Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of drinking practices in three British Columbia cities Cutler, Ronald Earl 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 C88.pdf [ 7.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101405.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101405-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101405-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101405-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101405-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101405-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101405-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101405-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101405.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF DRINKING PRACTICES IN THREE BRITISH COLUMBIA CITIES by RONALD EARL CUTLER B.A., Un i ve r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Psychology We accept th i s thes i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1973 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i i ABSTRACT Previous research has es tab l i shed that there are large reg iona l and dem-ographic d i f f e rences in dr ink ing p r a c t i c e s . The present study was designed to extend th i s research by conducting a survey of d r ink ing p r a c t i c e s of r e s -idents in three B r i t i s h Columbia c i t i e s located in widely separated regions of the province and d i f f e r i n g in demographic composi t ion. A to ta l of 849 sub jec t s , randomly se lected from among the general popu la -t i on in each c i t y , were interviewed in t he i r homes. A comprehensive ques t i on -n a i r e , inc lud ing several standard measures of l e ve l s of d r ink ing and problem dr ink ing as well as measures of neuro t i c i sm, ext rovers ion and items r e l a t i n g to drug use , smoking and sub jec t ' s percept ion of d r i n k i n g , was employed. Lev-e l s of d r ink ing were compared across c i t i e s and the l eve l s obtained f o r the three c i t i e s combined were compared to l eve l s found f o r other samples drawn from among populat ions in North America and e lsewhere. . Leve ls of d r ink ing were r e l a t ed to demographic, pe rsona l i t y and other v a r i ab l e s w i th in the com-bined sample and compared with the extent of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s found in previous s t u d i e s . A cons i s ten t pattern of d i f f e rences was found between the three c i t i e s samples. D r i nk ing , heavy dr ink ing and problem dr ink ing were found to be more preva lent in these three c i t i e s r e l a t i v e to most other North American samples. Rates were found, on a l l measures of d r i n k i n g , to be higher in Rivertown--the c i t y which had undergone rap id expansion during the past decade. Age, sex and income were found to be c l o s e l y re la ted to l eve l s of d r i n k i n g . These r e su l t s were d iscussed within the framework of a schematic model which speculates about poss ib le r e l a t i onsh ips and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a number of va r i ab les and l e ve l s of d r i nk i ng . TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES . . . v LIST OF FIGURES.. . . . i x Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION '....1 Chapter 2. METHOD 5 Sample Se lec t ion 5 Data C o l l e c t i o n . 6 The Quest ionnaire 8 Measures of Dr inking 8 (a) Q-F-V Index 8 (b) V-V Index .' 10 (c) Index of Uncontro l led Dr inking 12 (d) Monthly Consumption of Absolute A l c o h o l . . . . . . 1 3 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample 13 Chapter 3. LEVELS OF DRINKING: COMPARISON ACROSS CITIES 18 Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y 18 Absolute Alcohol 19 Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y 20 Index of Uncontro l led Dr inking 21 Summary 24 Chapter 4. LEVELS OF DRINKING: SELF-DESCRIPTION 33 Desc r ip t i on of Se l f and Proxy Dr inking 33 Comparison Between Se l f -Desc r ip t ion and Volume-V a r i a b i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 34 Desc r ip t ion of Others D r i n k i n g . . . 37 Summary 39 i v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter 5. LEVELS OF DRINKING: COMPARISON WITH OTHER STUDIES 45 American Dr inking Pract i ces 45 Other Studies 46 Absolute A l c o h o l : Hazardous Consumption and Alcohol Sales Data 48 Summary 50 Chapter 6. LEVELS OF DRINKING BY DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 57 Levels of Dr inking by Sex.. 57 Levels of Drinking by Age .59 Levels of Dr inking by Mar i ta l Status 62 Levels of Dr inking by Educat ion, Occupation and Income 63 Levels of Dr inking by Re l ig ious Preference and Ethnic Or ig in .67 Levels of Dr inking by Res ident ia l S t a b i l i t y 68 Summary ^ .69 Chapter 7. LEVELS OF DRINKING: OTHER VARIABLES . .94 Levels of Dr inking by C igare t te Use 94 Levels of Dr inking by Psychoactive and I l l i c i t Drug Use 95 Levels of Dr inking by Persona l i t y Var iab les 96 Other S t u d i e s . . . 98 Chapter 8. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 107 FOOTNOTES.. . . . .123 BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 APPENDIX A: THE QUESTIONNAIRE 135 V LIST OF TABLES Table I. Comparison of Populat ion Composition and Measures of Economic A c t i v i t y by C i t y 4 II. The Sample: Outcome of Contact Attempt by C i t y 15 III. Demographic Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample by C i t y in Percent 16 IV. Age D i s t r i bu t i ons f o r Twenty and Older in Percent : Samples and Populat ions Compared.. . 17 V. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by C i t y in Percent 25 VI. Volume of Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by C i t y in Percent 26 VII . V a r i a b i l i t y of Drinking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by C i t y in Percent 26 VII I . Mean Consumption of Absolute Alcohol in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month f o r Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Categories by C i t y 27 IX. Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption by C i t y 27 X. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Drinking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Q-F-V in Pe rcen t . . . 28 XI. Q-F-V Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by C i t y in Percent 29 XII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Q-F-V Heavy Drinkers by Frequency of Dr ink ing and C i t y in Percent 29 XII I . Mean Consumption of Absolute Alcohol in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month f o r Q-F-V Categor ies by C i t y 29 XIV. Problem Dr inkers I den t i f i ed by the Index of Uncontro l led Dr ink ing . 30 XV. Index of Uncontro l led Dr ink ing : Pos i t i v e Responses to Items, Se l f and Proxy Respondents, in Number and Percent ..31 XVI. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Problem Drinkers by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y and Quantity-Frequency V a r i a b i l i t y 32 XVII. S e l f -Desc r i p t i on of Dr inking Leve l : S e l f Respondents and Proxy Respondents 41 XVIII. Se l f -Desc r ip t i on of Drinking Level by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent 42 XIX. Se l f -Desc r ip t i on of Dr inking Level f o r Laketown by Volume-V a r i a b i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent 42 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) * Table XX. Se l f -Desc r ip t i on of Drinking Level f o r Twintown by Volume-V a r i a b i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent 43 XXI. Se l f -Desc r ip t i on of Drinking Level f o r Rivertown by Volume-V a r i a b i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent. 43 XXII. Respondents' Se l f -Desc r ip t ion of Dr ink ing : Mean Absolute A lcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 44 XXIII. Mean Percentage Estimates of Proport ions in Each Dr ink ing Category 44 XXIV. Levels of Dr inking fo r T r i - C i t i e s , Sydney and San Franc isco Samples, in Percent 55 XXV. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s of Absolute A lcohol Per Month: T r i - C i t i e s Sample 55 XXVI. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Drinking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by C i t y by Sex in Percent 71 XXVII. Sex: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 71 XXVIII. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Age i n Percent 72 XXIX. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Drinking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Age i n Percent , Males 73 XXX. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Age in Percent , Females 74 XXXI. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Drinking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Mar i ta l Status in Percent 78 XXXII. Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Mar i ta l Status in Percent , Total Sample 79 XXXIII. Mar i t a l S ta tus : Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption i n C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 79 XXXIV. Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Mar i ta l Mar i t a l Status in Percent , Males 80 XXXV. Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Mar i ta l Status in Percent , Females 80 XXXVI. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Educat ion in Percent 81 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) v i i Table XXXVII. Educat ion: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y . .81 XXXVIII. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Educat ion i n Percent , Males 82 XXXIX. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Education in Percent , Females 83 XL. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Occupat ion , i n Pe r cen t . . . ' . . . . 8 4 XLI. Occupat ion: Mean Absolute A lcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 84 XL 11. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Income in Percent , M a l e s . . . . . * 85 XL 111. Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Income in Percent , Males 86 XLIV. Quant i t y-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Income in Percent , Females 86 XLV. Income: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 87 XLVI. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Re l ig ious Preference in Percent . 88 XLVII . Re l ig ious Preference: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 89 XLVI11. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Ethnic O r i g i n in Percent 90 XLIX. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Number of Addresses in Past F ive Years in Percent 91 L. Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Length o f Residence at Present Address in Percent 92 L I . Ownership of Residence: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y . .92 L U . Respondents Who Moved: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 93 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) v i i i Table L U I . Smokers vs . Non-Smokers by Volume-Var iab i l i ty Dr ink ing C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent (Ve r t i ca l ) Males and Females 99 LIV. Smokers: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y . . 100 LV. Smoker's Consumption Categories by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr ink ing C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent (Ve r t i ca l ) 100 LVI. C igare t te Consumption: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i ty 101 LVII. Proport ion of Respondents Who Have Ever Used Psychoact ive Drugs by C i t y in Percent 101 LVII I . Psychoact ive Drug Users vs . Non-Users by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr ink ing C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent (Ve r t i c a l ) 102 LIX. Barb i tura te Use: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 103 LX. T r a n q u i l l i z e r Use: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 103 LXI. Amphetamine Use: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 103 LXII. I l l i c i t Drug Users vs . Non-Users by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr ink ing C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent (Ve r t i ca l ) 104 LXII I . Marijuana or Hashish Use: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y . . . . . 1 0 4 LXIV. LSD or Mescal ine Use: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y . .104 LXV. Neurot ic ism by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent ( V e r t i c a l ) . . . 105 LXVI. Neurot ic ism Score: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y . .105 LXVII. Ext rovers ion by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Dr inking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent ( Ve r t i c a l ) 106 LXVII I . Ext rovers ion Score: Mean Absolute Alcohol Consumption in C e n t i l i t e r s Per Month by C i t y 106 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the American National and the T r i - C i t i e s B r i t i s h Columbia Samples by Q-F-V Drinking C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent 52 FIGURE 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the American National and the T r i - C i t i e s B r i t i s h Columbia Samples by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n in Percent. ; 52 FIGURE 3. Proport ion of U.S. National and B r i t i s h Columbia Samples in Each Volume Category .53 FIGURE 4. Proport ion of U.S. National and B r i t i s h Columbia Samples in Each V a r i a b i l i t y Category 54 FIGURE 5. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Consumption of Absolute Alcohol in C e n t i -l i t e r s Per Month 56 FIGURE 6. Percent High Maximum Drinkers by Age and Sex 75 FIGURE 7. Percent High Volume-High Maximum Drinkers by Age and Sex 75 FIGURE 8. Percent High Volume-High Maximum by Sex and Age f o r T r i -C i t i e s and San Franc isco 76 FIGURE 9. Percent Absta in ing and Infrequent Drinkers by Sex and Age fo r T r i - C i t i e s , San Franc isco and Sydney Samples . .76 FIGURE 10. Percent Heavy Drinkers by Age and Sex f o r T r i - C i t i e s and Sydney Samples 77 FIGURE 11. Schematic Representat ion of Var iab les Related to Drinking P rac t i ces 115 i Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Problem dr ink ing surveys of household samples and the more general s tud ies of d r ink ing prac t i ces which have come to replace them are well r ep -resented in the l i t e r a t u r e . The dr ink ing prac t i ces of general populat ion samples have been examined in a number of American c i t i e s : Cedar Rapids , Iowa (Mulford & Wi lson, 1966); Oakland, C a l i f o r n i a (Knupfer & Room, 1967); San Franc isco (C la rk , 1966); and the Washington Heights D i s t r i c t of New York (Ba i ley & Haberman, 1965). The States of Iowa (Mulford & M i l l e r , 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963) and Washington (Maxwell, 1952, 1958) have a lso been su r -veyed as have U.S. nat ional samples (R i ley & Marden, 1947, 1948; Mu l fo rd , 1964; Cahalan, C i s i n & C ross l ey , 1969). Even a cursory perusal of the r e su l t s of these s tudies reveals s t r i k i n g d i f f e r ences in l eve l s of d r ink ing across samples. Unfor tunate ly , no d i r e c t l y comparable s tudies have been accomplished in any Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n . Can-adian inves t iga to rs have tended, in the few surveying ins tances-ava i l ab l e , to r e s t r i c t t h e i r focus of i n t e r es t to such s p e c i f i c aspects of dr ink ing prac -t i c e s as purchases of a lcohol (De L i n t & Schmidt, 1968) and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a l c o h o l i c s (Gibbons, 1954). Data r e l a t i n g to dr ink ing patterns prac t i ced by B r i t i s h Columbians has been conf ined to per-capi ta consumption of a l c o h o l , drunkenness a r r e s t s t a t -i s t i c s and J e l l i n e k est imat ions of a l coho l i sm. Since none of these a l low fo r more than very gross comparisons with other populat ions and none at a l l be-tween regions wi th in B r i t i s h Columbia, the i r usefulness has been l i m i t e d . The only data which w i l l permit both kinds of comparisons, as well as some o the r s , i s that which can be obtained from a dr ink ing p rac t i ces survey. 2 To accomplish such a study samples w i l l be drawn from three small c i t ies--Laketown (Nelson) , Twintown (Kamloops) and Rivertown (Pr ince George)--located in widely separate regions of i n t e r i o r B r i t i s h Columbia. These c i t i e s present an i n t e res t i ng v a r i a t i on in terms of populat ion and economic s t a b i l i t y . Although each had a s im i l a r number o f res idents in 1956 (Table I) Rivertown p a r t i c u l a r l y , and Twintown to a l e s se r ex ten t , have undergone rap id growth s ince then while Laketown has not . When com-pared in terms of age, Laketown's populat ion i s r e l a t i v e l y more concentrated toward the upper end of the age d i s t r i b u t i o n . For example, 32% of Lake-town's populat ion i s 45 and o lder compared to 23% f o r Twintown and 16% f o r Rivertown. There are other d i f f e rences between Laketown and e s p e c i a l l y Rivertown: Laketown has a lower average number per fami ly (3.6 vs . 3 .9 ) ; fewer per household (3.1 vs . 4 .0 ) ; and more females than males (compared to an excess of 1,200 males in Rivertown and 400 in Twintown). Laketown a l so has a low-er propor t ion who are renters (35% vs . 42%); a higher percentage of s i ng l e dwel l ing un i t s (71% vs . 60%); a lower average income and a much lower leve l of cons t ruc t ion a c t i v i t y . In s h o r t , Laketown i s sma l l e r , o lde r and some-what more conserva t i ve . Its populat ion i s s tab le and i t s economy s t a t i c . Rivertown, on the other hand, i s c l e a r l y a booming, young peop le ' s c i t y where a major i ty of res idents are r e l a t i v e l y recent a r r i v a l s . Twintown i s somewhere between these two extremes but more s i m i l a r to Rivertown than to Twintown. The f i nd ings of previous s tudies would lead us to expect that these d i f f e r ences between c i t i e s would r e f l e c t on the prevalence o f dr ink ing and 3 heavy dr ink ing prac t i ced in these communities. Since age, sex and income have been repeatedly found to be c lose co r re l a tes of l e ve l s o f d r ink ing we would expect higher rates of d r i n k i n g , heavy dr ink ing and problem dr ink ing in Rivertown. One might a l so expect d i f f e rences which are not der ived from va r i a t i ons in demographic composit ion but in add i t ion to them. Th is might be so s ince r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , the absence of e f f e c t i v e s o c i a l sanct ions and, perhaps, s t ress r e s u l t i n g , in th is case , from rap id expansion have been suggested as co r r e l a t e s of heavy d r i nk i ng . Comparison of l e ve l s of dr ink ing found f o r the three c i t i e s , combined to form a s i ng l e sample, against those found f o r other samples w i l l permit us to determine the extent to which r e l a t i onsh ips between demographic and pe r sona l i t y va r i ab les and dr ink ing prac t i ces are maintained here . Higher rates of problem dr ink ing may, f o r example, be the r e s u l t o f r e l a t i v e l y heavier d r ink ing among a l l demographic categor ies o r , a l t e r n a t e l y , the r e s u l t of heavier d r ink ing among s p e c i f i c age-sex demographic s e t s . There i s a l so some reason to expect that comparison with urban samples w i l l expose d i f f -erences in the prevalence of s t y l e s of dr ink ing prac t i ced by B r i t i s h Colum-bians in these c i t i e s r e l a t i v e to those assoc iated with la rge urban cente rs . Given reg iona l v a r i a t i ons in dr ink ing p r a c t i c e s , the value of general populat ion surveys extends beyond the loca l informat ion they p rov ide . Com-par isons across samples can provide a basis fo r an extension o f our under-standing of the fo rces which determine dr ink ing behavior . TABLE I POPULAT ION COMPOSITION AND MEASURES OF ECONOMIC A C T I V I T Y BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWIMTOWN RIVERTOWN POPULATION 1 9 5 6 ^ 7 , 2 2 6 9 , 0 9 6 1 0 , 5 5 3 POPULATION 1966^ 9 , 5 0 4 1 0 , 7 5 9 2 4 , 4 7 1 POPULATION 1971 9 , 4 0 0 2 6 , 1 6 8 3 3 , 1 0 1 POPULATION D I STR I BUT ION FOR 1966 BY AGE IN PERCENT 0 - 4 . 9 . 5 1 1 . 2 1 3 . 3 5 - 9 9 . 5 1 2 . 0 v 1 2 . 5 1 0 - 1 4 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 3 1 5 - 1 9 9 . 5 9 .1 8 . 0 2 0 - 2 4 6 . 6 7 . 2 8 . 7 2 5 - 3 4 9 . 8 1 3 . 8 1 6 . 9 3 5 - 4 4 1 2 . 5 1 3 . 9 1 4 . 5 4 5 - 5 4 1 2 . 1 1 0 . 2 8 . 7 5 5 - 6 4 9 . 8 6 . 1 4 . 1 6 5 PLUS 1 0 . 1 6 . 3 2 . 8 AVERAGE NUMBER PER F A M I L Y 3 3 . 6 3 . 8 3 . 9 AVERAGE NUMBER PER H O U S E H O L D 3 3 .1 3 . 6 4 . 0 P ERCENT S INGLE DWELLING U N I T S 3 71.356 60.35? 6 0 . 8 $ PERCENT OF OCCUPANTS R E N T I N G 3 35% 42% 42% AVERAGE INCOME, 1 9 6 7 4 $ 5 , 2 3 3 $ 5 , 4 8 3 $ 5 , 9 8 4 AVERAGE INCOME T A X , 1 9 6 7 4 1 NA $ 6 0 5 $ 7 1 3 PER C A P I T A R E T A I L S A L E S , 1 9 6 9 3 NA $ 2 , 1 6 0 $ 2 , 6 7 0 V A L U E OF BU ILD ING PERMITS , 1 9 6 7 5 ' ( I N $ 0 0 0 ) $ 1 , 1 7 7 $ 5 E 4 3 6 $ 1 3 , 8 6 0 HOMES B U I L T , 1 9 6 7 3 33 3 8 7 1 , 0 4 4 LIQUOR SAUES 1 9 7 0 6 $ 1 , 5 4 6 , 3 6 3 $ 4 , 5 4 5 , 0 8 7 $ 6 , 2 8 7 , 1 6 8 PER C A P I T A ( 1 5 & OLDER) LIQUOR S A L E S , 1 9 7 0 $ 2 3 3 . 3 0 $ 2 6 0 . 4 0 $ 2 9 7 . 