Cheap Drinks, Expensive Consequences

Science Daily reports on a study to be published in the November issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research which found that cheap drink specials led to greater levels of intoxication in college students and young adults leaving bars in a college entertainment district.

The study’s lead author is quoted:

“It may seem intuitive that cheaper alcohol can lead to higher intoxication levels and related consequences – such as fighting, drunk driving, sexual victimization, injury, even death – especially among the vulnerable college student population,” said Ryan J. O’Mara, a graduate research fellow at the University of Florida and corresponding author for the study. “Nonetheless, ‘drink specials’ and other alcohol discounts and promotions remain a common feature of college bars in campus communities in the United States. This study’s results challenge assertions sometimes made by the management of these establishments that drink discounts are innocuous marketing practices intended only to attract customers to better bargains than those provided elsewhere.”

The study dovetails with that of Wechsler, et al. (2002), who determined that “underage students in states with extensive laws restricting underage and high-volume drinking were less likely to drink and binge drink” (p. 223).

Additionally, these findings seem to cast doubt on the hypothesis advanced by Wells, et al. (2009), that:

1. one of the motivating factors of predrinking/pregaming behavior is the high cost of on-premise alcohol; therefore,

2. the regulation of highly discounted drinks has the unintended consequence of higher risk drinking; because,

3. drinking is driven to “locations without serving restraints and other social controls, it allows for the rapid consumption of large quantities of alcohol” (Wells, et al. 2009, p. 5)

Clapp, et al. (2006) also undermined the notion of the relative safety of on-premise establishments, with the finding that consequences such as intoxication, fighting, and alcohol-induced sickness were more likely to occur at bars and clubs than at private parties.

An overarching consideration, of course, is the degree of concord between the Public Health and Harm Reduction/Minimization approaches and philosophies.  Plant, et al. (2007) may be correct in asserting that “apart from the degree of emphasis on reducing overall alcohol consumption levels, most of the measures suggested under the rubric of both approaches are similar” (p. 151) with the proviso that “harm minimization is only likely to be really effective if alcohol’s price and availability are restrained” (p. 154).

References:

Clapp, J.D., Reed, M.B., Holmes, M.R., Lange, J.E., & Voas, R.B. (2006). Drunk in public, drunk in private: The relationship between college students, drinking environments and alcohol consumption. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 32(2), 275-285.

O’Mara, R.J., Thombs, D.L., Wagenaar, A.C., Rossheim, M.E., Merves, M.L., Hou, W., et al. (2009).  Alcohol price and intoxication in college bars. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01036.x

Plant, M.A., Plant, M.L., & Green, J. (2007).  Safer bars, safer streets? Journal of Substance Use, 12(3), 151–155. [free full text]

Wechsler, H., Lee, J.E., Nelson, T.F., & Kuo, M. (2002). Underage college students’ drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies: Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 50(5), 223-236. [free full text]

Wells S, Graham K, & Purcell J. (2009). Policy implications of the widespread practice of ‘pre-drinking’ or ‘pre-gaming’ before going to public drinking establishments: are current prevention strategies backfiring? Addiction, 104(1), 4-9.