SarahR

Truong, Khoa Dang, and Roland Sturm.. "Alcohol Environments and Disparities in Exposure Associated With Adolescent Drinking in California." __American Journal of Public Health__ 99.2 (Feb. 2009): 264-270. __MasterFILE Premier__. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 5 Mar. 2009 . **Section:** RESEARCH **//AND//** PRACTICE Objectives. We investigated sociodemographic disparities in alcohol environments **//and//** their relationship with adolescent**//drinking//**. Methods. We geocoded **//and//** mapped alcohol license data with ArcMap to construct circular buffers centered at 14595 households with children that participated in the California Health Interview Survey. We calculated commercial sources of alcohol in each buffer. Multivariate logistic regression differentiated the effects of alcohol sales on adolescents'**//drinking//** from their individual, family, **//and//** neighborhood characteristics. Results. Alcohol availability, measured by mean **//and//** median number of licenses, was significantly higher around residences of minority **//and//** lower-income families. Binge drinking **//and//** **//driving//** after **//drinking//** among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years were significantly associated with the presence of alcohol retailers within 0.5 miles of home. Simulation of changes in the alcohol environment showed that if alcohol sales were reduced from the mean number of alcohol outlets around the lowest-income quartile of households to that of the highest quartile, prevalence of binge **//drinking//**would fall from 6.4% to 5.6% **//and//** **//driving//** after **//drinking//** from 7.9% to 5.9%. Conclusions. Alcohol outlets are concentrated in disadvantaged neighborhoods **//and//** can contribute to adolescent**//drinking//**. To reduce underage **//drinking//**, environmental interventions need to curb opportunities for youth to obtain alcohol from commercial sources by tightening licensure, enforcing minimum-age **//drinking//** laws, or other measures. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:264-270. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007. 122077) Despite federal, state, **//and//** local interventions, underage **//drinking//** continues to be a serious problem. A national survey found that 17.6% of adolescents drank alcohol in the past 30 days, 11.1% were binge drinkers, **//and//** 2.7% were heavy drinkers.[[|1]] Health **//and//** social problems associated with youths' **//drinking//** include motor vehicle crashes,[[|2]][[|3]] violence,[[|4]] risky sexual behaviors,[[|5]][[|6]] assault **//and//** rapes,[[|7]] **//and//** brain impairment[[|8-11]] Adolescent alcohol use has substantial societal costs.[[|12]] **//Drinking//** at an early age also increases the risk of addiction **//and//** other alcohol-related problems in adulthood.[[|13-15]] In 2007, the surgeon general responded to this problem in the Call to Action to Prevent **//and//** Reduce Underage **//Drinking//**, which emphasized environmental contributions to the problem.[[|16]] Underage drinkers obtain their alcoholic beverages from a variety of sources, including parents' stocks, friends, parties,**//and//** commercial outlets.[[|17]] In 1 study, buyers who looked underage were able to purchase alcohol with high success rates from both on-site (for consumption on the premises, such as bars **//and//** restaurants) **//and//** off-site (for consumption elsewhere, such as liquor stores) establishments.[[|18]][[|19]] Sales to minors have been found to be significantly associated with the percentage of Hispanic residents in a neighborhood **//and//** with population density.[[|20]] As long as adolescents can obtain alcohol from commercial sources, neighborhood outlets are likely to play a role in underage drinking. Rhee et al. argued that environment plays an essential role in **//drinking//** initiation **//and//** that genetics are important in developing alcohol dependence.[[|21]] Perceived alcohol availability was significantly associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption among young men[[|22]] **//and//** with **//drinking//** in public locations for adolescent girls.[[|23]] Density of outlets for alcohol in dries was associated with youths' **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** **//and//** with riding in a car driven by a person under the influence of alcohol.[[|24]] Differences in alcohol environments may exacerbate health disparities across sociodemographic groups. LaVeist **//and//** Wallace found that in Baltimore, MD, predominantly Black **//and//** low-income census tracts have more liquor stores per capita than do tracts of other race **//and//** income groups.[[|25]] Gorman **//and//**Speer found retail liquor outlets abundantly located in poor **//and//** minority neighborhoods in a city in New Jersey.[[|26]] Only 1 national study has been published, **//and//** it reported higher densities of liquor stores in zip codes with higher percentages of Blacks **//and//** lower-income non-Whites.[[|27]] That study covered all urban areas in the United States, but the urban zip codes had a mean land area of 40.1 square miles **//and//** a mean population of 21920 persons,[[|27]] arguably too large to represent neighborhoods. Even census tracts may be too large **//and//** too dissimilar to capture neighborhood effects: in Los Angeles County they can range from 0.04 square miles to 322 square miles. The objectives of this study were ([|1]) to describe the quantity **//and//** geographic pattern of alcohol retailers in small areas around individual homes and ([|2]) to examine relationships between alcohol environments **//and//** adolescent **//drinking//**. We analyzed data from the entire state of California to investigate the effects of spatial accessibility on alcohol sales to adolescents. **[|METHODS]** **[|Data]** Data on alcohol outlets came from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control database **//and//** included addresses **//and//** license types of all alcohol retailers in the state.[[|28]] We classified alcohol outlets by license type: off-site or on-site. In 2003, California had 30650 active on-site licenses **//and//** 21836 active off-site licenses.[[|28]] Participant data were obtained from the California Health Interview Survey, a computer-assisted telephone interview with a 2-stage, geographically stratified, random-digit-dialing design that attempts to interview 1 adult **//and//** 1 adolescent per household **//and//** to get information on 1 child in households with children. The survey is representative of the state's noninstitutionalized population living in households. Details are available elsewhere.