7 1 5 Chapter 2 METHOD Sample Se lec t ion General populat ion samples f o r the three c i t i e s were randomly se lec ted from elements of the populat ions l i s t e d under the various p o l l i n g d i v i s i o n s o f the P rov inc i a l Voters L i s t . The d i v i s i o n a l l i s t s , compiled as a r e s u l t of enumeration th i r t een months previous to the survey, were purported to inc lude the names and addresses of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s , aged nineteen and o l d -e r , who had been in the province f o r at l eas t s ix months, and res iden t w i th in the geographical l i m i t s of the p o l l i n g d i v i s i o n s which in turn c o r r -esponded c l o s e l y to municipal boundaries. Other l i s t i n g s of res idents were re jected as a basis f o r sample s e l e c -t ion s ince they were considered to be less complete than the P rov inc i a l Vo-te rs L i s t . Other methods of sample s e l e c t i on were not poss ib l e s ince the requi red d e s c r i p t i v e da ta , where a v a i l a b l e , were hopeless ly outdated due to the rap id expansion in the populat ions of two of the c i t i e s under cons ide r -a t i o n . However, as i s well known, the use of voters l i s t s in general i n -volve a number of disadvantages and sources of b i a s . One disadvantage, a r i s i n g from se l e c t i on of a sample of designated i n d i v i d u a l s , was found in the f a c t that much more interv iewer time was required to process each sub-j e c t s ince subjects were more geograph ica l l y scat tered than would have been the case i f some other s e l e c t i on procedures had been used. An a d d i t i o n a l , not un re l a t ed , problem was the rather high proport ion of designated subjects who were found to have moved from the address l i s t e d in the voters l i s t . In such cases every ava i l ab l e means was used to re locate the subject and complete the interv iew. 6 In so f a r as s e l e c t i on bias i s concerned i t would seem l i k e l y that less e s t a b l i s h e d , short-term res idents would be underrepresented r e l a t i v e to t he i r proport ion in the actual populat ions . S i m i l a r l y , r es idents in t he i r ea r l y 20's were a lso probably underrepresented because they had only recen t l y become e l i g i b l e to vote and because a reasonable propor t ion of them were probably away from the c i t y attending u n i v e r s i t y . At the same t ime, students at each loca l c o l l e g e , unless they were cont inua l res idents of the a rea , were u n l i k e l y to have been included s ince enumeration was conducted during the summer break. These kinds of bias are not a typ ica l of many previous d r ink ing prac -t i c e s s tudies in t ha t , o f t e n , the se l ec t i on processes employed have ex-cluded a l l i nd i v i dua l s who were res idents in anything but household dwe l l -i ngs . Thus, persons l i v i n g on campus, large rooming houses, or hote ls have genera l l y been excluded from the populat ions sampled and in consequence those who were t r a n s i e n t , younger, s ing le and male have tended to be under-represented. Data C o l l e c t i o n F i e l d work was begun in September 1970 and completed in March 1971. A major i ty of the interv iews were conducted by four f u l l - t ime interv iewers who worked in each of the three c i t i e s . A fu r the r s ix interv iewers were employed on a part-time basis to complete interv iews wi th in each loca l area. A l l interv iewers were non-abstaining females (with one excep t i on ) , between 25 and 40 years of age who had had at l e as t some previous r e l a t ed experience. An o r i e n t a t i o n , in the form of se lected readings and d i s cuss ion was p ro -v ided to f a m i l i a r i z e each interv iewer with problems re l a ted t o : sample s e l -e c t i o n , contact d i f f i c u l t i e s , re fusa l rates and reasons fo r r e f u s a l , and the potent ia l e f f e c t of in te rv iewer ' s a t t i tudes on sub j e c t ' s responses. A number of p rac t i c e interviews were conducted by each interv iewer using both experienced interv iewers and naive subjects as respondents. Subse-quent l y , each item in the quest ionnaire was f u l l y d iscussed and a de t a i l ed i n t e r p r e t i v e guide to the quest ionnaire was prepared f o r the i n te r v i ewer ' s use. Interviewers were coached regarding ways they could c r e a t e , in terms of t he i r dress and general behavior , an impression of academic but not per -sonal i n t e r e s t in the sub j ec t ' s responses. Upon completion o f the t r a i n i ng per iod any i nd i v idua l whose performance was considered unsa t i s f a c to r y (as was the case with three loca l interv iewers) was not used f o r interv iewing purposes. Superv is ion of interv iewers was continued throughout the study and independent contact with interviewed respondents was o c c a s i o n a l l y made to a sce r t a in that those i nd i v i dua l s who were designated as subjects were, in f a c t , being interv iewed. Contact with the respondent was attempted without previous n o t i f i c a -t i on by telephone or l e t t e r . The outcome of contact attempts f o r each c i t y i s summarized in Table II. A to ta l of 1,389 subjects were s e l e c t e d , em-ploy ing a tab le of random numbers, from among the 34,916 names l i s t e d on the voters l i s t . However, 362 (26%) were no longer l i v i n g in the area and a fu r the r 38 were e i the r deceased or "not a v a i l a b l e " a f t e r e ight c a l l s . Thus, almost 39% of the o r i g i n a l l y designated sample were i n e l i g i b l e . Of the remaining 989 sub jec t s , with whom contact was p o s s i b l e , 86% were i n t e r -viewed, 9% refused and 5% were e i the r too i l l to be in te rv i ewed , s en i l e or presented unsurmountable language d i f f i c u l t i e s . Table II Tables can. be found at the end of each chapter 8 The Quest ionnaire The quest ionna i re (see appended copy on pages 135-147) inc luded ninety-three primary items which y i e l d e d . a maximum of 187 un i t s of informat ion f o r each respondent. Aside from quest ions re la ted to the quant i ty and frequency o f d r i nk ing and to problems r e su l t i ng from excess ive d r i n k i n g , the ques t i on -na i re inc luded groups of items which sought informat ion under the fo l low ing headings: 1. demographic 2. dr ink ing occas ions—t ime and l o ca t i on 3. changes in d r ink ing 4. absta in ing or reasons f o r stopping 5. d r ink ing be-h a v i o r — e f f e c t s in var ious s i t ua t i ons 6. dr ink ing establ ishment p a t r o n s -pre fe rence , pat tern of patronage 7. drug use 8. est imat ion of community d r ink ing p rac t i ces 9. treatment agencies—awareness and a t t i t udes 10. a t t -i tudes toward proposed changes in l i quor l e g i s l a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , i n i t i a l l y each second respondent was asked to complete the f o r t y-e i gh t items of the neurot ic ism and ext rovers ion sca les of the Maudsley Pe r sona l i t y Inventory and to return the completed copy to the survey centra l o f f i c e in the envelope prov ided. However, s ince the response ra te in Lake-town was not as high as had been hoped, a l l respondents in Twintown and River-town were subsequently asked to complete and return the s c a l e . Measures of Dr inking (a) Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n The Quantity-Frequency Index, developed by Straus and Bacon (1953) was among the e a r l i e s t attempts to categor ize dr ink ing l eve l s of survey respon-dents . Fol lowing th i s procedure an i n d i v i d u a l ' s d r ink ing leve l i s determined by mu l t i p l y i ng the amount which he usua l l y consumes by h is frequency of d r i n k -ing occasions over a s p e c i f i e d period of time and, on t h i s b a s i s , he i s a s s -igned to one of several categor ies ( l i g h t , moderate and heavy). 9 This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system was rev ised by Knupfer (1966) and was used as a means of c l a s s i f y i n g dr inkers in the American Drinking P rac t i ces study (Canalan, C i s i n , & C ross l e y , 1969) from which the present study has drawn heav i l y . Knupfer 's expanded v e r s i o n , the Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y Index (Q-F-V) i s based on twelve questions which take into account: 1) quant i ty of a lcohol per occas ion—quant i t y of a beverage consumed during a s i t t i n g (measured separate ly fo r wine, beer and s p i r i t s ) . The subject i s asked how often he has as many as 5 or 6, 3 or 4 , and 1 or 2 d r i nks . 2) frequency of d r ink ing each of the three types of beverage—eleven ca tegor ies ranging from less than once per year to three or more times per day. 3) v a r i a b i l i t y of d r i nk i ng—ind i c a t ed by a combination of the modal amount consumed and the maximum amount drunk at l e as t o c c a s i o n a l l y . Quant i ty and v a r i a b i l i t y are combined to produce eleven c l asses which spec i f y modal quant i ty ( i . e . the amount drunk "near ly every t ime" or "more than ha l f the t ime") and maximum quant i ty (highest quant i ty drunk) . Each d r inke r i s then assigned to one of f i v e ove ra l l Q-F-V groups (Absta iner , In f requent , L i g h t , Moderate and Heavy) depending on Quan t i t y -Va r i ab i l i t y c l a s s and frequency of ove ra l l d r ink ing of any beverage conta in ing a l c o h o l . A moderate d r inker f o r example, may dr ink as f requent ly as twice a day with a modal quant i ty of 1 or 2 dr inks and a maximum quant i ty of no more than 3 or 4 dr inks "once in a whi le " o r , at the other end of the frequency s c a l e , he may dr ink about once a month with a modal quant i ty ranging from 1 to 2 dr inks to 5 or 6 dr inks and a maximum quant i ty of 5 or 6 dr inks more than "once in a wh i l e " . This example points out a major problem of the Q-F-V Index; whi le two dr inkers in the same category may consume the same amount 10 of a l c o h o l over time the i r respect ive consumption per occasion can be qui te d i f f e r e n t . (b) Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n In view of the above s the L ight and Moderate categor ies were f i r s t sub-d i v ided in to "Frequent" and " Infrequent" subcategories and, subsequent ly , Cahalan, C i s i n and Cross ley (1969) went on the develop the Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Index which places regu lar dr inkers into s ix dr ink ing ca tegor i e s : Low, Medium and High Volume categor ies and within each, Low Maximum and High Maximum depending on the number of dr inks per occas ion . Quest ionnaire items 17 to 23 form the bas is of the index. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n involves an est imat ion of average d a i l y volume plus the v a r i a t i o n in intake from day to day. Average d a i l y volume i s obtained by mu l t i p l y i ng the frequency of consumption of each beverage by the estimated quant i ty of beverage consumed per occas ion . The frequency of consumption, or the number of times per month the respondent d r i n k s , i s expressed in terms of the number of d r ink ing occasions per month. Each dr ink ing leve l i s a s s -igned a. f r a c t i o n of the respondent 's to ta l dr ink ing occasions fo r the bev-erage, based on his responses to a l l three l e v e l s , the f r a c t i o n is mu l t i p l i ed by the average number of dr inks at that l e v e l , and the products are summed. The average number of dr inks per occasion i s m u l t i p l i e d by the number of occas ions per month, and d iv ided by t h i r t y to y i e l d an average d a i l y volume f o r each beverage. A tota l average d a i l y volume can then be obtained by summing the average d a i l y volumes of the three beverages. The r e su l t i ng e igh t ca tegor ies are def ined as fo l l ows : 1) Abs ta ine r : those who dr ink less than once per year 2) Infrequent d r i nke r s : those who dr ink at l e as t once a year but less often than once per month 11 3) Low Volume-Low Maximum: average d a i l y volume of from 0.05 to 0.58 dr inks but never as many as f i v e dr inks of any beverage on an occasion 4) Low Volume-High Maximum: average d a i l y volume 0.05 to 0.58 dr inks and 5 or 6 or more dr inks on an occasion at l e as t once in a while 5) Medium Volume-Low Maximum: average d a i l y volume of 0.59 to 1.49 dr inks and never as many as f i v e dr inks on an occas ion 6) Medium Volume-High Maximum: average d a i l y volume of 0.59 to 1.49 dr inks and 5 or 6 or more dr inks on an occasion at l e a s t once in a while 7) High Volume-Low Maximum: average d a i l y volume of 1.5 or more dr inks and never as many as f i v e on an occasion 8) High Volume-High Maximum: average d a i l y volume of 1.5 or more dr inks and 5 or 6 or more dr inks on an occasion at l e as t once in a w h i l e . 7 A major advantage of the Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y Index i s that i t permits not only c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by consumption over time (volume) but in a d d i t i o n , and independent of volume, tendency to consume small or large amounts of a lcohol on any given occas ion" (Low Maximum vs . High Maximum). The s i g n i f -icance of the l a t t e r va r i ab l e has been i l l u s t r a t e d by the o r i g i n a t o r s of the index. Comparing Low Maximum and High Maximum d r i n k e r s , they have found, fo r example, that Low Maximum dr inkers tend to be o l d e r , occupy higher soc i a l s tatus p o s i t i o n s , l ess psycho log i ca l l y dependent on a lcohol and, in gene ra l , somewhat more s a t i s f i e d with t he i r circumstances and bet ter adjusted than High Maximum d r i nke r s . •12 In the r e su l t s sec t ions which f o l l ow , l e ve l s of d r ink ing w i l l be ex -pressed in terms of the Volume-Var iab i l i ty Index. Occas iona l l y i t w i l l be supplemented by the Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i t y Index to permit comparison with other samples, (c) Index of Uncontro l led Dr inking The Index of Uncontro l led Dr ink ing , not a measure of l e v e l s of d r ink ing but of problem d r i n k i n g , i s der ived from the research of H. A. Mulford and h is col leagues and t h e i r attempts to locate problem dr inkers in a number of household surveys using d i f f e r e n t s ca l e s . What was found to be the best s c a l e , the Loss o f Control Index (a part of the e a r l i e r K e l l e r A l c o h o l i c Index) i d e n t i f i e d , f o r example, a l l of a c r i t e r i o n group of f i f t y - s i x known a l c o h o l i c s . It was renamed to avoid imp l i ca t ion of a phys ica l bas is f o r excess ive d r i n k i n g . The index has been s t rong ly recommended by Mulford to be used as a bas is fo r i den t i f y i ng problem dr inkers or a l c o h o l i c s in survey samples of the general populat ion (1969). When app l ied to such samples Mul -fo rd has hypothesized that the index i d e n t i f i e s i nd i v i dua l s who are approach-ing the end of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l process in that they have been labe led " a l c o h o l i c " and have come to accept o thers ' d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e i r d r ink ing as causing t rouble or as being uncontro l led regard less of whether the i n d i v i d -ual or the spouse has been interv iewed. The index i s comprised of twelve items (quest ionnaire items 50-61). Problem dr inkers are those who respond p o s i t i v e l y to any two of the " t r oub l e " items and repor t t he i r occurrence during the past year or those who respond with " f r equen t l y " to e i t he r of the two items (60 and 61) i n d i c a t i n g loss of c o n t r o l . In the present study the items were responded to by a l l subjects who reported dr ink ing a t l eas t once per year ( s e l f respondents ) . Married 13 subjects were a lso asked to respond to the same items fo r t h e i r spouse (proxy respondents) . (d) Absolute Alcohol Consumption Assignment to Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y categor ies required c a l c u l a t i o n o f the number of dr inks of each beverage consumed per month. Monthly consumption of absolute a lcohol was determined fo r each beverage, the amounts were con -verted to c e n t i l i t e r s , and combined. The assumed quan t i t i e s per d r ink and the a lcohol content of each beverage were as f o l l ows : Beer: 12 oz . per d r i nk , 5% a lcohol by volume Wine: 4 oz . per d r i nk , 16% a lcohol by volume S p i r i t s : \ \ oz. per d r i nk , 40% alcohol by volume C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample The demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample are presented in Table III. S ince recent census data i s not a va i l ab l e at present , p rec i se comparisons of the populat ions and samples are not poss ib l e . Never the less , some comment can be made on the basis of comparisons with the 1966 census and with the data contained in more recent populat ion est imates. Males were only s l i g h t l y underrepresented when the sample proport ions are compared to e i the r the 1966 census data f o r e i t he r the three c i t i e s com-bined or populat ion estimates by sex fo r the province as a whole f o r 1970. In 1966, males made up 51% of the combined populat ions of the three c i t i e s whi le 49% of the sample were male. Across c i t i e s , males were s l i g h t l y over-represented in the Twintown sample and somewhat underrepresented in the R i ve r -town and the Laketown samples. With respect to mar i ta l s t a t u s , i t would appear that marr ied respond-ents were overrepresented--at l eas t when compared to the propor t ion f o r the province as a whole; 84% of the sample were married compared to only 75% 14 Q married in the populat ion est imat ions fo r B r i t i s h Columbia f o r 1969 . The proport ions widowed, d ivorced and separated are i den t i c a l to those f o r 1969 whi le the s ing l e group was underrepresented. In Table IV the combined sample is compared to the 1970 B r i t i s h Columbia 9 populat ion estimates by age . On the basis of th i s comparison the youngest age group, 20--24, was se r i ous l y underrepresented while the two adjacent age groups, cover ing the in te rva l 25—44, were somewhat overrepresented. Re la t i ve to the 1966 census, each c i t y lacked a s u f f i c i e n t number of respond-ents in the youngest age category and in every case , i nd i v i dua l s aged 55 i and o lder were overrepresented. On var ious measures of r e s i den t i a l s t a b i l i t y (Table I I I ) , i t i s ev ident that Laketown respondents were much more l i k e l y to have l i v ed in Laketown longer , in the same res idence , which they were more l i k e l y to have owned f o r a longer per iod of t ime. The above comparisons are intended to be no more than a gu ide . The com-bined sample v/as not se lec ted in such a way that i t would necessa r i l y be r ep -resen ta t i ve of the populat ion of the prov ince . While i t i s impossible to make d e f i n i t e statements about the representat iveness of c i t y samples r e l a t i v e to each o the r , i t i s unquestionable that i nd i v i dua l s who are mar r i ed , o lder than f i f t y - f i v e or female were overrepresented. This being the case , the combined sample i s more representa t i ve of a household populat ion and the nature and extent of bias i s s i m i l a r to household surveys of d r ink ing p r a c t i c e s ^ . Jud-ging from the r e su l t s of previous studies the e f f e c t of these d i s t o r t i o n s are l i k e l y to be r e f l e c t e d in lower proport ions of heavy dr inkers and higher p ro -por t ions of absta iners or l i g h t d r i nke r s . Tables III and IV 15 TABLE li THE SAMPLE: OUTCOME OF CONTACT ATTEMPT BY CITY LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL N N N N POPULATION ELEMENTS 5,922 12,257 16,737 34,916 DES IGNATED SUB JECTS 233 573 583 1,389 MOVED FROM AREA . 53 135 174 362 SUB JECT DECEASED 8 9 8 25 NOT A V A I L A B L E AFTER 8 C A L L S 2 11 0 13 CONTACTED SUBJECTS 170 418 401 989 N N N N REFUSED 19 11.2 39 9.3 33 8.3 91 9.2 S I C K , S E N I L E , LANGUAGE BARRIER 9 5.3 30 7.2 10 2.5 49 4.9 COMPLETED 142 83.5 349 83.4 358 89.3 849 85.8 TABLE III DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE BY CITY IN PERCENT 16 LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL % % % i SEX MALE 12 52 49 49 FEMALE 58 48 51 51 AGE 2 0 - 2 9 11 18 19 17 3 0 - 3 9 18 21 29 24 40 - 49 22 23 27 25 5 0 - 5 9 25 17 15 18 6 0 - 6 9 16 12 7 11 70 PLUS 9 8 3 8 MARITAL STATUS MARRIED 78 85 85 84 S I N G L E . 8 6 7 7 WIDOWED,, D IVORCED, SEPARATED 14 9 6 9 RELIGION C A T H O L I C 21 19 15 18 ANGLICAN 9 19 15 16 UN ITED 35 30 36 33 PRESBYTER IAN AMD B A P T I S T 11 7 8 8 OTHER PROTESTANT 14 13 15 14 NONE 6 11 10 10 OTHER 3 2 2 2 ETHNIC ORIGIN B R I T I S H 55 59 56 57 FRENCH AMD ITAL IAN 8 8 7 8 GERMAN AND DUTCH 11 10 14 12 SCANDINAVIAN 9 11 8 OTHER 17 18 12 15 EDUCATION SOME ELEMENTARY 6 6 6 6 ELEMENTARY COMPLETED 12 18 10 13 SOME HIGH SCHOOL 40 34 33 35 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 24 27 31 28 SOME UN IVERS ITY 11 11 12 11 UN IVERS ITY GRADUATE 5 4 8 6 EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYED 52 57 59 57 UNEMPLOYED 2 2 3 2 HOUSEWIFE 25 26 30 27 RET IRED 11 10 4 8 SELF—EMPLOYEO 8 5 4 5 OCCUPATION PROFESS IONAL 15 8 18 14 MANAGERIAL 13 7 11 10 WHITE COLLAR 24 17 25 22 S K I L L E D 27 26 28 27 S E M I - S K I L L E D 17 27 12 19 U N S K I L L E D 2 12 5 7 FARMER, STUDENT 1 2 1 2 INCOME UNDER 2,000 5 8 3 5 2,000 - 3,999 14 5 5 7 4,000 - 5,999 14 11 9 11 6,000 - 7,999 16 21 13 17 8,000 - 9,999 24 21 17 20 10,000 - 14,999 13 24 37 28 15,000 PLUS 5 8 13 9 PLACE OF BIRTH B R I T I S H COLUMBIA 39 35 31 34 CANADA - PRA IR IES 32 37 43 39 CANADA - OTHER 7 9 9 9 OUTS IDE CANADA 23 19 16 19 RESIDENCE S I N G L E FAMILY DWELLING 78 80 81 80 OWNERSHIP OF RES IDENCE 72 71 74 72 X J J J LENGTH OF T IME OWNING HOME (YEARS) 12.9 11.5 7.4 8.7 LENGTH OF T IME L I V I N G IN " T H I S C I T Y " (YEARS ) 22.7 15.7 13.5 16 .0 LENGTH OF T IME L I V I N G AT " T H I S ADDRESS" ( Y E A R S ) 11.0 7.5 6 .2 7.5 NUMBER OF PREVIOUS ADDRESSES IN PAST F I V E YEARS 0 . 9 1.2 1.3 1.2 LENGTH OF T IME MARRIED ( Y E A R S ) 21.2 18.4 15.3 17.5 NUMBER OF CH ILDREN L I V I N G WITH RESPONDENT 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.5 17 TABLE IV AGE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR TWENTY AND OLDER IN PERCENT: SAMPLES AMD POPULATIONS COMPARED LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN 1970 ' COMBINED 1966 1970 1966 1970 1965 1970 POP . E S T . SAMPLE CENSUS SAMPLE CENSUS SAMPLE CENSUS SAMPLE FOR B . C . 1970 % % % % % * % 20 - 24 10.9 2.8 12.6 4.6 15.6 7.3 13.2 5.4 25 - 34 16.1 19.7 24.1 23.5 30.3 28.5 21.7 25.0 35 - 44 20.5 16.2 24.2 24.4 26.0 26.8 19.7 24.0 45 - 54 19.9 20.4 17.7 20.6 15.6 20.9 17.7 20.7 55 - 64 16.0 21.1 10.6 14.C 7.4 9.8 13.3 13.4 65 PLUS 16.6 19.7 10.9 12.6 5.0 6.4 14.4 11.2 18 Chapter 3 LEVELS.OF DRINKING: COMPARISON ACROSS CITIES Volume-Variabi l i t y The proport ions of each sample f a l l i n g into each Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y (V-V) category are shown, fo r each c i t y , in Table V. Almost three out of every ten respondents claimed to have consumed alcohol l ess o f ten than once per month. Laketown had a s l i g h t l y higher proport ion of Absta iners and In-frequents (31%) than did Twintown (25%) and Rivertown (27%). At the other extreme, Laketown had a s l i g h t l y lower proport ion of High Volume-High Max-imum dr inkers (16%) r e l a t i v e to Twintown (17%) and Rivertown (19%). In terms of volume categor ies (Table VI) the same pattern of d i f f e r -ences between the three c i t i e s was mainta ined: as one moves from Laketown to Twintown to Rivertown somewhat higher percentages of each sample f e l l in to the High Volume category. A more s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e , but of the same pa t t -e r n , was revealed when the proport ion of High and Low Maximum dr inkers were compared (Table VI I ) . Volume categor ies r e f l e c t intake over time and seem to be a s s o c i a t e d , at the higher l e v e l s , with the p r o b a b i l i t y of developing var ious phys ica l consequences such as l i v e r c i r r h o s i s ; the two maximum (High and Low) ca tegor ies r e f l e c t the tendency to consume small or l a rge amounts of a lcohol per dr ink ing occasion and thus the tendency to become i n t o x i c a t e d . Consequent ly , High Maximum dr ink ing is assoc ia ted with a higher p r o b a b i l i t y of behaving in ways which r e s u l t in negative consequences of a soc i a l ra ther than a phys ica l nature. A higher proport ion of Rivertowners were High Max-imum dr inkers (53%) compared to Twintown (48%) and e s p e c i a l l y Laketown (41%). Of a l l d r i n k e r s * 1 in Rivertown: 31% were High Volume, 73% were High Maximum and 26% were both High Volume and High Maximum. Of a l l d r inkers in Laketown: 19 28% were High Volume, 60% were High Maximum and 23% were both. Twintown dr inkers occupied an intermediate pos i t i on between the other two c i t i e s a l -though when dr inkers alone were considered the only d i f f e rence between Twin-town and Laketown was in the proport ion of dr inkers who were c l a s s i f i e d as High Maximum (63% vs . 60%). Tables V, VI and VII Absolute Alcohol Mean absolute a lcohol consumption, in terms of c e n t i l i t e r s per month f o r each V-V category , i s presented in Table VIII f o r each c i t y . Looking at the " T o t a l " column i t is notable that wi th in each volume category High Maximum dr inkers consumed s l i g h t l y more than Low Maximum dr inkers in the Low and Medium Volume groups but cons iderab ly more in the High Volume group. O v e r a l l , the 415 High Maximum dr inkers reported consuming a mean of 86.6 c e n t i l i t e r s of absolute a lcohol per month compared to 37.3 c e n t i l i t e r s r e -ported by the 203 Low Maximum d r i nke r s . Looking across c i t i e s , i t i s apparent that not only are higher p ropor -t ions of dr inkers in Rivertown and Twintown High Volume-High Maximum r e l a t i v e to Laketown but , desp i te the f a c t that they f a l l in to the same category , the former had s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher l e ve l s of consumption. Consider ing consump-t i on l e v e l s independent of V-V categor ies (Table IX) Rivertown dr inkers con -sumed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more alcohol (76 c l . ) than d id Twintowners (69 c l . ) or 12 Laketowners (60 c l . ) . Tables VIII and IX 20 Quanti ty-Frequency-Variabi 1 i ty For comparison with other s t ud i e s , respondents were a lso categor ized according to the Q-F-V c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedure, the precursor of the V-V typology. Absta in ing and infrequent dr ink ing have the same d e f i n i t i o n s under both procedures. " L i g h t " , "Moderate" and "Heavy" Q-F-V categor ies are roughly equ iva lent to Low, Medium and High Volume V-V ca tegor i es . Table X compares proport ions of the combined sample who f e l l in to the var ious c a t -egor ies of both systems. Almost a l l (93%) Q-F-V L ight dr inkers were V-V Low Maximum d r i n k e r s ; almost a l l (97%) Q-F-V Heavy dr inkers were V-V High Maximum; whi le most of the Q-F-V Moderate dr inkers f e l l in to the V-V Low V o l -ume (58%) or Medium Volume (34%) c a t ego r i e s , the greatest proport ion of them (83%) were High Maximum dr inke r s . The Q-F-V breakdown by c i t y , included in Table XI , shows that a l a rger propor t ion of each c i t y sample was c l a s s i f i e d as Heavy than was c l a s s i f i e d as High Volume-High Maximum d r i nke r s . Since qu i te d i f f e r e n t d r ink ing pat-erns are combined in the Heavy category i t i s l ess s ens i t i v e to some kinds o f d i f f e r ences between c i t i e s . The proport ion of heavy dr inkers in each sam-ple was very s i m i l a r , suggesting that the major source of discrepancy was in the moderate d r ink ing range. Double the proport ion of Rivertown dr inkers r e l a t i v e to Laketown dr inkers f e l l in to the Moderate d r ink ing category. Nev-e r t h e l e s s , i f Q-F-V Heavy dr inkers are compared (Table XII) f o r frequency of  d r ink ing i t i s ev ident that Rivertown Heavy dr inkers dr ink more f r equen t l y ; 67% reported dr ink ing three or more times per week compared to 51% (Twintown) and 46% (Laketown). Consequently, Rivertown Q-F-V Heavy dr inkers consumed cons iderab ly more alcohol--about 25 c e n t i l i t e r s per month than Twintown Heavy dr inkers and 39 c e n t i l i t e r s more than Laketown Heavy dr inkers during any given month (Table XI I I ) . 