In honor of Alcohol Awareness Week I would like everyone to be aware that I had a bout with binge drinking this past weekend. I had four beers in the hour before the football game on Saturday, the fourth of which was imbibed only to save its contents from the landfill. I had a few more after the game to pacify the headache induced by the drought between beers. Sorry, mom. That being said, Beth Whiteman, in an article in Monday’s Lantern about raising alcohol awareness, was quoted as saying, “We are all fed a lot of information from advertisements that tell us how we should drink.” She goes on to say, “We want our students to become independent thinkers.” You’re in luck Beth. I did some independent thinking and I came to the conclusion that your statement about advertising is ambiguous and too quick to assign a scapegoat. Advertisements are the easiest targets because they are defenseless. Don’t fall into this trap. Are we to believe that advertising tells us that we should engage in drinking? Were we all so moved by the powerful flowing images of the Budweiser horses that we went out and drank? (I couldn’t find the name of those horses in the dictionary and I’m afraid to misspell it even though I can say it. It rhymes with Fried Snails.) Because Keystone won’t lead to bitter beer face, should I drink beer? Because an ad shows people drinking and having a great time, does that tell me I have to drink to have a great time? These are not the mystery tonic ads of the late 1800’s that claimed a particular brand of scotch would cure everything from headaches to cataracts. There isn’t a National Beer Council asking you, “Got Beer?” while teasing you with a bowl of pretzels. Even if there were such ads, their effectiveness in persuading you to drink alcohol are not determinable. If they were, marketing executives would be elated and then jobless. There are too many variables involved from the production to consumption of alcoholic products for us to establish any direct correlation between advertisements and drinking behavior. The decision to drink is made by the person who decides to drink. We may drink to drink, or drink to fit in with drinkers. Tradition may encourage a person of French heritage to drink wine at lunch and dinner every day. A medical journal may promote alcohol as a way to lower cholesterol levels. We may use drinking as a tool to get people who are in no way interested in football excited about going to a game against a horrible Indiana team. We may decide to try some beer because it is on sale. We may need to get drunk to overcome the anxiety of turning off the television and doing something involving socializing. The most important variable is the human factor. I really have no clue why another person chooses to drink. Even if I asked you (drinker), you probably wouldn’t say, “Because the cool people were doing it,” even if that’s how you felt. The important thing is you or I chose to drink. The ad did not put the beer to your lips. Whiteman may have also been saying that ads influence the way we drink. But seriously, when was the last time any guys you know dressed up as women in order to play pool and drink Miller Lite on ladies’ night? (I really don’t need an answer for this one.) How many times have you cut a hole through a woman’s beehive hairdo so that you could see the TV at a bar? Alcohol has many negative side affects that we are all aware of. That is what police reports and newspapers are good at emphasizing. But, the blame for any unwelcomed alcohol-induced behavior should be placed on the consumer. We are all responsible for our own actions. Don’t blame Spuds McKenzie for the behavior of Bob and Doug McKenzie.
Greg Gibbs is the founder of the Alcohol Amnesty Foundation in Grandview. OSU 34 NW 13