[[|29]] The California Health Interview Survey 2003 included survey data for 42044 adults, 4010 adolescents, **//and//** 8526 children, who were linked by family identifiers. We excluded 3679 households in rural areas because their environments were not comparable. For our analysis of alcohol environments, we focused on 14595 households with children younger than 18 years (not all households with children participated in the child **//and//** adolescent surveys). For our analysis of adolescent **//drinking//**, we used data on 3660 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. We used a subsample of 687 adolescents aged 16 to 17 years who had ever had a few sips of alcoholic drinks for our analysis of adolescent **//driving//** after **//drinking//**. **[|Measures of Alcohol Environments]** We defined alcohol environments by distance from homes. We used ArcMap version 9.1 (ESR1, Redlands, CA) to draw circles with radii of 0.1 miles, 0.5 miles, 1.0 mile, **//and//** 2.0 miles centered at respondents' residences. We first looked at immediate distances with 0.1-mile-radius circles **//and//** at circular bands between 0.1-mile **//and//** 0.5-mile radii. We considered that outlets in these areas might be the most problematic because of their proximity to adolescents' residences. A distance of 0.5 miles is approximately a 10-minute walk[[|30]] **//and//** thus within the reach of adolescents. Outlets beyond easy walking distance were examined in circular bands between 0.5- **//and//** 1.0-mile radii **//and//** between 1.0- **//and//** 2.0-mile radii (all 4 constructed buffers were mutually exclusive). We mapped the business locations in the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control database to the buffers around each household **//and//** calculated the number of alcohol retailers within each buffer. Previous research focused on density measures, such as the number of establishments per city, per resident, or per roadway mile.[[|27]][[|31-33]] We used the raw count in each buffer rather than outlet-density measures in a predefined geographic area (such as census tracts) because individuals may live close to alcohol outlets in what is defined as a low-density area if that area includes large sections that are lightly populated, such as deserts or mountains. Similarly, in densely populated urban areas, population measures may yield low densities of alcohol outlets per resident even when most households are within walking distance of these outlets. **[|Statistical Analyses]** We compared the mean **//and//** median number of alcohol outlets (for all licenses **//and//** for on-site **//and//** off-site establishments separately) across racial/ethnic groups (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, **//and//** other) **//and//** income groups (incomes quartiles derived from self-reported total household annual income before tax). We then stratified by both race/ethnicity **//and//** income. We also performed a zero-inflated Poisson regression with number of outlets as the dependent variable **//and//** race/ethnicity **//and//** income as the key explanatory variables, controlling for population density in the census tracts. We estimated this model separately for each definition of the dependent variable (all licenses, on-site, **//and//** off-site) within each buffer. The data included all households with children younger than 18 years. We analyzed 3 dichotomous dependent variables for adolescent **//drinking//** with logistic regression: at least 1 alcoholic drink in the past 30 days, at least 1 heavy **//drinking//** episode (5 drinks in a row, also referred to as binge **//drinking//**) in the past 30 days, **//and//** ever **//driving//** after **//drinking//**. The primary explanatory variables were the number of alcohol outlets within the 0.5-mile radii, 0.5- to 1.0-mile bands, **//and//** 1.0- to 2.0-mile bands. For each dependent variable, we estimated 2 models that differed in the key explanatory variables. For the first model, total number of licenses was the key explanatory variable. For the second model, off-site **//and//** on-site establishments were the key explanatory variables. We used the latter model to determine what type of outlets had predictive power for adolescent **//drinking//**, because the underlying processes in illegally obtaining alcoholic beverages may differ. Additional explanatory variables included in all models were adolescents' characteristics (gender, age, race, paid employment in the past 12 months, current smoking, **//and//** marijuana use in the past 30 days), family characteristics (household income **//and//** parents' marital status), parents' **//drinking//** behavior (self-reporting by parent or guardian of any heavy **//drinking//** episode, defined as 5 drinks in a row in the past 30 days, **//and//** excess **//drinking//**, defined as consuming more than 60 drinks per month), **//and//** neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics (census tract total population, tract median household income, **//and//** percentage of Whites **//and//** Blacks in the population, according to data extracted from the 2000 US Census). In all regression models we used robust standard errors to account for clustering data caused by the survey's multistage sample design. First, the state was divided into 44 geographic sampling strata, including 41 single-county strata **//and//** 3 multicounty strata comprising the 17 remaining counties in California. Second, within each geographic stratum, residential telephone numbers were selected through random-digit-dialed sampling. The regression was also weighted to control for differential sampling rates within geographic stratum **//and//** racial/ethnic groups. To improve the interpretation of logistic regression coefficients, we changed levels of alcohol availability in adolescents' neighborhoods **//and//** predicted the resulting prevalence of adolescent **//drinking//** in the estimated model. We changed only the key explanatory variable, retaining all other variables. This provided the adjusted difference in the prevalence of a **//drinking//** measure between 2 levels of alcohol availability, that is, it accounted for all individual, family, **//and//** neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics in the model except the alcohol environments. For