21 Tables X, XI , XII and XIII Index of Uncontro l led Dr inking Mu l fo rd ' s Index of Uncontro l led Dr inking cons i s t s o f twelve items which descr ibe potent i a l " t r oub l e s " due to dr ink ing and dr ink ing p rac t i c e s which r e f l e c t loss of contro l (see quest ionnai re items 50-61). A l l non-abstaining respondents were asked i f they had experienced any of the t roubles l i s t e d . Each was then asked to act as a proxy respondent fo r h is or her spouse. The number and proport ion of s e l f and proxy respondents who were i d e n t i f i e d as problem dr inkers i s presented in Table XIV. The proport ion i d e n t i f i e d as problem d r i nke r s , 78 of the 1,571 s e l f and proxy respondents (5.0%) was high in comparison to the most recent J e l l i n e k est imat ions fo r 1968 when 3.1% of the populat ion of B r i t i s h Columbia aged twenty and o lder were estimated to be a l c o h o l i c s . Poss ib le explanat ions of t h i s d i f f e r ence w i l l be d iscussed at a l a t e r po in t . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that very s i m i l a r proport ions o f the s e l f and proxy respondents f e l l in to problem dr ink ing ca tego r i e s . If respondents were r e l u c t an t to admit to t roub les due to t he i r own dr ink ing but not the i r spouses' d r i n k i n g , one might expect to f i n d a higher percentage of proxy problem d r i n k -ers i . e . a large d iscrepancy would suggest that t roubles had been underreported. The only s i z a b l e d iscrepancy was found fo r Laketown where less than 1% of the s e l f and more than 6% of the proxy samples were def ined as problem d r i nke r s . At l e a s t part of th i s d i f f e r ence may be due to the f a c t that there was a much l a rge r proport ion of men in the Laketown proxy sample than in the s e l f respon-dent sample. Fur ther , the extent of dr ink ing and the kinds of d r ink ing .22 behavior which came to be de f ined , by responding to items in the index, as "problem d r i n k i n g " were qui te d i f f e r e n t fo r Laketown proxy respondents. In Rivertown most of the proxy problem dr inkers had f requent l y l o s t cont ro l as well as having experienced various t roubles due to d r ink ing whi le few of the Laketown proxy problem dr inkers had apparent ly l o s t c o n t r o l . In f a c t , the most usual items c i t ed in Laketown were complaints on the part of t he i r spouse and f a i l u r e to do var ious things because of d r ink ing and few o thers . Few of the Laketown proxy problem d r i n k e r s , a l l of whom were men, would have f a l l e n in to the problem dr ink ing category i f i t had not been f o r t h e i r w ives '—the actual respondents—compla ints . This was not so in the case of Rivertown: wives made the same complaints but , with only one excep t ion , a l l would have come to be def ined as problem dr inkers independent of t h e i r compla ints . Thus, the higher propor t ion of Laketown proxy problem dr inkers may be more a r e -f l e c t i o n o f . l o c a l female a t t i tudes concerning acceptable male dr ink ing prac -t i c e s ra ther than anything e l s e . In any case the kind of d r ink ing behavior evidenced by Rivertown proxy problem dr inkers was more extreme and more c l o s e l y f i t s conventional c l i n i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of a l coho l i sm. Table XIV In the combined sample of a l l respondents the most f r equent l y reported t roub les due to d r ink ing (Table XV) were re la ted to f a i l u r e to car ry out com-mitments and o thers ' complaints regarding the amounts spent on l i q u o r ; prob-lems re l a ted to job in te r fe rence were leas t of ten repor ted . Laketowners c i t -ed fewer t roubles per respondent than d id Twintown or Rivertown respondents. The only item which was c i t ed by Laketowners more of ten had to do with ac t ions or threats regarding the terminat ion of marr iage. 23 f o r comparison purposes, Table XVI provides the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e l f respondent problem dr inkers with in V-V and Q-F-V ca tegor i es . A few (6) o f the 41 problem dr inkers f e l l in to e i the r the Absta iner or Infrequent c a t -ego r i e s . A l l of the 35 who were cu r ren t l y d r ink ing were e i t h e r inc luded in the High Maximum (33) or the High Volume (2) groups. On Q-F-V, most (28) were Heavy and the remainder (7) were c l a s s i f i e d as Moderate d r i n k e r s . More of the problem dr inkers would have been i d e n t i f i e d on the bas is o f High Max-imum dr ink ing than would have been with Q-F-V Heavy, V-V High Volume or High Volume-High Maximum. The l a t t e r , however, had the best r a t i o o f true p o s i -t i v es to f a l s e p o s i t i v e s . Never the less , these kinds of cons idera t ions would only be re levant i f one were attempting to e s t ab l i sh some a l t e rna te measure of problem dr ink ing or a lcohol ism using the Index of Uncontro l led Dr ink ing as a c r i t e r i o n . To do so i s not our present purpose. For the moment our so le ob jec t i ve i s to e s t ab l i sh that the upper extremes of measures of prob -lem dr ink ing dependent on volume, maximum consumption, monthly absolute a l -cohol consumption, quant i ty-frequency and t roubles due to d r i n k i n g , i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n t proport ions of the sample and def ine d i f f e r e n t aspects of d r ink ing or the consequences of dr ink ing as being prob lemat ic , even though there i s a cons iderab le amount of over l ap . In most of the future sec t ions o f th i s r e -p o r t , the d r ink ing data w i l l be presented in terms of the V-V c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Although i t does not have to be in te rpre ted in th i s manner, High Volume-High Maximum might be taken as a measure of problem dr ink ing s ince i t summarizes the two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s most of ten assoc ia ted with problem dr inkers--a r e l -a t i v e l y high leve l of consumption over time and, on any given o c cas i on , a higher p r o b a b i l i t y of d r ink ing to the po int of i n t o x i c a t i o n . Th is does not necessa r i l y mean that these i nd i v i dua l s would def ine themselves, or be so 24 def ined by anyone e l s e , as "problem d r inke r s " o r , e s p e c i a l l y , as a l c o h o l i c s . Tables XV and XVI Summary To b r i e f l y summarize d i f f e rences in l eve l s of dr ink ing between c i t i e s : r e l a t i v e to Twintown and e spec i a l l y Rivertown, Laketown had a s l i g h t l y high-I er proport ion of absta iners and infrequent d r i n k e r s ; a lower proport ion of High Volume dr inkers and a lower proport ion of High Maximum dr inke r s . On the average Laketowners consumed s i g n i f i c a n t l y less absolute a lcohol per month; a higher proport ion of them were included in the Q-F-V " L i gh t " d r i nk -ing category and Laketown "Heavy" dr inkers (Q-F-V) drank less f requent ly and consumed less a lcohol during any given month. Laketowners a lso reported few-er t roubles due to dr ink ing and a l e sse r proport ion of the sample were de -f ined as "problem d r i nke r s " by the Index of Uncontrol led Dr ink ing . i 25 TABLE V VOLUME-VAR IAB I L ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY C I T Y IN PERCENT 1 3 LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN T O T A L % N % N % M % N ABSTAINER 14.0 20 11.1 39 15.1 54 13.3 113 INFREQUENT 16.9 24 14.3 . 50 12.3 44 13.9 113 LOW V O L . LOW MAX. . 19.0 27 17.2 60 12.9 46 15.7 133 LOW V O L . HIGH MAX. 10.0 14 14.0 49 18.7 67 15.3 130 MED. V O L . LOW MAX. 4.9 7 6.1 21 2.8 10 4.5 38 MED. V O L . HIGH MAX. 15.5 22 16.0 56 15.5 56 15.8 134 H IGH V O L . LOW MAX. 3.5 5 3.7 13 3.9 14 3.8 32 HIGH V O L . H IGH MAX. 16.2 23 17.5 61 18.7 67 17.8 151 100 142 100 349 100 358 100 849 26 TABLE AM VOLUME OF DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY C I T Y IN PERCENT LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN T O T A L ABSTAINERS & % N % N % N % N INFREQUENTS 31.0 44 25.5 89 27.4 98 27.2 231 LOW VOLUME 23.9 41 31.2 109 31.6 113 30.9 263 MEDIUM VOLUME 20.4 29 22.1 77 18.4 66 20.3 172 HIGH VOLUME 19.7 28 21.2 74 22.6 81 21.5 183 100 142 100 349 100 353 100 849 T A B L E V I I V A R I A B I L I T Y OF DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY C I T Y IN PERCENT LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL % N % N % N % N ABSTA INERS t> INFREOUENTS 31.0 44 25.5 89 27.4 98 27.2 231 Low MAXIMUM 27.5 39 26.9 94 19.5 70 23.9 203 HIGH MAXIMUM 41.5 59 47.6 166 53.1 190 48.9 415 TOTALS 100 142 100 349 100 358 100 849 TABLE VI11 MEAN CONSUMPTION OF ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH FOR VOLUME-VAR IAB I L ITY CATEGORIES BY C I T Y 27 LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN T O T A L A B S T . & INFREQ. LOW V O L . LOW MAX. 12.3 12.8 11.0 12.1 LOW V O L . HIGH MAX. 14.2 16.9 16.1 16.2 MED. V O L . LOW MAX. 38.5 49.6 51.7 48.1 MED. V O L . HIGH MAX. 55.9 52.3 52.8 53.1 H IGH V O L . LOW MAX. 84.6 111.9 161.1 129.1 HIGH V O L . HIGH MAX. 147.2 178.5 185.9 177.0 TABLE IX MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION BY CfTY LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL A L L RESPONDENTS 41.1 51.5 55.2 51.3 DRINKERS ONLY 59.6 68.9 76.0 70.4 TABLE X' VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY Q - F - V IN PERCENT ABST. & INFREQ. LIGHT MODERATE HEAVY 231 174 200 244 ABST. «, INFREQ. 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOW VOL. LOW MAX. 0.0 69.0 6.5 0.0 LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. 0.0 7.5 51.5 5.7 MED. VOL. LOW MAX. 0.0 14.9 5.5 0.4 MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. 0.0 0,0 28.5 31.6 HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 0.0 8.6 5.0 2.9 HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 0.0 0.0 3.0 59.4 TOTAL IG  MAX. 0.0 7.5 83.0 96.7 TABLE XI 29 Q-F-V DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY C I T Y IN PERCENT LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL N N * N % N ABSTA INER 14.1 20 11.2 39 15.1 54 13.3 113 INFREQUENT 16.9 24 14.3 50 12.3 44 13.9 118 L IGHT 28.9 el 22.3 78 15.3 55 20.5 174 MODERATE 14.1 20 21.2 74 29.6 106 23.5 200 HEAVY 26.1 37 30.9 108 27.7 99 % 28.7 244 TOTALS 100 142 100 349 100 358 100 849 TABLE 'X I I D I STR I BUT ION OF Q-F-V " H E A V Y " DRINKERS BY FREQUENCY OF DRINKING AND C I T Y IN PERCENT LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RiVERTOWN T O T A L FREQUENCY OF ANY ALCOHOL IC % N • % ' N . BEVERAGE 1° N % N 3 OR MORE T IMES A DAY 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.0 2 0.8 2 TWICE A DAY 2.7 5.5 6 7.1 7 5.7 14 EVERY DAY OR NEARLY EVERY DAY 27.0 10 32.4 35 35.4 35 32.8 80 3 OR 4 T IMES A WEEK 16.2 6 13.0 14 22.2 22 17.2 42 ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK 43.2 16 38.9 42 23.2 23 33.2 81 2 OR 3 T IMES A MONTH 10.8 4 10.2 11 10.1 10 10.2 25 T O T A L 100 37 100 108 100 99 100 244 TABLE XI II MEAN CONSUMPTION OF ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL IM C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH FOR Q-F-V CATEGORIES BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TwiNTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL L IGHT 23.5 25.9 20.7 23.7 , MODERATE 41.5 34.5 37.2 36.5 HEAVY 109.4 123.5 148.4 131.5 TABLE XIV PROBLEM DRINKERS IDENTIFIED BY THE INDEX OF UNCONTROLLED DRINKING LAKETOWN S E L F RESPONDENT PR09LEM DRINKERS 1 SAMPLE S I Z E 142 % PROBLEM DRINKERS 0.7% PROXY RESPONDENT PR03LEM DRINKERS 7 SAMPLE S I Z E 115 % PROBLEM DRINKERS 6.1$ A L L PROBLEM DRINKERS 8 TOTAL SAMPLE S I Z E 257 % PROBLEM DRINKERS 3.1% TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 20 20 41 349 358 849 5.7% 5.6% 4,8% 15 15 37 295 312 722 5.1* 4.82 5.15? 35 35 78 644 670 1,571 5.4;? 5,2$ 5.0% 31 TABLE XV INDEX OF UNCONTROLLED DR INK ING: P O S I T I V E RESPONSES TO ITEMS, S E L F AND PROXY RESPONDENTS, IN NUMBER AND PERCENT LAKETOWN HAS AN EMPLOYER EVER F I RED YOU OR THREATENED TO F IRE YOU IF YOU D I D N ' T CUT DOWN OR QUIT DRINKING? HAS YOUR SPOUSE EVER L E F T YOU OR THREATENED TO LEAVE YOU IF YOU D I D N ' T DO SOMETHINGS ABOUT YOUR DRINKING? HAS YOUR SPOUSE OR A FAMILY MEMBER EVER COMPLAINED THAT YOU SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY ON LIQUOR? HAVE YOU EVER SEEM ARRESTED FOR INTOXICATION OR OTHER CHARGES INVOLVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES? HAS A PHYSIC IAN EVER TOLD YOU DRINKING WAS INJURING YOUR HEALTH? HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY I LLNESSES BROUGHT ON BY YOUR DRINKING? HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY D I F F I C U L T Y IN MEET ING B I L L S BECAUSE TOO MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT ON LIQUOR? HAVE YOU EVER QU IT A JOB OR CHANGED JOBS BECAUSE YOU WERE IN TROUBLE DUE TO DRINKING? HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY ACCIDENTS OR IN JUR IES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO DRINKING? HAVE YOU EVER F A I L E D TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SHOULD DO - L I K E KEEP ING APPOINTMENTS, G E T T I N G THINGS DONE AROUND HOME OR ATTENDING TO.YOUR J 0 8 - BECAUSE OF DRINKING? WITHOUT REAL IZ ING WHAT YOU ARE DOING, DO YOU END UP DRINKING MORE THAN YOU HAD PLANNED? ( " F R E Q U E N T L Y " RESPONSES) ONCE YOU START DR INK ING, IS I T D I F F I C U L T FOR YOU TO STOP UNT I L YOU BECOME COMPLETELY INTOX f CATED? ( " F R E Q U E N T L Y " RESPONSES) T O T A L 1.2 3.5 2.7 1.6 1.2 TWINTOWN $ N 1.1 7 5.4 14 5.9 38 1.4 0.8 2 OA 3.4 22 RiVERTOWN % N 0.9 6 2.3 15 2.2 15 4.5 30 2.3 6 7.1 46 4.0 27 2.3 15 3.0 20 1.3 9 1.9 12 2.4 16 1.0 7 3.6 24 5.4 14 7.5 48 7.8 52 1.9 5 3.0- 19 3.4 23 1.2 3 1.6 10 1.6 11 76 246 240 TOTAL % N 1.0 16 2.5 39 5.2 82 5.0 79 2.7 42 1.4 22 2.0 31 0.9 ty» 3.3 52 7.3 114 3.0 47 1.5 24 562 32 ABSTAINER INFREQUENT LOW V O L . LOW MAX. LOW V O L . H IGH MAX. MED . V O L . LOW MAX. M E D . V O L . H IGH MAX. H IGH V O L . LOW MAX. H IGH V O L . HIGH MAX. TABLE XVr C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF PROBLEM DRINKERS BY VOLUME-VAR IAB I L ITY AND QUANT ITY-FREQUENCY-VAR IAB IL ITY ABSTA INER N % 5 1 2 . 2 INFREQUENT N % 2 . 4 L IGHT N % MODERATE N 4 1 2 . 4 5 1 2 . 2 1 2 . 4 HEAVY N % 3 7 . 3 5 1 2 . 2 1 2 . 4 1 9 4 6 . 3 Chapter 4 LEVELS OF DRINKING: SELF-DESCRIPTION In the previous sec t ion data were presented which descr ibed l e ve l s o f d r ink ing which were based on , fo r the most pa r t , conversions der ived from reported patterns of consumption of each beverage. The d e s c r i p t i v e terms app l i ed to each category were those of the surveyor , not the respondent. It would be i n t e r es t i ng and worthwhile to know how respondents desc r ibe t h e i r own dr ink ing and how t h e i r desc r ip t i ons compare to those of the s u r -veyor . Desc r ip t i on of Se l f and Proxy Dr inking Each respondent was asked to descr ibe his or her d r ink ing and that of the spouse, where appropr i a te , in terms of the categor ies l i s t e d in Table XVII. I t i s immediately ev ident that very few of the respondents cons idered them-se lves to be "Heavy" dr inkers--only 6% compared to the 29% def ined as "Heavy" on Q-F-V and the 19% who were High Volume-High Maximum on Vo lume-Va r i ab i l i t y . Turning to the proxy respondents, fewer of them were cons idered to be absta iners by t he i r spouses (6% vs . 12% fo r s e l f respondents) and more were judged to be "Heavy" dr inkers (10% vs . 6%) again suggesting the p o s s i b i l i t y that respondents were less r e luc tan t to use negative terms to descr ibe t h e i r spouse 's d r ink ing than they were to descr ibe the i r own d r i n k i n g . Looking across c i t i e s , Rivertown had the highest proport ion of respondents (6.1%) who descr ibed themselves as Heavy dr inkers (vs. Twintown, 5.2%, and Laketown, 3.8%). However, with respect to proxy respondents the order was reve rsed : 13% of the Laketown proxies were descr ibed as Heavy dr inkers (vs . Twintown, 9%, and Rivertown, 8%). Thus, moving from Laketown to Twintown to Rivertown there was p rogress -i v e l y l ess d iscrepancy between the rates of heavy d r ink ing reported f o r s e l f 34 respondents and fo r proxy respondents. This discrepancy was not l im i t ed to the upper end of the s ca l e . The same pattern of d i f f e rences a l so occurred in the Absainer category where the s e l f respondent rates were almost i den t i c a l t o , and the proxy respondent rates were cons iderably lower than, the propor -t ions designated in the V-V c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedure. With a l l c i t i e s com-bined the proport ion of the s e l f respondent sample who considered themselves to be absta iners was much c lose r to what one would expect from the r e su l t s of other surveys. For e i the r s e l f or proxy respondents, the i m p l i c i t d e f i n -i t i o n of heavy dr ink ing must be extreme, s ince only 7.3% of the combined proxy and s e l f respondent sample were so c l a s s i f i e d — a b o u t one-third of those who were categor ized as High Volume-High Maximum and one- f i f t h of those def ined as "Heavy" d r inkers by the Q-F-V procedure. Table XVII Comparison Between Se l f-Desc r ip t ion and Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Table XVIII provides the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n categor ies ( for s e l f respondents .only ) by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y ca tegor i es . At each end of the s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n continuum there was f a i r l y c lose agreement between the s e l f and V-V placement; a l l of the se l f-desc r ibed "Heavy" dr inkers f e l l in to the High Volume group; almost a l l of the se l f -desc r ibed "Abs ta ine rs " f e l l into the V-V Absta iner and Infrequent dr inker category. About three-quarters of the "Very l i g h t " d r inkers consumed V-V Low Volume amounts or l e s s ; almost a l l of the " F a i r l y heavy" dr inkers were e i the r High Volume (84%) or High Maximum (95%). The most s t r i k i n g source of disagreement between the two ca tegor i za t ion systems occurred with respect to the 253 respondents who descr ibed themselves 35 as " F a i r l y l i g h t " d r i nke r s . A "Moderate" dr ink ing response was d e l i b e r a t e l y omitted from the response a l t e rna t i ves to fo rce subjects to place themselves on one s ide of the Light-Heavy dichotomy. Many of those who chose the h ighest " L i g h t " category were in the High (42%) or Medium (35%) Volume groups and 80% of them were High Maximum d r i nke r s . Using V-V High Volume as a c r i t e r i o n measure, i t would seem that many, in f a c t most, of the respondents at the up-per end of the consumption d i s t r i b u t i o n have placed themselves on the lower s ide of the s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n dichotomy. Quite obv ious ly they may have con-s c i ous l y done so in order to avoid the in te rv iewer ' s negative eva lua t ion . Th is was, undoubtedly, a reason fo r some of the d i s t o r t i o n . It i s i n t e r e s t -ing to note , however, that when the same respondents were asked to descr ibe t he i r spouses ' d r ink ing the proport ion who used " F a i r l y l i g h t " d r inker was the same although they were genera l l y somewhat more w i l l i n g to descr ibe t he i r spouses' d r ink ing in negative terms. Since the overa l l se l f-proxy discrepancy i s s m a l l , e i t he r respondents used pos i t i v e terms (L ight ) more f requent l y than they should have f o r proxies f o r the same reasons that they used them f o r them-s e l v e s , or they may have a c tua l l y perceived themselves and those f o r whom they were making proxy responses as much l i g h t e r dr inkers than they r e a l l y were, at l e as t in a r e l a t i v e sense. When asked to respond to the item respondents may " sea rch " t he i r soc i a l c i r c l e , f i n d those with the highest or most frequent consumption pa t t e rn , d e f -ine them as "Heavy" and s ince they themselves dr ink somewhat l ess they may then conclude that they are " L i g h t " d r i nke r s . If th i s were so,one could reasonably expect a s i m i l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n of se l f -desc r ibed dr ink ing l e v e l s almost no matter what kinds of d r ink ing p rac t i ces were preva lent in a given a rea . One might even hypothesize that in heavier d r ink ing a reas , where very f requent dr ink ing and 36 i n t ox i c a t i on are accepted or to le ra ted there would be less reason to d i s t o r t downward i n t e n t i o n a l l y and one could p red ic t less d iscrepancy between s e l f and proxy rates of heavy d r i nk i ng . One could a l so expect a grea ter d iscrepancy between l eve l s of consumption and the terms used to descr ibe that l e v e l . Table XVIII A comparison of the two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems (V-V and s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n ) f o r each c i t y i s presented in Tables XIX, XX and XXI. I f the c i t y samples are combined only 37 of the 179 High Volume dr inkers who responded to the i tem, considered themselves to be e i the r " F a i r l y heavy" or "Heavy" d r i n k e r s . Only 16% of the Laketown High Volume d r i n k e r s , compared to 21% of the Twintown and 21% of the Rivertown High Volume d r i nke r s , placed themselves in one of the Heavy ca t ego r i e s . In gene ra l , a respondent 's reported consumption of a lcohol would have to be very high indeed before he was w i l l i n g to r e f e r to h is leve l of con-sumption as "Heavy". Those who did accept t h i s labe l consumed a mean of 203 c e n t i l i t e r s of absolute a lcohol per month--a rather la rge amount when compared to the 50 c e n t i l i t e r s consumed by those in the " L igh t " , ca tegor ies (Table XXII ) . A lower consumption level .was required fo r Laketowners to accept the "Heavy" d r ink ing l a b e l . And a l s o , those Laketown High Volume consumers who placed themselves in the " L i g h t " ca tegory , consumed less a lcoho l per month than those in the other two c i t i e s . Thus, while i t i s true that s l i g h t l y more of the High Volume Laketowners seem to be d i s t o r t i n g downward, in that they descr ibe themselves as L ight d r i n k e r s , when compared to the other c i t i e s they would seem to have more j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r doing so s ince they dr ink l e s s . Tables XIX, XX, XXI and XXII 37 Desc r ip t ion of Others ' Dr inking At another po int in the quest ionnai re (Items 75-79) respondents were asked to descr ibe the dr ink ing prac t i ces of those whom they knew f a i r l y wel l and who l i v e in the same c i t y . They were asked to estimate the percentage of th i s group of acquaintances who were heavy d r i n k e r s , moderate d r i n k e r s , l i g h t dr inkers and abs ta ine rs . They were a l so requi red to make an indepen-dent est imat ion of the proport ion whom they considered to be problem dr inkers or a l c o h o l i c s . The mean percentage estimates f o r each category are shown in Table XXII I . Re la t i ve to the Q-F-V d i s t r i b u t i o n respondent est imates were s i m i l a r only at the l i g h t d r ink ing end.. When c l a s s i f y i n g themselves or p r o x i e s , respondents placed a l a rge r proport ion in the l i g h t d r ink ing c a t ego r i e s , than would be so c l a s s i f i e d by the survey ca tegor iza t ion of the frequency and quant i ty of d r i n k -ing repor ted . In desc r ib ing the dr ink ing of the i r acquaintances a l s o , the p ro -por t ion descr ibed as heavy dr inkers i s less than the propor t ion expected from the survey r e s u l t s . The term "Heavy" d r i n k i n g , once aga in , i s used in a more r e s t r i c t i v e and less i n c l u s i v e way than i t i s by dr ink ing p rac t i c e s surveyors . Table XXIII The pat tern of d i f f e r ences between c i t i e s with respect to proport ions of abs t a i ne r s , heavy dr inkers and problem dr inkers i s the same as that which has been es tab l i shed by a l l other c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedures with the excep-t i o n of proxy d e s c r i p t i o n . Rivertown respondents c o l l e c t i v e l y ind ica ted that 10% of the i nd i v i dua l s known to them were heavy dr inkers and about one-half of these were problem dr inkers or a l c o h o l i c s . 