Drinking 101: The trouble with `Bladder Bust' advertising

BY GEORGE A. HACKER AND DEBRA ERENBERG

ON AUG. 26, 20yearold Louisiana State University student Ben Wynne
died of alcohol poisoning after downing too many drinks at a bar
close to campus. In 1996, Heather Noonan, an 18yearold student at
Northern Illinois University, drank heavily at a local bar that
offered Wednesday night ``Buckbooze'' onedollar shots and later died
in a car crash that also killed two passengers.

Those tragedies represent a nationwide problem. All too often,
collegearea bars entice students to get sloshed by offering
allyoucandrink specials, nickel pitchers, quarter shots, free beer
'til midnight and similar drink bargains. Although most bar owners
don't promote drunkenness, college kids out to get blasted have
little trouble finding a bar eager to assist them. It's a wonder that
drinking deaths do not occur more frequently.

In a 1996 study of 75 college newspapers, the Center for Science in
the Public Interest found dozens of ads that can best be described as
open invitations for students to drink to abandon. The comeons
included ``Bladder Bust Redlight Specials,'' ``610 PM 3 for 1
drinks,'' ``Wednesday ladies drink free,'' and ``Coin night Any
coin, any drink,'' among many others. The bar ads occupied an average
of 34 column inches per newspaper edition, and more than onethird of
them promoted heavy drinking. LSU's Daily Reveille, incidentally,
ranked near the top of the survey, with 90 column inches of bar ads
per issue. Almost all of them lured students with the promise of
cheap drinks.

Admittedly, ads for bar specials in student newspapers don't cause
all college drinking problems. Nor do bartenders who continue to
serve fallingdowndrunk college students. There are many reasons why
nearly half of all students are binge drinkers (five drinks in a row
for men; four for women) and one in five is a frequent binge drinker.

However, the constant reminders promoting cheap booze as the ticket
to relaxation and fun in ads, on bulletin boards, fliers, banners,
store signs provide substantial support for campus environments
that make heavy drinking an integral element of the college experience.

Those messages increase the pressure on students to drink by
fostering, especially among inexperienced first and secondyear
students, a misperception that frequent heavy drinking is the norm on
campus. With this kind of competition, it's no surprise so few
college programs to reduce dangerous student binge drinking have been
successful and so many colleges have reputations as ``party
schools,'' deserved or not.

Deaths among college students are an unusual consequence of binge
drinking. Heavy drinking, however, leads to a variety of severe
problems, which are often shared with moderate, light and
nondrinking schoolmates. They include unplanned, unprotected and
unwanted sexual activity; injury; trouble with police; violence;
vandalism; academic failures; drinkingdriving crashes; and medical
problems. A Harvard University study revealed at campuses with a high
concentration of binge drinkers, nondrinkers were also at
substantial risk of alcoholrelated harm, which ranged from having to
babysit an intoxicated friend to being the victim of a sexual assault.

Fortunately, college officials, parents and community organizations
have many tools to counter the predatory marketing practices of rogue
bar operators and reduce the pressure on young people to drink.

In some communities, ``responsible hospitality councils,'' which
include most bar owners as well as other neighborhood stakeholders,
have formed to adopt voluntary standards that prohibit dangerous
drink specials and their promotion. Others have organized to
eliminate alcohol promotion on campus and college newspaper ads that
suggest excessive alcohol consumption.

At the University of Vermont, a student group arranged to replace
newspaper beer ads with prohealth messages, and at the University of
North Carolina, the athletics department helped do away with beer
promotions during all its sports telecasts.

Around the country, alcohol licensing agencies have beefed up
lawenforcement efforts, instituted ``sting'' operations to keep
licensees on their toes, and have strengthened the penalties for law violations.

Many states outlaw drink specials, discounted drinks and ``happy
hours'' and require alcohol servers to be trained and certified. In
California, alcohol sellers who flout the liquor laws now lose their
licenses after three infractions in three years. Other states should
follow suit.

Cracking down on the promotion of heavy drinking in college
communities, by itself, will not miraculously eliminate or
drastically reduce binge drinking. But putting an end to the brazen,
irresponsible commercial exploitation of young, risktaking college
students should be a first step toward reducing alcohol problems on campuses.

George A. Hacker directs the alcohol policies project at the Center for
Science in the Public Interest; Debra Erenberg is a policy associate with the
project. They wrote this article for the KnightRidder/Tribune News Service.

Posted at 12:18 p.m. PDT Wednesday, September 10, 1997