Owen Jennings

My liver failed two springs ago, when I was a senior in high school. I don’t know the cause of my liver disease — a genetic mutation, an environmental trigger or just plain bad luck. But one of the many rules of my long recovery has been no alcohol. Not one drink. Not even a sip.

It was with this compulsory sobriety that I entered Dartmouth College two years ago. During my sophomore year, I pledged Alpha Delta, the fraternity that served as the model for the movie “Animal House.” (The film’s chief writer was an alumnus.) It was the same fraternity my brother pledged, and the same fraternity all of my friends would join. I was known as a “dry” pledge — everybody from the president to all the brothers made it clear to me that the fact that I didn’t drink wasn’t an issue at all.

Even though no one cares that I don’t drink, they still see it as bizarre. But being alcohol-free has given me a unique vantage point from which to observe college life and culture. It seems to me that alcohol might be the only drug that everyone is expected to use.

If I refuse a drag of a cigarette or marijuana, there are never any follow-up questions. The same is true for other drugs common on college campuses, whether it’s Adderall, cocaine or Ecstasy. But alcohol is different. Turning down a drink, for some reason, requires justification. When I decline alcohol, the response is almost always, “Why not?”

That’s because in college, drinking is the default. It is assumed that I drink, for no other reason than that I am an average 19-year-old American male. Not drinking is seen as weird.

At Dartmouth, and at every other college campus I have been to, the consumption of alcoholic beverages is common. But the word “consumption” is an understatement. I’m not talking about the casual sipping of a few beers. Here, alcohol consumption means the rapid and repeated gulping and guzzling of beer after beer after beer. Often, students will drink upwards of 15 or 20 beers. On any given night, a frat brother or a sorority sister will spend hours vomiting. Sometimes a classmate will wind up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. And often, these people wake up unable to remember anything that happened the night before.

This way of living — of partying — is a culture of excess from which I will always be excluded. There are obvious benefits for me — no hangovers, for instance. But the fact that I am surrounded by alcohol is also a constant reminder of my illness and the underlying restraint I must maintain. Because I am not a part of the drinking culture, I don’t forget that alcohol is a drug, and that in large enough doses it’s a poison that causes brain damage and liver disease.

I am always tempted to have a drink. But it’s just not worth the risk. When you have doctors telling you that you almost died and that your liver function is directly affected by your alcohol consumption, it just doesn’t make sense. I am sure there are people with liver disease who do drink, but I am doing everything possible to stay out of the hospital right now.

I have trouble explaining the mindset of my schoolmates to my parents and my grandparents, who don’t understand why a girl would swill half a dozen shots in her dorm room before going out. My generation has adopted drinking as a social cure-all. It’s a way to celebrate winning that big game, and a way to sorrow over a lost girlfriend or a bad grade. It’s a way to fit in, and — if you can drink enough — it’s a way to stand out.

The fraternity is so much more than just a place to drink. I go to the house and we hang out, get dinner, listen to music and go to concerts. We have sports teams, literary contests and community service projects. We send school supplies to Kenya, we work on the Special Olympics, and A.D. recently helped fund gay pride week. So there is a lot more going on than just crazy drinking. It’s just that the drinking overshadows everything.

My sobriety has shown me how mindless my friends’ drinking has become. The question shouldn’t be, “Why aren’t you drunk?” Rather, we need to start asking, “Why are you drunk?”

If I hadn’t been diagnosed with liver disease, I would probably be a part of this insane and inane drinking lifestyle. But I’ve come to realize that while I might feel left out at a party or a bar today, maybe I’m lucky. I will graduate from college without ever having woken up on a bathroom floor, wondering how I got there; without ever having to play hide-and-go-seek with the police. Though I regularly feel frustrated and excluded because I can’t drink, I think I’ll feel differently in a few years, when extravagant keg parties are a distant memory.

I realize that drinking is a way to rebel and revel in the newfound freedom that college brings. But it’s also a veil, a way to manipulate, distort and enhance who we really are.

If anything, being sober at the Animal House has taught me just to be myself.

Owen Jennings is a sophomore studying philosophy and English at Dartmouth College. This article is reprinted from the New York Times.

ALAC’s Early Intervention Manager, Sue Paton

To drink or not to drink? Is it a choice or are we programmed to conform?