38 In view of the d e f i n i t i o n s which accompanied the est imat ion ca tegor -i e s , respondents ' c o l l e c t i v e est imations seemed to provide a reasonably a c -curate est imat ion of loca l dr ink ing prac t i ces as they were r e f l e c t e d by the survey r e s u l t s . This seems so because, a l lowing f o r d e f i n i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n -c e s , the ove ra l l ra tes are c lose to what one would expect on the bas is of the Q-F-V d i s t r i b u t i o n . The estimated rates of problem dr inkers are c o n s i s -tent with the es tab l i shed pattern and cons is tent with the rates one would expect using the J e l l i n e k est imat ion procedure. Respondents' est imat ions were found to be re l a ted to the way in which they themselves drank. For example, absta iners (Q-F-V) y i e l ded the highest estimated percentage of ab -s t a i n e r s ; moderate (Q-F-V) and heavy (Q-F-V) dr inkers estimated the highest percentage of moderate and heavy dr inkers respec t i ve l y—an expected d i f f e r -ence s ince respondents were, f o r the most pa r t , desc r ib ing the dr ink ing prac -t i c e s of t he i r f r i e n d s . If the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of l e ve l s of dr ink ing obtained by s e l f , proxy and respondents ' est imates are compared, i t would seem that the fu r the r removed from the respondent 's own dr ink ing the more accurate h is de s c r i p t i on of l o -ca l d r ink ing p r a c t i c e s . Whether th is was because he had less reason to cover up f o r h is acquaintances or because, in the l a t t e r case , he was provided with a more r e f ined sca le with a d e f i n i t i o n fo r each kind of d r i n k e r , i s open to specu l a t i on . It may be poss ib le f o r some purposes to employ such est imates by respon-dents of the leve l of d r ink ing among t he i r acquaintances as a reasonably ade-quate subs t i t u t e fo r the more extensive .and de ta i l ed s e l f - r epo r t s obtained in th i s and most other surveys. Further research to spec i f y the r e l a t i onsh ip be-tween such estimates and other types of survey or ob jec t i ve data would be 39 u s e f u l . They would be p a r t i c u l a r l y useful f o r obta in ing compar i t ive est imates of the extent and pattern of dr ink ing in var ious populat ion subgroups w i th in a community which would be d i f f i c u l t to sample s y s t e m a t i c a l l y , or f o r o b t a i n -ing quick estimates to compare, f o r example, with sales, d a t a , in a la rge num-ber of smal ler communities where ordinary surveys would be p r o h i b i t i v e l y c o s t -l y . Summary A higher proport ion of Rivertown s e l f respondents descr ibed themselves as heavy d r i nke r s . However, the d i f f e rence in th i s proport ion between R i ve r -town and the other two c i t i e s was small when the s e l f and proxy samples were combined. This was due to the f a c t that there was a d iscrepancy between these two ra tes—across c i t i e s proxy heavy dr ink ing rates were inve r se l y propor -t iona l to se l f - repor ted r a t es . O v e r a l l , there would seem to have been down-ward d i s t o r t i o n in the upper ranges of the consumption continuum i . e . most high volume consumers considered themselves to be l i g h t d r i nke r s . While i t seems, l i k e l y tha t , in a number of these cases , m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n occurred because of a conscious attempt to misrepresent the extent to which the respon-dent consumed a l c o h o l , there are ind i ca t ions in the data which suggest that m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l so occurred because respondents a c t u a l l y be l ieved that they were l i g h t dr inkers--or at l e as t not heavy d r i nke r s . At p resent , un fo r -t una te l y , i t i s not poss ib le to separate the s i g n i f i c a n c e of each of the po -t e n t i a l sources of m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n although there i s reason to be l ieve that the former may have been more of a f a c to r in Laketown than i t was in R i v e r -town. Respondents' c o l l e c t i v e est imat ions of loca l l eve l s of d r i n k i n g , which supported the es tab l i shed pattern of d i f f e rences between c i t i e s , were probably 40 subject to less d i s t o r t i o n from any source r e l a t i v e to s e l f and proxy des -c r i p t i o n s . For some purposes the respondent est imat ion procedure may be used in place o f , or as an adjunct t o , standard survey dr ink ing c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n s . 41 TABLE XV I I S E L F « D E S C R I P T I O N OF DRINKING L E V E L : S E L F RESPONDENTS LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL % N % N % M $ N ABSTAINER 15 1 9 10 33 1 4 4 8 1 2 1 0 0 VERY L IGHT DRINKER 5 5 7 2 5 5 1 8 7 4 7 160 5 1 4 1 9 F A I R L Y L IGHT DRINKER 26 . 3 4 31 106 33 1 1 3 3 1 2 5 3 F A I R L Y HEAVY DRINKER 3 4 4 1 5 6 19 5 3 8 HEAVY DRINKER 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 6 PROXY RESPONDENTS LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL % N % N % N % N ABSTA INER 6 6 5 1 5 7 21 6 42 VERY L IGHT DRINKER 5 7 6 1 56 158 4 9 144 5 9 363 F A I R L Y L I G H T DRINKER 23 2 4 30 84 3 5 1 0 2 31 2 1 0 F A I R L Y HEAVY DRINKER 9 10 7 21 6 16 7 4 7 HEAVY DRINKER 5 5 2 5 3 8 3 1 8 TABLE XVIII SELF-DESCRIPTION OF DRINKING LEVEL BY VOLUME-VARIABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT (VERTICAL) 42 ABST. & INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. H I G H MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. H I G H MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. H I G H MAX. TOTAL H I G H MAX. VERY ABSTAINER LIGHT 100 99.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 419 25.5 26.2 21.5 6.0 12.4 3.3 5.0 33.9 FAIRLY LIGHT 253 3.9 5.9 15.0 4.3 28.5 6.3 36.0 79.5 FAIRLY HEAVY 38 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 13.2 2.5 81.5 94.8 HEAVY 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 66.7 TABLE XIX SELF-DESCRIPTION OF DRINKING LEVEL FOR LAKETOWN BY VOLUME-VARIABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT (HORIZONTAL) ABST. & INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. H I G H MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. H I G H MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. H I G H MAX. N 40 25 14 6 20 5 20 ABSTAINER 47.5 0.0 O.C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VERY LIGHT 47.5 100.0 85.7 66.7 30.0 60.0 15.0 FAIRLY LIGHT 5.0 0.0 14.3 33.3 65.0 40.0 65.0 FAIRLY HEAVY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 15.0 HEAVY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 43 TABLE XX SELF-DESCRIPTION OF DRINKING LEVEL FOR TWINTOWN BY VOLUME-VARIABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT (HORIZONTAL) VERY FAIRLY FAIRLY N ABSTAINER LIGHT LIGHT HEAVY HEAVY ABST. & INFREQ. 85 37.6 54.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 LOW VOL. LOW MAX. 59 1.7 86.4 11.9 0.0 0.0 LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. 49 0.0 67.3 32.7 0.0 0.0 MED. VOL. LOW MAX. 21 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.0 0.0 MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. 56 0.0 46.4 50.0 3.6 0.0 HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 13 0.0 53.8 46.2 0.0 0.0 HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 61 0.0 14.7 59.0 21.3 4.9 TABLE XXI SELF-DESCRIPTION OF DRINKING LEVEL FOR RIVERTOWN , BY VOLUME-VARIABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT (HORIZONTAL) VERY FAIRLY FAIRLY N ABSTAINER LIGHT LIGHT HEAVY HEAVY ABST. & INFREQ. 92 53 e 3 45.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 LOW VOL. LOW MAX. 43 0.0 79.1 18.6 2.3 0.0 LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. 65 0.0 69.2 30.8 0.0 0.0 MED. VOL. Low MAX. 9 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 MEO. VOL. HIGH MAX. 53 0.0 37.7 58.5 3.8 0.0 HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 14 0.0 28.6 57.1 7.1 7.1 HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 66 0.0 13.6 63.6 22.7 0.0 44 T A B L E XXI I RESPONDENTS• S E L F DESCRIPT ION OF DR INK ING: MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N MA - 12 - 5 - 16 - 33 VERY L IGHT 22.4 72 30.0 187 30.7 160 28.9 419 F A I R L Y L IGHT 83.0 34 77.5 106 92.9 113 85.1 253 F A I R L Y HEAVY 131.1 4 213.5 15 184.7 19 190^ 4 38 HEAVY 295.8 1 296.9 3 268.5 2 287.4 6 ABSTAINER 0.0 19 0.0 33 0.0 48 0.0 100 TABLE XX I I I MEAN PERCENTAGE E S T I M A T E S OF PROPORTIONS IN EACH DRINKING CATEGORY LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN % % % ABSTAINERS 10.e 7.2 9.7 L I G H T DRINKERS 37.2 33.9 30.9 MODERATE DRINKERS 44.3 50.4 49.0 HEAVY DRINKERS 7.7 8.5 10.2 PROBLEM DRINKERS 4.2 4.4 5.8 45 Chapter 5 LEVELS OF DRINKING: COMPARISON WITH OTHER STUDIES The preceding sect ions have included data which descr ibe l eve l s of d r i n k i n g , and d i f f e rences between c i t i e s , using several standard c l a s s i f i -ca t ion systems which have been used by other surveyors . Data has a l so been presented which shows how respondents descr ibe the i r own d r i n k i n g . In th i s s e c t i o n , l e ve l s of d r ink ing in the combined t r i - c i t i e s sample w i l l be compar-ed with the r e su l t s of s tudies which have been conducted in other areas. Thus, we have looked at dr ink ing in more or less ob jec t i ve terms; in terms of the ways in which the respondents descr ibe the i r own d r i n k i n g ; and now we w i l l look at t h e i r d r ink ing i n terms of dr ink ing prac t i ces preva lent elsewhere. American Dr inking P rac t i ces The present study i s most d i r e c t l y comparable to two previous surveys which have been conducted in the United S ta tes : the 1962 survey of San Francisco res idents (Room, 1972) and the 1965 nat ional sample (Cahalan et a l . , 1969). The proport ions of the t r i - c i t i e s sample who f e l l in to Q-F-V and V-V ca t -egor ies are compared, in F igures 1 and 2, with the d i s t r i b u t i o n obtained from the American nat iona l sample. The f i gu res c l e a r l y d i sp l a y two notable d i f f e r -ences between the two samples: the t r i - c i t i e s respondents were much more l i k e l y to be dr inkers and, i f they were d r i n k e r s , they were much more l i k e l y to be heavy d r i nke r s . For example, comparing by Q-F-V ca t ego r i e s , 13% of the t r i -c i t i e s sample were absta iners (vs. 32%); 29% were heavy dr inkers (vs. 12%); and of the d r i n k e r s , 39% were heavy dr inkers (vs. 18%). With respect to Vo lume-Var i ab i l i t y , the t r i - c i t i e s sample had a higher propor t ion of High Volume-High Maximum dr inkers (18%) compared to e i the r the 46 San Franc isco sample (14%) or the nat ional sample (10%). I f the three sam-ples are compared in terms of proport ions who were absta iners or in f requent d r i n k e r s , the t r i - c i t i e s sample i s more s i m i l a r to the San Franc isco sample than the nat ional sample, in that 27% of the t r i - c i t i e s sample were non-reg-u la r dr inkers compared to 32% of the San Francisco sample and 47% of the nat iona l sample. Turning to Figures 3 and 4 which dep ic t volume and v a r i -a b i l i t y sepa ra te l y , i t would seem that the t r i - c i t i e s respondents occupy an intermediate pos i t i on with respect to High Volume dr ink ing when compared to the San Franc isco and the nat ional sample. The proport ion of t r i - c i t i e s r e s -pondents who were High Volume dr inkers (22%), was higher than the nat iona l sample (15%) but lower than the San Francisco sample (28%). However, i f the dr inkers in the t r i - c i t i e s and nat ional samples are d i s t r i b u t e d in to the three volume groups, the proport ions are more s i m i l a r . F igures 1 and 2 F igure 4, comparing the two samples on the bas is of v a r i a b i l i t y , i l l u s -t ra tes a more outstanding d i f f e r ence in dr ink ing patterns between the two: a much higher proport ion of the t r i - c i t i e s sample, about one-ha l f , were High-Maximum dr inkers compared to only 22% of the San Franc isco sample and 23% of the nat iona l sample. Figures 3 and 4 Other Studies The r e su l t s of the present study have the potent i a l of being compared to the r e s u l t s of severa l other s tud ies—the e a r l i e r Iowa (Mulford & M i l l e r , 1964), Cedar Rapids (Mulford & Wi lson, 1966), and U.S. nat iona l (1964) surveys 47 conducted by Mulford and, the more recent dr ink ing p rac t i ces s tud ies based on samples se lec ted from among res idents of Sydney, A u s t r a l i a ( Ence l , Kotowicz & Res l e r , 1972) and a suburb of London (Edwards, Chandler & Hensman, 1972). A l l of these s t u d i e s , however, employed the e a r l i e r Quantity-Frequency Index of Dr inking and the t r i - c i t i e s data has not undergone convers ion to Q-F ca tegor -i e s . If rates of absta in ing and Q-F "Heavy" dr ink ing can be used as a guide i t would seem that d r ink ing p rac t i ces in the three small B r i t i s h Columbia c i t i e s are among the more extreme. San Franc isco has long had a not e n t i r e l y j u s t i f i e d reputa t ion of being among the heaviest d r ink ing of American c i t i e s y e t , desp i te having a s i m i l a r < propor t ion of regular d r i n k e r s , High Volume-High Maximum and e s p e c i a l l y High Maximum dr ink ing was found to be much more prevalent in the three B.C. c i t i e s (49% vs . 22%). A c t u a l l y , as Robin Room (1972) has e s t a b l i s h e d , San F r a n c i s -cans , f o r the most p a r t , consume alcohol in ways that are probably f a i r l y t yp i c a l of those who res ide in other s i m i l a r U.S. c i t i e s . Re l a t i ve to Sydney, A u s t r a l i a , another area t r a d i t i o n a l l y assoc iated with preva lent heavy d r i n k i n g , d r ink ing p rac t i ces representa t i ve of San Franc isco would seem to be l e ss im-moderate (Encel et a l . , 1972). On the other hand, the t r i - c i t i e s and Sydney samples have s t r i k i n g l y s im-i l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n s in l eve l s of d r ink ing (Table XXIV). Th is i s the case at l e as t when the d i s t r i b u t i o n by Q-F-V fo r the t r i - c i t i e s sample and the d i s t r i -but ion by Q-F f o r the Sydney sample are compared. The d e f i n i t i o n used f o r "Abs ta ine r " was the same in both c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedures and the d e f i n i t i o n s used fo r the other terms were almost i den t i c a l -- i n f a c t when app l ied to the San Franc isco data the two procedures y i e lded the same propor t ion of "Heavy" d r inkers (Room, 1971). To the best of our knowledge, no other household surveys , using comparable 4-8 methods, have found such high rates of d r ink ing and heavy d r ink ing as those found fo r the t r i - c i t i e s and Sydney samples. Table XXIV Absolute A l c o h o l : Hazardous Consumption and Alcohol Sales Data The d i s t r i b u t i o n of consumption of absolute a lcohol f o r the t r i - c i t i e s sample i s presented in Table XXV. The development of i n t e r e s t in a lcohol con-sumption d i s t r i b u t i o n s was es tab l i shed with the pioneer ing work of Ledermann (1956) which has been continued by De L i n t and Schmidt (1968). B r i e f l y s t a t -ed , these inves t iga to rs have gathered together a body of evidence which supp-or ts the not ion that the consumption of a lcohol wi th in any populat ion i s d i s -t r i bu ted in a manner which c l o se l y resembles a logar i thmic normal curve. If consumption l eve l s are assumed always to conform to th i s model, knowledge o f per cap i t a annual sa le of a lcohol is s u f f i c i e n t to determine the proport ion and number of dr inkers who consume s p e c i f i e d amounts. The consumption d i s t r i b u t i o n for the t r i - c i t i e s sample, shown in F igure 5, i s , on the face of i t , a f a i r l y c lose approximation to the logar i thmic nor -mal curve. Mean absolute a lcohol consumption fo r the combined sample was 51.3 c e n t i l i t e r s per month and fo r the 618 dr inkers who were inc luded in the d i s -t r i b u t i o n a mean of 70,4 c e n t i l i t e r s per month was obta ined. However, i f t o -ta l a lcohol sa les fo r B r i t i s h Columbia fo r 1970 are app l ied to the populat ion 14 of d r inkers , a mean of 117.8 c e n t i l i t e r s per month i s obta ined. Thus, i f we can assume that l e ve l s of consumption in the three c i t i e s from which the sample was drawn were even approximately s i m i l a r to leve l f o r the province as a whole, only 60% of dr inker purchases were covered by respondents ' reports of 49 the extent of t he i r d r i nk ing . Table XXV and Figure 5 One of the app l i ca t i ons of the Ledermann model has been i t s use in e s -t imat ing the prevalence of hazardous consumption, that i s , pe r s i s t en t consump-t ion of about 300 c e n t i l i t e r s per month. This leve l and amounts exceeding i t have been found to be assoc ia ted with an increased r i s k of organic d iseases such as l i v e r c i r r h o s i s . Seventeen dr inkers in the t r i - c i t i e s sample reported consumption l e ve l s which exceeded 300 c e n t i l i t i e r s per month. A l l of them, i n -c i d e n t a l l y , were c l a s s i f i e d as both Q-F-V "Heavy" and V-V "High Volume-High Maximum" d r i nke r s . Our po int here, however, i s that hazardous consumers make up only 2.75% of the dr inkers in the sample although a p p l i c a t i o n of the Leder -mann formula to 1970 sa les data y i e l d s an est imat ion of 7.05% of the d r ink ing popu l a t i on " 1 5 . Some of the discrepancy between p rov inc i a l sa les data and reported d r i n k -ing might poss ib l y be due to the fac t that the t r i - c i t i e s sample i s not r ep re -senta t i ve of the p rov inc i a l popu la t ion . Never the less , i t would seem more l i k e -l y tha t , i f anyth ing , per cap i ta consumption in the three c i t i e s would be h igh -er ra ther than lower than the p rov inc i a l average. In addi t ion . , two other su r -veys whose samples were representat ive of the area from which sa les f i gu res v/ere a va i l ab l e—the United States and the province of Ontar io—have found about the same degree of coverage reported here—between 50% and 60% (Room, 1971). Leaving as ide quest ions concerning the f ac to rs which may be respons ib le f o r t h i s d i sc repancy , i t is c l ea r that sub jec t s ' reports of t h e i r consumption 50 can be used as no more than a guide. The proport ion of d r inke rs who are iden -t i f i e d as "hazardous consumers" or "problem d r inke r s " using any index based on sub jec t s ' reports of dr ink ing a re , in a l l l i k e l i h o o d , cons iderab ly lower than they should be. Since incomplete coverage seems to be a common feature of d r i nk -ing p rac t i ces surveys , gross comparisons across samples are probably not s e r -i ous l y impaired. Within samples, hov/ever, i t i s not immediately c l ea r the ex-tent to which underest imation i s concentrated in the upper end of the consump-t ion d i s t r i b u t i o n . If the net e f f e c t of underreport ing i s to move each d i s t r i -but ion back, centered around a lower mean but of e s s e n t i a l l y the same shape as a true d i s t r i b u t i o n , the s u i t a b i l i t y of ana lys i s which r e l a t e other va r i ab les to l e ve l s of dr ink ing, may not be a f f e c t e d . Summary Although a l l but a few t r i - c i t i e s res idents saw themselves as " L i g h t " d r inke rs when they are compared to other samples using the same standard measures, the percentage of d r i n k e r s , the percentage of heavy d r i n k e r s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y the percentage of high maximum dr inkers was s u f f i c i e n t l y high that these communities could only be descr ibed comparat ively as heavy d r i n k -ing environments. This desc r i p t i on i s p a r t i c u l a r l y appropr ia te in view of the p r o b a b i l i t y that the extent of dr ink ing was underestimated by respondents and the f a c t that por t ions of the populat ion l i k e l y to engage in heavy d r i n k -ing were underrepresented by the sampling. Dr ink ing p rac t i ces in the three c i t i e s are more s i m i l a r to p rac t i ces in Sydney, A u s t r a l i a than they are to those t yp i ca l of San Franc isco a l though, s ince the Q-F categor ies used f o r the comparison are ra ther broadly de f i n ed , there could be some important d i f f e rences which are not r e f l e c t e d by th i s kind of comparison. As w e l l , the s i m i l a r i t y f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n as a whole 51 may not extend to demographic subgroups of the two popu la t ions . Th i s would be r true i f the r e l a t i onsh ip between dr ink ing and demographic v a r i ab l e s d i f f e r e d between the two popu la t ions . 52 DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL AND THE TRI-CITIES BRITISH COLUMBIA SAMPLES FIGURE 1 BY Q-F-V DRINKING CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT ABSTAINER INFREQUENT LIGHT MODERATE HEAVY • U.S. SAMPLE, TRI-CITIES SAMPLE FIGURE 2 BY VOLUME-VARIABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT ABSTAINER INFREQUENT LOW VOLUME MEDIUM VOLUME HIGH VOLUME LOW MAX HIGHMAX LOW1-MAX HIGH MAX LOW -MAX HIGH MAX 53 FIGURE 3 PROPORTION OF U.S. NATIONAL AND BRITISH COLUMBIA SAMPLES IN EACH VOLUME CATEGORY % 40 ABSTAINER INFREQUENT LOW VOLUME MEDIUM VOLUME HIGH VOLUME U.S. SAMPLE TRI-CITIES SAMPLE 54 FIGURE 4 PROPORTION OF U.S. NATIONAL AND BRITISH COLUMBIA SAMPLES IN EACH VARIABILITY CATEGORY 10 X ABSTAINERS & INFREQUENTS LOW MAX HIGH MAX • U.S. SAMPLE TRI-CITIES SAMPLE 55 TABLE XXIV LEVELS OF DRINKING FOR TRI-CITIES, SYDNEY AND SAN FRANC ISCO SAMPLES, IN PERCENT TRI-CITIES (Q-F-V) SYDNEY (Q-F) SAN FRANCISCO (Q-F) ABSTAINERS 13 13 24 LIGHT DRINKERS16 34 32 29 MODERATE DRINKERS 24 25 27 HEAVY OP INKERS 29 30 21 TABLE XXV DISTRIBUTION OF CONSUMPTION IN CENTILITERS OF ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL PER MONTH: TRI-CITIES SAMPLE ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL NO. OF DRINKERS i 1-40 304 49.2 41-80 142 23.0 81-120 65 10.5 121 - 160 32 5.2 161 - 200 28 4.5 201 - 240 15 2.4 241 - 280 15 2.4 281 - 320 8 1.3 321 - 360 0 0.0 361-400 1 0.2 401-440 1 0.2 441 - 480 3 0.5 481 - 520 0 0.0 521 - 560 1 0.2 561 PLUS 3 0.5 TOTAL 618 100 CENTILITERS PER MONTH 57 Chapter 6 LEVELS OF DRINKING: DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES In th i s sec t ion l eve l s of dr ink ing w i l l be examined across such demo-graphic f ac to rs as age, sex, mar i ta l s t a tus , occupation and income, r e l i -gious pre ference , e thn ic o r i g i n , and r e s i den t i a l s t a b i l i t y . For the most part the data w i l l be presented in the form of the Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y d r i n k -ing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n although the Quant i ty-Frequency-Var iab i l i ty c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i l l a l so be prov ided , in some cases , to permit comparison with other s t ud i e s . Levels of Dr inking by Sex As can be seen from Table XXVI there were large d i f f e r ences between males and females in the proport ions who were dr inkers and High Maximum d r i n k e r s ; almost twice the proport ion of male respondents were High Maximum dr inkers compared to female respondents. An even greater d i f f e r ence was found when the two sex groups were compared in terms of High Volume (32% of males vs . 11% of females ) , and High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing (29% of males vs . 