The University of Central Florida apparently hires undercover cops to sniff out underage drinkers at home football games. This past weekend, one such cop confronted one such group of underage drinkers, who got belligerent with him, and didn’t believe he was a cop. What happened next isn’t exactly clear, but events ended with the cop flashing his badge, and firing several rounds into the air. An Orlando reserve cop apparently heard the gunshots, saw the gun, and mistook the undercover cop for an assailant. He shot him dead. He also wounded a UCF student, who’s now in the hospital.

It seems like the reserve cop was probably doing what he was supposed to, and likely won’t face charges. But here’s a question: What if it wasn’t an off-duty cop but a legally-armed civilian who saw the undercover cop firing a gun in a crowd, and shot him dead? Something tells me he’d almost certainly be facing charges. Which is a good reason why sending armed, undercover agents in to bust up something harmless as 18-20 year-olds drinking beer at a tailgating party is a patently stupid policy.

A Cato colleague whose sister attends UCF sends along a letter to students sent by the school’s president (click “more”). In it, he says that the decision of some 18, 19, and 20 year-olds who are old enough to vote, sign contracts, and die for their country to drink before the game are what really contributed to the cop’s death. And note that he promises ever-more-militant enforcement of underage drinking at future events. Zero tolerance in action.
(more…)

News Target is a pseudo-scientific website run by huckster Mike Adams, who calls himself the “Health Ranger.” Adams is convinced he’s “discovered something truly astonishing: the vast majority of all diseases can be easily prevented and even cured without drugs or surgery.”

He claims to be able to provide information that can help any person cure “diabetes, cancer, heart disease, depression, osteoporosis, and many other so-called ‘diseases.’” He also insists he’s possibly more than doubled his own mental capacity, having “found a way to unlock at least another 10%, maybe more” of his brainpower. (You’d think if Adams had doubled his brainpower he might be able to figure this out.)

Adams claims to have sworn off television, alcohol, nicotine, drugs, red meat, fragrances and fun. Hold on, I added in the “fun” part. And he’s the real thing — not some phony — he says, because he sells books, not pills.

I mention all this by way of inviting Agitator readers to take News Target’s Gullibility Factor survey. (Note: It’s filled with straw-man choices. Also, I’m apparently quite gullible.)

The real fun here comes in the explanations and links provided in News Target’s post-survey responses. It may be, for example, the only place on the Internet that contains recommended links to the writings of both the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Congressman Ron Paul.

[Cross-posted at To the People.]

The DEA waxes nostalgic for alcohol prohibition.

You were warned, of course. If you really need it, see refutation of the DEA’s claims here and here

This a predictable tactic among cornered polemicists. A theme on this site is how anti-capitalists have for years predicted that free markets would lead to monopolies, which would limit choice. Now that they’ve been proven wrong, they resort to attacking choice itself.

Similarly, those of us opposed to the Drug War have long argued that the consequences of Drug Prohibition are indistinguishable from the consequences of Alcohol Prohibition, univerally seen as a failure. The response from Drug Warriors: Alcohol Prohibition wasn’t so bad, after all.

The state of Vermont is considering lowering the drinking age back to 18. The governor has said he supports the idea, as do most of the state’s university presidents, who say the higher minimum drinking age has led to the massive binge drinking problem on campus. The one problem: The state would forfeit millions of dollars in federal highway funding.

The Republican Congress ought to repeal the federal drinking age-by-blackmail. The 21 minimum is bad enough on its face — that is to say, a soldier coming back from a tour in Iraq could well be arrested for a bear-soaked celebration of his return. But what’s worse is that it was forced upon the states under threat of pulling funding the federal government habit the feds have hooked them on. This would seem to be precisely the kind of issue that calls out for a federalist approach. Let each state set its own minimum age, reflective of its own values, tradition, and culture. It’s disappointing — but not surprising — that Liddy Dole and the Reagan administration pushed the federal drinking age into law.

