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.
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.
There is an obvious way to fix this. But it takes a lot of work to change the existing culture, and the transition phase will be painful.
Do what Europe has been doing successfully for decades. Lower the drinking age to 16 years, and raise the driving age to 18 years. Kids will still drink, but the thrill of doing something crazy and/or illegal has long since worn off, by the time they get their drivers licenses and get into college. Also, there is a lot less stigma around drinking. So, calling another adult to give you a ride home is really not a big deal.
I have grown up in this culture (in Germany), and excessive drinking is a lot less of a problem than it is in the US. People still get drunk, don't get me wrong, but hear of far fewer cases of drunk driving and I have a really hard time remembering the last time I heard of anybody going to the hospital with alcohol poisoning.
"there ought to be a law"
And it was so. And the law didn't change a thing, just made nominal activity illegal. And yet, we continue to listen to the logic ...
1) We have to do something
2) This is something (there ought to be a law)
3) Therefore we must do it!
Careful consideration and thoughtful deliberations are being shunned for vain emotional arguments
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Do what Europe has been doing successfully for decades. Lower the drinking age to 16 years, and raise the driving age to 18 years.
The problem with that is that if you can only drive when you are 18 you need to have a reasonable public transport system which the US utterly lacks...and lower population density is not an excuse because Canada has a lower density than even the US and yet still has a public transport system which is reasonably comparable to many EU countries.
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.