Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Marin Institute Declares Small Businesses Deserve To Go Out Of Business

By

marin-institute
In a press release issued today, the Marin Institute — who’s pushing a mandatory alcohol fee in San Francisco — stated that their bogus ‘Charge for Harm’ Alcohol Mitigation Fee Deserves San Francisco Small Business Support. Yes, by all means, every business should support more taxes and higher prices, that’s just good business.

A hearing is scheduled for this afternoon at 5:30 by the Small Business Commission and will take place at San Francisco City Hall. If you own or run a small business that involves alcohol, be sure to tell them what you think you deserve. Do you deserve to pay more taxes, even though roughly 46% of the price of every beer goes to taxes, which makes it the most heavily taxed product in America? Do you deserve to have higher prices than the rest of the state? Do you deserve to make less money? Do you deserve to have fewer customers? Do you deserve to lay off good employees?

Here’s another brilliant piece of logic from the press release:

The proposed ordinance is supported by a “nexus study” commissioned by the San Francisco City Comptroller’s Office. The study found $17.7 million in direct city and county unreimbursed expenses for alcohol-related problems addressed by community behavioral health services, fire department emergency medical transport, San Francisco General Hospital, and the Sheriff’s department.

Bullshit. The nexus study is titled The Cost of Alcohol to San Francisco: Analyses Supporting an Alcohol Mitigation Fee. It’s whole purpose is to present only one side of the story, ignoring anything and everything that might oppose it or show it for the farce it is. It didn’t “find” anything, it just totaled up some questionable expenses and claimed they were due to alcohol. You can read more detail about the truth of nexus study here.

More tortured logic:

“All San Francisco residents and small businesses unfairly bear the burden of government costs for alcohol-related problems,” said Michele Simon, JD, MPH, research and policy director for the alcohol industry watchdog, Marin Institute. “This relatively small fee will ensure alcohol wholesalers and importers — not bars, restaurants, or retailers — will pay their fair share to mitigate the tremendous economic costs of alcohol harm in San Francisco.”

If, and that’s a big if, “All San Francisco residents and small businesses” share these costs supposedly, but not proven to be, attributable to alcohol, then why shouldn’t all residents and businesses pay for them, equally, like all other taxes? Why single out out alcohol manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, bars, hotels and the people who drink alcohol. Because the fee as it’s been proposed targets alcohol, and by extension the people who drink it. But the vast majority of people who legally drink alcohol do so responsibly and in moderation, and do not burden the city’s resources.

And it’s not a “relatively small fee” because they conveniently keep ignoring the fact that it will be marked up before being passed on to consumers.

And here’s how much they care about the small businesses they think deserve to support the fee:

The alcohol mitigation fee will not be allowed to exceed the costs as outlined in the nexus study, and will be imposed primarily on regional wholesalers and the portion of local brews consumed locally. Most beer is produced by foreign corporations who could easily bear some of the fee.

“[P]rimarily on regional wholesalers?” First of all, what about the distributors in San Francisco? I guess they don’t count. And the regional wholesalers, those are California businesses that would be targeted if they plan to do business in the city — which many of them do — and are located just outside the city in the Bay Area. And going after the foreign beer corporations — forgetting for a moment that they employ tens of thousands of American workers — ignores completely the more than 225 small family-owned breweries in California (eight of which are in San Francisco), along with the hundreds of small wineries and micro-distilleries.

And lastly, this:

“Small business in San Francisco should not let Big Alcohol scare them into opposition,” said Bruce Lee Livingston, executive director of Marin Institute. “We ask small businesses to be supportive, as the policy will charge alcohol wholesalers for harm instead of taxpayers and all taxpaying small businesses.” Livingston added, “We’ve all been paying for the emergency, detox and treatment costs of alcohol, but this smart fee shifts the costs to the Big Beer corporations and their wholesalers.”

Please, what planet does Livingston live on? How could he not realize that the fee will be passed along to “taxpayers and all taxpaying small businesses?” They will be paying. We all will be. He can’t possibly think otherwise, can he? He wants businesses to support their own demise? Because even businesses that don’t sell alcohol, but that benefit from it, will also be harmed by a loss of business in San Francisco. This stupid fee doesn’t shift any burdens whatsoever, though I suspect the Marin Institute knows that.

Proving Direct Harm: SF Nexus Study Finally Released

By

graphchart
When San Francisco supervisor John Avolos introduced his (and the Marin institute’s) proposed ordinance, the Alcohol Mitigation Fee Ordinance (AMFO), two weeks ago, he was required to also include a nexus study to assess the impact of the ordinance on San Francisco. Despite the vote on AMFO being next Wednesday, July 14, the nexus study was only yesterday finally released, meaning any opposition has a mere 3 working days to review and respond to it. Maybe that’s business as usual for city politics, but it certainly reeks of being unfair at best and at worst undermines the democratic process.

The AMFO seeks to impose a tax on every alcoholic drink sold in San Francisco. They’re calling it a “fee” in order to get around certain political and legal requirements that would make it harder to enact. Supporters of the AMFO continue to say it will amount to “a nickel a drink,” but while that may sound reasonable to many people, it’s nowhere near the truth. The fee itself is 7.6 cents per ounce of alcohol, meaning every single drink and drink package sold will require a separate calculation to determine the actual fee. More importantly, the AMFO will be levied at the wholesale level, which will then be marked up, usually twice. The fee will actually be around 50-75 cents per six-pack and anywhere from $0.75-$1.00 (or more) per pint. And it will be even higher on wine and spirits. The “nickel a drink” mantra is, quite simply, a lie to gain support from ordinary people who won’t examine the reality more closely.

Well yesterday — finally — the City and County of San Francisco released the nexus study, on Friday (which is where, it’s said, news goes to die, which is what they’re counting on, most likely). I had always been under the assumption that the study was supposed to be an impartial look at the impact and the direct link necessary to apply this type of fee. Apparently I was wrong, because the title of the study is The Cost of Alcohol to San Francisco: Analyses Supporting an Alcohol Mitigation Fee. So anything that does not support the AMFO was systematically ignored. There’s not one mention of any of the possible side effects, economic or otherwise that the AMFO will cause. It also means the city essentially spent a lot money for the Lewin Group to prove the case, with no thought whatsoever that it might be wrong or have unintended consequences. That’s your tax dollars. They don’t look at whether it was or wasn’t a good idea, they just started with the premise that it was and worked from there. It would be hard to imagine a worse way to represent the needs of all San Francisco residents. This is quite simply politicians deciding something, without a balanced perspective, and ramming it down the throats of everyone they were sworn to represent. What makes it worse, in this case, is that the impetus came from the Marin Institute, an organization that’s anti-alcohol to its core. The majority of people in San Francisco enjoy drinking responsibly and do so every day without causing the harm that the Marin Institute has accused them of nor do they place any burden on the city’s resources as is further alleged. But the neo-prohibitionists have whispered into the ear of at least one supervisor that there’s some money to be made, and here we are, the will of the people be damned once more.