7% of females ) . Thus, r e l a t i v e to males, very few females consumed a lcohol in a manner,which was l i k e l y to become prob lemat i c—ei ther in terms of volume over time or the amount consumed per occas ion . O v e r a l l , t r i - c i t i e s females con-sumed a mean of 31.1 c e n t i l i t e r s of absolute a lcohol per month, a l eve l s i g -n i f i c a n t l y less than the 72.4 c e n t i l i t e r s consumed by males. Table XXVI Compared to the San Franc isco sample, t r i - c i t i e s males and females had 58 s l i g h t l y higher proport ions of dr inkers and both males and females had dou-ble the proport ion of High Maximum consumers than d id the i r counterparts in San F ranc i sco . Although s im i l a r proport ions of t r i - c i t i e s males and San Fran c i s c o males were High Volume-High Maximum d r i n k e r s , almost double the propor -t ion of San Franc isco females r e l a t i v e to t r i - c i t i e s females were c l a s s i f i e d as High Volume d r i nke r s . In general then, the widespread prac t i ce of High Maximum dr ink ing in the three c i t i e s was not l im i t ed to men. Drinking r e l a t i v e l y l a rge amounts on any given occas ion , while i t was not near ly as prevalent among women, i t was much more so in the three c i t i e s than i t was in San Francisco o r , f o r that matter , in the United States as a whole. The number of d r ink ing occasions f o r t r i - c i t i e s females , however, were lower and, consequent ly , more of them f e l l in to Low and Medium Volume ca tegor ies . Comparing across the three c i t i e s , there were some d i f f e r ences between the three male samples: Rivertown males were less l i k e l y to be absta iners and more l i k e l y to be High Maximum drinkers--although a s l i g h t l y lower propor t i on were High Volume dr inkers than were Twintown and Laketown males. S im-i l a r proport ions of females in Rivertown and Twintown were High Maximum dr ink e r s , and these proport ions were higher than in Laketown. More of the R i ve r -town females were in the High Volume group (14%) compared to Twintown (10%}_ and Laketown (9%). Both males and females consumed less a lcohol in Laketown r e l a t i v e to Twintown and Rivertown (Table XXVII). Table XXVII 59 Levels of Dr inking by Age Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y dr ink ing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by age i s presented in Table XXVIII f o r the en t i r e t r i - c i t i e s sample, and a lso by sex in Tables XXIX and XXX. Proport ions of High Maximum and High Volume-High Maximum dr inkers by age and sex are shown g raph i ca l l y in Figures 5 and 7. Rates of High Maximum dr ink ing regu la r l y dec l ined with age from a high of 70% fo r respondents in the i r ear ly 20's to a low of 13% f o r those aged 55 and o l d e r . Rates of High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing a lso gene ra l l y dec l ined with age. A f t e r an i n i t i a l drop during the 3 0 ' s , rates again approached the 25% leve l during the 40 's but dropped more or less r egu l a r l y with succeeding age groups. At the same t ime, proport ions who were absta iners or inf requent d r inkers increased r egu l a r l y from the 40's onward. By age 65 and o l d e r , 82% of the respondents, i f they drank at a l l , consumed no more than low volume amounts. Table XXVIII Looking at males and females separa te l y , in Tables XXIX and XXX and F i g -ures 6 and 7, High Maximum dr ink ing was very prevalent among males and females in t h e i r ea r l y 2 0 ' s . While males tended to maintain f a i r l y high rates (over 60%) u n t i l t h e i r 6 0 ' s , female rates f e l l more r ap id l y a f t e r the ea r l y 3 0 ' s . There was a more pronounced d i f f e r ence between the two sex groups when ra tes of High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing were examined across age. Female rates were much lower and subject to less v a r i a t i on by age than were those f o r males. Lower rates found f o r the 30 's f o r males may have been a r e s u l t of a change in l i f e s t y l e such that f a m i l y , employment and f i n a n c i a l ob l i ga-60 t ions allowed fo r only infrequent and b r i e f occasions when d r ink ing could occur . The peak rates fo r both sexes occurred during the 4 0 ' s , cor respond-ing with the age range when the l a t e r stages of a lcohol ism become apparent and many i nd i v i dua l s seek treatment. Rates of High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing are compared to the ra tes ob -ta ined from the San Franc isco study in Figure 8. Quite obv i ous l y , the females in the two samples had more s i m i l a r rates over the three age i n t e r v a l s than the males. The higher rates of High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing found f o r the t r i - c i t i e s sample were p r ima r i l y the r e s u l t of e s p e c i a l l y high rates a-mong middle-aged t r i - c i t i e s men. Tables XXIX and XXX, Figures 6 and 7 Figure 9 compares rates of absta in ing and infrequent d r ink ing f o r the p rev ious l y mentioned samples and f o r the Sydney sample. Un fo r tuna te l y , the rates provided fo r the l a t t e r are not exac t l y comparable to the others s ince the Q-F " L igh t- in f requen t " category i s more broadly def ined than the V-V " In -f requent " category. Thus, the actual rates of non-regular d r ink ing f o r the Sydney sample are undoubtedly s l i g h t l y lower than shown in the f igur .e . Wi th -in the l i m i t s of t h i s kind of comparison i t would seem t h a t , f o r a l l samples, r e l a t i v e l y few d iscont inued regu lar dr ink ing at any age extending from the ea r l y 20 's to the la te 5 0 ' s , a f t e r which time there was a dramatic reduct ion in the regu la r d r ink ing popu la t ion . There would probably be l ess of a d i f f e r -ence between female samples i f i n i t i a l rates of absta in ing were adjusted f o r and i f the Sydney proport ions were co r rec ted . With respect to males , ra tes of abs ta in ing were very s i m i l a r in the youngest group but , because of a d i f f e r -61 en t i a l "dropout" rate during the middle yea r s , rates of regu lar d r ink ing were higher during the 40 to 59 in te rva l f o r t r i - c i t i e s males and, even more so , f o r Sydney males r e l a t i v e to San Francisco males. Figures 8 and 9 A more prec i se comparison of the t r i - c i t i e s and Sydney samples i s shown in F igure 10, where rates of heavy dr ink ing (Q-F-V; Q-F) are p lo t ted aga inst narrower age i n t e r va l s fo r males and females. Higher rates of heavy d r ink ing were assoc ia ted with the 20's fo r both t r i - c i t i e s males and females while higher rates were found f o r both Sydney sex groups f o r respondents in t h e i r 40 's and 5 0 ' s . Female rates of heavy dr ink ing fo r the two samples, although d i s t r i b u t e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y , were qui te s im i l a r in terms of overa l l p ro -po r t i ons . The greates t source of d i f f e rence in the rate of heavy dr ink ing among the t r i - c i t i e s and Sydney samples was der ived from higher rates among Sydney men in t h e i r 4 0 ' s , 50 's and 60's--even though the two curves fo l low each o t h -er f a i r l y c l o s e l y . Rates f o r both samples dec l ined during the 3 0 ' s , peaked during the 40 's and dec l ined during the 50's and 6 0 ' s . Thus, to summarize b r i e f l y , age and sex appear to be va r i ab les which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a ted to l eve l s of d r i nk i ng . In a l l samples a smal ler p ro -por t ion of females were regular dr inkers or heavier dr inkers than males at any given age. The regular dr ink ing proport ion of the populat ion tended to be maintained up to the la te 50's fo r both sexes and then dropped cons ide r -ably t he rea f t e r . In samples where ove ra l l rates of heavy d r ink ing were 62 higher they were l ess l i k e l y due to d i f fe rences between females than males in the two samples. More s p e c i f i c a l l y they would seem to be due to the ex -tent to which men in the i r 40 's and 50's maintain heavy dr ink ing pa t te rns . Figure 10 Levels of Dr inking by Mar i ta l Status Higher proport ions of s ing l e respondents f e l l in to the heavier d r ink ing categor ies on a l l three dr ink ing measures: 60% were V-V High Maximum d r i n k -e r s ; 41% were Q-F-V Heavy d r i n k e r s ; 29% were V-V High Volume-High Maximum dr inkers (Tables XXXI, XXXII and XXXIII). S ingles reported consumption l e v -e l s which were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than married respondents although the fourteen separated i nd i v i dua l s reported even higher l e v e l s . Widowed respon-dents had extremely low rates of regular and heavy d r inkers—probab ly more a r e s u l t of age d i f f e rences than anything e l s e . Looking at the rates of heavy dr ink ing f o r males and females s epa ra t e l y , in Tables XXXIV and XXXV, i t i s apparent that mar i ta l s tatus i s much more c l o s e l y r e l a ted to dr ink ing l e ve l s f o r men than i t i s f o r women. S ing le females were s l i g h t l y l ess l i k e l y to be dr inkers or heavy dr inkers than were married females. In con t r a s t , a very high proport ion of s i ng l e men, 62%, were heavy dr inkers compared to married men (39%). This pattern of d i f f e rences in rates of heavy d r ink ing by mar i ta l s t a -tus f o r men i s very s i m i l a r to that obtained from the U.S. nat iona l sample (Cahalan et a l . , 1969) although the rates in the l a t t e r sample were con-s ide rab l y lower in a l l c a t ego r i e s . In the same study i t was a lso found that the connect ion between heavy dr ink ing and being s i n g l e , d ivorced or separated 63 held to a large degree only fo r respondents who were under f o r t y - f i v e years of age and of lower socio-economic s ta tus . A s i m i l a r ana l ys i s of the t r i -c i t i e s sample would be inconc lus ive due to an i n s u f f i c i e n t number of subjects in ca tegor ies with low f requenc ies . Throughout th i s sec t ion the p o s s i b i l i t y of such q u a l i f i c a t i o n s on the r e l a t i onsh ip found, untestable in our sample, should be borne in mind. Tables XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV and XXXV Levels of Dr inking by Educat ion , Occupation and Income (a) Education When considered in tota l there was no cons i s ten t trend in the d i f f e r -ences in d r ink ing p rac t i ces across l eve l s of educat ional attainment (Table XXXVI). Rates of absta in ing were, however, h ighest f o r those who had not proceeded beyond primary school and lowest f o r those who were un i ve r s i t y graduates. Rates of High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing r egu l a r l y increased with educat ion. These d i f f e rences were rather s m a l l , however, and other i n -d i c e s , such as High Maximum dr ink ing (regardless of volume), showed no c o n s i s -tent trend with educat ion . When the r e l a t i o n s h i p was examined fo r males and females separate ly (Ta-bles XXXVIII and XXXIX) few d i f f e rences were apparent ; f o r both sexes High Maximum dr ink ing was s l i g h t l y more prevalent among those who had completed high school but rates were s im i l a r to adjacent ca tegor ies and the only sub-s t a n t i a l d i f f e r ence emerged when the educational sca le was d ichotomized. In terms of monthly absolute a lcohol consumption (Table XXXVII), those who had at l e a s t graduated from high school reported consuming almost double the a-mount of a lcohol reported by those who had not. 64 The extent of the r e l a t i onsh ip between education and rates of absta in ing and heavier d r ink ing found fo r the t r i - c i t i e s sample i s very s i m i l a r to those that have been found f o r other samples (Encel et a l . , 1972; Wal lace, 1972; Mu l fo rd , 1964). However, s ince o lder respondents are genera l l y overrepresen-ted in lower educat ional c a t ego r i e s , education per se would seem to be an even less powerful co r r e l a t e of dr ink ing p rac t i ces than i t would appear on the basis of the data presented here. Tables XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII and XXXIX (b) Occupation As was found f o r educat ion , there were no regular changes in dr ink ing p rac t i ces over ascending occupational l e v e l s . The greatest d i f f e r ence in p r o -por t ion a b s t a i n i n g , High Maximum dr inkers and High Volume-High Maximum d r i n k -ers occurred between the lowest category (Unsk i l led ) and the second highest category (Manager ia l ) . However, Sa l es-C le r i ca l respondents reported some-what higher consumption l eve l s than did the Managerial category (79 c e n t i -l i t e r s vs . 69 c e n t i l i t e r s ) . Tables XL and XLI (c) Income Progress i ve l y higher rates of regular and heavier d r ink ing were found f o r inc reas ing l e ve l s of fami ly income (Table XL 11). One-Quarter of the h i g h -es t income group were High Volume-High Maximum dr inkers (vs. 4% of the lowest income category) and 40% were Q-F-V Heavy dr inkers (vs. 11%). Th is r e l a t i o n -65 ship was maintained when male and female respondents were cons idered separ -a t e l y (Tables XLIII and XLIV) and when the comparison was based on mean con -sumption of a lcohol per month. As shown in Table XLV, there was a regu la r increase in reported consumption with each succeeding leve l of income. Tables XLI I , XLI I I , XLIV and XLV Aga in , the r e su l t s reported here are much the same as those reported from e a r l i e r surveys ; higher educa t iona l , occupat ional and income ca tegor ies have genera l l y been found to have lower rates of absta iners and higher rates of heavier consumers. While th i s may be true in general other conc lus ions have occas iona l l y been reached when these va r i ab les have been combined, by one means or another , to form an index of soc i a l c l a s s . In the American nat ional study (Cahalan et a l . , 1969), f o r example, i t was found that the proport ion of dr inkers was cons i s t en t l y h igher in higher socio-economic groups than lower ones when sex and age were held constant , and there was a steady increase in the proport ion of L igh t or Moderate d r i n k -ers going down the soc i a l sca le in almost every sex-age group. There was, however, very l i t t l e d i f f e rence across status groups in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Heavy dr inkers wi th in the sex-age groups. They a l so found that there was less of a d i f f e r ence in dr ink ing prac t i ces between male and female respond-ents at higher socio-economic l e v e l s . Although the number o f subjects in the present study was not s u f f i c i e n t to permit such an extended breakdown, there are i nd i c a t i ons in the data which suggest that these conc lus ions would be equa l l y appropr ia te here. Edwards, Chandler and Hensman (1972) who studied d r ink ing p rac t i ces in a 6 6 London suburb reached qui te d i f f e r e n t conclus ions regarding the r e l a t i o n -sh ip between c lass and dr ink ing p r a c t i c e s . With c l a ss ca tegor ies der i ved from occupat ional s t a tu s , they found cons iderab ly higher rates of Moderate and Heavy (Q-F) dr ink ing among the three lower c l ass categor ies ( S k i l l e d , Semi-s k i l l e d , and Unsk i l l ed ) and higher rates of Frequent- l ight d r ink ing among the two higher c l ass categor ies (Profess ional and Techn i c a l ) . In f a c t , they sug -gest that there are two d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t patterns of d r ink ing assoc ia ted with upper and lower c l a ss groupings; upper c lass men are seen as being t y p i -c a l l y f requent but l i g h t d r i n k e r s ; they spend more money on a lcoho l and tend to consume the same amount each day of the week; lower c l a s s men tend to dr ink heav i l y on the weekend and to favor dr ink ing establ ishments serv ing beer ra ther than restaurants or pr i va te homes as prefer red d r ink ing l o c a t i o n s . C lass re l a ted d i f f e rences in spacing of consumption of the above nature were ne i ther apparent in the U.S. nat ional sample with age c o n t r o l l e d (with the except ion of men over 60) (Cahalan et a l . , 1969), nor the Sydney sample nor in the t r i - c i t i e s sample. In the l a t t e r , High Maximum dr ink ing was mod-al behavior among men, i r r e s p e c t i v e of volume, in a l l but the lowest s o c i o -economic ca t ego r i e s . Thus, c l a ss may be an important v a r i ab l e assoc ia ted with spacing only in s o c i e t i e s having more r i g i d c l ass systems with r e l a t -i v e l y l ess upward mob i l i t y p o t e n t i a l . On the other hand, the London f i n d -ings have a ce r t a in i n t u i t i v e appeal and c l a ss- re l a t ed choice of d r ink ing l o ca t i on has been ind ica ted in a number of American ( C l i n a r d , 1962; G o t t l e i b , 1956-57) and Canadian (Jupp, 1969) s tud i es . The quest ion deserves f u r t he r study in North America w i th , perhaps, an extension of the Low-High Maximum c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to avoid the low c e i l i n g of the present dichotomy. 67 Levels of Dr inking by Re l ig ious Preference and Ethnic Or ig in (a) Re l ig ious Preference The highest rate of High Maximum and High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing was found fo r the eighty-one respondents who claimed no r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a -t ion (Table XLVI). The i r d r ink ing prac t i ces were, however, not notably d i s -s i m i l a r to those of Angl icans and Presbyter ians . Somewhat s u r p r i s i n g l y , in view -of previous s t u d i e s , Ca tho l i cs reported more moderate dr ink ing prac t i ces than the l a t t e r two. Ca tho l i cs consumed a mean of 51 c e n t i l i t e r s of absolute a lcohol per month--14 c e n t i l i t e r s less than Ang l i cans , 18 c e n t i l i t e r s less than Presbyter ians and 26 c e n t i l i t e r s less than those with no r e l i g i o u s p re -ference (Table XLVII) . Bapt is ts had the highest rate of absta iners and r e l -a t i v e l y few Bapt i s ts were heavier d r i nke r s . Of those Bapt is ts who were d r i n k -e r s , however, more than one-third were High Volume-High Maximum d r inke r s . With the except ion of Ca tho l i cs the rank order of r e l i g i o u s groups with r e -spect to abs ta in ing and heavier dr ink ing was the same as was found fo r the American nat ional sample (Cahalan et a l . , 1969). Never the less , f o r a l l r e l -i g ious groups, rates of High Maximum and High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing were s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher in the t r i - c i t i e s sample. Tables XLVI and XLVII (b) E thnic O r ig in There were no subs tant ia l d i f f e rences in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of dr ink ing p rac t i c e s wi th in the ethnic o r i g i n categor ies provided in Table XLVI11. While th i s may be due in part to the c o l l e c t i v e categor ies which were used, 68 ethnic contact f o r most of the respondents has probably been no more than s l i g h t . Table XLVIII Levels of Dr inking by Res ident ia l S t a b i l i t y When r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y is expressed in terms of e i t he r number of addresses in the past f i v e years (Table XLIX) or length o f res idence at p re -sent address (Table L) rates of absta in ing- inf requent dr ink ing r egu l a r l y dec l i ne and rates of High Maximum dr ink ing r egu la r l y increase with less s t a -b i l i t y . In a d d i t i o n , higher rates of High Volume-High Maximum dr ink ing were assoc ia ted with more numerous moves during the past f i v e years and more b r i e f per iods of res idence at the present address. In the case of High Volume-High Maximum d r i n k i n g , however, d i f f e rences are large only when the extremes are compared. Respondents who owned t he i r own home consumed less a lcohol per month (49 c e n t i l i t e r s ) compared to those who rented (59 c e n t i l i t e r s ) although on th i s measure of s t a b i l i t y , as well as those above, at l e a s t some por t ion of the v a r i a t i o n in l e ve l s of dr ink ing was l i k e l y due to age d i f f e r ences across s t a b i l i t y ca tegor ies (Table L I ) . Tables XLIX, L and LI Inc identa l to the r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y da ta , 136 of the o r i g i n a l l y de -s ignated subjects moved some time previous to the survey but were r e- loca ted , usua l l y in the loca l a r ea , and the interv iew was completed. In Table LII movers a'nd non-movers are compared in terms of reported monthly consumption .69 of a l c o h o l . As can be seen from th i s comparison movers consumed only s l i g h t l y more a lcohol (53 c e n t i l i t e r s vs . 51 c e n t i l i t e r s f o r non-movers) per month suggesting that loss of subjects fo r th i s reason may not introduce as much bias in to the dr ink ing data as one might expect . Table LII Summary In a l l three c i t i e s males consumed about double the.amount of a lcohol consumed by females. In both sex categor ies Laketown respondents consumed less a lcoho l than the i r counterparts in Twintown and Rivertown. Rates o f high maximum dr ink ing fo r both sexes are h ighest f o r respond-ents in t h e i r twenties and genera l l y dec l ine with, inc reas ing age. Rates of high volume-high maximum dr ink ing peak f o r respondents in t h e i r f o r t i e s . Higher rates of high volume-high maximum dr ink ing in the t r i - c i t i e s sample, r e l a t i v e to the San Franc isco sample, are p r ima r i l y due to h igher rates f o r men aged 40-59 in the former. This is a l so true of the Sydney sample: there i s l e ss of a drop o f f in the proport ion of men who are d r inkers and heavy dr inkers f o r middle and l a t e r age groups. Higher proport ions of s i ng l e respondents compared to other mar i ta l s t a t -us ca tegor ies f e l l in to heavier dr ink ing categor ies on a l l three d r ink ing measures. Mar i ta l s tatus was, however, much more c l o s e l y r e l a t ed to mean con-sumption. A f t e r marriage i t would seem that men t y p i c a l l y consume less a l c o -h o l . There i s no cons i s ten t pattern of d i f f e r ences in d r ink ing across educat ional 70 ca tegor i es . With the educat ional sca le dichotomized the upper end does con -sume more a lcohol and have higher rates of high volume-high maximum dr ink ing but th is may be the r e s u l t of age d i f f e rences between the two groups. P ro -g r e s s i v e l y higher rates of regular and heavier dr ink ing were found f o r i n c r e a s -ing l e ve l s of income. This same pattern i s not apparent with respect to o c c -upat ional l e v e l s — a t l eas t when they are arranged on an h i e r a r c h i c a l b a s i s . There are no subs tant ia l d i f f e rences in l eve l s of dr ink ing across e thn ic o r i g i n and r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n ca tegor i es . A B S T . & INFREQ. LOW V O L . LOW MAX. LOW V O L . H IGH MAX. M E D . V O L . LOW MAX. M E D . V O L . H IGH MAX. H I G H V O L . LOW MAX. HIGH V O L . H IGH MAX. TOTAL HIGH MAX. TABLE XXVI VOLUME-VAR IAB I L ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY C I T Y BY SEX IN PERCENT LAKETOWN MALE FEMALE 60 21.7 11.7 6.7 1.7 23.3 3.3 31.7 61.7 82 37.8 24.4 12.2 7.3 9.8 3.6 4.9 26.9 TWINTOWN MALE FEMALE 180 20.0 12.8 13.3 3.9 17.8 4.4 27.8 58.9 168 31.0 22.0 14.9 8.3 14.3 3.0 6.6 35.8 RIVERTOWN MALE FEMALE 176 17.6 6.8 22.7 1.1 20.4 2.8 28.4 182 36.8 18.7 14.8 4.4 11.0 4.9 9.3 71.5 35.1 TABLE XXV11 S E X : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N MALE 65.3 60 72.0 ISO 75.1 176 72.4 416 FEMALE 23.4 02 29.4 158 36.0 182 31.1 432 72 TABLE XXVIII VOI.UHE-VAR i ABIL!TY DRINKING CLASS IF iCAT ION BY AGE IN PERCENT 20 & UNDER 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-54 46 101 111 89 115 93 83 66 48 ABST. 4 INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 50.0 17.4 16.8 21.6 16.9 22.6 21.5 28.9 36.4 43.7 0.0 13.0 11.9 10.8 16.8 16.5 13.9 15.7 18.2 16.7 0.0 28.3 18.8 16.2 20.2 18.3 16.1 18.1 6.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.4 9.0 2.6 2.1 4.8 6.1 8.3 0.0 23.9 23.7 25.2 19.1 13.0 14.0 13.3 12.1 8.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.7 3.4 2.6 8.6 6.0 4.5 4.2 50.0 17.4 25.7 18.0 14.6 24.3 23.7 13.3 16.7 12.5 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 50.0 69.6 68.2 59.4 53.9 55.6 53.8 44.7 34.9 27.1 73 20 & UNDER TABLE XXIX VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY AGE IN PERCENT, MALES 21-24 18 25-29 60 30-34 44 35-39 44 40-44 54 45-49 46 50-54 46 .55-59 31 jQ-64 65 » 23 49 ABST. & INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 0.0 5.6 11.7 15.9 15.9 7.4 15.2 21.7 25.8 30.4 44.9 0.0 11.1 6.7 2.3 2.3 11.1 8.7 10.9 9.7 17.4 24.5 0.0 22.2 13.3 13.6 25.0 20.4 19.6 23.9 6.4 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.8 2.3 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.0 4.3 6.1 0.0 27.8 30.0 27.3 29.6 14.8 15.2 17.4 22.5 8,7 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.5 3.7 2.2 4.3 6.4 4.3 6.1 100.0 33.3 38.3 29.6 20.4 42.6 36.9 19.6 29.0 21.7 8.2 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 100.0 83.3 81.6 70.5 75.0 77.8 71.7 60.9 58.0 43.4 18.4 74 20 & UNOCR TABLE XXX VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY AGE IN PERCENT, FEMALES 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 + 28 41 67 45 61 47 37 35 25 45 ABST. & INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX." LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 100.0 25.0 24.4 25.4 17.7 36.2 27.5 37.8 45.7 56.0 62.2 0.0 14.3 19.5 16.4 31.1 21.3 19.1 21.6 25.7 16.0 . 24.4 0.0 32.1 26.8 17.9 15.6 16.4 12.8 10.8 5.7 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.5 15.6 4.9 2.1 8.1 11.4 12.0 4.4 0.0 21.4 14.6 23.9 8.9 11.5 12.8 8.1 2.9 8.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.5 2.2 1.6 14.9 8.1 2.9 4.0 2.2 0.0 7.1 7.3 10.4 8.9 8.2 10.6 5.4 5.7 4.0 2.2 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 0.0 60.6 48.7 52.2 33.4 36.1 36.2 24.3 14.3 12.0 6.6 Percent 90-,-7 5 . 6 0 : 45 ___ 30 _ . 15 _ _ FIGURE 6 75 PERCENT HIGH MAXIMUM DRINKERS BY AGE AND SEX 1 i- + - f - k-21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ Age Males Females FIGURE 7 PERCENT HIGH VOLUME - HIGH MAXIMUM DRINKERS BY AGE AND SEX Percent 45 30 151 o © * o_ - 6 — . 