the differences in alcohol environments, we compared the average number of outlets around Asian/Pacific Islander **//and//** White households **//and//** around low- **//and//** high-income households. **[|RESULTS]** **[|Disparities in Alcohol Environments]** Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of the sample, divided into 4 quartiles of gross annual household income: less than $24000, $24000 to $49000, $50000 to $90000, **//and//** more than $90,000. Fewer than 11% of non-Hispanic Whites belonged to the bottom income quartile, compared with 32.0% of non-Hispanic Blacks, 50.4% of Hispanics, 20.8% of Asian/Pacific Islanders, **//and//** 32.9% of other groups. By contrast, 36.0% of non-Hispanic Whites, 15.1% of non-Hispanic Blacks, 4.7% of Hispanic, 29.1% of Asian/Pacific Islanders, **//and//** 13.2% of other groups were in the top income quartile. Average age in the adolescent sample was 14.3 years, reflecting the period of **//drinking//** initiation. However, the survey did not ask for age at first alcoholic drink. Approximately 35% of adolescent respondents reported ever having more than just a few sips of alcoholic drinks. Fifteen percent reported having at least 1 drink, **//and//** 5.6% reported at least 1 heavy **//drinking//** episode in the past 30 days. Five percent reported they were current smokers (i.e., had had ≥ 1 cigarette per day in the past 30 days), **//and//** 5.0% reported marijuana use in the past 30 days. Of those aged 16 or 17 years who ever consumed alcohol, 6.0% reported ever **//driving//** after **//drinking//**. Table 2 shows the mean number of alcohol outlets within different buffers, stratified by income **//and//** race/ethnicity. Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, people of other groups were surrounded by more alcohol outlets, regardless of the size of the buffers. For instance, within 0.1 mile, we found an average 0.21 outlets around residences of Whites; Blacks had 0.24, Hispanics 0.39, **//and//** Asian/Pacific Islanders 0.33 (P<.001). Participants who were in lower-income quartiles were surrounded by more alcohol outlets. We found this geographic pattern even within each racial/ethnic group. We observed the same distribution pattern across income groups within each racial/ethnic group. Our results were consistent in the sensitivity analyses: comparison of the median number of outlets, separation of off-site from on-site outlets, **//and//** zero-inflated Poisson regression model with income **//and//** race/ethnicity as key predictors of alcohol outlets.
 * Alcohol Environments** //**and**// **Disparities in Exposure Associated With Adolescent** //**Drinking**// **in California**

=
====================Durkin, Keith F., Scott E. Wolfe, and Ross W. May. "SOCIAL BOND THEORY AND DRUNK DRIVING IN A SAMPLE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS." __College Student Journal__ 41.3 (Sep. 2007): 734-744. __MasterFILE Premier__. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 5 Mar. 2009 .**SOCIAL BOND THEORY** //**AND**// **DRUNK** //**DRIVING**// **IN A SAMPLE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS**This paper reports the finding from a study that examined the relationship between social bond variables **//and//** drunk**//driving//** in a sample of university students. A questionnaire containing indicators representing social bond variables, as well as a measure of drunk **//driving//** was administered to a sample of 1459 college students. The results of this study provide mixed support for social bond theory. On the one hand, commitment to conventional activities **//and//** acceptance of conventional beliefs were negatively related to drunk **//driving//**. On the other hand, neither the involvement component nor the attachment component were related to **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** in the manner predicted by social bond theory. The consumption of alcohol by college students has received a tremendous amount of scrutiny in recent years. Binge**//drinking//**, or heavy episodic **//drinking//**, is a prevalent behavior that has been linked to a variety of problematic consequences for student drinkers. These include hangovers, blackouts, missing class, doing something they regret later, getting involved in physical fights **//and//** other arguments, **//and//** having trouble with the police (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1995; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & H. Lee, 2000). Binge **//drinking//** is also associated with risky sexual behaviors, thus putting students at risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV (Meilman, 1993; Smith & Brown, 1998). Recent research has also revealed that students who drink frequently have higher odds of becoming the victim of assault (Mustaine & Tewskbury, 2000). The tragic alcohol-related deaths of students at several schools illustrate the potentially fatal consequences of this activity. However, the negative consequences of this behavior are not limited to drinkers. Intoxicated students also have an adverse impact on the campus **//and//** surrounding community. Examples of these so-called "secondary binge effects" include being verbally insulted or abused, being physically assaulted, having one's property damaged, experiencing unwelcome sexual advances, **//and//** having sleep or studying disturbed because of intoxicated students (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, et al. 1994). Community residents who live near college campuses often report a lower quality of life resulting from the behavior of student drinkers (e.g., noise disturbances, disorderly conduct, litter, vandalism) (Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, et al., 2002). Drunk **//driving//** is a type of alcohol-related behavior that endangers drinkers as well as other members of the campus **//and//** general community. University students appear to be particularly susceptible to **//driving//** while intoxicated (Wechsler, Lee, Nelson, & H. Lee, 2003). In a recent study, Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, **//and//** Wechsler (2002) estimated that at least two million students drove while intoxicated during the previous year. The fatal consequences of this behavior are well documented. The leading cause of death for young people is automobile accidents, many of which are alcohol-related (McCormick & Ureda, 1995). In fact, the most common cause of death in young adults (aged 17-24) is alcohol-related accidents (Ham & Hope, 