The Fault, Dear Madison Beer Review, Is Not in Our Stars

The Madison blogosphere has reacted to a piece in the New York Times earlier this week called "Some See Big Problem in Wisconsin Drinking". One notable response was by the Madison Beer Review.

The author of the post begins by taking issue with some of the terms in the NYT piece.

First, let's get the "definition" of binge drinking out of the way: Five drinks in one sitting for a man; four for a woman. What is a sitting? 30 minutes? 1 hour? 3 hours? 7 hours? If I'm sitting at a bar watching a late football game and then stick around for dinner and maybe say hello to some friends, it could easily be "one sitting" from 3pm until 11pm. Five drinks in eight hours? This is a problem?

What's a "drink"? A beer? What kind of beer? Bud Light (about 4% ABV)? Dogfish Head 120 (about 21% ABV)? Wine (12-22% ABV)? Liquor (40-50% ABV)? In their standard serving sizes?

While I agree that the imprecision of these terms is problematic, it's only so when discussing Wisconsin's "culture of drinking" and does nothing to address the issue of drunk driving which is, let's face it, the big issue here. If Wisconsin's love of the drink was accompanied by the state being 40th in drunk driving as opposed to 1st, we wouldn't be discussing this and Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk wouldn't be instituting programs to combat our drinking culture. Regardless of how you define "drink" or "binge", our state has more than its share of people who drive impaired. This is the issue and arguing semantics is a distraction.

Later in the post, the author concedes as much:

If it doesn't affect anyone (including the drinker), who cares? The problem is when this person does his drinking at a bar and drives home. The problem is when this person goes to a Packers game 3 hours away from where he lives and has no option but to drive home. The problem is when this person goes home and beats his wife or children. The problem is when this person can't make it through a day without getting drunk.

I agree with most of the sentiments here but take issue with this statement: "The problem is when this person goes to a Packers game 3 hours away from where he lives and has no option but to drive home." I object to it because it makes the hypothetical person here out to be a victim of cruel fate whose hand was forced when, in fact, no one made this person go to the Packer game and get drunk. Portraying such a person as a hapless victim is to deny that individuals such as this make certain choices – to get drunk and then to drive – instead of other ones – plan ahead, get a hotel room, or sleep it off in the parking lot.

This notion of drunk drivers being victims continues in the author's list of solutions:

The solution is viable public transportation alternatives (not raising the fare on an impractical and nonsensical bus system)

It is ridiculous to try and make Madison Metro a scapegoat here. People in Madison who drive drunk are not the victims of a poor bus system. No drunk person is forced to get drive instead of calling a cab. When someone gets behind the wheel after having had too much to drink, this is their fault, and criticizing public transportation options cannot absolve poor judgment of the behalf of individuals. Should we attribute Iowa's better ranking when it comes to drinking and driving to better public transportation systems?

There are always alternatives to driving drunk.