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-43 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ Age • Males -Females PERCENT FIGURE 8 PERCENT HIGH VOLUME - HIGH MAXIMUM BY SEX AND AGE FOR TRI-CITIES AND SAN FRANCISCO 30 20 X 104-21-39 — i — 40-59 76 Males Females 60+ PERCENT 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 T r i - C i t i e s San Franc isco FIGURE 9 PERCENT ABSTAINING AND INFREQUENT DRINKERS BY SEX AND AGE FOR TRI-CITIES, SAN FRANCISCO AND SYDNEY SAMPLES Females Males 21-39 40-59 .60+ T r i - C i t i e s San Franc isco . . Svdnev 77 FIGURE 10 PERCENT HEAVY DRINKERS BY AGE AND SEX FOR TRI-CITIES AND SYDNEY SAMPLES 76 TABLE XXXI VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY MARITAL STATUS IN PERCENT DIVORCED «. MARRIED SINGLE SEPARATED WIDOWED 716 58 30 43 ABST. & INFREQ. 25.7 22.4 30.0 55.8 LOW VOL. LOW MAX. 15.8 17.2 20.0 9.3 LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. 15.9 13.8 20.0 4.5 MED. VOL. LOW MAX. 4.7 0.0 0.0 9.3 MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. 16.5 17.2 6.6 7.0 HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 3.8 0.0 3.3 9.3 HIGH VOL. •• HIGH MAX. 17.6 29.3 20.0 4.6 T TAL HIGH MAX. 50.0 60.3 46.6 16.2 79 TABLE XXX I I QUANT ITY-FREQUENCY-VAR IAB I L ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY MARITAL STATUS IN P E R C E N T , TOTAL SAMPLE DIVORCED OR MARRIED S INGLE SEPARATED WIDOWED N 716 58 30 43 ABSTA INER 12.0 12.1 23.3 27.9 INFREQUENT 13.7 10.3 6.7 27.9 L I G H T TO MODERATE 45.2 36.2 43.3 34.9 HEAVY 29.0 41.4 26.7 9.3 % HEAVY OF i ? A L L DRINKERS 33.0 47.1 34.8 12.9 TABLE XXX I I I .. " MARITAL S T A T U S : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH B Y C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N NA - 1 - 1 - 0 - 2 MARRIED 46.1 110 52.3 297 51.1 309 51.0 716 S I N G L E 33.9 11 49.5 21 94.6 26 66.3 58 DIVORCED 15.8 5 75.2 8 1.0 3 42.7 16 SEPARATED 20.7 2 53.4 3 118.2 • 9 90.4 14 WIDOWED 21.1 13 21.3 19 42.2 11 26.6 43 TABLE XXXIV .QUANTITY-FREQUENCY-VARIABILITY DRINK CING CLASSIFICATION BY MARITAL STATUS IN PERCENT, MALES MARRIED SINGLE DIVORCED OR SEPARATED WIDOWED N 362 32 13 9 ABSTAINER 10.2 9.4 23.1 12.5 INFREQUENT 9.1 0.0 7.7 25.0 LIGHT TO MODERATE 41.6 28.1 30.8 50.0 HEAVY 38.9 62.5 38.5 12.5 % HEAVY OF 43.3 ALL DRINKERS 69.0 50.0 14.3 TABLE XXXV QUANT ITY-FREQUENCY-VARIABI! LITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY MARITAL STATUS IN PERCENT, FEMALES MARRIED SINGLE DIVORCED OR SEPARATED WIDOWE N 354 26 17 34 ABSTAINER 13.8 15.4 23.5 32.3 INFREQUENT 18.4 23.1 5.9 26.5 LIGHT TO MODERATE 48.8 46.2 52.9 32.3 HEAVY 18.9 15.4 17.6 8.8 % HEAVY OF ALL DRINKERS 22.0 18.2 23.1 13.0 > 81 TABLE XXXVI VOLUME-VAR IAB I L ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY EDUCATION IM PERCENT PRIMARY SOME HIGH COMPLETED SOME UN IVERS ITY OR LESS SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL UNIVERS ITY GRADUATE A 8 S T . & INFREQ. LOW V O L . LOW MAX. LOW V O L . H IGH M A X . . MED V O L , LOW MAX. MED . V O L . H IGH MAX. H IGH V O L . LOW MAX. H I G H V O L . H IGH MAX. TOTAL H IGH MAX. 169 46.1 14.2 10.0 5.9 9.5 4.1 10.0 29.5 298 25.2 15.8 19.8 4.7 15.8 3.0 15.8 51.4 237 19.0 15.2 16.0 3.4 20.7 2.9 22.8 59.5 93 25.8 17.2 10.7 4.3 14.0 6.4 21.5 46.2 51 17.6 19.6 9.8 3.9 17.6 5.9 25.5 52.4 T A B L E XXXVI I E D U C A T I O N : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN T O T A L 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N NOME 0.0 1 17.9 1 C O 1 6.0 3 SOME ELEMENTARY 39.6 9 41.9 22 29.3 21 35.4 52 COMPLETED ELEMENTARY 37.0 1 7 40.7 62 25.5 35 35.5 114 SOME H IGH SCHOOL . 40.9 5 7 46.3 120 55.5 119 49.0 296 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 47.1 34 63.8 93 55,5 110 62.2 237 SOME UN IVERS ITY 26.0 15 66.3 37 55.9 41 55.2 93 UNIVERS ITY GRADUATE 75.0 7 35.8 14 70.5 30 «. .1. . v> 51 82 ASST. & INFREQ... LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. TOTAL HIGH MAX. TABLE XXXVIII VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY EDUCATION IN PERCENT, MALES PRIMARY SOME HIGH COMPLETED SOME UNIVERSITY OR LESS SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE 99 37.4 15.2 12.1 4.0 11.1 3.0 17.2 40.4 137 13.9 5.8 21.2 4.4 24.1 3.7 27.0 72.3 108 13.0 9.3 13.9 0.0 22„2 2.8 38.9 75.0 35 8.6 14.3 17.1 0.0 20.0 8.6 31.4 68.5 36 19.5 11.1 13.9 0.0 19.4 2.8 33 4 3 66.6 83 ABST. & INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. TOTAL HIGH MAX. TABLE1 XXXIX VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY EDUCATION IN PERCENT, FEMALES PRIMARY SOME HIGH COMPLETED SOME UNIVERSITY OR LESS SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE 6 9 5 8 . 0 1 3 . 0 7 . 2 8 . 7 7 . 2 5 . 8 0 . 0 1 4 . 4 161 3 4 . 8 2 4 . 2 1 8 . 6 5 . 0 8 . 7 2 . 5 6 . 2 3 3 . 5 1 2 9 2 4 . 0 2 0 . 2 1 7 . 8 6 . 2 1 9 . 4 3 .1 9 . 3 4 6 . 5 5 8 3 6 . 2 1 9 . 0 6 . 9 6 . 9 1 0 . 3 5 . 2 1 5 . 5 3 2 . 7 1 5 1 3 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 3 . 3 1 3 . 3 1 3 . 3 6 . 7 ' 2 0 . 0 TABLE XL 84 VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY OCCUPATION IN PERCENT (VERTICAL) SEMI- 1 B PROF. MANAG. SALES SKILLED SKILLED UNSKILLED OTHER 75 55 120 149 106 41 9 ABST. & INFREQ. 28.0 9.1 15.0 21.5 17.9 34.1 44.4 LOW VOL. LOW MAX. 21.3 9.1 15.5 10.7 13.2 7.3 0.0 LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. 9.3 16.4 15.0 18.1 21.7 17.1 11.1 MED. VOL. LOW MAX. 4.0 0.0 2.5 4.0 1.9 9.8 0.0 MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. 10.7 27.3 16.7 26.7 17.9 14.6 11.1 HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 5.3 1.8 5.8 4.7 0.9 2.4 0.0 HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 21.3 36.4 29.2 14.8 26.4 14.6 33.3 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 41.3 80.1 60.9 59.5 66.0 46.3 55.5 TABLE XLI OCCUPATION: MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN CENTILITERS PER MONTH BY CITY LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL J N X N N y N NA 19.1 50 30.1 119 32.9 125 29.4 294 PROFESSIONAL 38.5 14 31.6 19 65.2 42 51.7 75 MANAGERIAL 79.4 12 80.0 17 56.5 26 68.3 55 SALES - CLERICAL 70.9 22 69.3 39 89.0 59 79.3 120 SKILLED 38.6 25 69.6 60 50.4 64 56.1 149 SEMI - SKILLED 48.1 16 69.0 63 81.9 27 69.1 106 UNSKILLED 8.2 2 38.5 27 47.0 12 39.5 41 FARMER 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 STUDENT 85.4 1 32.0 3 66.3 3 54.3 7 85 TABLE XLII VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION' BY FAMILY INCOME IN PERCENT UNDER 2000- 4000- 6000- 8000- 10,000- DON»T 2000 3999 5999 7999 9999 14,999 15,000 • KNOW N 45 58 90 140 166 235 79 16 . ABST. & INFREQ. 53.3 43.1 36.7 24.3 24.6 19.6 15.2 56.2 LOW VOL. . LOW MAX. 22.2 24.1 13.3 12.8 12.0 16.2 19.0 18.7 L  VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 6.7 12.1 20.0 17.9 15.7 16.6 7.6 6.2 4.4 5.2 3.3 5.0 6.6 3.0 5.1 6.2 HIGH MAX* 6.7 0.0 10.0 20.0 17.5 19.6 19.0 12.5 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.9 6.0 2.5 8.9 0.0 HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 4.4 13.8 14.4 17.1 17.5 22.5 25.3 0.0 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 17.8 25.9 44.4 55.0 50.7 58.7 51.9 18.7 86 TABLE XLIII QUANTITY-fREQUEMCY-VARlABILlTY DRINKIMG CLASS 1PICA!IOf! BY INCOME IN PERCENT, MALES N UNDER 2000 17 "2000-3999 22 4000-5999 41 6000-7999 80 8000-9999 79 10,000- DON'T 14,999 15,000 + KNOW 129 37 ABSTAINER INFREQUENT LIGHT TO MODERATE HEAVY % HEAVY OF ALL DRINKERS 35.3 11.7 35.3 17.6 27.3 40.9 0.0 36.4 22.7 38.5 4.8 14.6 41.5 39.0 41.0 7.5 11.2 38.7 42.5 45.9 6.3 8.8 41.2 43.0 45.9 9.3 6.2 42.6 41.9 46.1 5.4 8.1 37.8 48.6 51.4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 TABLE XLIV QUAMTITY-FREQUENCY-VAPJABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY INCOME IN PERCENT, FEMALES N UNDER 2000 27 2000-3999 36 4000-5999 49 6000-7999 60 8000- 10,000-9999 14,999 87 106 15,000 • 42 DON'T KNOW 14 ABSTAINER INFREQUENT LIGHT TO MODERATE HEAVY % HEAVY OF ALL DRINKERS 29.6 25.9 37.0 7.4 10.5 36.1 8.3 50.0 5.6 8.7 26.5 24.5 38.8 10.2. 13.9 13.3 18.3 48.3 20.0 23.1 9.2 24.1 46.0 20.7 22.7 9.4 15.1 54.7 20.7 22.9 4.7 11.9 50.0 33.3 35.0 14.3 28.6 21.4 35.7 22.2 87 TA8LE XLV INCOME: MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL N N N N NA - 6 - 5 - 9 . - 20 UNDER 2,000 21.1 • 7 20.4 26 6.0 12 16.7 45 2,000 - 3,999 14.1 20 21.1 19 51.7 19 28.7 58 4,000 - 5,999 56.7 20 27.2 39 48.7 31 41.2 90 6,000 - 7,999 35.4 23 57.6 72 57.5 45 54.0 140 8,000 - 9,999 60.6 34 47.1 72 63.0 60 55.6 166 10,000 - 14,999 . 43.3 18 68.3 84 50.0 133 56.0 235 15,900 • 49.0 7 87.5 26 75.7 46 77.3 79 D O N ' T KNOW 15.6 7 13.2 6 0.0 3 11.8 16 88 TABLE XLVI VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IN PERCENT ABST. £, INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. H I G H MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. H I G H MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. H I G H MAX. TOTAL H I G H MAX. CATHOLIC ANGLICAN 152 27.0 13.4 . 13.3 3.3 15.1 3.9 18.4 134 19.3 14.2 15.7 4.5 19.4 5.2 21.6 UNITED 281 27.0 16.4 16.0 5.0 17.8 3.2 14.6 PRESBYT. 38 18.4 15.3 13.2 13.2 13.2 2.6 23.7 BAPTIST 29 51.7 3.4 10.3 3.4 10.3 3.4 17.2 OTHER PROT. 116 37.0 15.5 19.3 2.5 8.6 2.6 13.8 OTHER 16 37.0 31.2 18.7 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2 NONE 81 20.9 11.1 11.1 4.9 19.7 6.2 25.9 47.3 55.4 48.4 50.1 37.8 42.2 31.1 56.7 89 T A B L E XLV I I REL IG IOUS PREFERENCE : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N NA - 1 .- 1 - 0 - 2 C A T H O L I C 32.6 30 56.6 67 53.7 55 50.8 .152 ANGL ICAN 70.1 13 53.6 66 76.3 55 64.5 134 UN ITED 37.1 50 36.0 103 48.0 128 41.5 281 PRESBYTER IAN 52.1 ' 10 98.7 15 48.7 13 69.3 38 B A P T I S T 19.9 6 95.7 9 19.3 43.1 29 OTHER PROTESTANT 32.8 19 36.7 44 48.4 52 41.4 116 J EWISH 0.0 0 0 . 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 OTHER 60.1 4 18.9 6 5.8 6 24.3 15 NONE 53.9 9 73.1 38 87.2 -34 76.9 81 90 TABLE XLVIII VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY ETHNIC ORIGIN IN PERCENT 19 FRENCH & GERMAN & 20 BRITISH ITALIAN DUTCH SCANDINAVIAN OTHER N 544 115 99 69 11 ABST. i, INFREQ. 25.7 25.2 32.3 29.0 54.5 LOW VOL. LOW MAX. 16.9 16.5 13.1 10.1 9.1 LOW VOL. . ' HIGH MAX. 14.5 13.9 21.2 15.9 0.0 MED. VOL. LOW MAX. 5.2 4.3 4.0 1.5 0.0 MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. 16.2 18.3 9.1 18.4 9.1 HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 3.5 6.1 2.0 5.8 0.0 HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX.. 18.0 15.6 18.2 18.8 27.3 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 48.7 47.9 48.5 53.1 36.4 91 TABLE XLIX VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION BY NUMBER OF ADDRESSES IN PAST FIVE YEARS IN PERCENT ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE • N 411 152 130 83 73 ABST. & INFREQ. 33.2 25.6 21.4 19.2 16.4 LOW VOL. LOW MAX. 16.5 17.1 13.1 14.4 13.7 LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. 11.9 17.8 19.2 15.7 21.9 MED. VOL.-LOW MAX. 4.9 4.6 4.6 6.0 . 0.0 MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. 12.6 13.9 - 21.5 19.3 23.3 HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. 4.4 2.6 4.6 3.6 1.4 HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. 16.5 18.4 15.4 21.7 23.3 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 41.0 50.1 56.1 56.7 68.5 92 TABLE L VOLUME-VAR IAB I L ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N BY LENGTH OF RES IDENCE AT PRESENT ADDRESS IN PERCENT LESS THAN 3 YRS. 3-6 YRS. 7-lo YRS. 11 + YRS. 355 193 118 183 ABST. & INFREQ. 20.0 28.0 28.8 39.3 LOW V O L . LOW MAX. 15.5 13.5 15.2 . 18.6 LOW V O L . HIGH MAX. 20.0 12.4 15.2 9.3 MED . V O L . LOW MAX. 3.9 5.2 4.2 4.9 MED. V O L . HIGH MAX. 19.4 13.5 14.4 12.0 H IGH V O L . LOW MAX. 2.8 5.2 2.5 4.9 HIGH V O L . HIGH MAX. 18.3 22.3 19.5 10.9 T TAL HIGH MAX. 57.7 48.2 49.1 32.2 T A B L E LI OWNERSHIP OF R E S I D E N C E : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N Y N 7 N 7 N NA - 1 - 7 - 6 y 14 OWN 41.9 102 54.2 247 47.5 266 49.3 615 RENT 40.6 38 46.1 95 80.9 - 86 58.8 219 93 T A B L E LI I RESPONDENTS WHO MOVED: MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N D I D NOT MOVE 40.2 121 51.7 295 54.5 297 50.9 713 MOVED 46.4 21 49.1 54 58.5 61 52.9 136 94 Chapter 7 LEVELS OF DRINKING BY OTHER VARIABLES Levels of Drinking by C igare t te Use Almost one-half of the combined sample were smokers at the time of the interv iew and a fu r the r 23% were former smokers. A s l i g h t l y higher p ropor -t i on of Rivertown respondents were smokers (51% vs . 48% in Twintown; 47% in Laketown) and a greater proport ion of them consumed over twenty c iga re t t e s per day (40% vs. 37% in Twintown and 29% in Laketown). The d i s t r i b u t i o n of smokers and non-smokers by Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y c a t e -g o r i e s , provided in Table L U I , suggests a degree of c o r r e l a t i o n between smok-ing and d r i n k i n g . Smokers were more l i k e l y to be: regu la r d r i n k e r s , High Maximum and High Volume-High Maximum d r inke r s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p was some-what stronger fo r females than males and smoking was more c l o s e l y r e l a ted to the High-Low Maximum dichotomy than to the Low-Medium-High Volume t r i -chotomy, although smokers d id consume a mean of 19 c e n t i l i t e r s o f a lcohol per month more than non-smokers (Table LIV) . For males, 40% of Low Maximum dr inkers were smokers compared to 58% of High Maximum d r i n k e r s ; f o r females 33% of Low Maximum and 64% of High Maximum dr inkers were smokers. Comparison of the V-V d i s t r i b u t i o n s fo r smokers by c i g a r e t t e consump-t ion c a t e g o r i e s , shown in Table LV, points out a pos i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween l e ve l s of consumption of a lcohol and l e ve l s of consumption of c i g a r -e t t e s . That i s , heavier smokers had a higher p r o b a b i l i t y of being heavy d r i n k e r s . In t h i s case , the r e l a t i o n s h i p was between number o f c iga re t t es and volume of a lcohol consumption rather than dr inks per o c ca s i on . For ex -ample, a s i m i l a r proport ion of the 247 High Maximum dr ink ing smokers and the 72 Low Maximum dr ink ing smokers (39% vs . 35%) consumed more than twenty c i g -95 are t tes per day. With respect to volume over t ime, monthly consumption of a lcohol p rogress i ve l y increased from 40 c e n t i l i t e r s fo r dr inkers who smoked less than ten c iga re t t es per day to 118 c e n t i l i t e r s f o r those who smoked f o r -ty c i ga re t t e s or more (Table LVI) . Tables L I U , LIV, LV and LVI Levels of Dr ink ing by Psychoact ive and I l l i c i t Drug Use (a) Psychoact ive Drug Use 256 respondents, almost one-third of the combined sample, reported hav-ing used, a t one time or another , at l eas t one of the three psychoact ive drugs l i s t e d . More than twice as many females had used one of the drugs. T r a n q u i l -l i z e r s and barb i tura tes were most l i k e l y to have been used—in a l l but ten cases by p r e s c r i p t i o n . Amphetamine use was much l ess preva lent . As shown in Table LVI I , the major i ty of those who had ever used one of the drugs were no longer using i t . It i s notable that the incidence o f use of each drug was cons iderab ly higher in Twintown, perhaps due to more l i b e r a l p resc r ib ing p rac -t i c e s among loca l doc to rs . Table LV111 provides V-V d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r psychoactive drug users and non-users . For e i t he r sex there were no s i zab l e d i f f e rences between users and non-users with respect to the proport ion who were dr inkers or heavier d r i nke r s . O v e r a l l , psychoact ive drug users had lower mean monthly a lcohol consumption l e v -e l s than non-users (Tables LIX, LX and LXI) . Tables LVI I , LVI I I , LIX, LX and LXI 96 (b) I l l i c i t Drug Use Th i r ty-n ine respondents, 4.5% of the combined sample, reported having used marijuana or hashish and one-quarter of them were s t i l l users at the time of the in terv iew. The inc idence of reported use was lower in Laketown (2.1%) than in Twintown (4.3%) and Rivertown (5.3%)--a reverse of the order found f o r s t u -dents . Less than 1% of the sample claimed to have used LSD or mescal ine and, with only one except ion , a l l of these had a lso used marijuana or hash i sh . A comparison of i l l i c i t drug users and non-users by the Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (Table LXII) reveals that i l l i c i t drug users were much more l i k e -l y to be d r i n k e r s , higher volume dr inkers and High Maximum d r i n k e r s . 54% were High Volume-High Maximum d r inke r s—a much higher propor t ion than f o r non-users or f o r males any age. Tables LXI I , LXIII and LXIV Levels of Dr inking by Pe rsona l i t y Var iab les Upon terminat ion of the interv iew each subject (every second subject in Laketown) was asked to respond to the fo r t y-e igh t items of the n e u r o t i -cism and ext rovers ion sca les of the Maudsley Pe rsona l i t y Inventory and to re turn the completed copy by m a i l . The 484 respondents who d id so became an inc iden ta l subsample not necessa r i l y representat ive of the o r i g i n a l sample, (a) Neuroticsm Respondents were placed into one of three a r b i t r a r i l y chosen ca tegor -ies depending on neuroticsm score . The Vo lume-Var iab i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r low, medium and high scorers i s provided in Table LXV. Comparison of the three groups provides some evidence to suggest that there i s a U-shaped r e -l a t i o n s h i p between l e ve l s of d r ink ing and neuroticsm. Medium scorers had 97 the highest proport ion of absta iners and Low Volume dr inkers and the lowest propor t ion of High Volume d r i nke r s . The only notable d i f f e r ence between low scorers and high scorers was that a somewhat higher proport ion of the former were inc luded in the medium rather than the high volume group. In terms of monthly consumption of absolute alcohol (Table LXVI) low scorers consumed only three c e n t i l i t e r s per month more than the 59 c e n t i l i t e r s consumed by high s co re r s . Consumption was l e a s t , in every c i t y , f o r medium scorers who scored between 15 and 19 on the neuroticsm s c a l e . O v e r a l l , medium scorers reported t y p i c a l l y consuming 44 c e n t i l i t e r s per month, s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e ss than e i t he r the low or high neuroticsm group. Tables LXV cfnd LXVI (b) Ext rovers ion Ext rovers ion scores were a r b i t r a r i l y grouped in a s i m i l a r f a sh ion . Mov-ing from the V-V d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r low scorers to medium and high s c o r e r s , p ro -vided in Table LXVII , rates of absta iners and infrequent d r inkers p rogress i ve l y dec l i ne and rates of High Maximum and High Volume-High Maximum dr inkers p ro -g r e s s i v e l y inc rease . Mean monthly consumption of a lcohol r e g u l a r l y increased f o r success i ve l y higher extrovers ion scores between 10 (33 c e n t i l i t e r s ) and 40 and above (91 c e n t i l i t e r s ) a l though, due p r ima r i l y to a few heavy dr ink ing low s c o r e r s , mean consumption l eve l s f o r low and medium scorers were almost i d e n t i c a l (43 c e n t i l i t e r s vs . 45 c e n t i l i t e r s ) but s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than the mean consumption leve l reported by high scorers (70 c e n t i l i t e r s ) . Tables LXVII and LXVIII 9B Other Studies The f i n d i n g s , with respect to r e l a t i onsh ips between d r ink ing and smok-i n g , neurot icsm, ext rovers ion and drug use , presented above, are in appro-ximate agreement with those of other surveys which have, i n one way or ano-the r , attempted to i s o l a t e pe rsona l i t y and consummatory co r r e l a t e s o f d r i n k -ing . A f a i r l y c lose r e l a t i o n s h i p between dr ink ing and smoking (and heavier smoking) was found f o r the American nat ional sample (Cahalan et a l . , 1969). With respect to pe rsona l i t y v a r i a b l e s , mean extrovers ion scores (MPI, short form) were found to be d i r e c t l y re l a ted to Q-F dr ink ing ca tegor ies f o r both males and females by Edwards, Chandler and Hensman in t h e i r study of a London suburb (1972). In th i s same study there were no cons i s ten t d i f f e r ences in mean neuroticsm scores by l eve l s of d r i nk i ng . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of pe rsona l i t y c o r r e l a t e s , however, remains open to ques t ion . Even where r e l a t i onsh ips have been es tab l i shed they may disappear when age, sex and soc i a l s tatus are c o n t r o l l e d . Th is was l a r g e l y the case when "neuro t i c tendency" , " i m p u l s i v i t y " , " a l i e n a t i o n " and "empathy" scores were dichotomized and re la ted to the dr ink ing prac t i ces of s p e c i f i c age-sex-status demographic sets in the American nat ional study (Cahalan et a l . , 1969). At present , i t would seem that pe rsona l i t y f ac to rs do not o f f e r much in the way of increased p red i c t i v e power over bas ic demographic v a r i a b l e s . 99 TABLE LI 11 SMOKERS VS. NON-SMOKERS BY VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT (VERTICAL) MALES AND FEMALES MALES FEMALES SMOKERS NON-SMOKERS SMOKERS NON-SMOKERS ABST. & INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. : VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. TOTAL HIGH MAX. 217 16.1 8.3 17.1 1.8 22.1 1.8 32.3 71.5 195 23.1 11.8 14.9 3.1 16.9 5.6 24.6 56.4 1 9 5 2 9 . 2 1 5 . 9 2 2 . 1 4 . 5 1 3 . 9 2 . 6 1 1 . 8 4 7 . 8 2 3 1 3 8 . 1 2 6 . 0 8 . 2 8 . 2 1 0 . 4 5 . 2 3 . 9 1 2 . 5 •100 TABLE L I V SMOKERS: MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL J H X N X N J H YES 57.C 66 58.4 167 65.1 179 61.1 412 NO 28.5 73 44.4 180 45.8 174 42.3 427 T A B L E LV SMOKER ' S CONSUMPTION CATEGORIES BY VOLUME-VARIAB IL ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N IN PERCENT ( V E R T I C A L ) L ESS THAN 10 /DAY 10-20/DAY 21-30/DAY 31+/DAY N 78 I SO 117 35 A B S T . & INFREQ. 32.0 20.0 17.9 25.7 LOW V O L . LOW MAX. 12.8 11.7 13.7 8.6 LOW V O L . HIGH MAX. 20.5 18.3 21.4 14.3 M E D . V O L . LOW MAX. 3.8 4.4 0.0 5.7 M E D . V O L . HIGH MAX. 16.7 22.8 16.2 5.7 H IGH V O L . LOW MAX. 2.6 1.7 2.6 2.8 HIGH V O L . HIGH MAX. 11.5 21.1 28.2 37.1 TOTAL HIGH MAX. 48.7 62.2 65.8 57.1 401 TABLE LVI C I G A R E T T E C O N S U M P T I O N : 2 1 MEAN ABSOLUTE .ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKT TOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N LESS THAN 10 PER DAY 51.8 23 27.0 57 48.4 50 39.6 130 10 - 20 PER DAY 40.7 41 57.8 102 64.8 103 57.9 246 21 - 30 PER DAY 91.6 19 59.1 67 66.9 76 66.6 162 31 - 40 PER DAY 35.5 7 134.9 20 43.7 16 84.8 43 40+ PER DAY 0.0 0 55.9 3 137.0 10 118.3 13 TABLE LVII PROFPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE EVER USED PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS BY C I T Y IN P E R C E N T . . _ „ ,. % "EVER" USERS LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL STILL USING BARBITUATES 13 25 10 16 27 TRANQUILLIZERS 20 25 13 19 35 AMPHETAMINES 5 7 3 5 12 102 TABLE LVI11 PSYCHOACTIVE DRUG USERS 2 2VS. NON^USERS BY VOLUME-VARIABILITY DRINKING CLASSIFICATION IN PERCENT (VERTICAL) MALES FEMALES ABST. &• INFREQ. LOW VOL. LOW MAX. LOW VOL. HIGH MAX. MED. VOL. LOW MAX. MED. VOL. HIGH MAX. HIGH VOL. LOW MAX. HIGH VOL. HIGH MAX. TOTAL HIGH MAX. USERS 77 20.3 9.1 11.7 1.3 18.2 7.8 31.2 61.1 NON-USERS 339 18.9 10.3 17.4 2.7 20.1 2.7 28.0 65.5 USERS 179 31.3 19.6 16.2 7.3 14.5 3.4 7.8 38.5 NON-USERS 253 37.2 22.1 13.C 5.9 10.3 4.4 7.1 30.4 TABLE L I X BARBITURATE U S E : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N NA OR NO 41.6 124 53.9 264 54.4 323 52.0 711 Y E S - PRESCR IPT ION 35.5 17 43.4 85 53«6 31 44.8 133 Y E S - NO PRESCR I PT ION 80.1 1 0.0 0 131.0 4 120.8 5 T A B L E LX TRANQUILL IZER U S E : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N NA OR NO 39.9 114 50.0 260 52.9 312 5 l ; 9 686 Y E S - PRESCR I PT ION 46.8 27 . 38.6 86 69.7 44 48.7 157 Y E S - NO PRESCR I PT ION 25.2 1 16.0 - 2 93.8 2 48.9 5 T A B L E LXI AMPHETAMINE U S E : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y • LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N NA OR NO 41.8 135 53.6 326 54.8 347 52.2 808 Y E S - PRESCR I PT ION 28.5 7 19.5 18 67.1 11 35.8 36 Y E S - NO PRESCR IPT ION 0.0 0 17.9 5 0.0 0 17.9 5 TABLE LX I I I L L I C I T DRUG U S E R S 2 3 V S . NON-USERS BY VOLUME-VAR IAB IL ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N IN PERCENT ( V E R T I C A L ) USERS NON-USERS N 39 810 A B S T . 4 INFREQ. 