2003). According to one estimate, about 1100 college students died in alcohol-related crashes in 1998 (Wechsler et al., 2003) Although recent studies (e.g., Billingham, Wilson, & Gross, 1999; Grenier, 1993; Harford, Wechsler, & Muthen, 2002; McCormick & Ureda, 1995) have sought to identify demographic factors associated with **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** by college students, only a few studies have examined other factors associated with this behavior. For example, Clapp, Shillington, Lange, **//and//** Voas (2003) investigated the relationship between substance use patterns (e.g., binge **//drinking//**, marijuana use) **//and//** drunk **//driving//** by university students. Also, Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Winter, **//and//** Wechsler (2003) examined the relationship between age at first intoxication **//and//** students **//driving//** while intoxicated. However, there have been relatively few attempts to apply the various sociological perspectives, particularly theories of deviant behavior, to this phenomenon. This is a serious oversight since sociological theories of deviance typically have strong explanatory value (Durkin, Wolfe, & Clark, 1999). Understanding the factors that cause the alcohol-related problems of college students can inform intervention **//and//** prevention efforts (Ham & Hope, 2003). A greater understanding of drunk **//driving//** is also of significant importance to the nation's public health agenda (O'Malley & Johnston, 1999). The purpose of this paper is to apply one of the most popular sociological explanations of deviance, social bond theory, to **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** by university students. According to Travis Hirschi (1969,p.82), the sociologist who formally introduced social bond theory, "we are moral beings to the extent we are social beings." Social bond theory assumes that the motivation for deviant behavior is present in everyone, **//and//** concerns itself with the factors that keep an individual from engaging in deviance. The social bond essentially "refers to the connection between the individual **//and//** society" (Shoemaker, 2005, p.176). When these bonds are weak or lacking, the individual has less at stake **//and//** is at higher risk for committing deviant acts (Faupel, Horowitz, & Weaver, 2004). Social bond theory was originally presented as an explanation of juvenile delinquency **//and//** is one of the leading social psychological perspectives on deviant behavior (Massey & Krohn, 1986), **//and//** is arguably the most frequently tested theory of deviance (Akers, 2000). This theory has received modest empirical support,**//and//** its explanatory value is typically described as good or moderate (Gardner & Shoemaker, 1989). It has been applied to a wide variety of deviant behaviors including academic cheating by university students, alcohol use, juvenile delinquency, **//and//** marijuana use (Durkin, S. Wolfe, & Lewis, 2006) There are four elements of the social bond. The first is attachment. This refers to the ties that an individual has to significant others such as family members; particularly parents (Leonard & Decker, 1994). For college students, the relationship with one's parents would be an example of attachment. The second component of the social bond, commitment, refers to the aggregate investment of time, energy, **//and//** resources in conventional activities such as getting an education or a holding a job. These investments represent stakes in conformity (Akers, 2000). Indicators of commitment for university students include religiosity, church attendance, commitment to higher education, **//and//** grade point average. The third element of the social bond is involvement. This consists of the amount of time a person spends engaging in conventional activities such as doing schoolwork, participating in extracurricular activities such as clubs or athletics, **//and//** working at a part-time job. The final component of the social bond is belief. This is the acceptance of a conventional value system. The belief component includes a general acceptance of the rules of society as being morally valid **//and//** binding, as well as respect for authority **//and//** the legal system. While we are not aware of any studies that have specifically applied social bond theory to **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** among college students, a review of the relevant literature seems to suggest that it may be useful in explaining this behavior. First, two previous studies (Durkin et al., 1999; 2006) have explored the relationship between binge **//drinking//** **//and//** the social bond in university students. These results suggest that both the commitment **//and//** belief components of social bond theory are negatively related to binge **//drinking//**. Binge **//drinking//** is a risky type of alcohol-related behavior that may be somewhat analogous to drunk driving. Therefore, there may be a similar relationship between the social bond **//and//** drunk **//driving//**. Second, Billingham et al. (1999) found higher rates of **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** among students from divorced families. Social bond theory would posit that these students would have a lower-level of attachment to parents due to divorce. Finally, using data collected from high school seniors O'Malley **//and//** Johnston (1999) found a negative relationship between both religious commitment **//and//** grade point average (two indicators of the commitment component of the social bond) **//and//** drunk **//driving//**. Therefore, the same relationship might be expected for university students. Several hypotheses were derived from social bond theory about the nature of drunk **//driving//** among college students. First, there should be an inverse relationship between attachment **//and//** drunk **//driving//**. Second, the likelihood of **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** will increase as a student's commitments decrease. Third, involvement in conventional activities will decrease the likelihood of drunk **//driving//**. Finally, there will be a negative relationship between acceptance of conventional beliefs **//and//** drunk **//driving//**.

=
============================================================ Schneider, Karen S., et al. "Falling Apart. (cover story)." __People__ 68.6 (06 Aug. 2007): 56-60. __MasterFILE Premier__. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 5 Mar. 2009 .

