Alcohol producers "have a pretty good record" in fighting regulations aimed at limiting their speech, 1st Amendment expert Brannon Denning told the Center for Alcohol Policy meeting recently. He detailed a line of Supreme Ct and other cases that have generally expanded speech rights and tossed regulations aimed at limiting them. The Supreme Court's key Central Hudson test requires that government agencies seeking to limit speech really need to show a "substantial interest" in doing so, that the restriction adopted "directly advances" that interest and is "no more extensive than necessary" to do so. That's a difficult test to pass, Denning and others have concluded.

But other speakers on the same panel suggested there may be ways of limiting messages about alcohol beverages without running afoul of the 1st Amendment. NBWA's general counsel Paul Pisano suggested that trade practice laws limiting what suppliers and/or wholesalers can provide to retailers may be an avenue to pursue. He gave the example of increasingly prevalent digital signs in retail outlets. Depending on the information provided and who pays for the signs, state regulators could view them as violations of trade practice laws that bar offering items of value across tiers. Indeed, Paul suggested states may get more active across the board in utilizing trade practice laws to drive alcohol policy goals, i.e. to prevent over stimulation of the market.

Bruce Livingston from Alcohol Justice reiterated his group's issues with many of the "out of control" messages producers put into the market, whether they involve sexual or otherwise inappropriate imagery. Alcohol Justice also has "real problems" with industry self-regulation (voluntary codes, which he called a "charade"), the industry's education/ responsible drinking programs (neither of which AJ believe are effective) and alcopops in general ("binge in a can"), Livingston reminded. AJ has a specific program to ban ads from public spaces. It recently got support for one of these ideas, but rejection of another. A "textual analysis" published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence of nearly 1800 responsibility ads concluded that they were "overwhelmingly used to promote product rather than convey relevant public health information" and such ads are "largely ineffective at conveying public health information." The responsibility messages, they advised, should be supplemented with or replaced by "prominently placed, externally developed, cognitively tested warnings that do not reinforce marketing messages." On the other hand, Livingston mentioned that one of AJ's specific recent efforts was to ban alcohol ads at the Los Angeles International Airport. Subsequently, a "City committee opted…to allow them," according to the Los Angeles Register. Net-net: Livingston believes that commercial speech rights "are not unlimited" and that community standards can be invoked to limit certain messages.  

In the wake of Beer Institute formally requesting that "Know Your Drink" replace the drink definition in the 2015 Dietary Guideline (see above) representatives of BI and DISCUS politely disagreed during a panel at CLE's "Wine , Beer and Spirits Law" conference last week in Washington, DC. "No secret" DISCUS and BI have a "fundamental difference of views" on alcohol/serving facts, said Mark Gorman, DISCUS senior VP of government relations. "We don't think it's complicated. [There's a] widely accepted 'standard drink' concept in the Dietary Guidelines and at most [government] agencies, state and federal." That's why, after 11 yrs, there's "no decisive action," Gorman said. "We do have a difference of opinion," Beer Institute's general counsel Mary Jane Saunders acknowledged. There's "language in the Dietary Guidelines we'd like to see changed." The familiar notion of a standard drink is "not consumer directed," she added, but "designed to help [research] studies" have a uniform measure. But that "morphed into what consumers should use." BI proposes a different standard," the Know Your Drink graphic, and will remain "friendly adversaries with DISCUS…. The consumer needs to understand how much alcohol is in the drink." Typical beer may have less alcohol in 12-oz bottle, she said, "than an over-poured wine or a hard liquor drink. [Mark's] going to fight as long and as hard as he can. We'll fight as long and hard as we can."

One issue that Saunders and Gorman agreed upon: there will be no action this year on changes in federal alcohol beverage excise taxes. "What happens next Congress, I don't know," said Saunders. Given current partisan environment, "hard to imagine" we'll be "seeing real tax reform" said Gorman, "but you have to be prepared."