2.6 28.3 LOW V O L . LOW MAX. 7.7 16.0 LOW V O L . HfGH MAX. 2.6 15.9 MED. V O L . LOW MAX. 2.6 4,6 MED. V O L . HIGH MAX. 30.8 15.1 H I G H V O L . LOW MAX. 0.0 3.9 HIGH V O L . HIGH MAX. 53.8 16.0 TOTAL 87 2 47104 T A B L E LX I11 MARI JUANA OR HASHISH USE MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N NA OR MO 39.3 139 50.2 333 51.2 339 48.8 811 YES 126.4 3 75.9 15 126.9 19 106.2 38 TABLE L X I V LSD OR MESCAL INE U S E : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL 7 M 7 N 7 N 7 N NA OR NO 40.9 141 51.4 348 54.0 354 50.7 843 YES 80.1 1 39.5 1 214.6 3 152.7 5 TABLE LXV 105 NEUROTIC ISM BY VOLUME-VAR IAB IL ITY DRINKING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N IN PERCENT ( V E R T I C A L ) A B S T . i, INFREQ. LOW V O L . LOW MAX. LOW V O L . HIGH MAX. MED. V O L . LOW MAX. MED. V O L . HIGH MAX. HIGH V O L . LOW MAX. HIGH V O L . HIGH MAX. TOTAL HIGH MAX. LOW SCORERS (1 " 9) 127 22.8 20.5 10.2 8.7 17.3 2.4 18.1 45.6 MEDIUM SCORERS (10 - 24) 246 27.6 15.9 18.7 2.4 18.3 2.4 14.6 51.6 HIGH SCORERS (25 •) 111 24.3 16.2 14.4 4.5 13.5 7.2 19.8 47.7 T A B L E LXVI NEUROTICISM S C O R E : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL J N J N N J N NA 43.7 84 46.4 145 57.8 136 50.0 365 0 - 4 19.0 6 62.7 26 79.9 29 66.6 61 5 - 9 54.9 9 82.7 27 37.0 30 58.1 66 10 - 14 32.3 15 56.0 42 45.4 44 47.8 • 101 1 5 - 1 9 15.8 7 49.3 26 32.4 30 37.6 63 20 - 24 54.5 11 42.3 34 41.7 37 43.7 82 25 - 29 22.9 3 41.9 19 55.3 23 48. C 45 30 - 34 55.3 3 52.4 14 54.7 13 53.7 30 35 - 39 20.9 3 10.2 7 148.0 10 80.7 20 40 + 65.2 1 71.5 9 80.1 6 74.3 16 T A B L E LXV11 EXTROVERSION BY VOLUME-VAR IAB IL ITY DR INK ING C L A S S I F I C A T I O N IN PERCENT ( V E R T I C A L ) 106 A B S T . & INFREQ. LOW V O L . LOW MAX. LOW V O L . HIGH MAX. MED. V O L . LOW MAX. MED. V O L . HIGH MAX.. H I G H V O L . LOW MAX. HIGH V O L . HIGH MAX. TOTAL HIGH MAX. LOW SCORERS (1 - 14) 76 33.2 14.5 15.8 2.5 17.1 7.9 7.9 40.8 MEDIUM SCORERS (15 - 29) 257 26.0 19.1 16.7 5.1 15.6 3.5 14.0 46.3 HIGH SCORERS (30*) 151 20.5 15.2 13.3 4.6 19.2 1.3 25.8 58.3 T A B L E LXV fit EXTROVERS ION S C O R E : MEAN ABSOLUTE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN C E N T I L I T E R S PER MONTH BY C I T Y LAKETOWN TWINTOWN RIVERTOWN TOTAL N N X N X N NA 43.7 84 45.4 145 57.8 136 50.1 365 0 - 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 156.3 4 156.3 4 5 - 9 23.3 4 70.9 10 23.8 7 46.1 21 10 - 14 25.9 6 36.0 24 31.6 21 33.0 51 15 - 19 48.4 10 40.8 22 37.2 44 • 39.7 76 20 - 24 59.4 13 45.9 53 40.2 39 45.5 105 25 - 29 14.4 8 50.4 30 54.2 38 48.5 76 30 - 34 31.2 12 61.0 38 67.1 43 60.0 93 35 - 39 38.4 4 7B.9 17 93.7 18 81.5 39 40 • 15.3 1 111.2 10 76.1 8 91.3 19 Chapter 8 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION In some of i t s aspec ts , the broader study from which the data p r e -sented here were drawn (Cut ler and Storm, 1972), had ob jec t i ves that were e i the r p r ima r i l y loca l in the i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y or of a l ong i tud ina l nature r equ i r i ng r e p l i c a t i o n at a l a t e r time. It was in part to f u r the r these ob jec t i ves that var ious d i f f e rences in dr ink ing prac t i ces and a t t i t udes across the three c i t i e s were sought. These same object ives were i n f l u -en t i a l in our choice of c i t i e s from which to sample. Aside from these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , however, the three c i t i e s presented an i n t e r es t i ng va r -i a t i o n in terms of demographic composi t ion. Laketown, the sma l les t and e a r l i e s t es tab l i shed of the th ree , was in many respects demographical ly s t a t i c r e l a t i v e to Rivertown and, to a l e s se r extent , Twintown. Th is v a r -i a t i o n , r e f l e c t e d in age, sex and income d i s t r i b u t i o n s fo r the three c i t -i e s , suggested d i f f e rences in the inc idence of p a r t i c u l a r d r ink ing patterns and a t t i t udes toward them. There was, in f a c t , a very cons i s ten t pattern of d i f f e r ences between the c i t i e s . Quite c o n s i s t e n t l y , a l a rger p ropor t -ion of Rivertown subjects responded in ways which ind i ca te heavier or problem dr ink ing patterns than in the other two cit ies--Laketown in pa r t -i c u l a r . These comparisons showed that : r e l a t i v e l y fewer Rivertown r e s -pondents were non-regular dr inkers (27% vs . 31% in Laketown); a greater propor t ion were high volume dr inkers (23% vs . 20%), high maximum dr inkers (53% vs . 41%) and they reported consuming s i g n i f i c a n t l y more absolute a l -cohol per month (76 c l . vs . 60 c l . ) . On the basis of the Index of Uncon-t r o l l e d Dr ink ing a l a rger proport ion of Rivertown respondents (5.2% vs . 3.1%) were de f i n ed , independently of a lcohol consumption, as problem d r i n k e r s ; a greater proport ion of Rivertowners considered themselves (6.1% vs . 3.8%) or others known to them (10.2% vs . 7.7%) to be "heavy d r i nke r s " or to be "problem d r i nke r s " (5.8% vs . 4.2%). More Rivertowners saw a l c o h o l -ism as a problem genera l l y (81% vs . 69%) and l o c a l l y , r e l a t i v e to other s im-i l a r c i t i e s (51% vs . 10%). The same pattern of d i f f e rences in t h i s respect was apparent in both the student and profess iona l samples. Respondents in the pro fess iona l groups sampled in Rivertown, r e l a t i v e to those in Laketown, considered a lcohol use to be a s i g n i f i c a n t problem fo r more of t he i r pa t -ients or c l i e n t s and ind ica ted that a greater proport ion of them were a l c o -ho l i c s or problem d r i nke r s . As a r e f l e c t i o n of d i f f e rences in a t t i tudes t o -ward a lcohol use in gene ra l , Laketown respondents were much more conserva -t i v e in t he i r approach to proposed changes in l i quo r l e g i s l a t i o n than were t h e i r counterparts in Rivertown. If the inc idence of heavier dr ink ing and problem dr ink ing i s higher in Rivertown than i t i s in Laketown or Twintown, as i t seems to be , severa l types of explanat ion are pos s i b l e . The d i f f e rence could be due to f a c to r s assoc ia ted with rap id change per se--soc ia l i n t e g r a t i o n , s t a b i l i t y of comm-un i t y norms, the e f f ec t i veness of informal community s a n c t i o n s , psycho log-i c a l s t r ess assoc ia ted with adjustment to a changing environment. It could be due to r e l a t i v e l y s tab le norms, d i f f e r i n g s l i g h t l y due to spontaneous c u l t u r a l d r i f t . F i n a l l y , i t could be due to the d i f f e r e n t proport ions of persons in the var ious demographic categor ies in the three c i t i e s . The l a s t explanat ion can be checked more adequately with our da t a , and accounts f o r much of the d i f f e r e n c e . The Rivertown sample had a higher proport ion of persons who were: male, aged 20-29, aged 40-49 and had incomes in excess of $10,000 per year . Each of these demographic ca tegor ies i s , in t h i s and other 109 surveys , a r e l a t i v e l y higher consumption category. I f any p a r t i c u l a r dem-ographic va r i ab l e i s held constant mean alcohol consumption i s genera l l y somewhat higher among the Rivertown sample. Rivertown consumption i s h i g h -er fo r males, f o r females , fo r a l l mar i ta l s tatus categor ies and f o r most income ca tego r i e s . However, age groups with higher consumption are over-represented in these Rivertown categor ies and probably account f o r the d i f f -erences. In s h o r t , whi le there are real d i f f e rences in consumption between the three c i t i e s , these d i f f e rences can be accounted f o r adequately by d i f f e r -ences in demographic composi t ion. We an t i c ipa ted d i f f e r ences over and above these , due to soc i a l change or to a cu l tu ra l norm r e f l e c t i n g patterns of dominant demographic groups but extending beyond them; i . e . that the l a rger propor t ion of o lder persons in Laketown would be r e f l e c t ed in lower consump-t i o n of other groups as w e l l , through the i r in f luence on the norms. There i s l i t t l e evidence fo r th i s in the comparisons between c i t i e s , and in th i s our expectat ions were d isconf i rmed. In the combined sample, rates of problem dr ink ing are somewhat high r e l a t i v e to expectat ions based on J e l l i n e k est imat ions fo r B r i t i s h Columbia. Rates of high volume and high maximum dr ink ing are high a l so r e l a t i v e to other North American samples. Th is was found desp i te the l i k e l i h o o d that the gross quant i ty of a lcohol consumption was underrepresented: no more than about two-thirds of a lcohol sa les are covered by sub j e c t s ' responses to i nd i v idua l d r ink ing quest ions . In a d d i t i o n , i nd i v i dua l s aged 20-24, who were s i ng l e or male, who res ided anywhere other than in r e s i d e n t i a l house-ho lds , were underrepresented." While th i s does not impair comparisons with no other survey samples, s ince s im i l a r sampling d i s t o r t i o n s occurred in them, i t does suggest that the absolute rates fo r these c i t i e s may be even higher than they were found to be here. If one were forced to choose one of the many measures of heavier d r i n k -ing to be used as a gross i nd i ca t i on of the prevalence of problem dr inkers or a l c o h o l i c s f o r reg iona l comparisons, a case could be made fo r the use of respondents ' est imat ions of the proport ion of the i r f r i ends whom they c o n s i d -ered to f i t in to var ious dr ink ing ca tegor i es . For some kinds of d r i n k e r s , the est imat ions of o the rs ' dr ink ing were much more r e a l i s t i c than the d e s c r i p -t ions of own dr ink ing and they were made independently of consumption. Given the d i s t o r t i o n s present in our samples the mean rates of problem dr ink ing and heavy d r ink ing r e s u l t i n g from th i s est imat ion approximate what one would ex -pect to obta in using the J e l l i n e k est imat ion procedure which y i e l d s the i n -c idence of a l coho l i sm o r , the Ledermann formula which y i e l d s the inc idence of hazardous consumers. The ease with which these est imat ions can be o b t a i n -ed does much to recommend the i r use over the Index of Uncontro l led Dr inking which is a l so not based on consumption (and which produced only s l i g h t l y low-er rates o v e r a l l ) but which has the added disadvantage of having only two c a t ego r i e s : problem and non-problem d r i nk i ng . To return to the comparison of the T r i - C i t i e s sample with other samples, the comparat ively heavy dr ink ing in these three B r i t i s h Columbia communities i s true wi th in each demographic category with few except ions . While the d i f f -erences between the three c i t i e s in our sample seem to be adequately account -ed f o r by d i f f e r ences in demographic composi t ion, d i f f e rences between our three c i t i e s and the other c i t i e s and regions reported in previous surveys H I may not be. The determinants of the r e l a t i v e l y heavy dr ink ing in the B r i t -i sh Columbia c i t i e s remain to be s p e c i f i e d . In the U.S. nat ional survey , (Cahalan et a l . , 1969) popu la t ion , s i ze and densi ty i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t ed to dr ink ing l e v e l s — r u r a l areas and smal ler c i t i e s have lower l e ve l s of d r i n k -i ng . On the sca le used in that study our three communities are toward the lower end. By comparison with communities of s im i l a r s i z e in the U.S. sam-ple the l e ve l s of d r ink ing revealed by the r esu l t s of th i s survey are s t r i k -i ng l y h igh. The most preva lent dr ink ing s t y l e in a community may in f luence the s t y l e s p rac t i ced by i nd i v idua l soc i a l groups. Such s t y l e s may come to be widely p rac -t i c ed because they are (or were) funct iona l given the circumstances under which they occur . For example, the a c q u i s i t i o n of urban va lues , i n t e r e s t s and be -hav iors may requ i re frequent dr ink ing during b r i e f encounters with large num-bers of acquaihtences and assoc ia tes but p roh ib i t recognizable i n t o x i c a t i o n s ince i t would be d i s r u p t i v e of the soc i a l i n t e rac t i on which i s the object o f the encounter. The o p p o r t u n i t i e s , requirements and p roh ib i t i ons found in com-munit ies which are centers f o r natural resource indus t r i e s may be qu i te d i f f -e rent . M in ing , logging and f i s h i n g a l l requ i re periods of intense a c t i v i t y coupled with i s o l a t i o n , depr i va t ion and a d i s rup t i on of f ami l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Access to a lcohol i s of ten minimal un t i l seasonal " l a y o f f " occurs and intense d r ink ing becomes normative and requ i red . It would not be d i f f i c u l t to under-stand then how two groups of engineers , f o r example, having the same educat ion and income could have such d i f f e r e n t consumption s t y l es dependent on whether or not they were usua l l y located at head o f f i c e or on the j ob . This " f r o n t i e r s t y l e " of dr ink ing can , through soc i a l l e a rn i ng , become the t yp i c a l s t y l e w i th -in the l o ca l a rea . We would suspect that the r e l a t i v e l y high ra tes of high 112 maximum dr ink ing found fo r a l l three of the c i t i e s sampled in th i s study are der ived from the i r common economic o r i g i n s . This s t y l e of d r ink ing was not considered by respondents to be in any way unusual--in f a c t , 80% of those who considered themselves " f a i r l y l i g h t " dr inkers shared th i s s t y l e of consumption. Of i n t e r e s t here are the r e su l t s of eco log ica l s tudies which suggest that d r ink ing p rac t i ces are re l a ted to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the community env i ron -ment. Seeley (1962), f o r example, found a high s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between populat ion dens i ty and a lcohol ism rates f o r 28 American s ta tes and f o r a number of large c i t i e s . Surveyors have cons i s t en t l y found higher propor t ions of more than inf requent dr inkers with increas ing community s i z e (Mul ford , 1964; Cahalan et a l . , 1969; Wal lace, 1972) and some have found higher proport ions of heavy d r inkers as well (Mul ford, 1964). S i m i l a r l y , Popham (1959) has found that J e l l i n e k est imat ions of a lcohol ism rates and the proport ion of the populat ion which i s urban are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . These kinds of f i nd ings have prompted the popular notion that overcrowding, a l i ena t i on and general s t r ess assoc iated with urban l i v i n g have caused many urbani tes to seek r e l i e f through heavy d r i n k i n g . There are two quest ions here which requ i re fu r the r examinat ion: are rates of problem dr ink ing r e a l l y higher in large urban areas and, i f s o , i s i t nec-essary to hypothesize that they are the r e s u l t of s t ress ? In cons idera t ion of the f i r s t , rates of a l coho l i sm in the c l i n i c a l sense (repeated problems a s s -oc ia ted with i n tox i c a t i on ) may not be h igher . Since J e l l i n e k est imat ions are der ived from death due to l i v e r c i r r h o s i s da ta , higher est imated rates could r e s u l t from a greater l i k e l i h o o d of detect ing l i v e r c i r r h o s i s in large c i t i e s . L i v e r c i r r h o s i s is more c l o s e l y assoc ia ted with the volume of consumption which, i f spaced equ i tab ly over t ime, does not necessa r i l y imply the presence 113 of behavioral problems which are centra l to the c l i n i c a l use o f the term a l -cohol ism. Fur ther , judging from the U.S. nat ional sample (Cahalan et a l . , 1969, p. 219) even volume of consumption does not appear, to d i f f e r to any great extent u n t i l only very small urban communities are reached or when urban areas are compared to small farming communities. In the combined t r i - c i t i e s sample the proport ion of respondents who were medium and high volume dr inkers was about the same as was found f o r large urban areas (41% vs . 37% f o r the h ighest American urban category) but the consequences of i n t ox i c a t i on would seem to be more preva lent s ince 49% (vs. 31%) of the t r i - c i t i e s sample were high maximum d r i n k e r s . The po in t here is that there seem to be few d i f f e rences in heavy d r ink ing between c i t i e s of 50,000 and c i t i e s having over 1,000,000 popu l a t i on ; and there are few d i f f e r e n c e s , in the expected d i r e c t i o n , between these three small Can-adian c i t i e s and very la rge American ones. If urban s t ress were important-we would expect these d i f f e r ences to be l a rge . To the extent that there i s v a r i a -t i on in these rates i t would seem to be more e a s i l y expla ined by d i f f e r ences in demographic composit ion both in terms of age-sex-income sets and occupat ion -al c a t ego r i e s . We would suspect that d i f f e rences in d r ink ing p rac t i c e s between c i t i e s do e x i s t but are more l i k e l y to be expressed in s t y l e s o f consumption and more l i k e l y to be assoc iated with aspects of the economic base of the area than with measures of s i z e or populat ion dens i t y . Cor re la tes of Levels of Drinking The r e s u l t s of analyses of dr ink ing by demographic and other va r i ab les w i l l be summarized below. In order to provide a frame of re ference f o r t h i s d i s cuss ion an attempt—admittedly specu la t i ve—has been made to represent what 'would seem to be the r e l a t i onsh ips and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these and 114 other va r i ab les and l e ve l s of d r i nk ing . This model, shown in F igure 11, i s a t en ta t i ve synthes is of the r e su l t s of the present study and those of prev -ious r e l a t ed s tud i e s . B r i e f l y s t a t e d , the model i l l u s t r a t e s the notion that such va r i ab l e s as sex, age, income and mar i ta l status most probably r e f l e c t l i f e s t y l e d i f f e r -ences which govern customary demands and oppor tun i t ies f o r d r ink ing and r e s -t r a i n t s aga inst d r i n k i n g . These va r i ab les are seen as primary determinants of l e ve l s of consumption of a lcohol (and perhaps the use o f tobacco and other drugs as w e l l ) . Other v a r i a b l e s , r e fe r red to here as a t t i t u d i n a l , adjustment and b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , can d i sp lace consumption above or below th i s base- lev -e l amount. These same v a r i a b l e s , in concert with what might be c a l l e d s o c i a l -group f a c to r s determine the s t y l e of consumption: i . e . the tendency to consume small vs . large amounts on any given dr ink ing occas ion . Each s t y l e has a ssoc -ia ted with i t some unique as well as some common consequences. Demographic Factors The age-sex d i s t r i b u t i o n s of non-regular dr ink ing and d i s t r i b u t i o n s based on var ious measures of heavier d r ink ing f o r the t r i - c i t i e s , San F ranc isco and Sydney samples are uniform in i nd i ca t i ng that there are subs tan t i a l d i f f e r ences between the young, middle-aged and the e l d e r l y . It i s notable that in the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of heavy dr ink ing among male respondents in the t r i - c i t i e s and Sydney samples, r e l a t i v e l y high rates during the twenties are fo l lowed by low-er rates during the t h i r t i e s , peak rates in the f o r t i e s and success i ve l y low-er rates the rea f t e r . The peak assoc ia ted with the f o r t i e s i s no t , however, present in the San Franc isco data although i t i s a t yp i ca l in t h i s respect r e l -a t i v e to the U.S. nat ional sample and r e l a t i v e to a number of other samples compared by Room (1972, page 44). While ove ra l l rates of heavy d r ink ing among FIGURE 11 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF VARIABLES RELATED TO DRINKING PRACTICES Ecological Factors Demographic Factors • Age • Sex • Income • Marital status • Population density • Proportion urban • Community size • Residential mobility •Simple-complex society • Economic base Opportunities & Demands • Availability • Interests Obligations General health • Sex role • Price of alcoho Attitudinal Factors Adjustment Factors Biological . Factors Ethnic origin Re I ig ion Parental model Attitudes to-ward alcohol and other mood-modifying substances • Personality •Stress intensity •Other coping mechanisms •Genetic * Physiological Influence unknown Consumption Consumption of Style Alcohol (amount per (mean level) occasion) Lower Maximum Consumption Social Factors • Occupation • "Class" • Community style Possible Consequences •Physical dependence 'Medical complications Possible Consequences Higher • Intoxication. •Fam. relations ^Maximum • Legal difficulties •Soc. relations Consumption •Employment •Financial •Medical 116 men vary cons iderab ly from one sample to another with in samples, age i s a s s -oc ia ted with a more or less t yp i ca l pattern of r a t es . Age could be re l a ted to dr ink ing l e ve l s through a d i f f e rence in a t t i t u d -es between generat ions or through adjustment d i f f i c u l t i e s assoc ia ted with p a r t i c u l a r per iods but seems more l i k e l y to be re la ted through the d i f f e rences in l i f e s t y l e and general circumstances assoc ia ted with age. Income and mar-i t a l s t a t u s , both co r re l a t es of age, can determine the r e l a t i v e frequency with which d r ink ing oppor tun i t i es are l i k e l y to occur as well as the economic ease with which these occasions can be entered i n t o . Income in absolute terms, which was found in th i s study to be re la ted to d r i n k i n g , may be of less s i g -n i f i c a n c e than the d i s c r e t i ona r y surplus which is der ived from both higher l e ve l s of income and an absence of ce r t a in f i n a n c i a l commitments. The opp-o r t u n i t i e s assoc ia ted with l e ve l s of income seem more l i k e l y to be re l a ted to d r ink ing than do d i f f e r e n t i a l a t t i tudes toward dr ink ing or d i f f e r e n t patterns o f d r ink ing assoc ia ted with a d i s t i n c t soc i a l c l ass subcu l ture . This i s sug -gested by the f a c t that other va r i ab les involved in usual s o c i o l o g i c a l de f -i n i t i o n s of s o c i a l c l a ss ( i . e . education and occupation) were found to be c l o -se l y assoc ia ted with dr ink ing l e v e l s . Taken together , these f ac to rs may exp la in the age-related pattern of heavier d r ink ing f o r men shown prev ious l y in F igure 7. The i n i t i a l peak in heavy d r ink ing during the twenties may r e s u l t from the oppor tun i t i es and pe r -haps the demands assoc ia ted w i th : being_ s i n g l e , having lower income but hav-ing r e l a t i v e l y l a rger proport ions of that income ava i l ab le fo r a lcohol and f o r the entertainment s i t ua t i ons in which a lcohol i s r e a d i l y a va i l ab l e and d r ink ing i s customar i l y a pa r t . The decreased rates during the t h i r t i e s may be the r e s u l t of the a c q u i s i t i o n of fami ly r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s — h a v i n g young 117 c h i l d r e n , mortgage payments and other domestic and employment ob i iga t ions--which tend to reduce surplus income and the v a r i a b i l i t y of r ec rea t iona l a c -t i v i t i e s . The peak during the f o r t i e s may be der ived from the p a r t i a l t e r -mination of these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and from higher l eve l s of income. The general dec l ine fo r l a t e r age groups may be the r e s u l t of d e c l i n i n g income but , more l i k e l y , a reduced leve l of v i t a l i t y and a d iminut ion of i n t e r e s t in the kinds of a c t i v i t i e s that are assoc iated with d r i n k i n g . Rates of heavy dr ink ing among female respondents show c o n s i s t e n t l y l ess v a r i a t i o n by age. A f t e r the t h i r t i e s rates genera l l y dec l i ne although there i s some evidence which suggests higher status females have s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher rates during t h e i r f o r t i e s (Room, 1972; Encel et a l . , 1972). The ove ra l l lower rates of regular dr ink ing and heavier d r ink ing among females most probably r e f l e c t sex-role r e s t r i c t i o n s both in general and on dr ink ing in p a r t i c u l a r . Females tend to have fewer oppor tun i t i es to consume a lcohol and i t would seem more fo r t h i s reason, than f o r reasons der ived from r e s -t r i c t i o n s placed on the amount of consumption on any given o c cas i on , that females have lower rates of d r i nk i ng . Never the less , both aspects of d r ink ing were involved in the overa l l male-female d iscrepancy . More oppor tun i t i es may become a va i l ab l e f o r higher status women in p a r t i c u l a r a f t e r c h i l d r e a r -ing r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s terminate during the i r l a t e f o r t i e s , s i n c e , in th i s s tudy , i t was found that the proport ion consumming high volume amounts almost doubled at th i s t ime. As sex-role d e f i n i t i o n s change one might expect females to come to share male dr ink ing p rac t i ces to a greater extent . Already the d iscrepancy in proport ions of each sex group who are non-abstainers has nar -rowed (Mul ford , 1964). 