When I first read ‘Sober in the Animal House’ I was struck by the parallels in Owen’s story and my own experience. While my experience is different in that I’m older and not part of a university drinking culture, it is similar in the sense that when I’ve chosen to not drink, I’ve felt like a fish swimming in the wrong direction. Yes, I too have felt my choice has made me a bit weird.  Certainly like Owen I’ve been asked ‘why not?’ There have been raised eyebrows, odd looks and at times, I’ve felt compelled to offer an explanation. But, why this pressure?

Here’s what I think. Drinking is so much part of our culture, it is the norm. If you don’t drink you must have a very good reason, either you’re a pregnant, a recovering alcoholic or don’t drink for religious reasons. Otherwise you’re just freaky.

Prior to my role as the Early Intervention Manager at ALAC, I was a counsellor for many years working in the alcohol and other drug treatment field. It has always been of great interest to me that even in this enlightened field ‘abstinence’ from alcohol sometimes gets a bad rap from within the field. Why is choosing not to drink seen as an odd decision by those who understand the harm it can cause?

In New Zealand, 85 percent of people drink. Alcohol is so much part of our kiwi culture that we don’t see it as a drug. We have blinkers on protecting us from the harsh realities so we can pursue our drug of choice (including drinking to get drunk), without any compunction. Alcohol does have a part to play in our society, but we need to accept that it is a drug which can be dangerous if consumed above recommended doses. When we accept that drinking is a ‘choice’ and not an ‘expectation’ or measure of ‘normality’, then we will develop a more respectful relationship with both our favourite drug and our fellow citizens’ right to choose.

Quick Facts

• Every year approximately 1,000 New Zealanders die from alcohol related causes
• A third of all police apprehensions involve alcohol
• Half of serious violent crimes are related to alcohol
• There are over 300 alcohol-related offences every day
• Alcohol is a factor in more than half of physical and sexual assaults
• Every year approximately 130 people die in a crash caused by a drunk driver and a further 2,000 will be injured
• At least 600 children are born each year with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
• 60 different medical conditions are caused by heavy drinking
• Up to 75 percent of adult presentations at Emergency Departments on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights are alcohol-related.
• Approximately 44 percent of fire fatalities involve alcohol

An ALAC resource for young people is making its presence felt on the international stage.  Countries as diverse as Cameroon, Zambia, Portugal, Chile and Canada have approached ALAC asking for permission to use Smashed n Stoned?.  Sue Paton, Early Intervention Manager says “I put the first booklet on the Global Alcohol Harm Reduction Network a few months ago.  Since then I’ve been approached by clinicians from four African countries, Pakistan, Portugal, Chile and a group of First Nation Canadians asking for permission to use the resource in their mahi.  It is great to think that what we are producing here is perceived as helpful in so many far flung nations.”

“It is interesting that clinicians from other nations are keen to use it because it is a distinctly New Zealand resource that incorporates Te Whare Tapa Wha model of health that focuses on the social, spiritual, whänau aspects of young person as well as personal responsibility.” 

Smashed n Stoned? is an early intervention programme to assist at risk young people to focus on their alcohol and drug use and draw on their own strengths to see they can make choices to improve their health and wellbeing.  It is based on the Guided Self-Change model of working with addiction developed by the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto.

The programme is motivational, designed to help young person move through stages of change and importantly, non-judgmental, providing a supportive environment where group participants can examine their alcohol and drug use and come to their own conclusions. It provides a framework for setting goals and creating a plan to make positive changes.

Smashed n Stoned? is a small group programme for 13-18 year olds with a series of four workbooks.  Young people work through these with the assistance of a counsellor or alcohol and other drug worker

“While we’ve pretty much stayed true to the Guided Self-Change model, the input from young people and Darcy Solia’s hip hop style illustrations have helped to give the resource added appeal to young people,” says Sue Paton.

 “When I started at ALAC in 2004, one of my first tasks was to redevelop the original Smashed or Stoned programme” says Sue.  “I was determined to involve young people who had been excluded from school to ensure that the target group participated in its development, and to find a young Māori or Pacific artist.” 

“Early intervention is recognised best practice in working with young people,” she says. “In New Zealand, funding for adolescent alcohol or drug intervention is allocated at the severe/dependent end of the alcohol-related harm continuum and there is limited provision for early intervention.” 

The Smashed n Stoned? resource can be used both by alcohol and drug counsellors and also by non-specialist alcohol and drug clinicians such as school counsellors.

Smashed n Stoned? is available from www.alac.org.nz.