What’s more, it really hasn’t worked. Despite what you may have read, it’s far from clear that the higher minimum drinking age has saved many lives on the highways, and it’s even less likely that it prevents much underage drinking. It merely pushes the practice out of sight, which encourages binge drinking, and is probably responsible for the extra couple hundred deaths from alcohol poisoning we’ve seen each year since the early 1990s. The United States, incidentally, is the only country on earth with a 21 year-old minimum drinking age. Most are at 18, 16, or have no minimum age at all. We’re also the only deeloped country with a substantial youth alcohol problem. It’s unlikely that the two aren’t related.

Barrett Seaman is a former editor and reporter for Time magazine. He just wrote book called Binge: What Your College Student Won’t Tell You. Seaman’s hardly a lawless libertine. He favors, for example, drastically harsher punishments for first time DWI offenders. But in last week’s issue of Time, he too argues for lowering the drinking age to 18. Excerpts:

But tighter enforcement of the drinking age is not the solution. It’s part of the problem.

[...]

Veteran college administrators cite a sea change in campus culture that began, not without coincidence, in the 1990s. It was marked by a shift from beer to hard liquor, consumed not in large social settings, since that was now illegal, but furtively and dangerously in students’ residences.

In my reporting at colleges around the country, I did not meet any presidents or deans who felt the 21-year age minimum helps their efforts to curb the abuse of alcohol on their campuses. Quite the opposite. They thought the law impeded their efforts since it takes away the ability to monitor and supervise drinking activity.

Another fine MADD legacy.

Here’s a sad story:

A dozen teens buy some liquor, and hold a party at the home of one kid in the group. That kid’s dad finds out, confiscates the alcohol, and throws the kids out on the street, still drunk. Cops later spot the kids walking, fearing an underage drinking citation, the kids flee. The cops give chase. One kid jumps into a pond, and drowns.

In a society with a more tolerant attitude toward alcohol, consider the various stages at which the kid’s death could have been averted:

1) If we didn’t have a minimum drinking age, it’s unlikely he’d have felt the need to get drunk with his friends to begin with.

2) The father in whose home the party took place may not have thrown a dozen drunk teens into the street had he (a) had a more tolerant attitude himself, or, (b) didn’t fear the criminal or civil liability that may have come with allowing them to stay — even after confiscating the alcohol.

3) The teens wouldn’t have scattered had it not been a crime to be teenage and drunk, and…

4) The cops wouldn’t have chased them.

Instead, cops have charged the owner of the liquor store for supplying alcohol to a minor. He faces up to a year in prison.

Of course, the liquor store owner isn’t the reason the kid is dead.

You could make a pretty good case that zero tolerance is.

Thanks to T.J. Brown for the link.

I don’t know how I missed it, but the following rather remarkable op-ed appeared in the July 20th Chicago Tribune. It was written by a Chicago-area physician:

As an internist caring for more and more morbidly obese people, I am so tired of reading about the feeble attempts of the government and the food industry to address the epidemic of obesity. The only effective way that we will attack this epidemic is for the surgeon general to mandate that, effective immediately, all portions of food served in restaurants and fast-food places be cut by one-half to two- thirds.

Most Americans need about 2,000-2,400 calories a day. So meals should be portioned to contain no more than one-third of those calories per meal. Currently some sandwiches alone contain 1,000 calories or nearly one-half a day’s total caloric needs in one meal–and that’s without any soda, fries or salad.

I have been very disappointed in the lack of leadership demonstrated by the current surgeon general. Recent studies show that obesity takes its toll on the health of Americans and the health-care budget similar to the complications of smoking.

Cutting portions in fast-food places and restaurants is the only solution. I know it is a novel idea, but we have to do something radical soon to reverse this trend.

Many Americans eat at least two meals a day outside the home. Studies have shown that people eat more when more is served to them. Add to that the effect of socializing, alcohol, the longer time spent eating in a restaurant and your mother’s little voice in your head telling you to clean you plate and you have the recipe for obesity. Your resolve to eat only half goes right out the window.

New food pyramids have no effect on the obesity epidemic because almost no one is preparing food at home any more.

