Welcome to Bob Thompson's hastily constructed page on the Iowa City 21 Ordinance

This page is a distillation of my research and thinking on the 21 ordinance, which will be on the ballot November 6. This ordinance would raise the Iowa City bar entry age to 21; currently bars are allowed to let persons 19 or older enter their establishments, so long as they are not served alcohol.

First is my letter to the University of Iowa Faculty Senate of October 8. This presents background information, and a summary of relevant research I've found. Below that is a piece deconstructing the Alcohol Awareness Workgroup arguments for the ordinance. Below that is an excerpt from an email to UI alcohol researcher Peter Nathan.

I am involved with a group opposing the ordinance, Bloc21.



Dear UI Faculty Senate/Council member:
It was reported that the Faculty Council granted an audience to advocates of the 21 ordinance. Opponents' request to the Senate for equal time has thus far not been granted. I have done a great deal of research on the issue, and as a clear picture emerged, it seemed increasingly urgent to correct the viewpoint presented by advocates of the ordinance; however, I have limited means of doing so. Since it has not yet been decided whether the Senate will endorse the ordinance, and "legitimate" avenues of expression are not open, I am resorting to this email message to Faculty Council and Senate members. I make no apology for this. With acquisition of vital knowledge that should inform decisions made by others comes a responsibility to share that knowledge. And as this knowledge is now passed on to you, so is the responsibility to evaluate this decision carefully, as it will have a dramatic impact on the future of the community.

I reviewed a large body of research literature that sheds light on the potential impact the ordinance might have on students' alcohol consumption, as well as its potential impact on the community. Proponents of the ordinance have hardly given an objective presentation; in order to correct any misperceptions that may have resulted from this lopsided debate, I present a brief summary of relevant research below, with citations linked to online sources. First, it is necessary to provide background information on the history of the community's efforts to curb alcohol abuse. Most people are not aware of the larger context that provided the vehicle for this ordinance to be placed on the ballot. That context needs to be understood in order to make an informed decision on this important issue.

When I began my review of research relevant to the ordinance, I also began fact-checking statements by its advocates. The first thing I discovered was that they fabricated research statements, claiming the "facts according to research" proved that the ordinance would reduce underage drinking. There is no research on the efficacy of such an ordinance. The local effort to curb binge drinking is not deploying tested strategies; on the contrary, it is testing a new approach to the problem, involving a plethora of policy and enforcement crackdowns. This is why advocates of the ordinance are reduced to citing research pertaining to the harms related to alcohol abuse, and the prevalence of "access and availability" in our community: in the absence of known effective strategies to mitigate student drinking, this program is intended to test a particular approach by deploying it in college communities, and studying the results. An objective look at the existing research actually raises grave concerns that the ordinance will increase alcohol abuse and related harms.

Whenever I try to explain that the local effort to curb alcohol abuse has its origin and impetus in an ambitious "noble experiment" in social engineering, I usually get a blank look in return; so I'll let the architects of this experiment do the talking.

"AMOD (A Matter of Degree) was developed and funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), and managed by the American Medical Association (AMA). The program is funded through 2008." (CAS)

"The A Matter of Degree (AMOD) Advocacy Initiative was a two-year project designed by (AMA) National Program Office (NPO) staff members Lisa Erk, Richard Yoast and Sandra Hoover, with the assistance of a national technical resource group. The Advocacy Initiative's goal was to help the ten campus-community partnerships of AMOD more effectively test the environmental management model to prevent high-risk drinking among college students. This model seeks to alter the physical, social and economic environments that influence student drinking decisions through policy and enforcement measures.

"...A key learning of this project is that a specific set of professional skills is vital to the success of a coalition's effort to change community policies and normative beliefs that create and exacerbate the entrenched and complex problem of college binge drinking. These skills include community organizing, media advocacy and strategic planning, which are discussed in greater detail in this report. The American Medical Association's (AMA) Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, the national program office of AMOD, contracted with Pan American Services (PAS) to provide this technical assistance and training.