=
=

**Falling Apart**
 July 24 should have marked a new start for Lindsay Lohan. Eleven days after finishing a 46-day stint at Promises rehab clinic, the actress was sporting an electronic anklet as proof of a new sober life-**//and//** it seemed she might have straightened out. On her schedule: a taping of a Tonight Show segment to promote her new movie, I Know Who Killed Me, **//and//** an afternoon tango lesson to prepare for her next role in the romance Dare to Love Me. But she never made it to either appointment. Around 1:30 that morning, Lohan took the wheel of a white SUV in pursuit of a vehicle driven by Michelle Peck, the mother of Tarin Graham, one of her assistants-**//and//** seemingly crashed all hopes of a comeback. Responding to a call from Peck, claiming that someone-a someone who turned out to be Lohan-was chasing her through the streets of Santa Monica, Calif., local police later arrested Lohan for DUI (her blood alcohol level was .13; the legal limit is .08), **//driving//** with a suspended license **//and//**-after finding a small amount of the drug in her pocket during a search-cocaine possession. After posting $25,000 bail, Lohan was released. During the ordeal, says one cop, "she was crying **//and//** upset." Later that day, Lohan was defending herself in an e-mail to Access Hollywood's Billy Bush. "I am innocent," she wrote. "Did not do drugs they're not mine … I was almost hit by my assistant Tarin's mom. I appreciate everyone giving me my privacy." Still, in the wake of her latest meltdown, those closest to Lohan, who turned 21 on July 2, are grappling with a basic rule of recovery: Getting sober comes one painful day at a time. "I thought everything was fine. Obviously everything wasn't," says a close friend, who spoke to her on July 23. "As a [substance abuser] maybe you hide things from the ones you love." Lohan's mother **//and//** former party pal, Dina, 44, told TV's The Insider, "We are doing everything in our power in support of Lindsay." Her father, Michael, 47, himself a recovering addict, said to PEOPLE, "I am heartbroken. It's tearing me apart." While the L.A. District Attorney has yet to file charges for a previous DUI arrest in May, Lohan's new arrest seems likely to lead to a jail sentence (see box).**//And//** her once meteoric career has come to a standstill. "She's created serious problems for herself," says an industry source. "Producers don't want to take on such a risk." Right now there are more pressing issues. "Addiction is a terrible **//and//** vicious disease," said Lohan lawyer Blair Berk in a July 24 statement. For now, she added, "she is safe, she is out of custody, **//and//** receiving medical care." Lohan is, in fact, already a rehab veteran; seven months before her stay at Promises, she spent time at L.A.'s Wonderland treatment center **//and//** publicly spoke of attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. "It's not uncommon for the newly sober to slip," says Beverly Hills addiction specialist Marty Brenner. "It's part of the disease." Before she went into Promises, a source close to Lohan told PEOPLE that her best chance for sobriety was to "really follow the directions of her sponsors **//and//** counselors." Those directions vary from person to person **//and//** center to center, but the bottom line is always the same. "If you want sobriety, you have to change everything," says Brenner. "You have to change your friends, your crowd, your lifestyle." Those seem to be changes Lohan was unable to make. Even before she officially ended her treatment program, says a source, Lohan was surrounded by hangers-on who had no interest in the party being over: "If she went away **//and//** got [sober], they wouldn't have their late-night clubs, the bottle service, the parties." Some of those enablers, in fact, crashed Lohan's 21st-birthday party in Malibu on July 2. "She's naive **//and//** doesn't realize how these friends use her," says a close source who was at the party. A person who knows her well says that Lohan used to regularly ask friends to "pour mixed drinks in her water bottle" so that no one would know she was **//drinking//**. Another friend describes her as a lonely young woman who craves companionship so desperately that "she refuses to sleep alone. She'll make her friends stay the night." Lohan relied increasingly on nightlife denizens like British party boy Calum Best, DJ Samantha Ronson **//and//** young female assistants, who serve as hired sorority sisters. A day after ending her program at Promises, she made it clear that she wasn't giving up such friendships, or taking herself off the club scene; she headed to Pure nightclub in Las Vegas with a new pal, socialite Dori Cooperman; assistant Jenni Muro; **//and//** lawyer Mike Heller. (He had negotiated a lucrative deal for her to celebrate her 21st birthday at Pure, but the party was canceled when she went to rehab.) Lohan danced **//and//** sipped water **//and//** Red Bull until 4:30 a.m. "There was no alcohol," says a source. Still, upon returning to L.A., Lohan made a quick reentry into the nightlife scene, showing up over the week leading up to her arrest at favorite haunts including Les Deux, where she hung with Ronson; Malibu's Polaroid Beach House; **//and//**LAX. "No one cared about Lindsay," the source who was at her birthday party angrily notes. "It was 'How soon should we get her in there to get press?' True friends don't do that." Lohan also began removing her electronic anklet on occasion (see box), but ironically she was wearing it on the night of her DUI arrest. Dining with pals on the afternoon of July 23 at Coupa Cafe in Beverly Hills, Lohan "seemed really relaxed," says server Justin Carrasco. But the mood changed later that night when Lohan arrived at a pal's gathering. There, at least one person protested Lohan's partying-her assistant Tarin Graham. The two allegedly argued, **//and//**Graham declared she was quitting. Graham then apparently called her mother to pick her up, **//and//** Lohan gave chase. What happened next may finally help Lohan turn a corner. "Forever people were talking about her wild **//and//** crazy ways, but she was still booking projects**//and//** making movies," says a friend. With her life in ruins, "she's getting scared." Others worry it may be too late. Lohan's party buddies "are not friends," says a close source. "They are enemies. She's got to realize that **//and//** walk away. If she doesn't, she could be the next Anna Nicole Smith. That's what I'm afraid of."
 * LINDSAY LOHAN**
 * Just 11 days after rehab, Lindsay Lohan is busted for** //driving// **drunk** //and// **found with cocaine. What happened-**//and// **why?**

=
======================================================================================= "D.U.I." __DUI: Drinking, Drugs & Driving__ (Aug. 2007): 1-2. __MasterFILE Premier__. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 5 Mar. 2009 .