Attorney Art DeCelle pointed to a "troubling" report on college drinking and negative consequences from NIAAA last month, including some data extrapolated from 2003, but broadly cited as current. Meanwhile other data from HHS "show more positive trends." Increased concern about campus drinking, DeCelle pointed out, "overlaps with Congressional concern over sexual assaults on college campuses" and remains a policy area to be closely monitored. Saunders also noted several national surveys indicate campus and underage drinking on the decline. NIAAA officials responded to the mixed trends by stating they "don't see the problem as increasing, but the population is increasing."

Gorman pointed out that while drinking trends among teens are down, that's not true for illegal drugs, prescription drugs and marijuana. DISCUS, like other industry groups, is "concerned about drug-impaired driving and that alcohol is taking the blame for a lot of drug-related problems in terms of traffic fatalities." Yet there's "almost no discussion" of this. FTC's Janet Evans said marijuana issue is "of grave concern and an open ended question" in terms of pot's effect on underage drinking. She also expressed a "great deal of concern over what the softening of attitudes about marijuana" means for alcohol, citing the same "absence of research" noted by panel members at CAP (see above).  

In supplemental comments to the Dept of Agriculture and the Dept of Health and Human Services regarding the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, Beer Institute (BI) advised the inclusion of some specific additional language and the "Know Your Drink" graphic BI introduced earlier this year (see May AII). Recall that BI's original comments last fall recommended that the Guidelines drop the information box with the drink "definition" of 0.6 oz of absolute alcohol found in 12 oz of 5% ABV beer, 5 oz of 12% ABV wine and 1.5 oz of 40% ABV liquor. At that time, BI said this info should be "replaced with something that more accurately corresponds to consumer behavior" without detailing that "something." Now it has. Specifically, BI wants the 2015 Guidelines to include:

• BI's "Know Your Drink" graphic that pictures a 12-oz serving of beer with a single dot below it to indicate the amount of alcohol in the drink (BI's basic measure is a 12-oz light beer with 4.2% ABV), with pictures of a wine glass and 5 other "customary drinks" with additional dots, up to a martini, which has 3.5 dots.
• "Updated language" to drive this graphic's message even further: "Most people don't realize how much alcohol is actually in a commonly-served mixed drink made with hard liquor. Depending on factors such as the type of spirits and the recipe, a mixed drink may contain the equivalent of anywhere from one to four - or in some cases - even five light beers."
• Additional language advising consumers to know what they're drinking and not assume that servings, especially servings of "hard liquor," are the same across beverages.
• Advice to consumers that research indicates different alcohol beverages have different alcohol absorption rates, "especially as between hard liquor and beer."

Once again, BI argues that the current guidelines with the drink definition, and the "standard drink" thinking they reflect, are incorrect and support a "flawed concept," since there is no such thing as a standard drink. For support, BI relies on scientific research which has found wide variance in pours on premise and in homes, plus statements from NIAAA disputing the notion of a standard drink. It also includes some survey data from 2013 that suggests Know Your Drink is a "more useful tool to inform consumption" than the "drink is a drink" platform adopted by distillers years ago. Will HHS and/or the Dept of Agriculture choose to distinguish so sharply between beer and "hard liquor"? Stay tuned.  

Other speakers on the panel made some equally interesting comments. Veteran public health advocate and vocal critic of "Big Alcohol," Michele Simon, expressed frustration that marijuana advocates have seemed so far unwilling to engage with alcohol policy experts to fashion effective pot regulation. She also dismissed current regulation of medical marijuana in California as "a joke," given the ease with which it can be obtained. That seems to be a consensus.

She also asked if there are ways to enhance the importance of alcohol regulation in the minds of policymakers and the public thru the "marijuana discourse." Others have raised this same question, weighing the strictness and appropriateness of alcohol vs pot regulations, in ways that could lead to stricter alcohol policies. In Colorado, some have asked why pot is regulated more strictly than alcohol if it: 1) is ostensibly safer as many believe and/or 2) was specifically supposed to be "treated" like alcohol, according to the ballot proposition that voters passed.