"...The AMA also contracted with Fenton Communications to create a national media strategy, designed specifically to provide national media coverage from which local media 'hooks' could be developed to help drive policy change at the community level. Two major national media campaigns garnered more than 1,000 combined print and broadcast stories and catapulted the AMA into the headlines as a national leader in the effort to reduce high-risk and underage drinking. As part of these campaigns AMA chair J. Edward Hill, MD, was featured on the 'Good Morning America' show declaring college binge drinking as a 'major public health problem.' Most importantly, this media coverage helped pave the way for dozens of local media stories in AMOD campus communities." (AMOD Advocacy Initiative)

Examples of AMOD policy objectives:
"From November 2000 through May 2001 PAS staff helped identify media advocacy opportunities for framing the issues of underage and binge drinking and the need for policy solutions and worked with the project director to place related media advocacy pieces." (UI case study)

According to the UI case study, PAS provided the coalition with the following:
Assistance in developing a strategic plan to support policy objectives

Recommendation on strengthening project linkage to the community to identify and increase support for policy objectives

Training and workshops on media advocacy, working within a political system and spokesperson training

Identification of media opportunities and the drafting of media materials such as op-eds and letters to the editor

Development of a strategic plan, talking points, spokesperson preparation and other details in support of coalition participation in state and local hearings

Fulfillment of requests to provide research to support policy passage on the following topics: relationship between outlet density and crime, zoning and alcohol outlets, economic impact of 21- plus service restriction, and impact of price specials
Drafting of media materials such as op-eds and letters to the editor??! This is mentioned three other times in the document:
"Julie Phye described the results of PAS's technical assistance.  'They were great in helping us write opinion pieces for the newspapers...'"

"Carolyn Cavitt said: '...Dennis Alexander (of PAS) ... helped the coalition write opinion pieces and letters to the editor.'"

"The project developed a plan of action that included an op-ed and letter to the editor focusing on downtown economics (written by PAS staff)."

In other words, our local coalition received training in how to subvert local politics to achieve its objectives, and received much outside support for such, even an orchestrated "national media campaign." I find it ironic that these educated, influential advocates couldn't even write their own letters to the editor.

Research that conflicts with or undermines AMOD statements and policy

The legal drinking age has no effect on alcohol consumption by college students (Wagenaar, Toomey, 2002)

The most common source of obtaining alcohol by 18-20 year olds is a legal-age peer (Wagenaar, Toomey et al, 1996)

College students engage in substantially heavier drinking at off-campus parties, as opposed to bars (Harford, Wechsler, Seibring, 2002)

Economic theory predicts a substantial increase in alcohol consumption when drinking occurs at private residences, rather than bars (Cuellar, 2006)

There is no research showing that a higher bar entry age reduces drinking (Illinois Higher Education Commission, 2005)

There is no research showing that increased enforcement, tougher penalties and more restrictions reduce drinking among college students (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism)

The current stance among researchers that reducing "access and availability" of alcohol reduces drinking by college students is an untested hypothesis, based on correlation, not causation

A strong correlate exists between collegiate drinking rates and the dominance of sports traditions (Nelson, Wechsler, 2002)

Evidence suggests that the trend toward enforcement and restrictions aimed at reducing drinking by college students has led to an increase in "celebratory disturbances" (riots) (ISU VEISHEA riot task force, 2004)

Our local efforts at curbing underage "binge drinking" through policy and enforcement crackdowns have failed completely.




The Alcohol Awareness Work Group (AAWG) is distributing a flyer entitled "Underage and Binge Drinking in Iowa City: Ten Troubling Facts," to promote the 21 ordinance.

AAWG states that "Access to alcohol has increased significantly since the early 1970s... In 1981, for example, there were 17 liquor licenses and 10 downtown bars. In 2005, there were 48 liquor licenses and 32 bars in the same downtown Iowa City area... The number of downtown bars has grown much faster than the Iowa City population."