As I wrote last week, the nexus study is required partly because of the Sinclair decision, a California Supreme Court case involving a similar type of fee for the potential harm caused by lead paint. To me the obvious difference between the two is that lead paint is bad for everybody, whereas not only is that not true for alcohol, but in fact the moderate consumption of alcohol has very real and tangible health benefits. Even without the benefits, most adults who drink responsibly are at the very least not going to emergency rooms, being arrested or otherwise taxing the city’s resources every time they go out for a beer with friends. I don’t doubt that there are such people, but they’re a very small minority and yet the city is willing to punish every single person who drinks and damage one of the few industries actually thriving in a weak economy.

But let’s look at the nexus study itself. At 68 pages, it’s a lot to digest and with the vote next week there’s little time to examine it. That it was released so late was undoubtedly by design, which is annoying, to say the least, and it’s impenetrably dense with lots of charts and exhibits, many that have almost nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is to show a direct “causal connection or nexus between the product and its adverse effects.”

I’ll try to point out as many discrepancies and failures of logic as I can — and of course take a look at the whole thing yourself — but please keep in mind that it’s not an impartial document.

First of all, the study doesn’t even appear to be trying to prove the required causal connection at all, but instead sets out from the premise that it’s just true, because they say it’s true. In the executive study:

The purpose of this study is to estimate a portion of the health-related economic costs of the measurable, direct effects of alcohol consumption to the City and County of San Francisco. These estimates will be used by the City to assess the public health impact of alcohol and inform policy surrounding an alcohol mitigation fee.

So I’d say that’s a pretty big problem right out of the gate. The study doesn’t even purport to do what it’s required to. It’s supposed to be used to “prove” the nexus of harm the ordinance alleges, but it simply states it as fact, with no proof and then goes on to estimate the numbers. To me, that’s the arrogance of the anti-alcohol community. They just assume their point of view is the only one, and figure that just saying so is enough. That your tax dollars were spent on such a farce should be troubling to any San Francisco resident who drinks responsibly.

The study alleges that “[a]ll of the programmatic cost items have a strong connection with alcohol use and high data accuracy, meaning that alcohol-related incidence was accurately identified and attributed.” But the only studies cited (to be fair, I haven’t had time to check them all) were done by biased parties. For example, here’s the first two I looked at. The first study heavily relied upon, The cost of alcohol in California was done in 2008 and sponsored by … wait for it … the Marin Institute. The second, Alcohol-Related Deaths and Hospitalizations by Race, Gender, and Age in California had two researchers, the first, Mandy Stahre, was from the University of Minnesota. The second lead researcher, Michele Simon was from … wait for it … the Marin Institute.

The bulk of the 68-page study is given over to how they estimate the costs, despite the fact that there’s no real attempt made at all to actually prove the direct causal connection or nexus between drinking alcohol and costing the city money. They just keep repeating that it’s true over and over again, presumably because their goal wasn’t even to make the required connection.

But even within their presumption of cause, they list costs that they claim are associated with alcohol use that are characterized as “high causation,” “medium causation,” and “medium/low causation.” Those are not direct causes, and they don’t even say they are, as the Sinclair decision requires. Some of the things listed in those categories are epilepsy and hepatitis, as if anyone who drinks will become epileptic or get hepatitis. It’s absurd. There are so many factors for any individual that may lead to these type of illnesses that it’s hardly reasonable to say it was alcohol that caused them. While the over-consumption of alcohol may be a contributing factor, it’s not remotely reasonable to use it to gin up the costs attributable to alcohol.

Using the same logic as the AMFO, you could apply it to virtually anything sold in San Francisco. For example, each year the City and County of San Francisco incurs costs resulting from the consumption of red meat. These include the costs of providing medical care for people with high blood pressure, treatment and prevention costs, choking, costs resulting from meat-related heart attacks, and the indirect costs associated with disability and diminished capacity. Therefore, all red meat should be taxed. You see the danger. Everything we do, consume, etc. has risks that can be attributed to it. But it’s the individuals who decide how they’ll use them, that is whether they’ll do so responsibly or not. And some people are more susceptible to harm then others, but we shouldn’t punish the people who can and do use the thing — in this case alcohol — responsibly.

The study then moves on to jail and even includes the salaries and fringe benefits of jail workers. Now let me ask a question. If alcohol were outlawed, would they shut down the jail? Of course not, the jail would be open regardless. Crimes will continue to be committed, the need for the city to provide jails has little, if any bearing, on whether alcohol is available. Trying to charge the alcohol itself for something stupid someone does after drinking it would be the same as levying a fee on gun makers and ammo companies. Yet most gun owners don’t commit crimes or kill people. But if a similar fee as the AMFO was imposed on them, everyone would have to pay more for a gun because of the minority that did use them in criminal activity. You think the NRA would let that pass without comment?

It’s also like saying that once someone has a few drinks, that personal responsibility no longer applies. At that point, the AMFO seems to suggest that people can no longer control their own actions and it’s the alcohol now at fault, as if anyone or everyone who drinks alcohol will become a criminal. They just can’t help themselves, ignoring, of course, every single person who does drink a few beers and isn’t arrested or hauled off to the emergency room — which is almost everyone, the vast majority.

The same applies to their next cost, the Fire Department, EMS services and other associated overheads costs. It’s the fault of the alcohol itself, not the individual decisions to have another drink. It doesn’t really matter how many charts of costs incurred by the city they present for these services, that’s their job. That’s what the services are there for. It’s why we all want them, in case someone we know or ourselves needs them. It’s unfortunate that there are people who don’t know when to stop drinking, but they should be responsible for that bad decision, and it shouldn’t be up to the rest of us to be punished for their stupidity. Every person in San Francisco, the state of California and the U.S. already pays for those services through the many taxes we already pay. To say that people who drink have to pay a little bit more just because they choose to drink alcohol — which is legal, I shouldn’t have to say — is ludicrous.

Pages 26 to 31 are devoted to how the fee is calculated. If it takes six pages to lay that out, I’d have to say it may be too complex a scheme. It’s the first time I know it’s been tried, and it looks to be an administrative nightmare, not that the folks pushing this care how onerous any part of it is for their avowed enemies. The city cares about money and the neo-prohibitionists care about doing anything they can to punish and hurt alcohol. As they’ve publicly stated — and even commented directly on this blog — they’re supposedly after the big multi-national alcohol companies, though it doesn’t seem to bother them that they’re also dragging down every small, family owned craft brewer and small winery in California. There are over 225 small breweries and probably even more wineries, not to mention micro-distilleries. They claim not to be “after” them, but the AMFO harms them equally, and possibly even more so since they’re so small it will be harder for them to absorb the fee than it may be for the bigger companies.

