Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Too funny... 
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Most people realize that alcohol is frequently involved in injuries and accidental deaths, but much of the public is unaware of the effectiveness of alcohol policies in reducing the risk of accidents, according to the results of a new survey.
In the national telephone survey of 943 adults, most respondents were aware that alcohol is often involved in falls, drownings and poisonings. And people somewhat overestimated the involvement of alcohol in car crashes and underestimated its role in fires and burns, the researchers report in the June issue of the journal Annals of Emergency Medicine.
But respondents were less accurate in their opinions on the effects of alcohol control policies, according to Dr. Deborah C. Girasek of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
The respondents were almost equally split over whether raising the legal drinking age to 21 had led to fewer deaths. In fact, the report indicates, higher drinking ages are estimated to have prevented more than 20,000 deaths during the last quarter-century.
And the survey also found that just 21% of respondents thought raising alcohol taxes could prevent accidental deaths, even though there is strong evidence that traffic fatalities decline as alcohol taxes rise.
Unfortunately, the public is often not made aware of the science supporting alcohol control policies, Girasek told Reuters Health in an interview.
"Members of the public usually prefer policies that punish the alcohol abuser," Girasek said. But an important question to ask, she said, is "What would protect me and my family?"
Rather than relying on a gut reaction to set public policy, the public would do well to ask legislators who are considering alcohol policies "what is the evidence that this will in fact save lives?" What Girasek would like to see, she said, is for legislators to use scientific evidence to weigh the balance between the number of lives that might be saved by a particular policy and the restrictions it would impose on the public.
Although it is impossible to eliminate political considerations, Girasek said, "Science should at least be at the table."
And when scientific evidence to support an alcohol control policy is not available, Girasek said she would like to see legislation providing funding to evaluate the policy's effects after it goes into place. She noted that medications must undergo a rigorous approval process, but "we don't have an equivalent policy" for assessing public policy after it is implemented.
Another misconception that needs to be cleared up, Girasek said, is the notion that, in an accident, a person who is drunk is less likely to experience severe injury than a sober person, perhaps because he or she is more relaxed by alcohol. Nearly 60% believed this to be the case, although there is no scientific evidence for this idea, according to Girasek.
SOURCE: Annals of Emergency Medicine 2002;39:622-630.
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Most people realize that alcohol is frequently involved in injuries and accidental deaths, but much of the public is unaware of the effectiveness of alcohol policies in reducing the risk of accidents, according to the results of a new survey.
In the national telephone survey of 943 adults, most respondents were aware that alcohol is often involved in falls, drownings and poisonings. And people somewhat overestimated the involvement of alcohol in car crashes and underestimated its role in fires and burns, the researchers report in the June issue of the journal Annals of Emergency Medicine.
But respondents were less accurate in their opinions on the effects of alcohol control policies, according to Dr. Deborah C. Girasek of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
The respondents were almost equally split over whether raising the legal drinking age to 21 had led to fewer deaths. In fact, the report indicates, higher drinking ages are estimated to have prevented more than 20,000 deaths during the last quarter-century.
And the survey also found that just 21% of respondents thought raising alcohol taxes could prevent accidental deaths, even though there is strong evidence that traffic fatalities decline as alcohol taxes rise.
Unfortunately, the public is often not made aware of the science supporting alcohol control policies, Girasek told Reuters Health in an interview.
"Members of the public usually prefer policies that punish the alcohol abuser," Girasek said. But an important question to ask, she said, is "What would protect me and my family?"
Rather than relying on a gut reaction to set public policy, the public would do well to ask legislators who are considering alcohol policies "what is the evidence that this will in fact save lives?" What Girasek would like to see, she said, is for legislators to use scientific evidence to weigh the balance between the number of lives that might be saved by a particular policy and the restrictions it would impose on the public.
Although it is impossible to eliminate political considerations, Girasek said, "Science should at least be at the table."
And when scientific evidence to support an alcohol control policy is not available, Girasek said she would like to see legislation providing funding to evaluate the policy's effects after it goes into place. She noted that medications must undergo a rigorous approval process, but "we don't have an equivalent policy" for assessing public policy after it is implemented.
Another misconception that needs to be cleared up, Girasek said, is the notion that, in an accident, a person who is drunk is less likely to experience severe injury than a sober person, perhaps because he or she is more relaxed by alcohol. Nearly 60% believed this to be the case, although there is no scientific evidence for this idea, according to Girasek.
SOURCE: Annals of Emergency Medicine 2002;39:622-630.