Mary Segawa, the marijuana health education liaison for the Washington Liquor Control Board, which is regulating pot in that state, commented that access to and labeling of pot is much stricter than it is for alcohol there. Indeed, alcohol "can learn from what we're doing with pot," especially in terms of restricting access, she suggested. Interestingly, the "pot is safer" debate did not really happen in Washington, she said. Her position: "It shouldn't be a contest." Rather, the failure of the war on drugs is what sold pot legalization there, she believes. Troubling to her is another theme from alcohol: youth are becoming less convinced that pot is harmful, a potential harbinger of greater use. Also, while money has been dedicated to pot education, it wasn't available until sales started, even though the "education needed to start earlier."

Matt Cook, a long-time enforcement figure in the Colorado liquor control world, took on much responsibility for crafting Colorado's pot regulation (though he's no fan of legalization) and has consulted with numerous other states on their laws. He doesn't think it wise to compare alcohol and pot, either, other than that both are intoxicants. He also pointed out, as many in law enforcement have, that there is no simple roadside test to measure THC levels, seriously complicating impaired driving enforcement. Also, dosage is still a "huge issue," especially in edibles where different sections of the edible may have far different concentrations of THC. He also warned about a 3d movement in pot legalization as a potentially slippery slope: clearing hemp products with very low THC levels as a first step to broader acceptance/legalization of pot.

Will There be a Big Marijuana Industry Like Big Alcohol and Big Tobacco on the Supplier Side? Taxes Very large tobacco companies, as well as beer, wine and spirits companies, "are interested in what's going on," Cook assured, without mentioning names. Barriers to any interstate commerce at this point slow the inevitable consolidation that will occur without them. Caulkins suggested that the "aging hippie" model, growing modest amounts in backyards, "will be toast" as legalization proceeds and corporations move in. Yet another big challenge: taxing pot is "much more complicated than taxing alcohol," said Caulkins, whether you try to do it by strength of THC (an enormous testing/monitoring cost) or by the value of the product, which will inevitably fall sharply under broader availability.

A Final Word of Advice from RAND Policymakers should probably plan for a 5-15 yr period of expanded legalization, Caulkins advised. The "main lesson" he takes from alcohol: if the US "allows for-profit companies," to run the business and the "free market to run the supply chain," even with the best regulation there will be "significant" negative consequences from expanded use/abuse. Perhaps, he suggested, "the supply chain should be in hands of the public to meet existing market demand but avoid the marketing that would entail." (His emphasis.)  

Panel of policy observers/experts (decidedly skeptical about pot legalization) laid out some provocative points at NBWA-sponsored Center for Alcohol Policy panel on the topic earlier this month. Some alcohol beverage industry members no doubt welcomed comments from RAND's Jonathan Caulkins. He bluntly called the "conventional wisdom" that pot is "safer" than alcohol "false." Alcohol is "more dangerous" in some ways, he explained, pot in others. Two key stats suggest pot is more dangerous. First, the percentage of regular pot smokers (past month) who meet criteria for dependence is more than double the same figure for alcohol users (14% vs 6%). Then too, the percentage of regular pot smokers who report that use caused serious home, school or work problems, again per user, is nearly 3X the same measure for alcohol (8% to 3%). (Editor's Note: The legal-illegal distinction between alcohol and pot could significantly affect rates of reporting of both usage and "problems," but that's one of many unknowns in this debate.)

Caulkins pointed to several interesting differences between pot and alcohol users. First, alcohol users tend to be more affluent and better educated; pot users are "more downscale," like tobacco users. Second, while the percentage of past-month alcohol users who drink daily or near daily has been steady at about 10-15% for decades, for pot use the numbers tracked alcohol until 1995 but now over 1/3 of past-month pot users smoke daily or near daily. As a result these daily/near daily smokers account for a very large percentage of pot use - upwards of 80%. That's "where the market is" and "where the money will be made," as Caulkins and others have said.