We now have two generations of Americans whose only idea of comfort food is McDonald’s or the like. They don’t know anything about the nutritional or emotional content of homemade chicken soup, pasta fagioli or greens. Fruits and vegetables are notably absent from their diets except for the sickly iceberg lettuce between two hamburger buns.

Meals in American restaurants and fast-food places are very inexpensive by international standards. The proprietors could continue to charge the same price for a smaller portion and I guarantee their sales would not decrease.

Eating out has become the way of life for Americans. Restaurant parking lots are filled every night of the week. Restaurateurs have a responsibility to feed Americans healthfully. It is the rare fast-food place and the very expensive restaurant that don’t overfeed their patrons.

I am frustrated by having to spend more and more of my time treating the complications of obesity, such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and early joint breakdowns. Patients are often upset that I target their obesity as the cause of the problem. Overeating is “their right” and I, as their doctor, should fix the problem. Other patients are frustrated by their inability to lose weight and maintain the loss because they live in a virtual candy store. Everyday life in America is just too tempting to adhere to a diet for any length of time.

I implore the surgeon general to demonstrate some leadership and work with the restaurant and fast-food industry to cut portion sizes by one-half to two-thirds in the interest of effectively addressing the obesity epidemic and protecting the health of the American people.

I added emphasis. I don’t think commentary is really necessary, it it?

Tom Foreman, the CNN reporter who interviewed me on the Post story offered up this typical criticism of my position in his package (sorry, no link):

Now, Radley Balko argues his case well. He says why this ought to work. But the opponents say, look, if that logic works, you could have sex parties, drug parties, shoplifting parties. Certainly teenagers could do all of those things better with parental help.

I’m not sure how you can help teens shoplift or have sex “better.” On the latter, you could help them have sex safer by giving them condoms — and that’s a measure most public health groups who oppose my position on alcohol actually support. Throwing “shoplifting parties” to “help teens shoplift better” is such a bizarre leap of logic I think it doesn’t really merit a response (the Marlyland state senator who called in to argue with me on WBAL made the same charge).

What’s more, this isn’t really an accurate description of my position. My position isn’t necessarily that everyone ought to be throwing these parties. Nor is it that everyone should teach their kids to drink. How you raise your kids is none of my business. My criticism lies with these militaristic zero tolerance polices, which spawn scenarious like cops storming into the homes of parents who are, at least, taking an active (and realistic) approach to underage drinking. Without a search warrant. My problem is giving one couple 2 1/1 years in prison for it.

You’d think there would be better uses for scarce law enforcement resources.

This is one case when slippery slope arguments fail. If you can’t see the difference between a controlled, supervised party where alcohol is available and access to the highways is forbidden, and basement sex orgies, heroin bashes, or “shoplifting parties,” then I’m afraid your “context” gauge is broken.

I was browsing the World Health Organization’s “topics” page while doing research for an article I’m working on.

Oddly enough, “hunger” and/or “starvation” are nowhere to be found. “Poverty” is listed, but turns up only four articles, one of which (predictably) explores the links between poverty and tobacco. “Nutrition” covers some hunger issues, but those must share space with alarmist rhetoric about obesity, or what one might call “overnutrition.”

Among the topics that are listed:

Obesity, alcohol consumption, sunburn, cell phones and electromagnetic fields, tobacco smoke pollution, traffic injuries, acupuncture, and in-depth coverage of Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome (commonly known as the human form of “Mad Cow Disease,” a condition which has killed less than 500 people, ever).

I’m sure the WHO still does work on hunger issues, but it clearly seems to be focusing less and less on legitimate health threats and more and more on (1) finding ways to use government to modify private behavior, and, (2) spreading hysteria about issues beloved by the “public health” movement - namely, issues that don’t pose much of a threat, but paint industry, development, and progress in a negative light.

I’m not sure if the fact that the WHO now seems more concerned about obesity and cell phones than hunger and poverty speaks well of how far we come, or speaks ill of the WHO.

Probably a little of both.

