var uslide_show_id = “956B3CEF-C6D7-44A0-87BF-8BFA9DC4E693”; var slideshowwidth = “468”; var linktext = “Click here to see where BRPD is making the most DWI arrests”;
Beer pong, two-for-one ales, 25 cent shots and dollar calls may become tales seniors tell freshmen about “the old days.”
The Campus-Community Coalition for Change, a nationally funded group on campus aimed at reducing high-risk drinking, has proposed a ban on drink specials to the Baton Rouge Metro Council.
The CCCC prepared a packet of research results to support the assertion that a ban on drink specials is necessary, but experts suggest some of the data may not as closely support the CCCC’s ordinance as its packet suggests.
The packet contains results from studies conducted across the country and in the Baton Rouge area and was distributed to council members and student organizations.
The proposed ban would prohibit bars in Baton Rouge from selling drinks at any price under the retail price, offering free drinks, holding games involving alcohol or advertising alcohol-related promotions.
Nancy Mathews, CCCC executive director, said the goal of the proposed ordinance is to reduce binge drinking that she says bars encourage by offering low-priced, high-volume drinks.
Mathews said eliminating the specials will reduce excessive drinking by college students.
Mathews said the most important part of the packet is the Graphic Information Systems map.
The map pinpoints bar locations in Baton Rouge and denotes which bars advertise drink specials to LSU students.
The map uses different colors to illustrate the frequency of DWI and public intoxication arrests.
The highest concentrations are in the Tigerland, North Gate and College Drive/Corporate Boulevard areas, according to the map.
Mathews said because more arrests occur in areas with advertised drink specials, there is more dangerous activity occurring there.
But Edward Shihadeh, criminology associate professor, said it may not be accurate to draw those conclusions from the data.
He said that while there might be more drinking and driving in those areas, police also may be deploying more patrol cars to that area.
“We just have to be careful about those measures because it could reflect police behaviors,” Shihadeh said.
Mathews said the ordinance is not targeted at students but at bar owners who are using “irresponsible” business practices toward customers.
Janey Dewey-Kollen, Mothers Against Drunk Driving state executive director, said when students have cheap drinks in front of them, they will drink excessively.
Mathews said bar owners have an obligation to protect customers and that they are not meeting that obligation by offering cheap drinks.
Glenn Cordua, director of the wine and spirits management institute at the University of Houston, said bar promotions are a complicated issue.
Cordua said he thinks offering drink specials is a common practice among bars and pubs, but he thinks it is less common in restaurants.
Cordua said research shows that bars with drink specials often face problems with over-consumption and over-service, serving an intoxicated person.
Contained within the CCCC’s packet are several studies that correlate low-priced drink specials with excessive drinking.
Cordua said he thinks there is a better solution to excessive drinking problems other than selling drinks at lower prices.
“Once you put something into law, there will be unintended consequences – damage to the business,” he said.
Instead, Cordua said education programs for bar staffs that teach waiters when to recognize intoxicated patrons and how to handle situations involving inebriated people are more effective.
Cordua cited a state- sponsored program in Texas that educates bar owners and their employees and offers limited protection for participants.
Cordua said the incentive of protection against criminal charges appeals to the bar owner.
“The whole staff goes through the programs then there’s an assumption that we are concerned with responsibility,” Cordua said. “You offer a nice carrot for bars. It’s very effective because it goes right to the heart of the bar owner.”
Mathews said the CCCC has been actively involved in efforts to educate students and bar owners and supported programs, like Late Nite LSU, that offer weekend alternatives to drinking but has reached a point where she feels policy changes are necessary.
The packet also cites a public opinion survey funded by the CCCC and conducted by Southern Media and Opinion Research.
The CCCC states throughout the packet that “nearly 80 percent” of Baton Rouge voters responded that drink specials encourage excessive drinking.
But because of a typographical error, the “nearly 80 percent” was based on an erroneous 79.4 percent. The correct percentage of voters who responded yes to whether drink specials encourage excessive drinking is 74.9 percent.
Buster McKenzie, president of Southern Media and Opinion Research who conducted the survey, said the discrepancy occurred when transferring the data from computer-generated tables to the hand-typed document the CCCC used.
Kristy Miller, who works with the CCCC, said despite the mistake in the information they obtained, the group will likely not change the packet because 74.9 percent is nearly 80 percent.
McKenzie said the goal of the survey was to present data for the city as a whole and a breakdown by district to be presented to each district representative.
Steven Procopio, manager of the Public Policy Research Lab, said overall the poll was unbiased and its sample size of 480 people is enough to represent the city.
The only part of the survey Procopio said might have affected the results were the order of the questions.
After preliminary questions, the survey asked the participant if they thought excessive drinking caused traffic crashes, fights, rape or sexual assaults, family violence, killings, excessive noise, excessive trash and litter or negative reputation or image of the community.
Procopio said by asking about the negative things before policy changes, the negative aspects prime the participant’s mind.
“I don’t want to say it’s wrong,” Procopio said but he said consideration of the question order is necessary when looking at the remainder of the data.
Procopio also pointed out the difference in the answers based on the education level of the respondent.
The question about whether drink specials contribute to excessive drinking had a 21.6 percent difference between respondents with less than a high school degree and respondents with a college degree.
For example, 88.9 percent of those with less than a high school degree said they believed drink specials contributed to excessive drinking but only 67.3 percent with a college degree agreed.
Questions six and seven on the survey ask the participants if they agreed with a variety of controls of alcohol at public events and about allowing advertising of alcohol through certain mediums.
On questions six and seven those with college degrees consistently agreed less with any type of restriction on sales or advertising than those with less than a high school degree.
 
Contact Ginger Gibson at [email protected]