Next, there’s an appendix of alleged attributable causes, each with their own AAF, or Alcohol-Attributable Fraction. But the AAF goes completely against the very idea of the nexus study, whose point you may recall was that it is required to show a direct causal connection. What it shows instead, that a percentage of people who drink alcohol may contract a particular disease. That’s not a direct nexus. It’s risk. Adults are free to take those risks. It includes things like accidental poisoning, by people who got drunk and accidentally drank Drano. That’s tragic, but it’s hardly the fault of the alcohol. Same deal with suicide. If your life is so bad that you want to kill yourself and you drink before doing so, is it not obvious that the root causes of the suicide are far more deeply in that person’s psyche than binge drinking? A few drinks, hell even a lot of drinks, is not going to make most people off themselves.

It just goes on from there, blaming alcohol for the homeless, homeless outreach programs, emergency services, etc. as if being homeless is directly attributable to drinking. Homeless people I’d wager drink because they’re homeless and their lives suck and our society does not really help them. But rather than acknowledge a huge glaring societal problem, it’s easier to just blame the alcohol.

Finally, at page 65 (4 pages from the end) in the section Attribution by Type of Beverage and Point of Sale they grudgingly mention that there are health benefits, at least for wine and spirits, none are offered for beer. And the only two even mentioned is that drinking wine decreases cardiovascular risk and whisky — get this — increased tooth fracture resistance. That’s right whisky will make it harder to break your tooth when you fall on your face. That’s apparently it’s only positive.

Despite the fact that they quote both the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the USDA’s Report on the Dietary Guidelines 2010 (which I also recently reported on), they completely ignored the many, many cited studies in the new report on the dietary guidelines that show many positive correlations between all alcohol — beer, wine and spirits — when consumed responsibly and in moderation. In fact , the NIAAA recommended changing the standard for moderate drinking from a daily one to a weekly standard and stating that the number of safe drinks per day could effectively be doubled so long as the maximum per week was not exceeded.

But perhaps the most glaring omission was the meta-study they did on the effects of moderate drinking on total mortality, meaning how does responsible drinking do in creating a more or less healthy lifestyle. Predictably, it was found that a majority, if not all, of the studies examined show a positive correlation between moderate drinking and living longer and being more healthy.

Total Mortality. In most Western countries where chronic diseases such as CHD, cancer, stroke and diabetes are the primary causes of death, results from large epidemiological studies consistently show that alcohol has a favorable association with total mortality especially among middle age and older men and women. A recent updated meta-analysis of all-cause mortality demonstrated an inverse association between moderate drinking and total mortality (Di Castelnuovo, 2006). The relative risk of all-cause mortality associated with moderate drinking was approximately 0.80. The J-shaped curve, with the lowest mortality risk for men and women at the average level of one to two drinks per day, is likely due to the protective effects of moderate alcohol consumption on CHD, diabetes and ischemic stroke as summarized in this chapter.

In other words, you’ll be healthier if you have one or two beers a day. Isn’t it therefore reckless for the city of San Francisco to make it more difficult for people to live their lives in a way that has been shown to make them healthier? The meta-study shows a direct causal connection between moderate drinking and living longer and more healthy, the opposite nexus that is needed to legally impose the fee.

The remaining three pages are taken up with biased studies that show exactly what the city and the Marin Institute wants to show and ignores anything that doesn’t fit their world view. In other words, the study is a sham. It’s propaganda. It’s not in anyway balanced, and it doesn’t even try to be, even though an honest assessment would actually be in the best interests of the people who live (and pay taxes) in San Francisco.

It completely ignores any economic harm and the loss of jobs that will undoubtedly occur if less people are visiting and drinking in San Francisco. It completely ignores any of the potential harm it will cause. To me, that’s a travesty. Let’s at least have an honest debate. Like the one-sided C.W. Nevius column in the Chronicle, the mainstream and local media has been amazingly uncritical and supportive of the AMFO, swallowing whole the propaganda of the anti-alcohol fee while ignoring nearly completely any serious opposition to it.

If you oppose the AMFO — and frankly you should, especially if you drink responsibly in San Francisco — visit SaveMyCaJob for details on how you can help. But do it quickly, because the vote is this coming Wednesday, July 14.

Fight the Fee!

UPDATE 7.12: I just learned that the hearing for a vote on the AMFO, scheduled for July 14, has been postponed until July 28, though the decision had nothing to do with allowing more time for people to review the nexus study.

Eating Seasonably

By

eat-seasonably
Two years ago for one of our Sessions, I lamented that many of the traditionally seasonal beers are now available year-round. That was Session 17, and it’s theme was Drinking Anti-Seasonally, where I wrote:

We live in a time when seasonality has lost its meaning, and not just with respect to beer. Any fruit, regardless of its growing season is available at the average supermarket, flown from around the world so that our every whim not go unfulfilled. Let no sales opportunity go to waste. Convenience is king. As consumers we believe that whatever we want should be available whenever we want it, because that’s the bill of goods we’ve been sold. Remember those bothersome watermelon seeds. Gone. Strawberries in the winter? Thank you Guatemala. We don’t like to wait for anything anymore. And usually we don’t have to, because there’s someone willing to sell us whatever we fancy, regardless of the season.

But if you’re like me, you can decide to choose your foods according to the seasons and an English website, Eat Seasonably, has a great interactive calendar to help you do just that.

eatseason-1

From the calendar itself, you can choose to either see when a particular fruit or vegetable is in season, or you can choose a particular month, such as the current month, July.

eatseason-july

Around the outer ring, it shows what’s best for that month, which in July’s case is cucumbers, curly lettuce and cherries. The inner ring then shows what else is in season throughout the month.

eatseason-2

The chart is also divided up and color-coded by season. They also have various sizes of posters that can be downloaded and printed out. The posters also include a handy chart that lists common fruits and vegetables and then using the color-coding shows which months each one is in season.

eatseason-4

It’s a pretty cool little chart, and until we get the beer seasons figured out better, at least we can eat with the seasons.

Don’t Let Facts Get In Your Way

By

marin-institute
Regular Bulletin readers know how I feel about the Marin Institute. They style themselves as a “watchdog” group but in reality they’re a run of the mill anti-alcohol, neo-prohibitionist group. I often accuse them of going to great lengths to distort facts or manufacture reality to further their cause, taking an ends justify the means approach to everything they do. The “charge for harm” nonsense they’re trying to foist on San Francisco is a prime example, but today witnessed an even clearer example of how far they’ll go in bending reality to their will.

The USDA has released their updated version of the Dietary Guidelines For Americans 2010, where they looked at more recent research regarding food and beverages of all kinds, updating the 2005 edition (it’s regularly updated every five years). Well, this is bad news for the anti-alcohol folks, because recent science has been revealing more and more health benefits for the moderate consumption of alcohol, and so not surprisingly, that’s what is reflected in the new guidelines. But the Marin Institute has never been one to let facts stand in their way, and so they’ve wasted no time in criticizing the report’s findings and asking their unquestioning faithful to do likewise, calling the whole thing “dangerous” and “unscientific,” despite the fact that the whole report is based on science and each study relied upon is cited in the bibliography. It’s laughable that they’d call it “unscientific” while they themselves just shout it down and spread propaganda and utterly nonfactual claims about why they don’t like its conclusions. To them, it’s only science if they agree with the results. To me, that’s far more dangerous than anything in the report.