Here are a few letters to the editor from today’s Washington Post in responses to my op-ed last week.

The letter from the Glynn Birch, MADD’s national president is rather revealing:

Taking away a teenager’s car keys and replacing them with a beer may prevent death and injury on the road, but it sends a dangerous message to teenagers that it’s okay to break the law.

From the horse’s lips. Birch concedes that these parties keep the roads safe, yet he opposes them anyway because he opposes underage drinking. So not only has MADD’s mission changed from keeping the roads safe to preventing consumption of alcohol, they’ll support a position that cuts down on the latter even when it increases the likelihood of drunk driving fatalities.

Over in the Hit & Run comments, someone noted with amusement that the president of MADD is a man, so he’s obviously not a mother. The group isn’t just opposed to “drunks,” they’re opposed to drinking. And the “driving” has long become irrelevant, too. Which leaves “Against.” That sounds about right. Not just for MADD, but for the overwhelming majority of the public health movement.

A Fairfax, VA judge has ruled that Virginia’s law presuming a .08 blood-acohol level of is de facto grounds for conviction.

It’s a strikingly common sense ruling. His ruling was that different people become differntly intoxicated at different ends of the blood-alcohol spectrum, so other evidence must be present in order to secure a conviction. It states, merely, that a .08 reading isn’t grounds in itself for conviction. That it’s getting such big play around the Web and in the media is telling of just how ridiculous our approach to drunk driving has become.

Study after study after study has shown that significant driver impairment doesn’t begin until about .12, and that an overwhleming majority of drunk driving fatalities involve drivers with a BAC of .15 or higher. The .08 standard was thrust upon the states in 2000 by the MADD-led cadre of neoprohibitionists under the blackmail threat of withholding federal highway funds to the states who refused to adopt it. And, as predicted by critics of the law, drunk driving fatalities have started to inch upward again since, after a twenty-year decline.

The judge’s ruling is almost certain to be overturned.

Lawrence Taylor has more.

A District Court judge in New Mexico has issued an injunction against the state’s practice of impounding and reselling vehicles of people accused of a crime — before they’re ever brought to trial. The state was seizing the cars of DUI suspects as well those of suspects with two or more camera-issued citations for running a red light.

That’s right. Merely be accused of running two red lights or driving under the influence (which, by the way, is different from driving while intoxicated, and can comprise any amount of alcohol in your system), and you lose your car to the state.

The ruling was the result of a joint lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the National Motorists Association.

My favorite quote comes from state ACLU Director Peter Simonson:

“It’s our belief that you can’t punish before finding guilt.”

How quaint!

This week, the American Medical Association released a study (in conjunction with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — surprsie, surprise) showing the ease with which minors can obtain alcohol.

What’s striking about the AMA’s reaction is that they seem to think there’s something wrong with the fact that many minors get their first taste of alcohol from their parents.

“From a public health standpoint, these findings are frankly disturbing,” said J. Edward Hill, M.D., president of the AMA. “While it is of great concern to see how easily teens, especially young girls, get alcohol, it is alarming to know that legal-age adults, even parents, are supplying the alcohol.”

In the adult poll, about one out of four U.S. parents with children, aged 12-20 (26%), agree that teens should be able to drink at home with their parents present.

First, it shouldn’t be the slightest bit surprising that “most” alcohol consumed by unerage drinkiners was originally purchased by someone of legal age. Did they expect these kids would be brewing it themselves? Any alcohol was originally purchased either by someone of legal age or by someone with a fake ID. Unless the kids stole it. That large percentage would come from the most obvious option isn’t news, unless the goal is to provoke alarm.

But frankly, I’m disturbed that the AMA is disturbed that most kids get their first sips of alcohol from their parents. Isn’t that were they should be getting it? Is it the AMA’s position that giving a 15 year old a glass of wine with dinner, or having a beer with dad while watching the game, is poor parenting? And — excuse me — but who the hell is the ADA to issue parenting guidelines?

