According to a NY Sun article appearing on January 17th, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member has indicated an interest in banning the sale of alcoholic beverages on LIRR and Metro-North trains, due to the concern that drinking on trains poses several safety hazards for riders. 

However, since 1950, the LIRR has been selling alcohol on platforms and aboard trains and Metro-North has been serving it since 1976.  In that time - according to reporting by the Sun and also cited on the blog gothamist.com no car accidents have been directly related to onboard drinking have been reported and bartenders on the trains are not allowed to sell alcohol to passengers who seem to them to be inebriated.  Unfortunately I do not have a citation for the source of this research to check its accuracy, but from my experience commuting, the reality of the situation is that commuters are only buying a beer to carry on the train.  And if you’re heading to the bar car (for those on the Metro North New Haven line) it’s crowded and the bartenders are not allowed to sell alcohol to passengers who seem to them to be inebriated. 

Here’s the way I see it: what’s wrong with having a drink on the way home from work?  After a long day, the commuter rail can be a social environment, a time to unwind and enjoy conversation with your friends (or just quietly enjoy the end of the day).  You’re not driving, and as long as you are being responsible knowing that you need to get in a car following your commute, there should be no issue.  In fact, if you read the recent New Yorker on the same subject, you’ll find that enjoying a cocktail or beer on the way home from work has become a way of life for many commuters. 

Now - I know that some will say that there are those that are not responsible and thus putting others at risk.  But reading the recent backlash from the affected commuters on these trains, it seems to me that this isn’t the environment that these trains breed. 

Instead of banning the sale of alcohol altogether on commuter lines, couldn’t the MTA consider addressing the issue of social responsibility in a more active way on the trains?  Why not work to have local taxi service numbers posted in the bar cars, just to ensure that commuters have access to them? 

It just seems that before taking the step to fully ban the sale of alcohol, there are a number of steps to be considered along the way.

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and published in the January 2007 issue of Pediatrics, Binge Drinking and Associated Health Risk Behaviors Among High School Students, states that “binge drinking is the most common pattern of alcohol consumption among high school youth who drink alcohol and is strongly associated with a wide range of other health risk behaviors.” 

Although we know that youth use of alcohol for 8th, 10th and 12th graders was down across the board over the last five years, according to the 2006 Monitoring the Future survey, and current drinking (past 30 days) among 12th graders is at the lowest level since the study began in 1975, and is down 14% since 1997, underage drinking remains an important issue that needs to be addressed.

So the question for parents is, “what can we do?”

And the answer I’d offer is that there are MANY things you can do.  Consider one expert’s opinion: Richard Gallagher, Ph.D., Director of the Parenting Institute and Thriving Teens Project believes that “parents remain the greatest influence over their children’s behavior.”

Among the tips  Dr. Gallagher offers parents:

1) Clearly state what actions you expect your teen to take when confronted with substance use.
2) Talk about the alcohol use that your children observe.
3) Limit the access your children have to substances.

The Century Council, funded by Diageo and other spirits companies, addresses the issue of underage drinking and drunk driving. In its Underage Drinking Worksheet, The Century Council also points out the importance of parental involvement:
A qualitative research study conducted by Amica Insurance confirmed that teenagers whose parents talk with them versus talk at them might be less at risk to engage in harmful behavior involving alcohol. What’s more, teens said they would be more apt not to drink and drive if they had heard directly from their parents how important they are to them.

When it comes down to it, a lot of this advice boils down to talking to your kids and being involved in their lives.

If you’re looking for a good starting point, check out some resources offered by The Century Council that can help parents talk to their children about underage drinking.  Girl Talk,  Ask, Listen, and Learn,   and Parents, you’re not done yet.  are some of the programs available on The Century Council web site that give parents the tools that will assist them in their conversations with their children.

As part of a balanced lifestyle, my husband and I celebrate the end of each day with a glass of something with dinner — usually wine.  Like many people, we have traditionally thought of champagne as something that is reserved for major celebrations. 

On New Year’s Eve, we each had a glass of champagne and decided that we don’t enjoy a glass often enough!  Champagne can be affordable (not all champagne is priced at the higher end), and it is a nice element in a mixed drink. 

Personally, given the state of the world, I think that Winston Churchill’s quote on champagne is apt:

“A single glass of champagne imparts a feeling of exhilaration. The nerves are braced, the imagination is agreeably stirred; the wits become more nimble. A bottle produces the contrary effect. Excess causes a comatose insensibility. So it is with war: and the quality of both is best discovered by sipping.” 