**D.U.I.**
in spite of the best efforts of a lot of people, impaired drivers like Jeff continue **//driving//** up the body count on our streets **//and//**highways. It's more than disturbing--it's a disaster, aimed at each of us, just waiting to happen. Because the final, frustrating fact about**//drinking//**, drugs, **//and//** driving is this: It's one problem that is totally preventable. Still, preventing the potential disasters that every impaired driver represents is going to require a lot more than sobriety checkpoints **//and//** public service ads. Because the real solution starts in the spot where each of us is standing (or sitting) right now--with a commitment not to drive if we're impaired--**//and//** not to let our friends or family members drive when they're impaired, either. Because even though the decision to modify, mangle, or medicate your moods with booze or other chemicals may be your business, taking it to the streets is everybody's business. Keep it your business. **[|Facing Facts]** the facts are already in. They've been in so long, in fact, that a lot of us don't pay much attention to them anymore. But they're still real **//and//** they still have massive impact when you consider that they affect the lives of real people: Changing them means changing more than our attitudes about** //driving// **under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). It means changing our actions,** //and// **helping to change the actions of others. That's why a new federal law required all states to adopt, by 2004, a uniform standard setting legal impairment at blood-alcohol content (BAC) levels of 0.08 percent, from the previous standard of 0.1 percent.** //And// **that's also why we put together this pamphlet: to put things on a more personal level--like, say, your person** //and// **your level. Because there's one more fact that many of us forget about** //drinking//**, drugs,** //and// //driving// **that we need to face: The next life that gets mangled by a driver who's smashed could be ours -- or someone we care about. Alcohol is linked to 41% of all U.S. traffic fatalities -- or 17,602 deaths in 2006 alone. Nobody knows how many deaths drug abuse adds to the total -- only that it does.  **[|A Night in the Life] He especially likes going out for drinks** //and// **a few games of pool on Saturday night. He's driven home from the bar a thousand times without any trouble. Until tonight.** Jeff started **//drinking//** **//and//** shooting pool around 8 p.m., **//and//** closed out the bar at 1:00 a.m. About half a mile from his house, he was pulled over by an officer who noticed his car weaving. Jeff thought his **//driving//** was perfectly fine. The officer ordered Jeff out of his car for a field sobriety test. He flashed a light in Jeff's eyes, checked the color of his skin, **//and//** asked him to perform a few simple tasks, such as touching his nose with his eyes closed, standing on one foot, walking heel to toe, **//and//** reciting the alphabet. When Jeff failed the test, he protested, "I couldn't do that stuff even if I wasn't **//drinking//**." At the station, Jeff was asked to take a breathalyzer test to determine if he was over the legal DUI limit (.10 percent blood alcohol in most states; .08 percent in other states** //and// **Canada).** Jeff was told that he had the right to refuse the breath test, but if he did, his driver's license would be automatically suspended for three months. Jeff was willing to take the test because he thought it would prove that he wasn't drunk. Jeff was booked, fingerprinted, photographed, **//and//** strip-searched. Then he was allowed a phone call, **//and//** was locked up. Three hours later, he was released when his wife paid the $500 bail. It cost another $125 to get his car back from the impound lot. He had to take a day off work to meet with his lawyer. He'd planned on pleading not guilty. The lawyer told Jeff that they didn't have much chance of winning, but that he'd take the case to trial if Jeff would pay his $1500 retainer--in advance. Jeff decided to plead guilty. He had to take another day off work to go to court. There, the judge fined him $500, ordered Jeff to attend a special DUI traffic school, **//and//** sentenced him to 24 hours in jail (suspended, if Jeff performed 20 hours of community service work). His driver's license was revoked for six months. Before his arrest, Jeff never thought of himself as anything but a social drinker.** //And// **he never considered himself a danger on the road. His arrest made him mad. His trial was expensive** //and// **humiliating.** //And// **he still wasn't convinced he'd been too drunk to drive. He cooled his heels at home for a few weeks, but within a month he was back to his old tricks,** //drinking// //and// **dancing** //and// **shooting pool on weekend nights--**//and////driving// **home.** Experts say that three-fourths of people arrested two or more times for DUI are alcoholics. A year later, Jeff was arrested again. This time he lost his license for a year, was placed on probation, **//and//** fined $1,000. He was lucky. He hadn't had an accident **//and//** he hadn't created major problems for anyone but himself **//and//** his family. Hopefully, this time Jeff will learn that **//driving//** when he's loaded is like firing a loaded gun in the middle of a busy street. You don't have to hit someone to be a hazard to everybody. It's 12:30 a.m. Do you know where your designated driver is? probably the best way to avoid problems is to go the "designated driver" route during a night out. You know the drill: One member of a group volunteers to not drink **//and//**do all the **//driving//**. There's only one tricky part: You have to pick the driver before you paint the town. That way there's no question about who's **//drinking//** club soda--**//and//** who's **//driving//**home. Other tips for a safe trip:
 * //DRINKING//** DRUGS & **//DRIVING//** Over the Influence
 * Fact: **Alcohol figures into 41 percent of all traffic deaths. In 2006, 17,602 Americans were killed in** //drinking//**-related accidents.**
 * **Fact:** Nobody knows how many deaths that drug abuse adds to the total, only that it does. In a study at the University of Maryland, a third of accident victims had smoked pot prior to a crash.
 * Fact: **Three of every five of us will be involved in an alcohol-related accident in our lifetimes.**
 * Don't like the facts--or the odds?
 * Jeff is a social drinker. He likes beer better than the hard stuff, doesn't drink every day, doesn't "crave" alcohol,** //and// **never gets falling-down drunk.
 * **Fact:** A 12-ounce beer, a glass of wine, **//and//** a shot of liquor all contain about the same amount of alcohol. Half of all DUI arrests involve beer alone.