Seems to me that teaching your kids how to drink responsibly, and that alcohol isn’t a demon forbidden fruit fosters a much healthier attitude toward drink than adopting an AMA-approved zero tolerance approach, then turning kids loose on the stuff when they get to college.

The AMA’s release also takes a predictable swipe at alcohol marketing, implies support for a ban on ads at sporting events and concerts, and quotes a widely-debunked study on kids and alcohol ads from CAMY, a group that’s never seen a neoprohibition policy it didn’t like.

Maybe the AMA ought to be using its clout to, oh I don’t know, defend it’s members being unjustly targeted in DEA witchhunts (an issue on which the AMA has woefully passive) than lecturing parents about the proper way to raise their kids.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has publicly expressed his support for a bill that would mandate ignition interlock devices in every vehicle sold in the state. The bill would have required every New Mexico resident to blow into a tube and pass an alcohol breath test before starting his vehicle. Four other states are now considering a similar bill. New Mexico is already the first state to require the devices for first-time DUI offenders.

This blatant violation of civil liberties apparently has something to do with “public health” and “highway safety.”

Which makes Gov. Richardson’s chronic and unapologetic speeding problem all the more interesting.

The Virginia Court of Appeals has upheld a 2 years, 3 months prison term for a Richmond-area couple who served alcohol at a party for their sixteen-year old son. Cops raided the party without a warrant. The couple said they threw the party and collected keys so their son and his friends wouldn’t party elsewhere, then attempt to drive.

Sleep save, Virginia. Your cops are busting up adult-supervised parties where car keys are collected and kept out or reach of teenagers. Because kids never drink away from home, then attempt to get behind the wheel.

(Via Overlawyered).

About a week ago, I told you about Operation Party Safe, a D.C.-area anti-alcohol initiative that’s targeting parents who serve alcohol at post-prom parties, even those that are supervised. Dumb idea.

As it turns out you don’t have to even need to be serving alcohol to get your party busted. Nor do you have to actually break the law:

Anna Phelan and Emily Adams wanted to end their four years at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School with a memorable backyard graduation party.

There was a blues band, a moon bounce, a popcorn machine and a pit for making s’mores. Guests feasted on hot dogs, hamburgers and bratwurst. There was plenty of ginger ale, cranberry juice and root beer to go around. What there wasn’t plenty of was alcohol.

“It was pretty low-key, and it was just sweet,” Margaret Engel Adams, Emily’s mother, said of the party for about 80 friends and relatives. “It was just pretty much out of Norman Rockwell.”

All that changed about 9:30 p.m. Thursday, Adams said, when a Montgomery County police officer knocked on the Phelans’ door, in the 4600 block of Rosedale Avenue in Bethesda, to say that someone had complained about the noise. The officer then asked Anna’s mother, Kathy Phelan, if he and several other officers could give breath tests to the teenagers. She refused.

So police stationed patrol cars at each end of her street, six in all, and began giving the tests to guests as they left the party, she said. None of the teenagers tested positive for alcohol, she said.

Officers then began ticketing vehicles parked outside the Phelans’ house, she said, including ones that belonged to neighbors who weren’t at her party. Some vehicles were ticketed for a wheel improperly touching a curb or for extending into a driveway. Emily Adams, 18, received a $35 parking ticket; her Honda Odyssey minivan was parked directly in front of the Phelans’ home.

Pass enough laws, and a pissed-off cop can find something you’ve done wrong.

Over the past week or so, D.C.-area radio stations have been airing a commercial that’s making me ill. It’s directed at parents, and warns them that if they host after-prom parties where alcohol is available, they’ll be fined $1,000 per underage kid at the party, and could face jail time. The commercial even specifically mentions the act of collecting keys to ensure no one gets behind the wheel, and promises that the fines and possible jail time will ensue regardless of whether or not keys are collected.

It’s part of “Party Safe ‘05,” an ill-conceived campaign sponsored by various do-gooder community groups, government agencies, and AAA.

The arguments here will ring familiar to anyone who reads this site regulalry.