In the future, we plan to enjoy more frequently a glass of something bubbly.

I was a little annoyed the other day to read in the LA Times an article highly critical of the Gates Foundation. Under the heading “A Times Investigation” the reporter’s focus was on the types of investments that the Gates Foundation makes with its nearly $66 billion endowment. The jist of the article was that some of the financial investments that the Foundation was making “undercut” the good works of the Foundation itself. As part of the reporter’s case against the investment practices of the Foundation, the Foundation’s investment in Diageo was cited. Somehow, it is implied, an investment in Diageo undercuts the good works of the foundation. At no point is it explained in the article why this inference should be viewed as true. It is merely stated as a fact.

Certainly there’s no mention of the millions of dollars that Diageo spends against its Water of Life program, nor the tens of millions it spends in responsible drinking campaigns - both facts which seem to undercut the premise of the reporter’s point. Interestingly, neither was there any sort of mention of what sort of investments the parent company of the Times makes, not to mention what sort of advertising the LA Times accepts. In fact, I wonder if one were to go to the LA Times web site to read the aforementioned article what sort of advertising they might find.

How many times have you said it?

How many times have you heard others say it?

“They’re just teenagers.”  Or, “Kids will be kids, it’s all part of growing up.”

What am I talking about?  Parents and other adults who view underage/teen drinking as little more than a right of passage that little can or really should be done to curtail.

Unfortunately, still far too often, some of these parents end up being “innocent” bystanders as their children fall victim to an incident (and often are seriously injured or even killed) in which alcohol was a major factor.

I live in CT and for the past couple of years have watched a debate unfold in the State Legislature that, this year, finally culminated with enactment of the so-called House Party law that provides for fines and penalties for children caught possessing alcohol on private property and for the parents/adults who condone it.

The amazing thing was that it took so long for this rather simple effort at deterrence to become law.  Years of debate about privacy rights, the ability of an adult to allow otherwise illegal activity … so long as it was within the confines of their private property. Fears of overzealous law enforcement officials who would immediately overstep their bounds if given this new tool to fight underage drinking … and the list of so-called arguments went on … and on … and on.

If an adult kills a child (or anyone for that matter) in a drunk driving accident we – rightfully – call for the most severe penalties to be imposed.

When a child is killed two weeks before graduating from High School because of an accident involving alcohol we call it (again, rightfully) an avoidable tragedy.

When children drink alcohol we immediately blame those who manufacturer and sell it, calling them reckless and irresponsible.

But when we say we want to penalize adults who knowingly and willfully allow underage drinking in their homes we have to wring our hands and debate “privacy rights.”

There are still far too many states out there that have not even taken this limited action to give local law enforcement officials a much-needed tool to fight underage drinking.

Were it not for the fact that so many parents still harbor the view that “it’s okay, as long as they do it in my house” we might not need these laws in the first place … but we do, and we need them now.

Look for yourself.�� Many government agencies, state driver�?Ts manuals, and consumer groups all tell the same thing �?’ a standard drink of either beer, wine or spirits has the same amount of alcohol.�� This is clearly indicated in the New York State driver�?Ts manual:

Different types of drinks do not affect you differently. It is the amount of alcohol you consume, not whether it is in beer, wine or wine cooler, or liquor, that raises your BAC and lowers your driving ability. These drinks contain about the same amount of alcohol - 1�? ounces of liquor, 5 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer, and 12 ounces of wine cooler. None is “safer to drink” than the others. Whether through brewing, fermenting, or distilling, this alcohol will have the same chemical characteristics even though the taste is different.

There is something else that people will agree on.�� A breathalyzer can�?Tt tell what kind of beverage alcohol a person drinks.�� If one person drank a beer, glass of wine or shot of spirits �?’ an equivalent amount of alcohol �?’ and blew into a breathalyzer, the only information that could be discerned is the amount of alcohol in that person�?Ts system.

The tax rate on distilled spirits is almost three times the rate on table wine and over two times the rate on beer.�� So, why is it that equivalent amounts of alcohol in different forms are not taxed at the same rate?�� The discrepancy in the relative tax rates of these products just furthers the misperception that spirits are hard liquor and that beer is the drink of moderation.�� In the breathalyzer tube, it is all the same �?’ alcohol.
Don�?Tt be fooled.�� Spirits aren�?Tt harder than beer or wine, just more concentrated, and a standard serving of each contains the same amount of alcohol.�� There is moderate behavior not a beverage of moderation.�� Maybe if the respective taxes were more in line, the equivalent nature of these products would be clearer.

