age of 15 as for those who abstain until they are 18 or older.
Deborah Dawson, research scientist at the NIAAA, said: "We can see for the first time the association between an early 'age of first drink' and an increased risk of alcohol use disorders that persists into adulthood."
Howard Moss, the institute's director for clinical research, said: "Early alcohol consumption, as a misguided choice, is driving the relationship between early drinking and the risk for development of later alcohol problems.
"The data support the notion of delaying the onset of drinking behaviour as late as possible."
Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said: "Parents are certainly the best placed group to encourage responsible drinking attitudes among young people, but this study, like others should give them pause about precisely when it's right to start giving alcohol regularly to their children.
"Younger adolescents whose physical and mental development is ongoing ought not to be drinking regularly as successive pieces of work has shown a close connection between that and damage to key systems."
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of University College London's Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience said young brains were very malleable and changed fast in response to new influences.
Early alcohol exposure could be acting as an environmental trigger for adolescents with an underlying disposition to alcohol problems, she said.
"Although a lot might depend on the amounts drunk as well as the exposure itself," she added.
A spokeswoman from the social care organisation Turning Point said: "At the moment there is simply not enough help for children and families affected by alcohol misuse.
"Without important interventions at vital stages of these young lives, they are much more likely to go on to have alcohol problems themselves."
The NIAAA study will be published in the December issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.
BBC News

What's Better? Treatment? Or Time?

In today's Houston Chronicle, there's an article about drunk driving being called a "pandemic" by some law enforcement officials. Harris County, TX leads the nation's most populous counties in DWIs, according to the information provided. The reason for so many DWIs? One of the main problems I've always pointed at: we live in America. I.E., a huge country, lots of people, lots of land, little public transportation. Plus, what little public transportation there is is concentrated in the major cities with more population per square mile. NYC? Chicago? Boston? San Fran? Public transportation there isn't nearly the problem as it is in places like Harris County, Texas. And anyone who DOES live where public transportation is readily available knows that, in order to save money, public transportation staggers the routes during non-peak hours...like at 2 a.m. when the bars close down. When someone has been drinking and their judgment is impaired (heck, even when judgment is NOT impaired), are people likely to wait 45 minutes at a bus stop, only to get on public transportation? Not so much-many people will take the risk of a crash or a DUI.

Harris County is trying a new approach for first time offenders: treatment instead of time. Rather than throwing the book at the impaired driver, Harris County is requiring convicted drunk drivers to attend classes on alcohol and the effects on the human body AND society. Will this lower DWIs? IIs it a better course of action than giving time to a DWI offender? Good question.

At Missouri State, my criminal justice classes required us to tour the medium security prison in Fordland, MO. This prison has a 40% "rate of return" when the other prisons in the state average 80% (I'm fudging the numbers a bit, but it's close) Why is Fordland so much more successful? Simple: every prisoner there is incarcerated due to his addiction. Yes, maybe the prisoner is in for armed robbery, but he knocked off the liquor store to get money for his crack addiction. So, Fordland makes 12 step programs mandatory with the idea that if the addiction is treated, the prisoner will be less likely to re-commit a crime. Is it working? The stats speak for themselves.

Will Harris County be successful in offering treatment instead of time? This is the $100 million question. I'd love to see those with serious alcohol issues get treatment. Compassion for addicts just seems sensible. Yet, when the addict kills someone due to driving drunk, do we take co passion? Or do we throw the book at him?

Philosophically, is there a difference between the drunk driver who lucks out and gets home safe, or the drunk who gets a DWI, or the drunk that rams his car into an innocent and kills the other person? The same crime has such a wide possibility of different outcomes.

Where does the opinion of your humble blogger fall? Treatment and compassion for first time, non-violent offenders, including ignition locks for a designated number of years. However, if the offender kills or injures someone else, we have to treat that crime like it's (gasp!) a crime-something that seems unpopular amongst many in the public. The usual argument being that DWI is not a malicious crime...but try telling that to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver.

These topics can be debated until the cows come home. Yet, you know what was really a pleasant surprise? The comments in the Chronicle from readers. Every comment I read was supportive of being tough on DWI. It seems the tide is starting to change and the public is becoming more and more aware of just how dangerous DWI is. Will we ever totally accomplish this goal of having every driver on the road be sober and alert? Dunno-technology holds the key, but for now, just seeing a proactive approach on the part of government and attitudes of the public is a step in the right direction.

"The Hangover"

Okay, "The Hangover" is being touted as the funniest movie of the summer. I haven't yet seen it, but as much as I usually dislike going to the movies, I'm kinda excited about this one.

Two reasons why: 1. I love comedy-especially off-color comedy! And secondly, I think there'll be some good blog food/discussions that come out of this film.

I know virtually nothing of the premise of the movie, but I did catch one of those trashy tabloid shows a few nights ago. In it, the interviewer asked stars of the film about their worst hangovers.

One guy said he had a rough time with Jaegermeister when he was a kid. The next talked about how he vomited so much that blood vessels broke all over his face.

Both the interviewees talked about their experiences with a Cheshire Cat grin. I suppose most of us with a history of alcohol use/abuse can think back on some of the stupid stuff we did while drinking. I know when I get together with some of my old fraternity brothers from college, we spend a decent amount of time reminiscing about the things we did that were horribly dangerous...and thanking the almighty we're alive to tell the stories.

Yet, I still question what the effect of "The Hangover" will be on young people. Will it glorify alcohol use and abuse? Are the scenarios disgusting, yet in a funny sort of way? Will any teens see this as a lifestyle to live up to?

I'll report back after I get a chance to watch the movie. As always, I encourage you to watch everything the media puts out with an open mind and the ability to discern what positive AND negative aspects can be pulled from your experience.

Would You Like Fries with that DUI?

Tucson, Arizona has a new (and innovative) way of helping warn drunk drivers from getting on the streets: Operation Would You Like Fries?

A Pima County deputy is stationed inside local drive through fast food restaurants. When a patron pulls into the drive through who has slurred speech, alcohol on the breath or distributes any other signs of intoxication, the deputy radios to another deputy in the parking lot to pull over the suspected drunk.

Funding for the operation comes from the governor's office of highway safety and is paid for with overtime grants to put the officers in place.

Any drawbacks to this? Certainly...drunks may just decide not to drive through fast food restaurants. Drunks may get word there is a sting at a certain burger joint. There may be a traffic lawyer who argues probable cause for such action.

So, here's a reminder: DWI checkpoints are NOT intended to catch drunk drivers. True story: checkpoints raise awareness, not actually intended to catch impaired drivers.

And this Operation WULF? Again, raises awareness with the public. Does it do so? Well, I'm sitting in my living room in Florida and I know about what Pima County, AZ is doing...gotta think Pima County residents also know!

At the very least, Operation WULF is helping to show area residents that DWI isn't accepted in Pima County.