(1) The fines and possible jail time are punishing precisely the wrong people — the parents responsible enough to understand that high school juniors and seniors are going to drink after prom, and that it’s better they do it under adult supervision with keys out of reach than in a parking lot, rented hotel room, field, or in their cars. The oblivious parents who think an arbitrary drinking age is going to keep their kids or their kids’ friends from drinking, or who turn a blind eye to underage consumption, won’t get fined. And it’s their kids who are going to kill someone. The party-throwing parents are keeping these kids off the road. And they’re getting punished for it.

(2) The PR campaign is even worse. It endangers not only the kids who will inevitably drive home from those alternative drinking spots and their passengers, but anyone who might be on the road when they do. Think of it this way: For every supervised, keyless party that this campaign prevents, an additional 25 or more kids could potentially be drinking at locales they’re likely to drive away from.

(3) Courts are notoriously lenient about letting cops break into homes and raid suspected underage parties without a warrant. A Virginia couple was recently sentenced to eight years in prison (reduced to 90 days on appeal) for throwing such a party, after cops entered their property without a warrant.

This is zero-tolerance thinking at its finest. Shut down the people who have a firm grasp on reality and try to engage in a little harm reduction. And make the roads more dangerous for everyone in the process.

Lawrence Taylor continues to pound away at the fraud of DUI “sobriety checkpoints,” which often turn into opportunities for cops to scour your car for potential fines and violations. Given that most states have seat belt, impaired driving, child restraint, break inspection sticker, safety inspection sticker, emissions inspection sticker, tax sticker, proof of insurance, license plate, driver’s license, and who knows what other requirements, restrictions, and decals that need to be kept current, it isn’t difficult to see how roadblocks designed to catch drunks can turn into lucrative revenue generators.

Taylor looks at one roadblock in North Carolina and finds the following:

Arrests resulting from the checkpoint included the following charges: Driving while intoxicated, three; alcoholic beverage control violations, three; driving while license revoked, four; no operator’s license, five; fail to carry license, three; seat belt violation, one; expired license plate, three; no insurance, one; unauthorized use of motor vehicle, one; misdemeanor possession of marijuana, one; possession with intent to sell/deliver marijuana (felony), one; felony maintain a vehicle, one; child restraint violation, six; inspection violation, three; careless and reckless driving, two; felony elude, two; fail to stop for lights and siren, one; outstanding warrants, three; commercial motor vehicle regulatory violation, two; resist, obstruct and delay, two.

If you’re counting, that’s 45 non-DWI related offenses. And three actual DWIs. Not sure what the BAC of thsoe DWIs was, but if it was under .10, you could make a good case that even those weren’t really justifiable when it comes to promoting public safety.

Jim Leitzel notes that Alcoholics Anonymous turned 70 yesterday.

Seems like a good enough reason to plug this piece I wrote on AA’s founder, Bill Wilson.

The Heritage Foundation reports a series of “findings” that support a correlation between teen alcohol use and the absence of parental influence.

The report is really just a summary of previous research. Generally, it’s not all that surprising, though I would objecting to whoever reported the summary’s liberal intermingling of the terms “use” and “abuse.” The two aren’t one and the same. Yes, I’m sure there are many neoprohibitionists out there who would suggest that any underage use is, by definition, “abuse.” But I’d submit that parents who responsibly introduce their kids to alcohol, say sharing a beer with dad while watching the game, or having a small glass of wine with dinner, will foster in their kids a far healthier adult relationship with alcohol than parents who forbid the stuff.

The “findings” lump studies looking at underage “use” with those that examine “abuse” later on in life. The studies they used that come from objective organizations single out “abuse.” While the studies they pulled from some of the more rabid anti-alcohol groups (CASA and CAMY) automatically tag any underage consumption as abuse.

I’m not really sure how our responible “wine with dinner” parents fit into the equation. Depends, I guess, on how researchers conducted the interviews, and whether or not the subjects were asked to include such incidents as “use,” or whether the intent was to isolate only those times when an underage kid drank alcohol with his peers.