 * Fact: **Alcohol affects higher-order brain skills (**//and// **turns a set of car keys into a potential weapon) long before a drinker "feels" drunk--or dangerous. As little as two drinks per hour can reduce alertness** //and// **slow decision-making skills.**
 * When the officer asked Jeff if he'd been** //drinking//**, Jeff admitted that he'd had "a few," even though he'd been in the bar for five hours** //and// **had dropped more than $40.**
 * **Fact:** Drinkers consistently underestimate how much they've had to drink **//and//** how intoxicated--**//and//** impaired--they actually are.
 * Fact: **Almost all healthy, sober adults are able to complete these tasks without difficulty. Inability to pass these tests is a reliable indicator of** //driving// **impairment.**
 * The officer told Jeff he was under arrest for** //driving// **under the influence of intoxicants. He was frisked, handcuffed,** //and// **taken to the police station. His car was impounded.
 * **Fact:** The amount of alcohol in a drinker's body can be accurately measured with a breath test. Breath tests do work.
 * Fact: **Most drivers don't think they're drunk until they're beyond legal levels of intoxication, levels that seriously impair** //driving// **ability.**
 * Jeff's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .15 percent--almost double the legal limit in his state. But he still didn't consider himself too drunk to drive.**
 * **Fact:** **//Driving//** skills begin to suffer at BAC levels below .10 percent. In the year 2000, 3,523 people died in accidents involving drivers with BAC levels lower than .10 percent.
 * //Driving//** when you're loaded is like firing a gun on a busy street. You don't have to hit someone to be a hazard to everybody.
 * Fact: **In recent years, every state has toughened its penalties for DUI offenses. Most automatically suspend the license of first-time offenders,** //and// **many impose fines**//and// **jail sentences.**
 * Second time offenders can lose their license for up to a year** //and// **spend 10 or more days in jail.
 * **Fact:** Continuing to drink **//and//** drive after a DUI arrest is a sign of a potentially serious **//drinking//** problem.
 * Drink responsibly. **Space your drinks** //and// **wait at least an hour after your last one before** //driving//**.**
 * **Know your limit.** By the time you start to feel drunk, you already are. Stop before you get there.
 * Don't mix alcohol **//and//** drugs. **Even an antihistamine or a cold pill can be a problem when combined with a few drinks.**
 * If you're alone** //and//** you're determined to get bombed, at least make sure you have a parachute: cab fare. Or ask a (sober) friend for a ride. It's trite, but it's true: Friends don't let friends drive drunk--or otherwise wasted.

=
=================================================================================================

Salazar, Camerino I., et al. "EVALUATION OF AN UNDERAGE DRINKING AND DRIVING PREVENTION PROGRAM." __American Journal of Health Studies__ 21.1/2 (Mar. 2006): 49-56. __MasterFILE Premier__. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 5 Mar. 2009 .

EVALUATION OF AN UNDERAGE **//DRINKING//** **//AND//** **//DRIVING//** PREVENTION PROGRAM
Underage **//drinking//** **//and//** its associated consequences, including **//driving//** after **//drinking//** **//and//** riding with a **//drinking//** driver, remain a major public health concern to this nation. Underage **//drinking//** is also a major contributor to motor-vehicle injuries **//and//**fatalities among persons age 15 to 20. School-based alcohol prevention programs are essential in helping to prevent **//drinking//****//and//** **//driving//** among adolescents. This paper will present methods **//and//** results of a preliminary evaluation conducted on a school-based **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** prevention program for high school students that simulates alcohol-related consequences **//and//**involves various community elements. Recent epidemiological studies suggest that alcohol remains the primary drug of choice among adolescents, with the average age of first use being 13.2 years (Arata, Stafford, & Tims, 2003; Harris, Jolly, Runge, & Knox, 2000; Maney, Higham-Gardill & Mahoney, 2002; Stewart, 1999). The National Center on Addiction **//and//** Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University estimates that 20% of alcohol consumption occurs among persons less than 21 years of age (2003). According to the Centers for Disease Control **//and//** Prevention (CDC) (2004), approximately 75% of high school students nationwide reported using alcohol at least once during their lifetime (i.e. one more drinks on one or more occasions) while 45% reported being current alcohol users (one or more drinks on one or more occasions within the last 30 days). In regards to heavy alcohol use, 28% of high school students reported binge **//drinking//** (five or more drinks in a row on one or more occasions) **//and//** between 18% **//and//** 31 % reported being drunk within the last 30 days (CDC, 2004; Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2003). Alcohol also significantly contributes to motor vehicle crashes, which remain the leading cause of death for persons 15-20 years of age (CDC, 2004, Lazy, Wiliszowski, & Jones, 2004). According to the Office of Applied Studies at the Substance Abuse **//and//**Mental Health Services Administration (2004), in 2003, 21 % of persons aged 16 to 20 reported that they had driven within the past year while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that in 2003, a quarter of young drivers ages 15 to 20 years killed in motor vehicle crashes were intoxicated (NHTSA, 2004). Young male drivers are also at higher risk for being killed in an alcohol-related motor-vehicle crash. In 2003, 28% of the young male drivers involved in fatal crashes had been **//drinking//** at the time of the crash, compared with 13% of the young female drivers involved in fatal crashes (NHTSA). Exposure to alcohol-related injuries **//and//** fatalities among adolescents are also enhanced by a series of other **//driving//** risks which include limited **//driving//** **//and//** road experience, nighttime **//driving//**, speeding,**//and//** failure to use proper safety restraints. The objectives of this study are to (a) describe the process of an evaluation conducted on an underage **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//**prevention program for high school students, (b) report whether participants expressed changes in expectancy scores regarding underage alcohol use, **//and//** (c) develop programmatic recommendations that will strengthen the future design, implementation,**//and//** evaluation