Could Costs Come Down to a Penny Per High? Yet another potentially very significant difference between these substances, at least down the road, involves cost. Under current laws, RAND calculates (roughly) that users pay approximately $2-2.50 per hour of marijuana intoxication. This is based on a price of $10/gram for sinsemila pot, 0.4-0.5 grams/joint resulting in 2 hours of intoxication (again, rough estimates). Caulkins did not calculate the cost of an hour of intoxication for alcohol, but, the pot calculation is probably about the same or higher than an hour of alcohol intoxication, given the least expensive alcohol available (our own rough estimates). But in a future of widespread legality and outdoor farming under modern techniques, the pot/intoxication cost plummets to a penny per hour, RAND figures, and any market cost would not actually reflect the costs of the basic product, but associated costs like marketing, packaging, organic vs inorganic, etc. Restaurants will likely comp marijuana to stimulate appetite, Caulkins suggested. Ponder that.

Use Rates and other Critical "Unknowns" Are alcohol and pot substitutes for one another or complimentary products? "We know pot use will go way up" under legalization, Caulkins offered, but the effects on tobacco and alcohol remain a mystery. Many public health experts "hope or pray" pot will substitute for alcohol which could mean "net zero" or possibly "net win" from a health perspective; they tend to believe pot is safer. But significant substitution could possibly be a "net disaster" for industry, said Caulkins. So far, given fairly extensive medical marijuana experience and early days in Colorado and Washington, "net disaster" has not yet occurred. If pot is complimentary, increase in usage will inevitably lead to more "polysubstance abusers." But how many more? Also, all previous studies on substitution/ complementarity were done under a Prohibition (for pot) scheme. There is simply no historical data on legal use. The bottom line is "frustrating," acknowledged Caulkins, "we do not really know for sure."  

Facebook activity of college students seems to mirror their off-line activity, including drinking habits, a new study shows. High frequencies of alcohol-related social media postings predict greater overall consumption as well as higher scores on tests used to ID alcohol-use disorders. Researchers had expected both self- and friend-generated alcohol content on Facebook to predict all measures of students' relationships to alcohol. But greater correlation between friends' social media activity and only some measures left researchers wondering why such activity tended to predict risk for abuse or dependence but not actual alcohol use or cravings. Interestingly, "the number of Facebook friends was significantly related to alcohol outcomes," that is, students with large numbers of "friends" tended to report higher frequencies of alcohol use as well as cravings, risk for abuse and harms. Broader questions of whether friends' activity on social media is more or less influential than in-person activity is "difficult to disentangle."

The implications of these results on digital-age interventions did not escape researchers. Since "Facebook is both a social media platform and a powerful advertising tool," students who frequently post about alcohol can easily be targeted, not only by alcohol advertisers (assuming they are over 21), but by those offering prevention or intervention tools. Further, IDing "at-risk drinkers through Facebook may also facilitate delivery of offline intervention efforts." Enhanced privacy settings along with increased scrutiny of gathering and using data on Facebook users complicates matters. But since frequent alcohol-posters "may also be more likely to receive advertising from alcohol manufacturers," why shouldn't those seeking to mitigate alcohol-related harm experienced by these students use the same data for the opposite effect? Ref 5  

   Go To Top

References
1 Kaynak, O, et al, "Providing Alcohol for Underage Youth: What Messages Should We Be Sending Parents?" Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Vol 75, No 4, July, 2014, 590-605.
2 Jeffrey M. Jones, "Americans Still Oppose Lowering the Drinking Age," www.gallup.com, July 24, 2014; Brandon Griggs, "Should the US lower its drinking age?" www.CNN.com, plus other articles from series, July 14-17, 2014.
3 Neil Davenport, "Britain's timid teens need to go to the pub," www.spiked-online.com, July 29, 2014; Stanton Peele, "Truths We Won't Admit: Drinking Is Healthy - Pacific Standard: The science of Society," www.psmag.com, August 12, 2014. Also appeared on www.substance.com, August 7, 2014.
4 Terry-McElrath, Y, et al, "Alcohol and Marijuana Use Patterns Associated with Unsafe Driving Among US High School Seniors," Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Vol 75, No 3, May, 2014, 378-389.
5 Westgate, E, et al, "'I Will Take a Shot for Every 'Like' I Get on this Status': Posting Alcohol Related Facebook Content is Linked to Drinking Outcomes," Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, Vol 75, No 3, May, 2014, 390-398.

