In Wisconsin, we get used to reporters fretting about our record-setting alcohol consumption. Most of us take a balanced view. We know (and we believe the knowledge is spreading) that the State's cultural acceptance (and encouragement) of drunkenness is unhealthy.
On the other hand, we look around and see the people who drink a six pack at night getting up and milking the cows or reporting for first shift the next morning. We see a comparatively resilient state economy that benefits from a well educated, reliable workforce -- alcohol consumption notwithstanding.
Many Wisconsinites have lived or grown up in small Wisconsin towns that are filled with churches and bars, the two (commonly overlapping) providers of places for community members to gather. We're familiar with the unincorporated municipalities in rural areas that consist of a tavern and the tavern owner's house (sometimes combined in the same structure) where the surrounding farm families gather to spend the evening. We don't overreact to the use of alcohol as a social lubricant.
Many of us obtained a decent education at an institution formerly (and historically) recognized as the nation's number one party school. We survived, frequently the better for the experience.
The social fabric in Wisconsin does not seem to us to be tearing apart simply because another reporter wants to accuse us of binge drinking. We know what that means.
Binge drinking is defined as five drinks in a sitting for a man, four for a woman.
Apart from the sexist assumption that women are incapable of drinking men under the table (alcohol tolerance has something to do with physical characteristics but a lot more to do with practice), Wisconsinites understand that "five drinks in a sitting" could cover a six to ten hour period. Hey, it's cold outside. All we do is sit. Five beers in a sitting isn't a binge. That's a football game.
After asking around, the Times reporter is tempted to blame the Germans for Wisconsin's rapacious appetite for alcohol, but dutifully balances that view with the news that "some experts ... are skeptical" of the ethnic explanation. That's fair, because it's not like Wisconsin's Norwegians are teetotalers.
Let's hope that this will not be representative of the liberal elitist latte-drinking Times coverage of Wisconsin. Hey reporters, knock it off. We voted blue. Way blue. Go pick on Tennessee.
One specific complaint does need to be lodged against the reporter's claim that Wisconsin is reluctant to treat drunk drivers harshly. It is true that the Tavern League had some significant pull in the state legislature in years past. It is also true that pressure from MADD, federal mandates, and the political mileage to be gained by being "tough on drunk drivers" have caused Wisconsin's laws to toughen considerably over the last two decades.
Wisconsin imposes mandatory jail sentences upon multiple offenders and mandatory minimum fines and license revocations upon all offenders. Penalties are keyed to blood alcohol levels so the most dangerous drivers receive the stiffest sentences. Some states appear to have tougher laws but in reality the sentence or revocation is stayed or suspended or dramatically shortened. Not in Wisconsin. Ask any Wisconsin driver convicted of impaired driving, particularly a multiple offender, and you won't hear him laughing about how easily he got off.
Attitudinal changes cannot be legislated. With education, healthier attitudes will spread over the course of time. Yet another increase in the impaired driving penalties is not an effective answer.
