The University of Florida researchers surveyed more than 800 bar patrons at random between the hours of 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., and also collected breath samples to test blood-alcohol content (BAC). The average BAC for alcoholic energy drink consumers was 0.109 percent, well above the legal standard for intoxication.

Patrons who consumed alcohol mixed with highly caffeinated energy drinks like Red Bull were also more likely to have consumed alcohol for longer periods of time, and left bars later than other drinkers.

The study was led by Dennis Thombs of the school’s College of Public Health and Health Professions. "His approach is unique because it was conducted in a natural drinking environment—college bars," said Wake University’s Mary Claire O’Brien, author of previous research on alcoholic energy drinks.

"His results clearly support the serious concern raised by previous research, that subjective drunkenness may be reduced by the concurrent ingestion of caffeinated energy drinks, increasing both the likelihood of further alcohol consumption, and of driving when intoxicated."

The study was published in the journal Addictive Behaviors.

However, many areas have been unexplored, such as how alcohol consumption affects how problems are processed, and how different levels of drinking impact the results.

A recent study examined the effects of alcohol on processing problems. Vanheusden, van Lenthe, Mulder, van der Ende, van de Mheen, Mackenbach and Verhulst studied in 2008 the relationship between internalizing and externalizing problems across a spectrum of alcohol consumption.

The study looked at the levels of internalizing and externalizing problems across a wide range of alcohol consumption in young adults. It also examined whether social factors might account for the relationship between alcohol and internalizing and externalizing problems.

The researchers established a cross-sectional random sample study among 2, 258 young adults from the general population of the southwest region Netherlands. The participants were split into groups according to their drinking behaviors.

The groups were identified as nondrinkers, occasional drinkers and regular drinkers. The drinkers were further identified as low-level drinkers (one to two drinks per occasion), higher-level drinkers (three to four drinks per occasion) or excessive drinkers (five or more drinks per occasion).

The study measured internalization and externalization of problems, social support and negative social exchange through the use of standardized questionnaires.

The result of the study show a U-shaped association found between alcohol consumption and various internalization problems. Low social support was associated with internalization of problems in nondrinkers and negative social exchange was associated with higher levels of internalization of problems among excessive drinkers.

A J-shaped association was indicated between alcohol consumption and aggressive behavior. There were higher rates for occasional and excessive drinkers than their low-level drinker counterparts.

Associations between alcohol consumption and externalizing problems could partly be explained by negative social exchange.

There was a difference found between both nondrinkers and excessive drinkers and low-level drinkers in risk factors for poor mental health. The risk factors may predict their mental health problems.

More information may be required to further understand how alcohol consumption impacts internalization or externalization of problems. Interventions that combat the effects of negative social exchange may be helpful in reducing excessive drinking habits and decreasing mental health problems for those at risk.
 

Denis C. Theriault of the San Jose Mercury News writes that the charge, sought by Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose, would have raised $1.44 billion a year to help pay for some of the billions in criminal justice and public health costs associated with alcohol abuse.

But the Assembly Health Committee crushed the proposal, just as it did last April. Only five of 19 members voted in support this time. Six members, mostly Democrats, chose not to vote at all, and one was absent. Last year, only three members signed off and some didn’t even show up for the hearing.

The vote marked another defeat on alcohol levies for Beall, who also proposed a steep beer tax hike in 2008. "They’ve given me a bloody nose," Beall said after the vote. "But I’m going to wipe it off and come back in a few weeks with something different." Next time, he said, any proposed fee may be "more modest."

Theriault writes that alcohol taxes and fees have traditionally faced a tough road in California, where beer and wine production are major industries and spend heavily on political campaigns.

The state’s excise tax was last raised in 1992 by a penny. A plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to hike it by 5 cents a drink last year, to help close the state’s budget deficit, was shot down in Legislature.

Even if Beall’s bill had made it past the Health Committee, it likely faced even steeper odds in its next planned destination, the Governmental Organization Committee, the panel that actually oversees California’s alcohol industry.

Led by the Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog, advocates from labor, religious, and health groups rallied outside the Capitol before and after the vote on Tuesday, with some 100 people wearing red hats that read “Charge for Harm.”

"When you cause a problem, you pay for it," Tom Renfree, of the County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators’ Association of California, said during the rally. "We’re not going to stand aside and watch people be destroyed."

The Marin Institute estimates that alcohol abuse costs California about $38 billion a year, from lost wages, hospital costs, counseling expenses, and prison costs.

The state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs estimates the annual cost of alcohol abuse at $22.5 billion.
But the American Beverage Institute, an alcohol industry lobbying group, offered its own statistics Tuesday, arguing that more than half of the cost of a typical bottle of spirits already goes to the state and federal governments and that new fees—as much as $1 for an average bottle of wine—would be an undue burden on the industry, costing about 38,000 jobs.

"The hospitality industry is already paying its fair share," the institute’s managing director, Sarah Longwell, said in a statement.

Beall disagreed and cited surveys showing widespread public support for increasing levies on alcohol. A Public Policy Institute of California poll found 85 percent of respondents supported the governor’s tax plan last year.

"The Legislature and the alcohol industry," Beall said, "need to sober up."

More than 1.5 million people come to Sydney Harbor to watch a lavish fireworks display on New Year’s Eve. City authorities have set up alcohol-free zones to address concerns from area residents and the police about drunken behavior.

Police officers and security guards will search bags to ensure that alcohol is not brought to many of the most popular vantage points near the Opera House and Harbor Bridge. Liquor will be sold at licensed bars at some venues, however.

Similar measures have been adopted by local governments elsewhere. In the resort town of Byron Bay in New South Wales, officials have banned alcohol in the streets, parks, and beaches on New Year’s Eve.

A recent survey has found that many Australians double or even triple their consumption of alcohol over the Christmas period.

Geoff Munro from the Australian Drug Foundation urges moderation. "It is important that hosts at functions provide a range of drinks, not just alcoholic but ensure that people have got non-alcoholic drinks because people need to be reminded that they can have a great time without drinking," he said.

Alcohol-related violence in Australia, including sexual assaults and fights, has almost doubled in the past 15 years. Each week alcohol abuse kills more than 60 Australians, while 1,500 end up in hospitals.

The latest MBF Healthwatch survey, summarized in a Science Daily release, surprised Bupa Australia Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Christine Bennett. The long-term implications caused by alcohol on young adult brains that are not fully developed also created concern.

"Our survey suggests many Australians believe it’s acceptable to buy alcohol for teenagers and allow them to drink under parental supervision at home," Dr Bennett said in Science Daily.

"Some parents may think this is harmless; some may see this approach as a way to teach their teenage children about socially responsible drinking. But we want parents to understand that early exposure may actually be doing them damage. Evidence suggests that the earlier the age that alcohol is introduced, the greater the risk of long-term alcohol related health problems.”

Other survey results show the overwhelming acceptance among Australians in the supervised underage drinking, as well as the link between this acceptance and income. In fact, 63 percent of those earning more than $100,000 supported supervised drinking; 53 percent of people earning between $70,001 and $100,000 support it; and 48 percent of those earning between $40,001 and $70,000 also support the activity.

Dr, Bennett noted that there is a gap between the best medical evidence and parental actions. She also believes this study challenges the belief that parents are well placed to assist their children to avoid alcohol during the critical years of brain development. Early exposure to alcohol can disturb a wide range of key brain functions, which can cause permanent disruption to some of the brain’s most important integrative functions.