Not likely to be surprising, but the more likely high school seniors are to use alcohol and marijuana at the same time the more likely they are to get behind a steering wheel and drive after using one or both substances. Importantly though, those students are also more likely to be driving, period. A recent study that looked back at Monitoring the Future results since 1976 compiled self-reported data on over 70K high school seniors and their 12-month alcohol, marijuana and driving habits. Compared to those who reported no alcohol or pot use, students who occasionally or frequently use both substances simultaneously not only report higher frequencies of using each drug but also report driving a greater average number of miles per week.

This analysis shows that for the first time, the portion of seniors reporting no alcohol or pot use in the last 12 months in the most recent year was higher than the portion that reported only alcohol use, both right around one-third. Another third of high school seniors reported marijuana use in the last 12 months, either at separate times than alcohol use or simultaneously. Very few seniors report using pot but not alcohol in the last year, just 0.5%. So about half of 2011 high school senior drinkers also used pot at least once in the last year. About half of the seniors that drank and used pot in the last year occasionally used them at the same time, 17% of all students in the study. Slightly fewer (13%) never used them simultaneously. About 4% of high school seniors reported simultaneous use of both substances most or every time.

It's that 4% of seniors that concern these researchers most, as they're more likely than any of their cohorts to report unsafe driving. They were more likely to report receiving any driving ticket/warning or getting into an accident in the past year as well as more likely to report having used alcohol and/or marijuana beforehand. Good news: the percent of seniors reporting unsafe driving following alcohol or pot use was much lower in 2011 than in the late 70s and early 80s (in 1981, about 80% of seniors reporting unsafe driving also reported unsafe driving following alcohol use and 50% also reported unsafe driving following pot use). But as substance use and unsafe driving measures generally decreased, the association between simultaneous pot and alcohol use and unsafe driving remained largely unchanged, according to researchers. Ref 4  

Consumers, especially in the US and UK, can truly be forgiven for confusion about whether and how much to drink and any resulting ambivalence about alcohol. Between the pot legalization debate and some negative research, US consumers have been hit with increased warnings about alcohol's risks in recent weeks. And UK consumers faced another round of advocacy for more restrictions, warning labels, minimum unit pricing, etc. (See recent AII issues and Updates.) Yet amidst the negativity a few lone voices arose reminding of the virtues of imbibing.

"To have a truly healthy relationship with booze, it is time young people acquainted themselves with pubs and public drinking." This bit of unfashionable wisdom came from writer/teacher Neil Davenport on the Spiked-online website last month, concluding a piece titled "Britain's timid teens need to go to the pub." Though he does not approve of secondary school teens drinking, in Davenport's view, the "latest decline in boozing among young people…is nothing to celebrate." He likens it to young adults staying at home into their 30s as "an avoidance of what once defined us as adults." Turning drinking into simply a "health issue," he opines, ignores "the role drink has played in human culture throughout the ages," including romance, friendship, business deals and, in a more overarching sense, socialization, which Davenport believes is now actually discouraged. Davenport particularly laments the erosion of pub culture as introducing teens to both adulthood and as "part of a local community." He even praised landlords of old for allowing underage youths into their establishments and serving them, as long as the teens behaved "in a mature way." Those landlords and other adults of decades past "understood how the pub helped teenagers become socially adept and confident adults."

Subsequently, there was a "backlash," from rave culture's "emphasis on pills over booze," brewers' attempts to "recast drinking as an eternally youthful rather than grown up endeavor" and ultimately an "all-out war on pubs…through booze price hikes and the smoking ban." The result: a broadly negative view of pubs as "undesirable relics from an unsavoury age." Young people feel "unsafe" in pubs, Davenport insists, not because they fear physical harm, but because they're "worried about holding their own in a conversation or being in a room populated with strangers." So they choose to be at home or with friends "loading up on booze." Hence his call for a return to the pubs so that young people can grow up.