This is the standard "access and availability" mantra. In 1981, there was only one liquor store in Iowa City; the State had a monopoly on liquor sales. Ironically, the largest increase in downtown bars occurred as a result of two of Stepping Up's first victories in gaining alcohol restrictions: dry dorms and dry Greek houses. In 1998, there were 20 downtown bars; in 1999, frats, sororities and dorms went dry, which shifted much of the drinking to the bars. The number of bars does not tell us the total combined capacity of those establishments; in fact, the trend has been toward smaller establishments. Bars with huge capacities such as Granddaddy's and The Crow's Nest served many more people than is the average now, and operated at full capacity not only on weekends, but on many weeknights as well. Not to mention the legendary frat parties, the famous Mayday Vonnegut-house party, etc., etc.. The number of licenses tells us nothing about drinking rates.

AAWG states that "There is no local evidence that a 21-only ordinance would generate more house party-related complaints. In fact complaints stemming from house parties did not increase following introduction of Iowa City's 19-year-old ordinance in 2003. Prior to 2003 there was no age restriction for entry to bars. Since the passage of the 2003 Nuisance Property Ordinance, house party complaints have declined."

The careful wording of this statement is probably at the advice of the only AAWG member with any expertise in alcohol research, Dr. Peter Nathan; however, this careful wording also renders it irrelevant. There is no "local" evidence because we've never had a 21-only ordinance. This statement seems inconsistent with the Iowa City Building Inspection Department's 2003 memo stating that to accomodate "neighborhood code enforcement expectations" and "enforcement of newly adopted ordinances" (the only one being the nuisance rental property ordinance), it reduced its inspections of certain multi-family apartment units, compromising building safety for many residents. Further, if the goal is to reduce underage drinking, the number of complaints is not relevant, nor is it an indication of change in drinking rates; it may just as well be a result of fewer complainants after the novelty of having the new ordinance wore off, or could be an indication of reduced capacity for enforcement. In one breath they claim that there was no increase in party complaints as a result of the 19 ordinance, so why not make it 21; in the next, they cite the nuisance ordinance (and keg registration) as a deterrent, in spite of the documented shortage of City staff to deal with enforcement.

Since the intended objective of the 21-ordinance is to reduce underage drinking, the question remains: Will it? The esteemed Dr. Nathan wasn't so careful in his choice of words when he was promoting the ordinance in 2005 : he made the astonishing claim that "overall alcohol consumption by underage students at the UI would drop by 25 to 30 percent." It's difficult to imagine how he could pinpoint the effect of the ordinance with such amazing accuracy, since, as the Illinois HEC noted (also in 2005), "...there is no scholarly research that studies the potential effects of a 21 (minimum bar entry age)." Nathan also claimed that "No data suggest that house parties amount to more consumption than at bars." This is an interesting statement as well, considering the intimate relationship between the Harvard College Alcohol Study and the local temperance coalition with which he is involved, via the AMOD project. CAS studied this question in 2002, with data obtained from a survey of 12,830 students; how could it have escaped Nathan's attention? A 2006 ISU study of the CAS data found the rate of underage high risk drinking of 47% at off-campus parties, as opposed to just 31% for bars. The CAS analysis shows the underage rate of 5+ drinks at parties is 49.3%, and 40.9% for bars.

Perhaps Dr. Nathan considers this data irrelevant, when it conflicts with the political objective du jour. I respectfully suggest that Dr. Nathan review the literature in his field of expertise. In the same DI article, "Nathan admitted an increase in house parties is inevitable if a 21-ordinance were enacted." For once, Nathan is correct: Just as dry dorms and Greek houses shifted the demand to bars, causing an increase in consumption downtown, shifting the demand from bars will move the demand to the only venue left for underage students to utilize. Therefore, an increase in high-risk underage drinking is inevitable as well, according to the important study he conveniently forgot about.