ALAC congratulates the LLA, for what seems to be a changing attitude towards the issuing of licences and dealing with enforcement applications, in light of the heightened public conversation regarding alcohol related harm and liquor abuse issues across New Zealand.

One such decision to receive praise from public health and enforcement agencies was the refusal to grant a full off-licence to The Warehouse in Albany. Dr Andrew Hearn from ALAC provided a submission to the LLA and contended that, “opening the market for spirits and RTDs to large retail chains would result in further discounting and increased harm to young people.”  In its decision, the Authority recognised that two department stores with complementary style off-licences may not technically qualify for the licences, and may need to have those licences reviewed. The Authority also heard from the Police, the Hospitality Association, the District Licensing Agency and the Medical Officer of Health.  All opposed the issuing of the licence.

Another decision to make headlines was the Creek Liquor Store, in Cannons Creek, Porirua East. This application raised a high level of discontent among a range of social service agencies and community members, regarding the lack of community say in licensing decisions. This community mobilised, opposing the liquor licence, and gathering much public support along the way. In the hearing, the Authority heard from the Medical Officer of Health for the region who sought to establish that such a community, with a poor level of health, would be adversely affected by the increased availability of alcohol.  This, coupled with a number of other objectors, representing the Porirua Alcohol and Drug Cluster, health workers, church leaders and schools (to name a few) provided added weight to the Authorities decision. In his decision, Judge Unwin stated, “the evidence given by Dr Palmer and the objectors was excellently presented and quite overwhelming. Its combined force persuaded us that if this particular application were to be granted, an increase in liquor abuse and alcohol related harm in this community would be likely.”  The application was refused by the Authority.
 
Over 100 community members march to the Porirua District Court to hear the “Creek Liquor Store” application, chanting “No  more liquor stores”.

Henry’s Beer, Wine and Spirits Hallswell (PH 1789/2008) also found the public objecting to their application for an off-licence in Christchurch. Two residents appeared in support of their objections to the issue of the licence, and provided a petition with over 800 signatures along with their submissions.  The Authority granted the licence with less trading hours than originally sought, but made the following comments in its decision. “We believe that the retail initiative known as loss leading needs to be looked at more seriously by licensees. If a licensee uses liquor to loss lead, then he or she is stimulating, and not meeting demand. Where liquor is involved, it is not good enough for a licensee to say that they have to continue with this business practice because of competition. Most licensees understand that they are dealing with a drug, and that they have a duty under the [Sale of Liquor] Act to help them promote the reduction of liquor abuse. In our experience loss leading helps to promote the abuse of liquor.”  The Authority goes on to say, “in future, examples of loss leading by an off-licensee will be treated as an indication of lack of suitability.”

Other notable LLA Decisions, include the introduction of new minimum food standards (Empire Hotel decision, PH 1652/2008). The proposed guidelines are to apply to all premises, apart from restaurants and off-licences, from mid-2009. They state:

• The range of food must be readily available at all times that the premises are open
• Menus must be highly visible and food should be actively promoted using a variety of mediums, e.g menus on the tables, a board, or food on display
• Food should also be advertised in any outdoor areas
• Bar staff are expected to actively promote the range of food options
• A minimum of three types of food should be available. e.g paninis, pizzas, lasagne, pies, toasted or fresh sandwiches, wedges, filled rolls, and/or salads.  (This does not mean three types of pie.)
• It is acceptable to have a menu from neighbouring premises to provide for one or two of these options. However, there must be a back up option that could be produced on site.
• A minimum standard to be accepted on site would be a microwave or fryer and utensils, and a supply of a variety of ‘long life’ meals that do not require temperature control, or tins of soup and rolls.  There should be an area for preparation of food and utensils for service of the food.

An interesting case in Auckland City (PH 130-133/2009) helped confirm that the Act prohibits selling full bottles of spirits for consumption on licensed premises (s154(a) of the Act), and s.169(1) prohibits the sale of spirits in otherwise than a vessel of less than 500ml. In this case, the karaoke bar concerned was found to be selling one-litre jugs that contained tea with 200ml of whisky. It was also observed by the officers that there were “vomit basins” available for customers within the premises.  One in the hall, and one in the ladies toilet. The licensee argued that such “vomit basins” were decorative and they were needed, to retain the company’s status as a five-star karaoke business.

Finally, the Authority has cancelled the licence for Te Awamutu Wines and Spirits, making the following comments.  “In our view, the four sales to minors in the past two years call for severe consequences.  Accordingly, we intend to cancel the licence.”