|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• MMBA |
|
. |
|
|
|
Click on an article or scroll down
During the debate on raising the alcohol tax to help fund chemical dependency programs and increased alcohol enforcement at the April 16, 2007, MN House Tax Committee hearing, MLBA Executive Director Jim Farrell was asked by the committee to respond to claims that “binge drinking” in MN is one of the highest in the country. Jim’s response was that it all depends on the definition of “binge drinking”. So after the hearing, Farrell researched the issue and sent off this email to the House Tax committee chair Rep. Ann Lenczewski and the committee members. You can see the entire hearing here: LINK Dear Madame Chair; During the committee hearing on Representative Clark’s proposal to increase revenue through an alcohol health impact fee, the proponents raised the issue of binge drinking. At the conclusion of the hearing, Representative Clark was privately told by testifier and attorney Steve Simon that the average DWI arrest involves someone that has consumed 8 drinks. Representative Clark then addressed the committee and mistakenly repeated the number 8 as a definition of binge drinking. After the committee hearing, I approached both Representative Clark and Mr. Simon and was told of the mistake. I am writing to let you and your committee members know that the number 8 was mistakenly presented. Please know that Representative Clark is someone who has always been kind to me and I hope she can say I have treated her the same. It is difficult to find the origin of the definition of binge drinking as used by public health researchers and modern media. (see Wikepedia footnote) One thing is certain to me, that a significant event occurred in July 1995, when then U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala made the following statement, “Most research on drinking among college students focuses on the widespread pattern of binge drinking. Many researchers define binge drinking for men and women as drinking five or more drinks at one sitting (footnote 1-3). In 1994, by this definition, 40 percent of college students reported binge drinking at least once within 2 weeks of being surveyed (1). Thirty-one percent of college women binge drank compared with 52 percent of college men (1). However, a strong argument has been made that a more equivalent bingeing criterion for women is four drinks per occasion (3,4) and that the five-drink level may underestimate binge drinking among women.” In making this statement Donna Shalala cited the following, (1) Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; & Bachman, J.G. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994: College a Students and Young Adults. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, in press. “Binge drinking among adolescents has been linked to a host of problems including motor vehicle crashes and deaths, difficulties in school and the workplace, fighting, and breaking the law. 41 Table 3.3.A reports the percentage of students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grade who report having taken five or more drinks in a row within the previous two weeks” No one could argue that the problems raised are serious, nor could it be argued that children consuming alcohol is appropriate, however, footnote 41 uses “five or more drinks in a row” as the definition of binge drinking for the question asked of children. How the number 5 is determine is not explained and nowhere is there reference to whether the definition of 5 should be used for both children and adults. The second report cited is also void of a discussion on how it was determined that 4 or 5 drinks in one sitting is binge drinking. Unlike the first report, the second report is void of discussion concerning children and focuses on adults. The third footnote or the Wechsler report states it’s objective and some might say premature conclusion, “to examine the extent of binge drinking by college students and the ensuing health and behavioral problems that binge drinkers create for themselves and others on their campus.” Again, the report fails to explain how it came to use the definition for binge drinking when applied to the analysis in the report. The final footnote report draws a conclusion that may seem reasonable, that women and men react differently to alcohol, but there does not seem to be any available science to support the assumption which reads, “Women who typically drink four drinks in a row were found to have roughly the same likelihood of experiencing drinking related problems as men who typically drink five drinks in a row. Use of the same standard for both sexes underestimates binge drinking and the negative health risks for women.” Unfortunately, like the prior reports cited by Donna Shalala on behalf of the federal government, the study fails to provide the reader with clarity on how the definition of binge drinking came to be 4 or 5 drinks in a sitting based on sex. Nor is there clarity on whether the same number of drinks for children are appropriate for adults. Since 1995, challenging the Shalala statement has been limited. It would be fair to say that many are afraid to challenge the definition of binge drinking because it means challenging experts and media perceptions. Challenging the statement may result in personal attacks from those that would frown upon a challenge. It is understandable that individuals would want to avoid being branded as a person supportive of binge drinking and alcohol abuse. Unfortunately, fear has lead to acceptance of binge drinking being defined as 4 or 5 drinks in one sitting while at the same time there is a quiet belief as pointed out by Representative Dill during the committee hearing. Sitting attentively throughout the hearing, Representative Dill stated the obvious, “if you do not want to see binge drinking <as defined as 4 or 5 drinks in a sitting> do not go to the “Ranger Party.” I found it interesting that when the definition of binge drinking was raised, the proponents of the bill felt the need to say the definition was 8. Maybe this happened because 4 or 5 seemed too low in light of Representative Dill’s observation? For some reason Representative Clark, felt the need to raise the number of drinks in the definition and it is reasonable that raising the number might be perceived as being more acceptable. It also appears that by failing to correct Representative Clark while she misspoke, Mr. Simon also preferred leaving the committee with the impression that binge drinking involved 8 or more drinks. Again, the proponents of the tax increase raised the issue of binge drinking. The representative from Hazelden, a group which has a strong economic interest in seeing Representative Clark’s bill become law, along with a sincere interest in giving their clients the tools to achieve a sober life, told the committee that 18.9% of Minnesota adults binge drink. Hazelden was also concerned that 34% of Minnesota adults have one alcohol drink a day, 32% have two alcohol drinks a day and 34% have 3 drinks a day. These numbers were chosen by Hazelden to be associated with in the same panel display with binge drinking. I hope that committee members will join me in questioning the information presented, not in an effort to be obstructive, or to be branded as someone that supports alcohol abuse, but as someone with a desire to see if the information presented reflects the reality of the life led by their constituents. Very truly yours, Jim Farrell Executive Director Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binge_drinking  Smoking Bans Definitely Hurt MN Charities The MLBA Children’s Fund has enjoyed many years of growth and prosperity while “Making Life a Little Better for Minnesota’s Kids.” Unfortunately the MLBA Children’s Fund is part of the collateral damage in the war between big tobacco and big health care companies.The health care companies show little or no concern for the thousands of Minnesotans that benefit from the proceeds of charitable gambling and the thousands of jobs that are created from charitable gambling. Rather, they have to chosen to drive the gambling customer from Minnesota establishments to the casinos on the northern border of Iowa and the Native-American casinos in Minnesota, where smoking is very permissible.According to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board (a state agency) charitable gambling receipts have significantly declined in every city and county hit by a smoking ban. For example, from January 2007 vs. January 2006 receipts in Minneapolis were down 15% following a 25% decrease a year earlier. The City of Duluth was down 15% following a 19% decrease and the City of St. Paul was down a whopping 47% following a 14% decrease a year earlier. That’s a loss of $1.78 million in gambling receipts last year in St. Paul alone. Lets face the facts; we are in a time facing personal and property tax increases, more fees imposed by government, loss of full and part-time jobs, Hopefully, charitable gambling will survive in Minnesota and continue to fund the worthwhile programs that help Minnesota’s Kids. But buckle up, because this will be one rough ride to the finish.
|
