Slashdot Mirror
Stanford's New Alcohol Policy Isn't Based On Much Research (vice.com)
Sophia Carter-Kahn, reporting for Motherboard: Last week Stanford University announced a strict new alcohol policy in hopes to curb binge drinking. The new policy bans hard liquor at on-campus parties, and restricts hard alcohol in undergraduate possession to containers smaller than 750 milliliters ("a fifth"). Lisa Lapin, the vice president of university communications, clarified that the goal is to prevent medical transports [i.e. trips to the hospital]. Universities across the country are looking for new ways to deal with dangerous binge drinking. If this new restriction at Stanford is successful, it would set a precedent for how universities across the country grapple with a seemingly insurmountable alcohol problem. There's just one catch: there's little data to suggest restricting bottle size can change college drinking culture. Colleges have tried different strategies, from mailing parents flyers about alcoholism stats to policing campuses to break up parties. Dartmouth College, for example, implemented a hard alcohol ban last year. And the University of Virginia cracked down on liquor and Greek life on campus. But their efforts don't seem to be working. Drunkorexia -- skipping meals to have more room for alcohol -- is on the rise. And administrative desperation to find some way to reduce alcohol consumption has continued.
Change culture, not containers.
When people realize their only hope is to train to be a successful obedient slave they have a tendency to seek measures that will help deaden the pain, and deceive themselves into thinking they really are having a great time. The bonus? They get to pay for it all themselves and go into lifelong debt for their efforts.
Should have picked a trade before choosing the rank and file of paper pushers, report carriers, metrics analysis and professional privilege checking.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Get rid of Liddy Doles pernicious tying of Federal Highway subsidies to a drinking age of 21. Let the states lower the drinking age as they see fit, and watch the states with the lower drinking ages have a reduction of binge drinking in their colleges.
Seriously, the problem is that drinking is only allowed at 21. Back in Europe, especially South Europe and Eastern Europe parents give small amounts of wine to children in a controlled family environment around the age of 6, diluted with water or lemonade as much as 1:20. Beer is offered around 9, at amount of one half water glass (around 125ml). By 13 most teens have a glass of wine of a bottle of beer (500ml) perfectly responsibly on extended family gatherings, and by 14 it is usually their first (and very often last) drink till you pass out moment. They are embarrassed, it hurts and they never repeat it. By 21 most don't care much for a drink, and will have a beer or two with lunch or dinner, and never get drunk, engage in binge drinking, do stupid stunts like Americans do - beerpong or kegstands, or drink so much that they are outside of control or pass out. By 30 most people will be having 2-3 drinks per month.
On the other hand compare that to Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries with their fake moral, fake abstinence, and you get people being so long forbidden of drinking that the first time they are out of the control of their parents and are with likeminded out of control individuals they are trying to go into dick measuring contents, trying to impress girls and whatnot, or just plain enjoying the forbidden fruit so much and so often that they frequently drink till they pass, repeatedly for many years. There is no element of embarrassment of falling asleep on the toilet seat with pants down and your parents coming to wake you up. There is not enough head hurting from getting drunk while the organisms isn't strong enough. And there is definitely the self-ratification of doing the forbidden thing.
Same in fake morals America. The solution to responsible drinking isn't prohibition and increasing age restriction. It is controlled introduction from a young age, that allows to gain experience, lose the novelty, and also build tolerance.
I went to a rural Baptist university. A dry campus in a dry town (the one sports bar in town could only serve beer and wine). We were going to parties on campus and getting drunk pretty much every weekend after our football games. Hell, I never even drank until I went to that school. I don't see Stanford being very successful.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Lisa Lapin, the vice president of university communications, clarified that the goal is to prevent medical transports [i.e. trips to the hospital].
That's an eminently achievable goal without any restrictions on activities at all.
If they really aren't comfortable with a "leave 'em where they lie" policy, the admniistration could always try a new sanctioned procedure of (1) propping them in the corner, (2) feeding them a spoon of Ipecac, and (3) hooking a gallon IV to their arm until morning. I'll bet < $100/instance with a minimally trained campus volunteer squad. Other than ensuring the little 'uns don't fall forward to drown in their own vomit, a hospital isn't going to be able to do much more than that.
Don't drink and derive
They need to put on a show of trying to control drinking after the high profile rape case. Everyone knows it's just a ritual, but they need to do it.
Trouble is, you think it's scientific research. No, this is legal research. Sanford talked to their lawyers and said "how can we avoid being sued or have our brand associated with this". The lawyers gave a reply. And thus a new rule is born.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.