of this experiential underage **//drinking//** **//and//** driving prevention program. **[|SHATTERED DREAMS]** Elemental to effective school-based alcohol prevention programs are integrated community wide initiatives to raise awareness of the consequences of underage alcohol use **//and//** to deter access through a combination of countermeasures including legal, enforcement, medical, media, **//and//** political entities. Shattered Dreams is a model of both school **//and//** community-based alcohol prevention that incorporates simulated alcohol-related consequences with 14 community elements that include students, parents, educators, school administrators, health systems, **//and//** law enforcement personnel (Burandt, Guerra, Villarreal, Ramirez, & Harding, 1998) In 1998, the Bexar County DWI Task Force Advisory Board on Underage **//Drinking//**, in response to an increase in alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities, established a program that would enhance awareness **//and//** understanding of the relationship between alcohol use **//and//** the occurrence of motor vehicle-related injuries **//and//** fatalities among adolescents. Shattered Dreams was modeled after Every 15 Minutes, a similar program developed **//and//** implemented in 1996 by the Chico, California Police Department (Burandt et al., 1998). This programs tide symbolized the death of a person every 15 minutes as a result of an alcohol-related traffic crash (Burandt et al., 1998). The comprehensive nature of Shattered Dreams requires substantial community effort from the volunteers **//and//** planning committees involved in sponsorship. School personnel, parents, **//and//** community volunteers plan the event at least six months in advance **//and//** must organize **//and//** develop specific program teams to solicit participation **//and//** support from various local public safety **//and//** health care professionals (Beer, Price, Villarreal, & Salazar, 2002). Program teams include assembly, counseling, death notification, debriefing, historian, living dead, mock crash, retreat, scholarship, video production, **//and//** public information. This intensive two-day experiential program visually demonstrates the social, physical **//and//** emotional consequences that underage **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** can have both on a school **//and//** a community. The programs target audience includes high school juniors **//and//** seniors (a segment of the adolescent population in which a majority have fulfilled the legal requirements to operate a vehicle **//and//** a group that is at a higher risk to engage in alcohol-related risk behavior). This program requires participation from the various elements located within **//and//** outside the high school setting including students, educators, **//and//** counselors, as well as medical, law, **//and//** various other emergency service entities (Burandt et al., 1998). A significant portion of this simulation occurs on the campus of the participating high school to dramatize **//and//** reinforce among me student body the significance of an alcohol-related fatality. The first day begins with an enactment of an alcohol-related motor-vehicle crash involving direct participants (student volunteers) in various stages of trauma including deceased passengers **//and//** the injured drunk driver. Law enforcement **//and//** emergency response follows (i.e., paramedics, state **//and//** local law enforcement officers, air**//and//** fire rescue) **//and//** includes the transporting of surviving passengers via ground **//and//** air to a local medical facility for emergency treatment while the deceased are taken to a local funeral home. The intoxicated driver is given a field sobriety test, arrested, **//and//** men delivered to the local juvenile detention center to await arraignment. During this rime, local **//and//** state enforcement agents are dispatched to the participating students' homes to notify parents that their son or daughter has been killed in an alcohol-related crash. The loss of life as a result of underage **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//** is dramatized throughout the day as a student or adult volunteer dressed as a Grim Reaper enters selected classrooms **//and//** removes a student volunteer to symbolize the number of persons killed by alcohol within a designated time interval. The reading of a obituary to the entire class immediately follows the student's departure. The student volunteers return to their individual classrooms **//and//** are identified as, "Living Dead." Their faces are covered in white makeup to reinforce the notion of death **//and//** finality of a life cut short as a result of alcohol. The Living Dead do not speak nor make eye contact with fellow students for the remainder of the day. Direct student participants (usually numbering around twenty-five) attend an overnight retreat where the central focus is skill-building activities that promote **//and//**reinforce healthy behaviors **//and//** choices that reduce the likelihood of alcohol use. Other activities focus on team-building, task **//and//** goal completion, promoting alternative patterns of communication that include redirection, reinforcement of positive peer influence, leadership development **//and//** reflection, **//and//** reinforcement **//and//**strengthening of familial relationships. Retreat activities use a mixed-method approach of interactive, video **//and//** personal presentations by a series of community, medical, **//and//** law enforcement personnel. These presentations include personal experience or knowledge-based topics regarding underage **//drinking//** **//and//** **//driving//**. Additional retreat activities stimulate youth leadership development that incorporates group discussions regarding personal power, identity, **//and//** the impact of **//drinking//****//and//** **//driving//** on both friends **//and//** family (Beer et al., 2002; Burandt et al., 1998). On the second day, both direct participants **//and//** observers (students exposed to the living dead **//and//** mock crash) attend a school-wide assembly with a mock funeral **//and//**a series of presentations by various medical, **//and//** law enforcement personnel, students, parents, **//and//** educators. Supportive debriefing sessions are held afterwards for students, parents, **//and//** volunteers who are interested in talking about issues or topics that might have been raised as a result of their involvement in the program. An optional follow-up activity enacts a mock trial of the drunk driver involved in the simulated alcohol-related motor-vehicle crash (Burandt et al., 1998).