AAWG states that "The University of Iowa ranks Number One among Big Ten schools for binge drinking... High-risk drinking affects the health and future of UI students... Underage UI student drinkers get into trouble... Alcohol consumption interferes with learning."

While this is a regrettable situation, it tells us nothing about the efficacy of the 21 ordinance. In the context of the ordinance, this is a vacuous appeal, something along the lines of "well, we have to do something, even if it's wrong." Which is precisely the approach that Stepping Up and its spinoff groups (including AAWG) have advocated for the last ten years. The total lack of success of this approach in reducing student drinking speaks for itself. Stepping Up et al relentlessly advocated for increased enforcement efforts, even to the extent of paying police out of Stepping Up's budget, according to ICPD media releases. Their success in bringing about increased enforcement has resulted in no decrease in alcohol consumption whatsoever, contrary to their belief that "enforcement makes a difference." Makes a difference to whom, and in what? To the community leaders, in demonstrating that they are "making a difference," or in reduction of drinking rates?  As evidence for their assumption, they state that "Enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age is the most frequently cited effective strategy for decreasing the harmful effects of underage drinking." "Most frequently cited" doesn't mean "effective." Let's make this clear right now: Just because there's an increase in arrest rates, doesn't mean there's a decrease in drinking; in fact, Nathan's 2003 survey showed an increase in binge drinking after six years of deployment of these efforts. Enforcement is the "most frequently cited" strategy because of the national anti-alcohol movement's authoritarian obsession with punitive consequences as a deterrent, which hasn't reduced underage drinking at all. In the source they cite the only specific "enforcement" shown to be effective by any research is "compliance checks on retail alcohol outlets." In fact, it is the only enforcement strategy mentioned in the entire document, and is not  listed in the strategies known to be effective on college students; and it does not say it reduced underage drinking, only that it cut sales to minors. There is a difference; the most reliable suppliers for underage drinkers are their legal-age friends, not "retail alcohol outlets." And let's not forget about fake IDs.

AAWG states that "Residents of Iowa City pay the costs of underage drinking while bars take in the profit. In 2006, 30 percent of police incident reports included alcohol consumption. Downtown vandalism and increased ambulance calls to downtown translate to slower response time to emergencies in other areas of town."

Residents of Iowa City will pay the costs of excessive drinking no matter where it occurs. Bloc21 has made the case that it will cause a problem for neighborhoods if 17,800 underage students suddenly find themselves ostracized from downtown. We have also made the case that underage drinking will increase as a result of this ordinance, thus resulting in more vandalism and more ambulance calls, albeit not to downtown. We also have gained much support from emergency medical responders themselves, who are telling us that the alcohol-related calls they deal with at parties are more frequent and severe than they are downtown.

A common method of misleading the public, and oneself, is to use "facts," but to inflate the importance of some facts while ignoring more relevant ones, to construct a false image of the issue. We have made the case that this is precisely what our local temperance advocates are doing here; it has also been shown that they are not above inventing their "facts," as in the DI piece proving that they fabricated research statements about a 21 bar entry age, when there is no research. Why their zeal has compromised their integrity to this extent is unclear; but it has also been proven that the community has been used as the subject of an experiment in "environmental management" of alcohol restrictions for the last ten years. That project consisted of forming a coalition of influential people, and teaching them strategies to effectively subvert local politics; perhaps these misinformation tactics are simply part of their training.

If the ordinance passes, what's next? We have shown how it will disrupt neighborhoods and increase alcohol consumption. The same people who now insist that this ordinance will be effective will then be calling for more punitive and restrictive measures to combat the problems that this "solution" caused. What sort of "environmental management" will we be contemplating next?