So what does this dangerous report say? It’s Chapter 7 that tackles alcohol and it’s fairly balanced from my point of view, and probably would be for any reasonable person. It talks about both the risks of over-consumption and the benefits of moderate drinking. It’s quite cautious in making any affirmative recommendations. There were also some interesting statistics. For example, I’d often heard that about a third of adults don’t drink alcohol, but a recent survey revealed that 76% of men and 65% of women had consumed alcohol in the past year. Most compelling was the decision to change the definition of moderate drinking from a daily standard to a weekly one, and to raise the daily recommendations from 2/1 (men/women) to 4/3.

The recent release of Rethinking Drinking by the National Institutes of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), provides guidelines that are consistent, in part, with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, but also add additional guidance on weekly patterns of consumption. This NIAAA booklet, which is also designed to help individuals drink less if they are heavy or “at risk drinkers,” defines “low-risk” drinking as no more than 14 drinks a week for men and 7 drinks a week for women with no more than 4 drinks on any given day for men and 3 drinks a day for women (NIAAA, 2009).

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) largely agreed with this definition of moderation from the NIAAA because it implied that consumption was based on daily intake averaged over the week and also because the NIAAA guideline was generally consistent with the recommendation from the 2005 Dietary Guidelines.

Not surprisingly, this caused the Marin Institute to go apoplectic. Of course, the definition of “binge drinking” has been five drinks in a single session, which is laughingly absurd, especially so now in light of four being considered within the bounds of moderation. The five-drink-standard branded every single person who attends a five-course beer dinner a binge drinker, which is utter nonsense.

dietary-guidelines-2010

The Dietary Guidelines also asked some interesting questions about the effects of moderate drinking, and reports some findings that the anti-alcohol groups will have a hard time dismissing, and in fact any rebuttal of them is so far missing from their complaints. For example:

What is the Relationship between Alcohol Intake and Cognitive Decline with Age?

Conclusion

Moderate evidence suggests that compared to non-drinkers, individuals who drink moderately have a slower cognitive decline with age. Although limited, evidence suggests that heavy or binge drinking is detrimental to age-related cognitive decline.

Implications

Alcohol, when consumed in moderation, did not quicken the pace of age-related loss of cognitive function. In most studies, it was just the opposite—moderate alcohol consumption, when part of a healthy diet and physical activity program, appeared to help to keep cognitive function intact with age.

They also did a meta-study on the effects of moderate drinking on total mortality, meaning how does responsible drinking do in creating a more or less healthy lifestyle. Predictably, it was found that a majority, if not all, of the studies examined show a positive correlation between moderate drinking and living longer and being more healthy.

Total Mortality. In most Western countries where chronic diseases such as CHD, cancer, stroke and diabetes are the primary causes of death, results from large epidemiological studies consistently show that alcohol has a favorable association with total mortality especially among middle age and older men and women. A recent updated meta-analysis of all-cause mortality demonstrated an inverse association between moderate drinking and total mortality (Di Castelnuovo, 2006). The relative risk of all-cause mortality associated with moderate drinking was approximately 0.80. The J-shaped curve, with the lowest mortality risk for men and women at the average level of one to two drinks per day, is likely due to the protective effects of moderate alcohol consumption on CHD, diabetes and ischemic stroke as summarized in this chapter.

In other words, you’ll be healthier if you have one or two beers a day. But woe be to any brewery that might think to actually suggest that to a potential customer. That’s where the neo-prohibitionists are most worried. In the conclusion to their comments to the new dietary guidelines, the Marin Institute are very “concerned.” Here are some excerpts of their worrying, and my open letter response as to why they’re on the train to loony town.

There is no public health organization that recommends starting to drink alcohol for abstainers, or drinking more alcohol for current drinkers, as either a preventive behavior to address specific medical problems, or as a population-level primary prevention strategy.

Perhaps not, but there should be. The only reason there isn’t, is because organizations like the Marin Institute would treat such a recommendation as a declaration of war. Even though the facts indicate that moderate drinking is healthier than abstaining, nobody would dare to state the obvious conclusion to draw from that just because of how they’d react, in other words fear is the reason, not common sense.

Indeed, federal, state, local and community public health agencies, including Marin Institute, work tirelessly to address the tremendous physical, social, and economic harm caused by alcohol. Yet the Report sounds as if drinking alcohol is not only a suggested therapeutic option to discuss with one’s doctor, but also a general recommendation for all Americans to consider as part of an overall wellness plan.

It “sounds as if drinking alcohol is a therapeutic option” because it is. Alcohol does not cause the harm, too much alcohol may cause harm, but moderate consumption is beneficial. You just continuing to say the opposite of what’s true doesn’t make it any less so.

The Committee must be aware that the Report’s messages about alcohol consumption will be misinterpreted by the powerful corporations and trade organizations that sell and promote alcoholic beverages. The alcohol industry has a long history of exploiting the Dietary Guidelines for their benefit, and the suggestions contained in the Report lend themselves to further misuse. We are especially concerned that despite the Report’s caveats, the industry will use the new recommendations to promote alcohol consumption and increased consumption.

Don’t worry, you’re safe. Maybe you should relax and enjoy a frosty beverage; perhaps I could suggest a beer? You must think the alcohol companies are pretty stupid, despite how shrewd you usually paint them. With you “watchdogging” them, there’s no way any alcohol company could launch a campaign suggesting people start drinking or drinking more, even though the evidence points to the fact that it wouldn’t be a bad idea. At any rate, thanks to your predecessors after prohibition, the advertising guidelines already expressly forbid health claims, so as usual you’re worrying about nothing.

We also ask that the Committee revise the Report and subsequent Guidelines to send a much more cautionary, evidence-based message regarding alcohol consumption to the public. Finally, we recommend that the new Guidelines maintain the formulation of 2/1 per-day consumption of alcohol. We urge you to err on the side of caution when recommending safe alcohol consumption levels and behaviors to improve health and prevent harm.

Err on the side of caution? Let’s see, they reviewed the science and came to a conclusion you didn’t like. That’s not an error or not being cautious, it’s simply letting facts dictate what makes sense in terms of a policy of what’s best for the average person.

But your whole posturing, tantrum-filled press release and comments speak volumes about your real intentions. While an average person might look at those findings and think to themselves, “great, it’s good to be informed and know how eating and drinking certain things will affect me. Now I can make an informed decision on how to live my life.” But you look at that and instead cry, “I don’t like those finding, they must be wrong. There’s science behind it, but I don’t like the conclusions so the science must be wrong. I don’t like the recommendations, so they must be “dangerous.”