That said, I don’t think the study really breaks any new ground. And I doubt either side of the debate gets much leverage from it. Personal freedom types like me will say it reinforces the idea that personal and parental responsibility is a far better indicator of abusive behavior than interventionist public policy. And neoprohibition types will say that government needs to step in and prevent alcohol from reaching youth who don’t have the benefit of a strong parental influence, and therefore are more succeptible marketing and advertising from the alcohol industry.

Of course, there’s that bloody flag, again. Marketing. We’ve covered this ground before. Yes, alcohol companies naturally market to young adults. It’s when people begin to formulate the brand loyalties that often last a lifetime. They’d be dumb not to. It’s impossible to market a product to a 23 or 22 or 21 year old in a manner that isn’t also going to hit a fair number of 18 and 19 year olds, too. What’s more, it’s patronizing to think that someone who’s old enough to fight and die for his country, enter into a contract, and vote for who will lead his country is naive enough to fall prey to a beer commercial.

Alcohol advertising isn’t intended — and generally doesn’t — persuade non-drinkers or fence-sitters to drink. Rather, it encourages people who’ve already made the decision to drink to drink a particular brand. More specifically, it aims to persuade them to upgrade to more premium brands.

Think about it. When was the last time you saw a Natural Light commercial? Busch Light? Milwaukee’s Best? The cheapest beers you’ll see commercials for are Miller Light and Bud Light. And those are aimed at young adults, probably just out of college, upgrading from the cheapie dorm and frat-house labels.

You never see commercials for rail liquor, either. Ever see a magazine ad for Kamchatka Vodka? The ads in magazines like Rolling Stone and Sports Illustrated that groups like CAMY are always bitching about are invetiably for premium booze like Absolut, Jack Daniels, Grand Marnier, or Wild Turkey — not exactly tooth-cutting booze.

Few people decide to drink because of advertising and marketing. Lots of people decide what to drink because of advertising and marketing. In fact, if you think about it, marketing may even cut down on the aggregate amount of alcohol we consume. If liquor companies take out ads with the intent to get you to upgrade, and they succeed, you’re shelling for higher priced booze. That means you’ll be getting less booze for the same amount of money. Meaning if you want to binge, it’s going to cost you more. Meaning you’re probably going to be less likely to binge.

Maybe I’ll pitch that study to CAMY. Cut down on binge drinking — subsidize advertising for the alcohol industry!

(Posted while sipping a late-night, insomnia-curing glass of fine Maker’s Mark bourbon. Over ice.)

Reader Andy in San Diego sends this article on an almost useless study from Johns Hopkins:

Here’s more evidence that overindulging in drink can have very serious consequences: A new study finds drinkers are three times more likely to die from injury as non-drinkers or former drinkers.

Here’s the funny part:

Drinkers were defined as people who had consumed at least 12 drinks within a year.

Twelve drinks in a year makes you a “drinker!” I’d say that for all intents and purposes this is a study of “abstainers” versus “everyone else.” And I’d guess that abstainers are on par less risk-averse than the general population. Hence, they’re in fewer accidents. Not exactly a damning indictment of alcohol. This Google search on the study’s authors probably won’t surprise you.

I also found this article, linked from the previous article, to be amusing. It explains how you can identify and protect yourself from drunk drivers. Here are the signs to look out for:

A driver may be drunk if he or she:

Fails to stay in a lane.

Drives erratically — stops, turns, swerves suddenly — or reacts slowly.

Drives without headlights at night.

Keeps windows open in cold or inclement weather.

Narrowly avoids hitting objects or other cars.

If you happen on a motorist displaying these characteristics, you should:

Be prepared to take quick, evasive action.

Stay as far away as possible; pull over and let the driver pass you.

If the car is headed toward you, pull to the right, stop, honk your horn and flash your headlights if necessary.

As soon as possible, notify the police or highway patrol.

Well, okay. But isn’t this all kind of self-evident? And shouldn’t you try to steer clear of such drivers anyway? Whether they’re drunk or not?