Jim - The PETA campaign is not new, although it is taking on new life in
light of some British medical research that has been published suggesting
that moderate consumption of beer may actually have some health benefits.
As is the case with many controversial campaigns, there was an initial
uproar (2 years ago involving everyone from the Center for Science in the
Public Interest to Mothers Against Drunk Driving) over this campaign and
the offensive campaign was dropped. Those making the uproar, thumped their
breasts and savored their victory, only to have the offensive campaign
resurface now and with a new vigor fueled by ?the research.?
The danger in the resurrection of the PETA ?milk sucks? campaign, as I
understand it, is not that it will convert non-drinkers to drinkers or
moderate drinkers to heavy drinkers. Rather, the danger is that those who
are already at a precontemplative or contemplative stage of readiness to
change their high-risk drinking behavior--those students we so specifically
target with so much of our programming--will latch onto the PETA argument
to justify a continuation of their current pattern of behavior.
The ?milk sucks? campaign has all the markings of a great example to be
used by a philosophy professor teaching logic and rhetoric who wants to
demonstrate how easy it is to link disparate facts to support a faulty
conclusion. The engine that drives the juggernaut of deduction is called
the syllogism? major premise plus minor premise yield a conclusion. If the
major premise is flawed, and the minor premise is correlated with it, then
the conclusion is necessarily flawed (and my previous sentence is itself an
example of a syllogism :)
In any event, in the ?Milk sucks? campaign, the argument goes like this:
Major premise: ?(Milk) can cause anemia, allergies, and insulin-dependent
diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart
disease, America's number one cause of death? (direct quote from the
www.milksucks.com web page)
Minor premise: ??with scientific evidence mounting that beer has health
benefits previously unrecognized?? (direct quote from
http://www.milksucks.com/beersurvey.html)
Conclusion: Drinking beer is better for you than drinking milk.
This is a particularly good example of false?or should I say ?incomplete?
or ?flawed??logic. The conclusion reached by the casual reader of PETA?s
marketing campaign appears to be unshakable until, that is, a couple
several simple questions are asked: 1) how much milk causes the problems
cited in the major premise? 2) How much beer yields these purported health
benefits? 3) And beer consumption results in health benefits for whom, what
proportion of beer drinkers? And we can go on and on with these types of
questions that quickly suggest that PETA?s claims are flimsy if not bogus.
To get back to the questions your colleague asks--and I must compliment
your colleague for thinking to ask the question in the first place-- ??what
is the effects (sic) of such an advertising ploy on a student body?? I
would argue that it provides those who wish to drink beer with a very
plausible ?alternate focus? on which to fix their attention when confronted
about their own beer drinking and a logical defense against the ?beer wars
being waged by all us adults trying to deny students the right to a have
good time."
In conclusion a caution: We--especially preventionists and addictions
treatment folks who work in the ?glass house? located at 123 Alcohol Sucks
Lane-- need to be VERY careful before we start pitching stones at PETA?s
campaign. If you have worked in the alcohol and other drug
prevention/treatment field for any length of time, you do not have to read
too far into the PETA milksuck.com pages to see some old familiar drug
prevention tactics that have been incorporated into its campaign?this is
your brain?this is your brain on drugs?
The problem is not PETA's campaign, regardless of how offensive it may be;
most of us can see through the rhetoric and can ?separate the fly s__t from
the pepper? as an old recovering friend used to say. The problem is, in my
opinion, the high-risk drinker who has yet to recognize the risk associated
with her or his drinking who will latch onto the PETA campaign like a
burdock on a wool sweater in order to justify the continuation of a
high-risk lifestyle.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert J. Chapman, Ph.D.
Coordinator, AOD Program
Associate Faculty, Clinical/Counseling Psychology
La Salle University
1900 W. Olney Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19141-1199
Phone: 215-951-1357 Fax: 215-951-1451
mailto:chapman@lasalle.edu
home page http://www.lasalle.edu/~chapman/
Plan to attend the U.S. Department of Education's 16th Annual National
Meeting
on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention in Higher
Education, 21
- 24 November 2002--Visit http://www.edc.org/hec/natl/2002/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 10/03/02 EDT