There's already a model program. "We wouldn't pull up to a burglary, knock on the door, ask them to come out, and just watch people jump through a window and run away. Once we agree that a party is a crime scene, we know exactly how to handle it." -Minnesota ZAP Team officer

Meet the Zero Adult Providers (ZAP) squad. SWAT team takedowns of beer parties. The massive manpower needed to bust parties is astonishing. Undercover investigations, obtaining warrants if necessary, surrounding and securing the premises, lining up and screening potential suspects, assembly-line ticketing and arrest. While temperance advocates erroneously cite ISU's lower binge drinking rate as evidence of success of the Ames 21 bar entry age, they ignore the fact that 3 of the 4 VEISHEA riots were sparked by police breaking up parties. In fact, riots are a disturbing correlation with higher bar entry ages in college towns, and an unfortunate side effect of a 20 year trend toward restricting student drinking. "Once we agree that a party is a crime scene," we'll know we've completely lost our minds.

Local temperance advocates have adopted the belief that any alcohol restriction is a good alcohol restriction, and this is simply not the case. This barrage of restrictions and penalties has to end here, with the 21 ordinance campaign. The anti-alcohol movement won't be happy until this is a dry community. In fact, the AMOD program, which funded and directed our local temperance coalition, listed "dry community" and "restrictions on open assembly" among its policy objectives. If the reader doesn't consider that a rather radical agenda, my efforts at persuasion are wasted here.

-------------------------------------------------

appendix: excerpts from my email response to Dr. Nathan:

I had to look you up in the phone book to see where you live, after you said that the students who attend house parties will be fewer than at bars. You must not get within a half mile of downtown much, after dark. There are hundreds of parties, all over the place. My initial fear was that if the ordinance passes, those will increase in size and debauchery. But since I heard that some enterpreneurs have gotten their hands on some DOT license machines, I'm not so sure. Could be that everyone will be 21, all of a sudden. Either way, it won't reduce drinking.

I recently tagged along to the after-hours party scene in the student ghettoes with some younger fans, just to remind myself what it was like. People aren't at all discriminate as to who can come up and join the party, it's all quite accessible, and people party-hop as much as they bar-hop. Police are patrolling the party neighborhoods somewhat, but on the first stop generally just give a warning. The smarter kids quiet down or move it inside, only the dumber ones get busted. And yes, the level of intoxication is much worse. The standard argument against the ordinance really is true; the downtown is easily supervised, bars have an interest in maintaining control in their establishments, and there is an element of social restraint and relative safety that you don't see in the ghetto parties. Assuming the ordinance does shift some of the downtown drinking to parties, it will only move it further out of sight, to a place where "binge drinking" becomes "extreme drinking."

...

What I've noticed in this town is an extreme social disconnect at work, particularly with the alcohol issue. I think much of the larger cultural problem is that there's little mingling of students with older folks. And I've also noticed, in drinking settings, that young people turn it down a couple of notches when they are around older people. There's a noticeable behavioral shift when a table full of grannies sits down in the middle of the party. I've often thought that if people really wanted to affect student drinking and associated behavior, they'd get involved in students' lives, on the students' turf, rather than trying to take the students' turf away from them. There's an underlying authoritarian assumption at work with this faith in restrictive and punitive measures, along with lack of understanding and indifference about what students' lives are really like. That's why the attitude behind the community's current approach to the alcohol problem is fatally flawed, and doomed to fail.

I have no problem with anyone pointing out the adverse effects of alcohol abuse, but in the effort to do so, the role that government can realistically assume has been distorted beyond its capacity, even its obligation, to protect from harm. It's hardly a benevolent solution to use the force of government to discourage behavior that is the norm, and that's what the "environmental approach," insofar as it's been promoted and applied here, is trying to do; it's confused "harm" with "alcohol." You've essentially declared war on us, and that is precisely what it is, a political turf war. And the turf in question, which advocates of the ordinance have little regard for, is the primary social setting of a huge segment of the community, without any viable plan for its replacement. Looks like there won't be a truce until at least Nov. 7. I haven't a clue whether the ordinance will pass. If it does, I assume the crackdown approach will continue. If it doesn't, the community might actually have an opportunity for a realistic discussion of possible strategies. But I'm not gonna get my hopes up.

-BT