I know it’s nearly impossible for the Marin Institute or any similar organization to have an open mind and be reasonable about these sorts of things. Fanaticism is rarely compatible with reason or common sense. But I continue to marvel at how any organization who never misses an opportunity to call an alcohol company on not being truthful can themselves be so fast and loose with the truth. Lying to keep someone else truthful (or at least for a cause you believe in) seems completely immoral, or at least amoral, to me. If the facts are contrary to your point of view, maybe it’s your point of view that’s wrong? Maybe it’s time to question your assumptions? I know that’s not going to happen, but not letting the facts get in your way by just ignoring them or pretending they don’t exist or are wrong isn’t going to fool anybody except the people who you’ve hoodwinked already. And maybe that’s their point in the end, maybe it’s just about keeping the faithful faithful by telling them what they want to hear and appearing to fight their absurd fight. But I sure wish they’d let the facts get in their way.

Fight The Fee

By

cahj
If you read my rebuttal to San Francisco Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius support of the proposed fee on alcohol in the city, then perhaps you recall that he interviewed the California Alliance of Hospitality Workers so he could appear to show both sides of the argument. It was not really in any way balanced, and in fact I think he used them as a straw man, though he did so in a way that I believe was incorrect at any rate.

Happily, the California Alliance of Hospitality Workers is fighting back, and is trying to get people to contact their local supervisor in San Francisco to have city residents ask their politicians to oppose the proposed fee. The e-mail to use is Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org. If you live in San Francisco and drink alcohol in moderation and responsibly, please contact your supervisor and ask him or her to oppose the ordinance.

cal-alliance-hjobs

You can also see their response to the proposed ordinance, Supervisors’ Short-Sighted Proposal to Tax Alcohol Will Hurt Hard-Working San Franciscans. They’ve also set up a Facebook page.

One additional important fact that they mention is that the required Nexus Study has still not been filed or made public. With the hearing to vote on the proposed ordinance a week away — July 14 — at the very least that’s stacking the deck and at the worst is complete bullshit.

Here’s just a few more reasons why this tax is unfair, particularly to craft beer:

  • This legislation taxes beer by alcohol strength, putting a huge and cumbersome burden on brewpubs, self-distributing small brewers and wholesalers because each and every beer is taxed at a different rate.
  • Craft brewers are not part of the problem. Craft beer is priced high and is a product of quality, not quantity. Craft beer drinkers do not abuse their beverages.
  • With the “margin chain” and price point consideration, the tax will be much higher than five cents a drink. At retail off-premise, the increase will be about 50-75 cents a six-pack and on premise about 75 cents to a dollar per pint.
  • Brewers are already heavily taxed. Small brewers already pay a state and a federal excise tax in addition to all other business and sales taxes. Combined, about 40-44% of the cost of a beer already goes to taxes.
  • Higher drink prices in a singular market such as San Francisco will lead consumers to not come into the City for dining and entertainment.
  • Higher taxes will lead to lost jobs, off-setting the new tax.
  • The proposed tax would hinder the ability of craft brewers in the City to grow, employ more people and positively contribute to City’s economic recovery.
  • Higher taxes will mean higher prices which means lower sales. If this tax in imposed, sales will decrease and craft brewers will not be able to sustain the ability to continue full employment or continue to invest in our business and community.

What (Pete) Brown Can Do For You

By

Okay, I’m just having a bit of fun with UPS’ slogan and Pete Brown, UK beer writer. But today Pete has a nice overview of each of the big six beer companies that do business in the UK, entitled The Big Boys. It’s definitely worth a read. He talks primarily about their marketing efforts in the UK, but you get a sense of how he feels about the pros and cons of each company and the overall feeling that they’re not all the same.

Manipulation Of The Crowd: Online Ratings

By

science
The latest issue of Scientific American has an interesting article, Manipulation of the Crowd: How Trustworthy Are Online Ratings?, a topic of interest to any brewery who’s ever received a bad review from either Beer Advocate or Rate Beer. Intuitively, it’s seemed to me that the overall quality of the ratings on those sites have been improving as they’ve matured and built up the number of users and reviews.

According to Scientific American, the bad news is that while most review-driven websites don’t accurately reflect the expected statistical bell curve (which would imply their accuracy), the good news is that the beer reviews online prove the exception to the rule and are, in fact, more often fairly and reasonably accurate.

The philosophy behind such rating sites is known as the “crowdsourcing strategy” insofar as the “truest and most accurate evaluations will come from aggregating the opinions of a large and diverse group of people.” But according to Eric K. Clemons, at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, ratings sites like Amazon, TripAdvisor and Yelp “suffer from a number of inherent biases.”

  1. Disproportion: “People who rate purchases have already made the purchase. Therefore, they are disposed to like the product. ‘I happen to love Larry Niven novels,’ [professor Eric K.] Clemons says. “So whenever Larry Niven has a novel out, I buy it. Other fans do, too, and so the initial reviews are very high—five stars.” The high ratings draw people who would never have considered a science-fiction novel. And if they hate it, their spite could lead to an overcorrection, with a spate of one-star ratings.”
  2. Polarization: “People tend not to review things they find merely satisfactory. They evangelize what they love and trash things they hate. These feelings lead to a lot of one- and five-star reviews of the same product.”
  3. Oligarchy of the Enthusiastic: “A small percentage of users account for a huge majority of the reviews. These super-reviewers—often celebrated with ‘Top Reviewer’ badges and ranked against one another to encourage their participation—each contribute thousands of reviews, ultimately drowning out the voices of more typical users (95 percent of Amazon reviewers have rated fewer than eight products). ‘There is nothing to say that these people are good at what they do,’ [computer scientist Vassilis] Kostakos says. ‘They just do a lot of it.’ What appears to be a wise crowd is just an oligarchy of the enthusiastic.”

Yelp, the one I’ve heard more people consistently complain about, apparently has some of the worst transparency issues and there’s the “perception that the company itself might be manipulating the playing field.”

A separate look at Netflix user data, Dissecting the Netflix Dataset, found some of the same relationships in rating the films rented from Netflix. For example, the average rating for a film is 3.8 (out of 5), neatly fitting the average bell curve results, such as this study mentioned in Scientific American.

A controlled offline survey of some of these supposedly polarizing products revealed that individuals’ true opinions fit a bell-shaped curve—ratings cluster around three or four, with fewer scores of two and almost no ones and fives. Self-selected online voting creates an artificial judgment gap; as in modern politics, only the loudest voices at the furthest ends of the spectrum seem to get heard

A similar look at IMDb ratings, Mining gold from the Internet Movie Database, part 1: decoding user ratings, saw complimentary results and the same looking bell curve. The average rating on the IMDb was 6.2 (out of 10) and the median was 6.4.

It seems that the more popular a ratings website is, and consequently the more reviews it gets, the more reliable the results are, or at least the better they seem to fit the bell curve of expected distribution of reviews that usually result from non-online sources. The higher number of reviews, the more fringe reviews at either ends of the spectrum are less heavily weighed. Unless, of course, it just plain sucks or everyone agrees on how terrific it is, but that’s most likely a situation that’s pretty rare.