“So you’re out for a night on the town enjoying a few cocktails with friends and it’s time to go home. You do the responsible thing in deciding not to drive, hopping into the first cab you find. Imagine your surprise when you find NASCAR driver Jamie McMurray behind the wheel, eager to get you home in one piece. It will happen Thursday night in Fort Worth, Texas, when McMurray plays designated driver in a promotion for sponsor Crown Royal. Sponsors often come up with catchy promotions that market their driver and whatever message they are trying to get out, and this one will likely be a winner.”

– The Associated Press, April 4, 2006

The quote says it all and I can�?Tt help, but to feel proud when I reflect upon what the Crown Royal �??Safe Rides�?T home program has come to represent for NASCAR fans and Diageo alike. To be able to deliver such an important message promoting responsible drinking while simultaneously giving fans an experience of a lifetime is truly remarkable. Created in 2003, first with Smirnoff ICE and now with Crown Royal, the �??Safe Rides�?T home initiative has become one of the cornerstones of our NASCAR sponsorship, as we seek to reach millions of race fans with our “Be a Champion. Drink Responsibly.” campaign.

What makes this initiative so special is how it enables us to use our sponsorship and driver Jamie McMurray to engage fans in a meaningful way. In other words, for the NASCAR fan this program is really cool�?�

How it works is that throughout the NASCAR season Crown Royal will descend to a select downtown area ahead of the weekends race and wrap a fleet of Ford Fusions with a paint scheme to replicate the #26 Crown Royal car that runs in the race. Jamie McMurray then comes down and actually steps in as an honorary cab driver to get people �?’ who may have had too much to drink �?’ a safe ride home. Ok, even if you�?Tre not a fan, you have to admit that it�?Ts a pretty cool program and one that definitely would catch a few eyes and make people take notice.

To witness the shock and sheer exhilaration on a fans face when they realize they are going to actually get a ride home from Jamie is a sight to be seen. Most might say “big deal,” but to a NASCAR fan this is a moment to be cherished and savored, as they are in the midst of someone they respect and admire. For Crown Royal and Diageo, we feel exuberant because it�?Ts the moment when we have had a real impact and reached yet another fan with our message of responsible drinking�?� And most importantly, got them home safe in the process. One thing is for certain, with 75 million fans - more than 80% of which are above 21 �?’ NASCAR is an amazing platform for us to touch millions and promote responsible drinking.

So with the 2006 season behind us, we look forward to 2007 when the #26 Crown Royal Ford Fusion will once again hit the track at the Daytona 500. And if you�?Tre ever in town for a race, pay attention the next time you hop in a cab because it just might be Jamie McMurray steering the ship.

I watch them on TV and see the headlines in the newspaper.eight more soldiers killed in Iraq, 20 more soldiers injured in Afghanistan.and feel somewhat numb.  Sure, I feel angry.  And of course I feel terrible for their families - but it is just another day of news, and after awhile, the headlines sort of blur together.  What I didn’t expect was their humor. They told stories about the war, their wives, their injuries, their kids..and through it all - they found humor in everything.

I have become a food label-reading fanatic.  Its true.  I can tell you the calories, fat, sugar and fiber in almost any food.

I don’t just do this because I have too much time on my hands (I wish!). I am really trying to live a healthier lifestyle – exercise, vitamins, drink minimum 8 glasses of water and watch what I eat.  I want to look good, but equally important, I want to feel good – why else would anyone do hot yoga?

So why is it that I can look at any food product in the grocery and read the serving facts, but I cannot do that for my alcohol of choice?  I want to know how many grams of fat are in Bailey’s.  I want to know how many carbs are in Guinness.  I want to know how many calories are in my cabernet.

The fact is that Diageo supports VOLUNTARY serving facts labeling and has requested that the TTB (the government agency that regulates the alcohol industry) allow it to print on its labels serving facts. To date, its requests have been denied.
Why?  Why would a governmental agency not want consumers to know what they are consuming?  Wouldn’t that only lead to making better decisions about what to drink or what not to drink?

Darryl Worley’s words, music and convictions personify what Diageo’s Spirit of the Americas program is all about. From the men and women in uniform, to the disenfranchised; in the confusing times that politics or acts of God may transform lives forevermore, we humbly aim to let people know we have their backs during periods where and when they need it most.