Perhaps even more politically incorrect is a recent, lengthy piece from Stanton Peele, the veteran addictions expert, long-time public health critic and moderate drinking supporter. In "Truth We Won't Admit: Drinking is Healthy," Peele actually argues that "even drinking more than is recommended" (basically the US Dietary Guidelines) "is generally better for you than drinking nothing." That's of course as long as you do not have "clinical symptoms of problem drinking or alcohol dependence," markers which Peele points out "are not subtle." Basically, Peele re-visits the vast body of research linking moderate drinking to mortality, heart and cognitive benefits, a needed correction given a few outlier studies recently. For the "over the limit" recommendation, Peele relies heavily on the 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine meta-analysis that "1-2 drinks per day for women, 2-4 drinks per day for men" (double the current limits) "are inversely associated with total mortality." Peele does endorse two important caveats against "the life saving benefits of alcohol." The mortality data does not apply to women with the "breast cancer gene" or women with a first-degree relation with breast cancer. Nor do these levels afford benefits if drinks are bunched on 2 nights per week. As Peele reviews the science, he makes a few other iconoclastic points.

• He cites the Research Society on Alcoholism, "as its name suggests, not a group predisposed to say good things about alcohol," as a key source that acknowledges the cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and cognitive benefits linked to drinking.
• While there was a flurry of studies that attributed benefits to resveratrol in wine (not the alcohol), "I identified this claim as bullshit from the start." It's the alcohol.
• The oft-cited J-shaped curve, that abstainers fare worse than moderate drinkers, but better than heavy drinkers, "does not exist in nature," Peele contends. Rather, he reads the latest data to indicate that the "drinking curve struggles to make it up to a U." Here he cites a famous New England Journal of Medicine mortality study by Thun that showed "for all levels of drinking, including the highest one, for both men and women, death rates did not reach those for abstainers." The resulting curve "is not a J."

Peele argues that a "society best handles its available intoxicants by regarding them calmly and rationally, and by understanding that people have the capacity (and the responsibility) to consume them in sensible, even life-enhancing ways." One need not fully embrace his conclusions that abstinence is risky and "the more alcohol a society consumes, the fewer alcohol-related problems and alcohol related deaths (including cirrhosis) it has since these societies…integrate drinking with social life," to appreciate the wisdom of the former statement. Ref 3  

While public attitudes about pot legalization have liberalized radically over the last decade or so, Americans across the political, age, educational and every other spectrum remain overwhelmingly opposed to lowering the drinking age to 18. So Gallup found in its most recent poll. Overall, only 25% of adults support a federal law that would lower the drinking age to 18 in all states, up only slightly (from 21%) in 2001. Looking at 37 subgroups, support ranges from a low of 18% among conservatives and abstainers to a high of 37% and 35% among those with postgraduate educations and weekly drinkers respectively. But lowering the minimum age doesn't get near a majority among any of these groups. And ironically, there's more support for lowering the minimum age among 30-49 yr-olds (28%) than among 18-29 yr-olds (26%).

Interestingly, Gallup's analysis of its findings leans slightly toward support for lowering the minimum age. Jeffrey Jones points out that "research shows the 1984 law did help reduce" traffic crash deaths involving alcohol, especially among young adults. But he also points out that "it's not clear" whether the higher minimum age "helps" reduce binge drinking among teens and that some experts suggest lowering the age "and teaching teens and young adults to drink responsibly at a younger age (see above), would help reduce the allure" of alcohol. Beyond that, Jones argues that while lowering the drinking age "might be seen as giving in to" widespread law-breaking, since many teens drink despite it being illegal, it may also encourage those under 21 who drink to do so in public settings where their alcohol intake can be better monitored." (See below.) He brings up the standard arguments that the US is an outlier in the world with a drinking age that's "higher than in nearly every other country" and that "there are questions about why those under 21 cannot legally drink alcohol when they are permitted to drive, vote and serve in the military." In any case, to the extent that attitudes about the legality of pot are changing the debate and the laws involving that substance, there seems to be little impetus to change at least this drinking law.