But, as I said at the outset, the good news is that those problem issues with online ratings are apparently not a problem for the beer ratings websites, which are specifically mentioned as an instance where the crowdsourcing model does work.

RateBeer.com, which has attracted some 3,000 members who have rated at least 100 beers each; all but the most obscure beers have been evaluated hundreds or thousands of times. The voluminous data set is virtually manipulation-proof, and the site’s passionate users tend to post on all beers they try—not just ones they love or hate.

I’m quite certain those numbers would be similar for Beer Advocate, too, of course, suggesting that for both of the most popular beer ratings websites, that the results have become reasonably reliable, especially for the beers that have been most heavily reviewed. For new beers with just a few reviews, obviously it wouldn’t automatically be as reliable, but the only way to build up reviews is start somewhere. And that’s where looking more carefully at the reviewers becomes more important. A review with only 5 reviews where all 5 reviewers are experienced would arguably be different from one where all 5 reviewers were rookies or had very little experience. Obviously, the number of reviews a person has done is no guarantee that his or her reviews are better or more reliable, but it stands to reason that anyone who takes something seriously and continues to practice it will improve over time. And like craft beer itself, the longer it’s been around, the better it gets. It’s nice to see some scientific support to confirm that intuition.

Errors of Opinion

By

san-francisco
I got an e-mail a couple of days ago from San Francisco Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius asking for my perspective on the proposed alcohol fee for his next column. He indicated he knew my position and disclosed that he was “in favor” of it. He also added this. “But due diligence says we need to represent both sides.” Reading that, I felt that he wasn’t really prepared to listen to anything I might say, but simply felt he had to talk to someone from the opposition so the paper could keep the illusion of being “fair and balanced.” So I wrote him back and said so, about an hour or so later.

I mean no disrespect and I don’t mean to criticize, but it sounds like you want to talk to me and get my opinion just because you have to, which is never the best way to begin a conversation, if I may be so bold as to say so. We may both be entrenched in our opinions but I look forward to giving you my side of the issue and having a lively discussion.

He wrote me back and thanked me for my time, but told me he’d found an alternative for his due diligence.

His column was published yesterday, and was titled Supervisor’s fee on alcohol a terrific idea, hardly conveying even a whiff of impartiality. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a column after all, he’s not writing a report on the proposed ordinance. Nevius’ opinion is his stock in trade, it’s why he has a job. I’m not convinced that all reporting should give equal weight to both sides, and columnists especially are more free to express their own opinions. In the days when most towns had two newspapers, bias was nakedly on display. You bought the paper that most closely reflected your point of view. Bias is inevitable, at least to some degree. Journalists are human, after all, and even if the writing manages to mask that fact, the way the story is framed, structured and even the headline chosen all can convey bias to the observant reader.

And for many stories, that’s not a problem. If you’re doing a story on the roundness of the Earth, you shouldn’t have to make sure the Flat Earth Society is represented. Not every story on the Holocaust needs a comment from some wingnut who doesn’t believe it really happened. But many stories, especially those that involve creating public policy that effects everyone, should have an even higher standard of informing the public about both sides. Unfortunately, in those circumstances — when it’s most important — is when it most often doesn’t happen.

Case in point is the proposed alcohol fee ordinance. I think that this issue is one of enough importance that both sides should get an opportunity to voice their points of view equally, but so far every story I’ve seen in the mainstream and local media is completely lopsided, presenting only the side of the Marin Institute, who’s been pushing this scheme for some time now, and have finally gotten some traction with San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos. The Marin Institute, despite their protestations to the contrary, is an anti-alcohol group. In their rhetoric they claim otherwise, but it in their actions it’s completely obvious.

So while I don’t begrudge C.W. Nevius his opinions, I think they are based on propaganda and misinformation, since that’s virtually the only information out there. He’s made up his mind, and it’s obvious my arguments fall on deaf ears, since he’s read at least some of what I’ve written on the subject and still believes what he does. But that doesn’t mean I won’t try to point out why I think his opinions are based on false assumptions and errors, mostly the ones that come from the Marin Institute.

So if you haven’t already, go ahead and read Supervisor’s fee on alcohol a terrific idea. It’s not too long. I’ll wait here. …. Done, okay, let’s continue.

He begins with the assumption, that “Supervisor John Avalos is as progressive as they come, but he’s crafted a terrific proposal.” I don’t know if he’s read it, but it’s a mess of vagueness, undefined processes and unanswered questions. It’s nothing if not poorly written. But perhaps most importantly, Avalos didn’t “craft” it, the Marin institute spoon fed it to him. Their propagandist language is all over the ordinance. Just compare their press release and what’s written on their website to the proposed ordinance and you can’t help but realize that fact.

Next up: “It is focused on a serious problem in the city, it targets very real costs, and it makes specific recommendations that will make a positive difference.” I’m sure there are problem drinkers in San Francisco, but has anyone seen any statistics that support how “serious” the problem really is? I haven’t. None have been cited in connection with this ordinance. It’s just stated and everybody seems to believe it. Show me the numbers, and let’s have them be from a neutral source for a change. The Nexus Study that’s required for the ordinance has not been made public yet, as far as I know. And that means nobody can really say that the ordinance “will make a positive difference” with any certainty. People can believe that, but until it’s put into place, it’s merely conjecture. I don’t believe it will, and I don’t think a fair Nexus Study will predict the effect will be positive. But that aside, even if there are people who abuse alcohol (as I’m sure there are) it’s still not everyone who drinks. Why is punishing the majority of drinkers who do so safely and responsibly so acceptable?

“Avalos is proposing a ‘charge for harm’ fee on liquor wholesalers and distributors that could amount to as much as a nickel a drink in San Francisco.” Okay, the “charge for harm” phrase is all Marin Institute. It’s propaganda and it’s absurd. As the Pillsbury Tax Page points out, “virtually every industry can be found to place some type of burden on society.” Should bullet manufacturers and gun makers have a “fee” imposed on them because of every crime that’s committed using a gun, including any trips to the hospital from gunshot wounds? Should every heart attack victim have the burden on emergency rooms mitigated by fees on red meat and other foods that increase the risk of heart attacks? It’s a slippery slope; where do you stop? Why is alcohol the only one targeted for this notion of “charge for harm.”

Then’s there the statement that the fee will be “as much as a nickel a drink.” He’s obviously not done the math. It will be different for each kind of alcohol and each package it comes in. A nickel is the low end of the spectrum, in many cases it will be much more than a nickel. And he’s also failing to recognize that because the fee will be imposed on “wholesalers and distributors” that it will be marked up, in some cases twice, meaning it will be more than five cents across the board.

