What you should know about the anti alcohol agenda - Bar Management

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE ANTI ALCOHOL AGENDA

You're shocked to find every bottle in your latest shipment of beer contains a warning that consumption of the product may cause cancer, cirrhosis, birth defects, or cardiomyopathy. You're afraid to serve your patrons more than one or two drinks, since the legal minimum blood alcohol concentration (BAC) has been reduced to .05 percent. You've also been informed that your business expansion plans have been curtailed because the state Alcoholic Beverage Commission is issuing no new licenses. Farfetched? Hardly.

Just examine the events of 1986.

The Senate Labor & Human Resources Committee approved legislation requiring health warning labels on all alcoholic beverages. Thirteen states sought to lower the legal BAC for driving while intoxicated. Several states began revoking existing liquor licenses and limiting new licenses. And if that weren't enough, last year the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) announced up to $5 million available in grants for research to link alcohol to AIDS.

A blurring of the real issues: DWI is no longer the alcohol issue. The issue has shifted to consumption, period. Antialcohol groups are joining forces with the antidrug lobby. A warning now commonly heard is: "Alcohol--not cocaine, not LSD, not marijuana--is the biggest drug problem we have." Some organizations already acknowledge they will take advantage of the current antidrug movement to push 1987 antialcohol legislation, promoting a dangerous confusion between a legal subtance, alcohol, and illegal drugs.

NIAAA pioneered and supported a concept of responsible use of alcohol over the last decade. The distilled spirits industry has been applauded for its campaigns that promote the moderate use of alcohol. Yet current NIAAA director Loan Archer was quoted last year as saying," The term 'responsible use' of alcohol should be purged from the field." According to him, not even the consumption of one drink can be considered a responsible act!

How did all of that happen? More significantly, how did it happen in pursuit of a solution to DWI? The statistics show that the majority of DWI offenses are caused by chronic, abusive drinkers. Will the 1987 legislative agenda stop those drinkers from driving drunk? Are these so-called-solutions designed to stop DWI tor to stop the consumption of alcohol?

Our industry must coalesce: Unbelievably, this anticonsumption trend is gaining support within our own retailing industry. Many are suggesting that people should not consume any alcohol and drive. I believe they mean to say that people should not overconsume and drive. After all, even the most stringent state controls indicate it is not irresponsible for the average person to drive after having consumed one alcoholic beverage.

A paralysis has crept into our industry. Do we fear our arguments will appear self-serving--a protection of eroding bar profit margins? Admittedly, it's difficult to speak in opposition to proposals that "warn" consumers, "ban" promotions, and "protect" people. However, state restaurant associations in California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Texas have credibly and successfully shown that they are able to protest the lack of integrity in some proposals. They are to be commended.

In March 1985 several retailers concerned about this movement to de facto prohibition formed a group to look for positive solutions to the DWI problem, solutions that would be aimed at the DWI offender, not the social drinker. That organization, Beverage Retailers Against Driving Drunk (BRADD), has published authoritative reports showing how state revenues can be spent in dealing with the DWI problem.

It's my own experience that most legislators, once educated about the DWI issue, are able to distinguish between drunk driving and prohibition. Most are willing to stay focused on meaningful DWI solutions. They can't be re-educated, however, without trade associations and individual retailers presenting the facts about the core of our problems and the best solutions.

Beverage retailers join forces: BRADD works with researchers and academicians who show the bankruptcy of positions advanced by alcohol controls zealots. The industry must give experts a forum to express their views. If we don't, who will?

BRADD's first report (authored by Charles Livingston, former policy adviser to the Presidential commission Against Drunk Driving) indicated that the general public was totally unaware that the majority of DWI deaths (83 percent) are the drunk drivers themselves, willing passengers in their cars, or drunk pedestrians! While that information does not diminish the importance of solving the problem, it suggests that efforts should be focused on finding, intervening, and rehabilitating these problem drinkers who cause harm to themselves.

Our industry must support aggressive educational efforts being undertaken by BRADD and other groups. Public opinion leaders must be made aware of the true nature of the problem and be presented with workable solutions. If we continue to do little or nothing as an industry, the trends are quite clear.

COPYRIGHT 1987 Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group