Just as the Gallup analysis noted that July was the 30th "anniversary of the higher drinking age," CNN ran a series exploring the issue as well. One of the articles explored the question of "Is drinking with your kids at home a good idea?" That article quoted, among others, addictions expert and longtime supporter of moderation's benefits, Stanton Peele, as well as some other names familiar to those who have followed alcohol policy issues over the years. CNN even tracked down anthropologist Dwight Heath, another long-time advocate of normalizing drinking behaviors. "In general," Heath offered, based on his studies of other cultures, "the younger people start to drink the safer they are." That, of course is directly counter to current government advice.

CNN also notes that the US is among only a handful of countries with so high a minimum age and talked to John McCardell, whose Amethyst Initiative of 130 university presidents favoring a lower drinking age failed to get traction several years ago. McCardell was apparently prepared to testify before Congress when the economy tanked in 2008 and "we missed our moment." A 3d article from CNN cited research finding that raising the minimum age "appears to have been not only ineffective but actually counter-productive, at least in the short run" and included comments from a number of scientists casting doubt on the wisdom of minimum age 21. That included a psychology professor who said: "If I were queen for a day, I would move the drinking age to 18 and maybe not let them drive until they are 21." All in, CNN's coverage, including a previous op-ed piece back in March calling for lowering the age to 19, like Gallup's, was skewed toward support for lowering it. And in a sign that the topic still has some life, the article quoting Dwight Heath drew over 1300 comments. Ref 2  

There appears to be a consensus that parents should "talk to their teens" about drinking, primarily to provide information, discuss risks and delay initiation. But there's not much talk about actually drinking with teens or "teaching" them to drink, though server training expert TiPS' Adam Chafetz has broached the notion at several regulator/industry meetings. As Adam and others have noted, many young people, especially college students, could clearly benefit from some kind of instruction other than what they're getting, presumably from peers. A group of researchers looked at 22 different studies from around the world to see if parents actually "providing" alcohol, everything from giving "sips" to allowing and supplying alcohol to actually hosting parties, affected use, heavy use and/or problems. Predictably, the studies' parameters varied and the results were mixed, but the authors ultimately concluded that "providing" probably isn't the best practice. Look at some of the key findings:

• "All of the longitudinal studies observed that parental allowance of drinking at home was related to higher likelihood of drinking during adolescence, heavy episodic drinking or the frequency of alcohol related problems." (Note the word "or"; not all of the studies found the same effects across the board.)
• Yet a half-dozen studies "found that parental supply was associated with less episodic drinking, problem drinking or alcohol-related risky behaviors." Still, another three linked supply to "increased heavy episodic drinking or intention to drink."
• When parents are "present" while drinking, teens tend to drink less, on those occasions and overall during a 30-day period, as well as less recent heavy drinking, problems or drinking and driving, a number of studies found.
• But another study found that "the more adolescents drank at home (with or without parents), the more they consumed outside the home, and vice versa."
• Three studies of parents hosting parties for underage drinkers "overwhelmingly linked" this practice to "negative" outcomes.

In addition to the different studies having different measures and outcomes, they also covered different drinking cultures - US, UK, Netherlands, Sweden and Australia - and cultural differences very likely shaded results. Despite the mixed findings, the authors suggest that "sending a message that underage drinking is sanctioned by parents might convey approval of drinking" and lead to increased drinking since the parents may have "instilled in children a sense of comfort" in alcohol use. And despite a lengthy list of limitations, the authors felt comfortable enough to suggest 5 messages for parents based on this review:

• Allowing underage drinking, even under supervision "is always associated with increased drinking over time so parents should avoid allowing their children to drink."
• Findings about "direct parental supply" are mixed, with some finding it to be protective, others risky. But the protective studies excluded abstainers, so "cannot shed light on the relationship to becoming a drinker."
• Adolescents who drink at home and/or with family drink less than those who drink with peers.
• Parents should consider "talking to children early about alcohol use expectations" and adopting "consistent rules."
• Finally, "social hosting is never a good idea…. Adolescents who attend parties where parents supply alcohol are at increased risk for heavy episodic drinking, alcohol-related problems and drinking and driving." This is also increasingly illegal, at least in the US.