Next it’s the “city’s ambulance and fire services, clogging San Francisco General Hospital’s emergency room, and using up valuable resources.” First of all, that’s what the resources are there for, but that aside, isn’t that a failure of our health care system? It isn’t the alcohol company’s fault if people abuse it and act irresponsibly. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is a burden on the system. The vast majority are not using up the city’s “valuable resources.” But they’ll have to pay just the same.

And here’s his alternative source for due diligence so he could appear to cover both sides of the issue.

“A tax is a tax, is a tax, is a tax,” said Matt Klink, spokesman for the California Alliance for Hospitality Jobs. “The restaurant and hotel industries are already getting pummeled in San Francisco because of the downturn in the economy. This would put San Francisco businesses at a significant disadvantage.”

Actually, it’s simply a straw man. He basically used that quote just to dismiss it, knock it down, without really addressing the very real concerns of any opposition. But, unfortunately, his dismissal is incorrect, or at least ignores important facts. Nevius argues that the concerns of the California Alliance for Hospitality Jobs are a “stretch” because “Avalos’ bill only targets wholesalers and large distributors, not restaurants or hotels.” First of all, that it “only targets wholesalers and large distributors” may itself be a stretch, because the ordinance in its incompleteness fails to address how fees will be collected from self-distributing companies outside the city and also distributors who sell to businesses in San Francisco but who themselves are outside the jurisdiction of the city. But more importantly, Nevius again fails to take into account that because the fees are imposed on the distributor, they’ll be marked up. Then the restaurant and hotels that he so blithely dismisses will also mark up what they buy from the wholesaler based on the new, higher price that includes the fee. That will mean San Francisco will have the highest price booze in the state, bar none. If he thinks that’s not going to effect business — especially convention business — when there are cheaper alternatives across the bridges, in the East Bay and South Bay particularly, then he’s seriously divorced from reality.

He’s then turns his thinking over to the Marin Institute, who he quotes. “Most alcohol production is controlled and profited by corporations based in Europe,” said Bruce Lee Livingston of the Marin Institute, an alcohol watchdog agency. “This fee is trivial to San Francisco consumers and negligible to businesses.” Okay, for the millionth time, so what? An unfair fee is rendered fair because the companies are headquartered outside the U.S.? Such jingoism reminds me of the people who used to insist people buy American cars because (say it with a hick accent) them foreign ones was bad for GM and the other U.S. car companies, ignoring the fact that most employed thousands of American employees along with countless indirect businesses created for parts, sales, repairs, and on and on. Take a look at Beer Serves America to get an idea of how just beer adds jobs to the U.S. economy, not including wine and spirits. It’s a lot. And saying it’s acceptable to further tax an entire industry just because the major players are owned by multinationals seems ludicrous to me.

But even conceding that the two biggest beer companies are not primarily owned by U.S. shareholders, that still ignores over 120 small California breweries that are most definitely owned by Americans, and the majority are owned by American families. Add to that all the other American craft breweries who sell their beer in California. There are over 1,500 breweries in the U.S. today and all but two of them are owned by Americans. But the Marin Institute thinks it’s okay to target them too. Talk about collateral damage. Then there’s how many small wineries in California? Small micro-distilleries? American-owned restaurants and bars and liquor stores? Doesn’t matter, f@%k ’em all.

Nevius concludes that “[a]ll in all this is a great idea” and the fee ordinance is a “thoughtful, reasonable proposal.” How he can come to that conclusion is beyond me.

He also never addresses the fact that because the people who supposedly cause all this harm represent only a tiny fraction of adults who legally drink alcohol, the ordinance effectively punishes the majority of drinkers who consume alcohol responsibly. So you and me have to pay more for a beer because some other yahoo couldn’t handle his drink and couldn’t be bothered to get his own health insurance. How is that fair, could someone please explain? That personal responsibility is completely ignored is also more than a little troubling. People should be responsible for their actions. But let’s not blame them, let’s instead go after the people who make the alcohol, or distribute the alcohol, or sell the alcohol. Let’s tax them more and risk more loss of jobs and revenue in a shaky economy. Let’s not try to build a more effective mass transit system so people can actually get around safely without a car. That might help ameliorate problems caused by people who drink too much. Let’s also continue to ignore the fact that alcohol is already the most heavily taxed substance sold in America. Without factoring in this new fee, of the cost of a beer, fully 44% is for taxes of one kind or another. According to a 2005 study by Global Insight and the Parthenon Group, “the total tax burden [on beer alone] adds up to nearly 70% more than the average amount of tax paid in the U.S. on all other purchases. That represents well above $10 billion in extra taxes paid on beer.” You can assume it’s as much or more on wine and spirits, too.

The Marin Institute, and similar neo-prohibitionist groups, all over the country are seizing on the poor state of our economy to further their agenda and persuade politicians that they can raise money by going after alcohol. It has nothing to do with taxes for them and in every instance I know of it comes nowhere close to fixing budget deficits even though that’s how it’s always sold. Alcohol is a handy target because it’s been so demonized throughout our history. Without knowing the facts, people accept that drinking is evil and that it’s okay to punish people who drink because they’re committing a sin anyway. It sounds crazy, but people really still believe that. But alcohol also has a myriad of health benefits and in moderation is part of a more enjoyable and healthier lifestyle, both physically and mentally.

There’s no doubt that the economic problems being faced by governments at all levels, from the federal to the local, are serious and need to be fixed. But taxing — yes, taxing — one of the few industries holding its own and keeping people employed and paying its already hefty taxes cannot be the right answer. It targets the wrong people, it punishes the innocent indiscriminately, it won’t fix the problem it’s purported to fix and it’s done for all the wrong reasons. What about that sounds like “a terrific idea.”

The Science Of Parenting & Drinking

By

science
Often times, science conducts studies that test theories that most of us pretty much take for granted. A few recent examples include the fact that too many meetings cause stress and unproductive employees (Group Dynamics, March 2005), objects are harder to see when they’re farther away (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Feb. 2005) and it’s harder to remember stuff and concentrate when you’re older (Journal of Experimental Psychology, May 2005). [From PopSci’s Science Confirms the Obvious.] I’ve always referred to such studies as “d’uh” studies, because the results are often so head-smackingly obvious. But they do have value since they do confirm and quantify things we take for granted and even occasionally disprove cherished beliefs.

A new d’uh study has just been published by the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. The study, entitled Parenting Style, Religiosity, Peers, and Adolescent Heavy Drinking, was conducted by two sociology professors, Steve Bahr and John Hoffmann, at Brigham Young University.

Here’s part of the press release they sent out:

Parents may be surprised, even disappointed, to find out they don’t influence whether their teen tries alcohol.

But now for some good news: Parenting style strongly and directly affects teens when it comes to heavy drinking — defined as having five or more drinks in a row — according to a new Brigham Young University study.

The researchers surveyed nearly 5,000 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 about their drinking habits and their relationship with their parents. Specifically, they examined parents’ levels of accountability — knowing where they spend their time and with whom — and the warmth they share with their kids. Here’s what they found:

  • The teens least prone to heavy drinking had parents who scored high on both accountability and warmth.
  • So-called “indulgent” parents, those low on accountability and high on warmth, nearly tripled the risk of their teen participating in heavy drinking.
  • “Strict” parents – high on account ability and low on warmth — more than doubled their teen’s risk of heavy drinking.

About.com’s Alcoholism page added the handy chart below.

Researchers at Brigham Young University asked 4,983 adolescents between age 12 and 19 about their drinking habits and their relationship with their parents. As a result, the researchers identified four parenting styles:

  • Authoritative Parents: Rank high in discipline and monitoring (accountability) and high in support and warmth.
  • Authoritarian Parents: Rank high in control, but low in warmth and support.
  • Indulgent Parents: Rank high in warmth and support, but low in accountability.
  • Neglectful Parents: Rank low in support, warmth, and accountability.

It’s apparently only the first parenting type — Authoritative — that is effective in reducing binge drinking in teens. And that’s where the d’uh comes in. I’m going to guess that the authoritative style of parenting is more effective in a wide range of behaviors, because we’ve all seen or experienced the effects of other kinds of parents. Extremes are rarely a good idea. Too strict is bad, and so is too lenient. What a revelation! Goldilocks had it right after all.

But I would also suggest that such parents would teach their children about alcohol, possibly sampling them on it it a controlled environment, such as at dinner, teaching them about it, and modeling the behavior of moderate and responsible alcohol use. And these are exactly the kinds of steps that so many anti-alcohol groups are dead set against and have even made illegal in some states.

Anti-alcohol groups instead use fear and scare tactics to keep kids from drinking, a notoriously ineffective method. They preach abstinence and just saying “no.” MADD runs a program, with local law enforcement, where schools pretend a popular kid has been killed by a drunk driver and then use the grief (which is real to the kids) to scare them into pledging not to drink, causing all manner of emotional harm. These are not the actions of parents who are “supportive” and show “warmth” toward their children.

Curiously, while most news sources that picked up the press release titled their piece something along the lines of Parenting Style Influences Teen Binge Drinking, Parenting Style Can Prevent Teen Binge Drinking , Parenting style can prevent heavy drinking or Teens and Alcohol Study: After a Few Drinks, Parenting Style Kicks in, anti-alcohol groups ran a very different headline. For example the Mormon Times used the headline BYU study finds indulgent parents may aid binge drinking, ignoring entirely the fact that the study also showed that strict parents were similarly ineffective. In fact, not once in the entire article does the author ever even mention that “strict” parents — high on accountability and low on warmth — more than doubled their teen’s risk of heavy drinking.” Draw your own conclusions.

Likewise, the neo-prohibitionist organization Join Together titled their take on the study Being a Strict Parent Doesn’t Protect Against Youth Drinking, Study Says. As one commenter on their website points out, “shouldn’t the headline of this article REALLY read: ‘Kids with loving, engaged parents less likely to drink’? In other words, the STRICT-NESS of parents is not where fault lies. The headline is a bit misleading.”

But it makes sense in terms of such anti-alcohol policy and rhetoric, where the emphasis is always on the negative. Their whole focus was on what parenting styles didn’t work in keeping kids from binge drinking, ignoring entirely what was effective, at least according to the study. Why does that matter? I think it matters because it shows where the priorities lie with such organizations. They’re not interested in kids becoming responsible adult drinkers of alcoholic beverages. They want everyone to stop drinking, by force, coercion and whatever means necessary.

In the study’s abstract, the authors conclude as follows:

Authoritative parenting appears to have both direct and indirect associations with the risk of heavy drinking among adolescents. Authoritative parenting, where monitoring and support are above average, might help deter adolescents from heavy alcohol use, even when adolescents have friends who drink. In addition, the data suggest that the adolescent’s choice of friends may be an intervening variable that helps explain the negative association between authoritative parenting and adolescent heavy drinking.

In other words, it’s an upbeat attempt to figure out how to stop kids from binge drinking, suggesting what parental behaviors might be employed effectively. But having known my fair share of authoritarian parents (as well as overly indulgent), this is not something such people would respond to and it’s unlikely that many could change their behavior accordingly. As George Lasker explored in his book Don’t Think of an Elephant?, such parenting styles are fundamental to the values of various political groups and he believes a majority of conservatives follow the “strict father model,” which often (though no always) includes a lack of warmth — essentially what Bahr and Hoffmann describe as the authoritarian parent. Is there a connection? I would say “yes,” though I hasten to add that it’s probably not cut and dried. But in my own experience I would argue that many people who are politically and especially socially conservative are often the same people who are against drinking and are most likely to belong to a neo-prohibitionist group or at least be susceptible to their rhetoric, and that such group members disproportionately fall into that category.

So perhaps the real takeaway from all of this is that we should all be nicer to our kids, while not ignoring the obvious firm disciplines that are often necessary to teach important life lessons. If the findings in the ground-breaking NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children, by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, teach us anything, it’s that many of our cherished beliefs about how kids develop and learn are wrong. So it’s not a stretch to suggest that the conventional wisdom being used to stop kids from drinking is not working either. Kids are drinking and, if anything, are drinking more because they’re drinking underground and unsupervised. What we need to do is both model responsible drinking behavior and proactively teach our kids about alcohol in a warm and loving environment. D’uh.

Confirmation Of How SF Alcohol Fees To Be Applied

By

san-francisco
I got confirmation last night on how exactly the proposed San Francisco alcohol fees will be applied. The actual language in the ordinance is incredibly vague and open to interpretation (and misinterpretation). My source has either spoken to several city supervisors or talked to others who have, a combination of the two, I believe. And here’s what we’ve learned. There’s good news and bad news, so to speak.

Despite the change in language — apparently an “ethanol ounce” is common European parlance — the proposed ordinance will still be applying the tax “per fluid ounce of alcohol,” forcing a lot of math and administrative headaches, to say the least. So every single bottle containing alcohol, even changing vintages, will require a formula be applied to it. For example, take a 12 oz. bottle of beer that’s 6% a.b.v. Here’s how it will work.

  • 12 oz. x 0.06 (the % of alcohol) = 0.72 ounces of alcohol
  • 0.72 x $0.076 dollars = 0.5472 cents “fee”
  • Rounded, presumably, to 5 cents or possibly 5.5 cents

To say the least, it will be an administrative nightmare — primarily for wholesalers, brewpubs and self-distributing breweries who will be filing the reports and paying the fee.

Here’s a few more examples of what the fee would be for various alcoholic beverages.

  • 22 oz. bottle of 10% barley wine = 16.7 cents
  • 750 ml bottle of 14% wine = 27 cents
  • 750 ml bottle of 40% single malt whisky = 77 cents
  • 15.5 gallon keg of 8% Pliny the Elder = $12.06

And let’s not forget that the fee will be imposed at the wholesale level, meaning that it will be marked up and the fee passed along to consumers at a much higher rate, and then marked up again by the retailer or bar, whoever sells it to you and me.