118 A t t i t u d i n a l Factors Re l ig ious a f f i l i a t i o n and ethnic o r i g i n have often been found to be r e l a t ed to dr ink ing prac t i ces (Wil l iams & S t raus , 1950; Ba rne t t , 1955; L o l l i et a l . , 1958; Cahalan & C i s i n , 1968a). It has genera l l y been assumed that these r e l a t i onsh ip s were a r e f l e c t i o n of s p e c i f i c e thnic and r e l i g i o u s a t t -i tudes toward the use of a l c o h o l . In the present study no marked d i f f e r ences were found with respect to e i the r v a r i a b l e — p a r t i c u l a r l y e thn ic o r i g i n . What d i f f e r ences there were between r e l i g i o u s groups were expressed more in terms of proport ions who were absta iners and infrequent dr inkers ra ther than in high volume or in high maximum consumption. It should be r e c a l l e d however, that in many of the ca tegor ies the numbers of subjects were small and combined ca tegor ies may have tended to reduce d i f f e rences which c o u l d , in f a c t , e x i s t . As w e l l , the in f luence of these va r i ab les may be conf ined to c e r t a i n age g r -oups or are perhaps more s p e c i f i c a l l y re la ted to female d r ink ing rather than to that of males as was the case in the Sydney sample (Encel e t a l . , 1972). A t h i r d d i f f i c u l t y in assess ing the strength of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s d e r -ived from the lack of data per ta in ing to the degree of r e l i g i o u s involvement and the recency of e thnic contac t . O v e r a l l , we would surmise that e thn ic o r i g i n and r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n are f a c to r s which do in f luence d r ink ing p rac t i ces but o n l y , with any s t r eng th , those of a minor i t y of respondents; in gene ra l , these in f luences are ne i ther strong nor are they as pervasive as they once may have been. S ince contact with e thn ic p rac t i ces has become more remote f o r most North Americans and un-l e ss Protestant r e l i g i o u s groups rek ind le t he i r zeal f o r temperance a g i t a t i o n , i t would seem that these f a c to r s w i l l become even l ess s i g n i f i c a n t than they are now. 119 Adjustment Factors The not ion that some persona l i t y t r a i t s and higher l e v e l s of s t r e s s both tend to induce heavy dr ink ing has often been advanced by c l i n i c i a n s dur ing the past three decades. The " a l c o h o l i c pe r sona l i t y " has however, evaded a most pe r s i s t en t pu r su i t . (Popham & Schmidt, 1962; K e l l e r , 1972). Attempts to i s o l a t e important pe rsona l i t y co r re l a tes have been based on comparisons o f non-a lcohol ics with a l coho l i c s undergoing treatment. Since i t would be p r e f -erab le to compare l eve l s of dr ink ing against var ious pe r sona l i t y measures such measures have been inc luded in a number of recent surveys. No subs tan t i a l d i f f e rences in dr ink ing prac t i ces were found in the t r i -c i t i e s sample across neurot ic ism ca tegor i es . There was, in f a c t , some t e n -dency f o r both high and low scorers to dr ink more heav i ly than those who had scores which were c l o se r to the mean. A pos i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x t r o -ve rs ion and l e ve l s of d r ink ing was found here and elsewhere (Edwards e t a l . , 1972) perhaps i nd i ca t i ng a greater i n t e r es t in soc i a l a c t i v i t i e s and thus more f requent oppor tun i t i es fo r d r i n k i n g . It has a l so been argued that i nd i v i dua l s choose means of responding to s t ress which f i t in with t he i r soc i a l r o l e s ; that adjustment d i f f i c u l t i e s may not be expressed through heavier dr ink ing but , f o r example, through the use of some other anxiety reducing substance. In th i s study i t was found that double the propor t ion of females r e l a t i v e to males ( in both the general pop-u l a t i o n and student samples) used prescr ibed psychoact ive drugs . Comparison of female drug users with non-users did not however reveal any d i f f e r ences in t he i r d r ink ing p r a c t i c e s . Nor apparent ly has smoking, heav ier smoking or the use of i l l i c i t drugs , among e i the r students or the general popu l a t i on , led to a l e s se r leve l of a lcohol consumption. On the con t r a r y , i t would seem that the use of one psychoact ive substance s t rong ly suggests the use and 120 perhaps heavier use of a lcohol a s . w e l l . Genet i c-B io log ica l Factors This hypothet ica l set of f ac tors is inc luded here more f o r the sake of completeness than to provide an assessment of the i r i n f l uence , i f any, on dr ink ing p r a c t i c e s . They would inc lude any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which i s i nhe r i t ed or the r e s u l t of some phys io log i ca l abnormality (Wi l l iams, 1947). The i n f l u -ence of these kinds of f a c to r s i s unknown at present . That t he i r r e l a t i o n -ship with d r ink ing can be no more than s l i g h t i s suggested by the age-sex-income d i s t r i b u t i o n of heavier d r i nk ing . Never the less , the p o s s i b i l i t y r e -mains that in some small proport ion of the a l c o h o l i c populat ion these f a c to r s may be of e t i o l o g i c a l importance. C o l l e c t i v e l y , a t t i t u d i n a l , genet ic and adjustment f ac to rs would seem to have the potent ia l to a f f e c t the dr ink ing prac t i ces of i n d i v i d u a l s . However, s ince none of these f a c t o r s , at l eas t wi th in the l i m i t s of the above d i s c u s s -i o n , have been found to be c l o se l y re l a ted to l eve l s of d r ink ing they cannot be considered important determinants of dr ink ing p rac t i ces among popu la t ions . In the present study they have not o f fe red much in terms of increased p re -d i c t i v e power over bas ic demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . They have been i n c l u -ded in F igure 11 to denote a set of f a c to rs which taken s i ng l y are only weak-l y r e l a t ed to d r ink ing but , in combinat ion, may in f luence the s t y l e of con -sumption as well as reduce or heighten the l eve l s of consumption es tab l i shed by l i f e s t y l e v a r i a b l e s . Such fac to rs would seem to be necessary to exp la in large dev ia t ions from the norm. P a r t i c u l a r l y explos ive d r i n k i n g , begun at the time of f i r s t contact with a lcohol and continued the rea f t e r , would be d i f f i c u l t to exp la in without invoking hypothet ica l adjustment and genet ic f a c t o r s . 121 Socia l Factors The kinds of f ac to rs included here are d i f f i c u l t to def ine with p r e -c i s i o n . They are conceptual ized as being " sma l l " l i f e s t y l e f a c to r s as op -posed to " l a r ge " l i f e s t y l e ones in the sense that they are more d i s c r e t e or l o c a l — b o t h in terms of one 's community and one's membership in s o c i a l groups wi th in the community--rather than as broadly i n c l u s i v e as demographic ca tegor i es . The kinds of in f luences included here may be re l a ted to occupa-t i ona l category but c l o se r in meaning to the term " s o c i a l c l a s s " when i t i s app l i ed to more t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i e t i e s . They are seen as f a c to r s which gov-ern the s t y l e of consumption more than the overa l l l eve l of consumption and as important determinants of regional d i f f e rences in dr ink ing p r a c t i c e s . In the present study no cons is tent pattern of d i f f e rences was apparent across occupat ional c a t ego r i e s . Never the less , s ince d i f f e r e n t occupations permit or customar i ly demand d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s of d r i n k i n g , we would expect a f i n e r breakdown of occupations than was poss ib le here to show d i f f e r ences in consumption s t y l e s , but d i f f e rences which are not necessa r i l y c l o s e l y r e l a t ed to a p res t ige sca le such as is involved in a h i e r a r c h i c a l c l a s s i f i -ca t ion of occupat ions . Occupational d i f f e rences in consumption s t y l e have, in f a c t , been found f o r dr inkers in London: higher status occupat ional groups t y p i c a l l y dr ink l i g h t l y but f requent ly as opposed to lower s ta tus groups who dr ink more heav i l y but less f requent ly (Edwards et a l . , 1972). Within broad areas of North America, a given leve l on any one of occupa-t i o n , income or educat ion does not imply a leve l on the o the r s ; nor do they, in combinat ion, necessa r i l y imply as unique a set of soc i a l experiences as would be true of B r i t a i n . This merely makes the task of spec i f y i ng soc i a l co r r e l a t e s of consumption s t y l es more d i f f i c u l t rather than suggesting that 122 they are inoperat ive here. I n t u i t i v e l y i t would seem that one 's membership in soc i a l groups—often determined by occupation—can in f luence one 's choice of entertainment oppo r tun i t i e s , the a v a i l a b i l i t y and frequency of enter ing in to pre fer red a l t e rna t i v e s and the extent to which these a l t e rna t i v e s custom-a r i l y requi re the consumption of a lcohol wi th in i m p l i c i t l y set l i m i t s . From a s o c i a l c l ass po int of view, what would seem to be s im i l a r groups but located in d i f f e r e n t communities may present qui te d i f f e r e n t sets of oppor tun i t i es and demands f o r d r i n k i n g . Further Research The foregoing d i scuss ion goes beyond the bounds of the analyses that have been examined on the basis of the data in the present s tudy. There are several poss ib l e l i nes of research that are suggested by the i n t e rp re t a t i ons of our survey data and the more general ana lys i s given above. With respect to the understanding of dr ink ing p rac t i ces in B r i t i s h Columbia an h i s t o r i c a l ana l y s i s of changes in dr ink ing patterns might shed some l i g h t on the " f r o n -t i e r s t y l e " hypothes is . The hypothesis that the economic base i s c r i t i c a l l y important in determining dr ink ing norms or s t y l e at a l o ca l or reg iona l leve l suggests comparison of communities d e l i b e r a t e l y chosen with t h i s hypothesis in mind and p a r t i c u l a r l y the in tens ive study of d r ink ing patterns and customs wi th in occupat ional groups much more s p e c i f i c a l l y def ined than the broadly i n c l u s i v e t r a d i t i o n a l c a t ego r i e s . F i n a l l y , a comparison of the r e l a t i v e ex-p lanatory power of major demographic va r i ab les might cont r ibute to the d i f f -e r e n t i a t i o n of those which are more d i r e c t l y involved in the determinat ion of ove ra l l consumption from those that are only inc identa l though cor re la ted when very large populat ions are invo lved . FOOTNOTES "^Regional Index of B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a : Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , P rov inc i a l Government, 1966. . 2 S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Populat ion of Urban Centres of 5,000 and over. c Ottawa: 1972, Catalogue No. 92-754 AP 3. 3 Survey of Markets. F inanc ia l Post , 1969. 4 Taxat ion S t a t i s t i c s . Ottawa: Dept. of National Revenue, 1967. 5 S t a t i s t i c a l Supplement to the Regional Index of B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a : Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , P rov inc ia l Government, 1968. Annual Report of the Liquor Control Board of B.C. V i c t o r i a : 1966, 1968, 1970. ^For a more complete desc r ip t i on of the Q-F-V and V-V c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems and a d i s cuss ion of t he i r r e l a t i v e meri ts the reader i s r e f e r r ed to Cahalan, C i s i n and C ross l e y ' s (1969) monograph. o S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Populat ion Estimates by Mar i ta l S t a tus , Age and Sex, f o r Canada and the Prov inces. Ottawa: 1971, Catalogue No. 91-203. 9 S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Estimated Populat ion by Sex and Age Groups f o r Canada and the Prov inces . Ottawa: June, 1971, Catalogue No. 91-202. i 0 A s an example, 53% of the respondents in Mulford and Wi l son 's Cedar Rapids sample (1966) and 55% of Cahalan, C i s i n and C r o s s l e y ' s American nat iona l sample (1969) were female. ^ " D r i n k e r s " r e fe r s to a l l i nd i v i dua l s who are not "Abs ta ine rs " or " In f requent " d r i nke r s . 12 By t- tes t comparison Twintown respondents consumed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a l coho l than Laketown respondents (P<.001) and Rivertown respondents consumed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than Twintown respondents (P<..05). 13 Percentages throughout are v e r t i c a l unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d . 124 14 Populat ion f i f t e e n and o l d e r , minus the 27.2% of the t r i - c i t i e s sample who were absta iners or inf requent d r inke r s . 15 In a p re l im ina ry , unpublished summary of i n i t i a l analyses of an Ontar io dr ink ing survey (Addict ions Research Foundat ion, Substudy 1-10+4+37-70), 2.1% of d r ink ing respondents were reported to consume haz -ardous amonts of a lcohol compared to an expected 6.08%. 1 6 Q-F-V " L igh t " and " Infrequent" were combined to form a category comparable to Q-F " L i g h t " . ^ T h i s i s based on the number of non-abstainers. 18 "OTHER" inc ludes farmers and students . 10 BRITISH" inc ludes E n g l i s h , I r i s h , Scotch. 20 "OTHER" inc ludes Chinese, Japanese, Native Indian, Russ ian , Hungar-i a n , P o l i s h , : C z e c h . 21 Includes former c i ga re t t e consumption leve ls f o r 192 respondents who have qu i t smoking in add i t ion to present smokers. 22 Includes respondents who have "ever" used one or more of the f o l l o w -i n g : ba rb i tua t es , t r a n q u i l l i z e r s or amphetamines. 23 Includes the use of mar i juana, hash i sh , LSD and mesca l ine . 125 BIBLIOGRAPHY Akers , R. L. & K ing, J . L. Teenage d r i nk ing : A survey of ac t ion programs. Sea t t l e : North Western Mutual Insurance Company of S e a t t l e , 1957. Annual report of the l i quo r control board of B. C. V i c t o r i a : 1956, 1968, 1970. Bacon, S. D. Inebr ie ty , soc i a l i n t eg r a t i on , and marr iage. Quart . J . Stud. A l e , 1944, 5, 86-125. Bacon, S. D. Soc ia l se t t ings conducive to a l coho l i sm. J . Amer. med. A s s . , 1957, 164, 177-181. B a i l e y , M. B., Haberman, P. W. & A lksne , H. The epidemiology of a l coho l i sm in an.urban r e s i den t i a l area. Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1965, 26, 19-40. B a i l e y , M. B., Haberman, P. W. & Sheinberg, J . Ident i f y ing a l c o h o l i c s in in populat ion surveys. Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1966, 27 , 300-315. Ba les , R. F. The " f i x a t i o n f a c t o r " in a lcohol a d d i c t i o n : An hypothesis der ived from a comparative study of I r i sh and Jewish s o c i a l norms. Unpublished doctora l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1944. Barnet t , M. L. A lcohol ism in the Cantonese of New York c i t y : An an th ropo l -og ica l study. In 0. Diethelm (Ed. ) , E t io logy of chron ic a l coho l i sm. S p r i n g f i e l d , 111. : Thomas, 1955. Pp. 179-227.-B lane, H. T . , Overton, W. F. & Chafe tz , M. E. Soc ia l f a c to r s in the d i a g -nosis of a l coho l i sm. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1963, 24, 640-663. Brenner, B. Est imat ing the prevalence of a lcohol ism from v i t a l r a t e s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1960, 21, 140-141. Brenner, B. Est imat ing the prevalence of a l coho l i sm; toward a mod i f i c a t i on of the J e l l i n e k formula. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1959, 20 , 255-260. Cahalan, D. & C i s i n , I. H. American dr ink ing p r a c t i c e s : Summary of f i n d -ings from a nat ional p r o b a b i l i t y sample. I. Extent of d r ink ing by populat ion sub-groups. Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1968a, 29_, 130-151. Cahalan, D. & C i s i n , I. H. American dr ink ing p r a c t i c e s : Summary of f i n d -ings from a nat iona l p r o b a b i l i t y survey. II. Measurement of massed versus spaced d r i n k i n g . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1968b, 29_, 642-656. Cahalan, D., C i s i n , I. H. & C ross l ey , H . M. American d r ink ing p rac t i ces  study. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers Center of A lcohol S tud ies , 1969. C a l i f o r n i a State Department of Publ ic Hea l th , D i v i s i o n of A l c o h o l i c Rehab-i l i t a t i o n . The C a l i f o r n i a dr ink ing p rac t i ces study. Berke ley , C a l i -f o r n i a : 1961. 126 Chandler , M. K. Soc ia l o rgan iza t ion of workers in a rooming house area. Unpublished doctora l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un ive rs i t y of Chicago, 1948. C l a r k , W. Operat ional d e f i n i t i o n s of dr ink ing problems and assoc iated prevalence r a t e s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1966, 27, 648-668. C l i n a r d , M. B. The pub l i c dr ink ing house and soc i e t y . In D. J . Pittman & C. R. Synder ( Eds . ) , Soc i e t y , c u l t u r e , and dr ink ing pa t te rns . New York: Wiley. Pp. 270-292. Crow, B. & Assoc i a t es . An a t t i tude and awareness study conducted fo r the  A lcohol ism Foundation of B r i t i s h Columbia. B r i t i s h Columbia: Ben W. Crow & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d . , 1962. C u t l e r , R. E. Pat ient c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : A comparison of out-pat ient a l c o - h o l i c s by regional c l i n i c . Vancouver: The A lcohol i sm Foundation of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. C u t l e r , R. E. Pa t ient c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : A comparison of s teady, short  episode and binge d r i nke r s . Vancouver: The A lcohol ism Foundation of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973. C u t l e r , R. E. & Mor r i son , N. Sudden death: A study of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of v ic t ims and events leading to sudden death in B r i t i s h Columbia  with primary emphasis on apparent a lcohol involvement and Indian  sudden death. Vancouver: The Alcohol ism Foundation of B r i t i s h Co l-umbia, 1971. C u t l e r , R. E. & Storm, T. Dr inking prac t i ces in three B r i t i s h Columbia  c i t i e s . Vancouver: The Alcohol ism Foundation of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. De L i n t , J . & Schmidt, W. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of a lcohol consumption in Onta r io . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1968, 29, 968-973. D o l l a r d , J . Dr inking mores of the soc i a l c l a s s e s . In A l c o h o l , sc ience and s o c i e t y . New Haven: Journal of Studies on A l c o h o l , 1945. Pp. 95-101. Drew, L. B. H. A lcohol i sm as a s e l f - l i m i t i n g d i sease . Quart . J . Stud. A l e . , 1968, 29, 956-96?. Duh l , L. J . A l coho l i sm: The pub l i c health approach. A new look from the yiewpoint of human ecology. Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1959, 20_, 112-125. Edwards, E. , Chandler , J . & Hensman, C. Drinking in a London suburb, co r re l a t es of normal d r i n k i n g . Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1972, 6_, 69-93. E n c e l , S. K. C , Kotowicz, K. C. & Res l e r , H. E. Dr inking patterns in Sidney. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1972, 6, 1-27. 127 G ibb ins , R. J . A lcohol ism in Ontar io : A survey of an Ontar io county. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1954, 15, 47-62. G l ad , D. D. A t t i t udes and experiences of American-Jewish and American-I r i sh male youth as re la ted to d i f f e rences in adul t rates of i neb -r i e t y . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1947, 8, 400-472. G o t t l e i b , D. The neighbourhood tavern and the cock ta i l lounge: A study of c l a ss d i f f e r e n c e s . American J r . of Soc io logy , 1956-57, 62, 559-562. Greenle igh A s s o c i a t e s , Inc. Report on the Iowa comprehensive a lcohol ism  p ro j e c t . (An eva luat ion of a research and demonstration pro jec t of the o f f i c e of economic oppor tun i ty . ) New York: Greenleigh & A s s -o c i a t e s , Inc . , 1969. Haberman, P. W. D i f ferences between f am i l i e s admitt ing and denying an e x i s t i n g d r ink ing problem. J . H l th . Hum. Behav., 1963, £ , 141-145. Haberman, P. W. & Shienberg, J . Impl icat ive dr ink ing reported in a house-hold survey: A cor robora t i ve note on sub-group d i f f e r e n c e s . Quart. J . S tud. A l e , 1967, 28, 538-543. Harmsworth, H. C. A survey of the alcohol and narcot i c problem in Idaho. Moscow: Dept. of Soc ia l Sc iences , Un i ve r s i t y of Idaho, 1954. Har t , W. T . , Gardner, E. A. & Zax, M. Community f a c i l i t i e s f o r a l c o h o l i c s in Rochester , New York. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1964, 25, 747-753. Holloway, R. Home in f luences on student d r i n k i n g . Manitoba: A lcohol Education Se r v i ce , 1965. J e l l i n e k , E. M. The disease concept of a l coho l i sm. Highland Park, New Je rsey : H i l lhouse P ress , 1960. J e l l i n e k , E. M. Est imating the prevalence of a l coho l i sm: Modi f ied values in the J e l l i n e k formula and an a l t e rna t i v e approach. Quart . J . Stud. A l e , 1959, 20, 261-269. J e l l i n e k , E. M. Phases in the dr ink ing h i s to r y of a l c o h o l i c s : Ana l ys i s of a survey conducted by the o f f i c i a l organ of A l c o h o l i c s Anonymous. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1946, 7_, 1-88. J e l l i n e k , E. M. & K e l l e r , M. Rates of a lcohol ism in the United States of Amer ica , 1940-1948. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1952, 13_, 49-59. Jones, D. & Madden, J . S. Bout and continuous dr ink ing in a l coho l i sm. Br. J . A d d i c t . , 1972, 67, 245-250. 128 Jupp, A. G. The ro le and funct ions of the tavern in Montrea l . Unpublished t h e s i s , Un i ve r s i t y of Ca lgary , 1969. K e l l e r , M. The d e f i n i t i o n of a lcohol ism and est imat ion of i t s preva lence . In D. Pittman & C. R. Synder ( Eds . ) , Soc ie ty , cu l tu re and dr ink ing pat te rns . New York: Wi ley, 1962. Pp. 310-329. K e l l e r , M. The odd i t i e s of a l c o h o l i c s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1972, 33_, 1147-1148. K e l l e r , M, & E f ron , V. The prevalence of a l coho l i sm. Quart . J . Stud. A l e . , 1955, 16, 619-644. K e l l e r , M. & E f r on , V. A lcohol ism in the big c i t i e s of the Uni ted S ta tes . Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1956, U_, 63-72. K e l l e r , M. & E f ron , V. The rate of a lcohol ism in the U.S.A. 1954-1956. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1958, 19, 316-319. Kende l l , R. E. & S ta ton , M. C. The fa te of untreated a l c o h o l i c s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1966, 27, 30-41. Kim, Yong C. A study of drug use f o r non-medical purposes among young a d u l t s . Regina: The A lcohol ism Commission of Saskatchewan, 1970. Kim, Yong C. Study of the e f fec t i veness of communication contents t r ans - mi t ted to the r e c i p i en t s fo r a lcohol education and the peop le ' s a t t - i tudes and knowledge towards the ro le and funct ions of the A lcohol ism  Commission of Saskatchewan. Regina: The A lcohol ism Commission of Saskatchewan, 1970. Kim, Yong C. Survey of a t t i t ude and knowledge concerning mari juana and  i t s use among high school s tudents . Regina: The A lcohol ism Commiss-ion of Saskatchewan, 1971. Knupfer, G. Some methodological problems in the epidemiology o f a l c o h o l i c beverage usage: D e f i n i t i o n of amount of in take . Amer. J . Pub l . H l t h . , 1966, 56_, 237-242. Knupfer, G. & Room, R. Dr inking patterns and a t t i tudes of Jewish and White Protestant American men. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1967, 28, 676-699. L a f o r e s t , L. The inc idence of drug use among high school and co l l ege s tud - ents of the Montreal Is land area . Quebec: O f f i c e de l a Prevention et du Traitement de L 'A lcoo l i sme et des autres Toxecomanies, 1969. .Ledermann, S. A l c o o l , a l coo l i sme , a l c o o l i s a t i o n : Donnes s c i e n t i f i q u e s de  caractere phys io logique et s o c i a l . ( I n s t i t u t Nat ional d*Etudes Demo-graphique, Travaus et Documents, Cahier No. 29.) P a r i s : Presses U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France, 1956. 129 Ledermann, S. Can one reduce a lcohol ism without changing t o t a l a lcohol consumption in a populat ion? Selected papers presented at the 27th lllteQiaJd^^ a n c * A l coho l i sm, Volume 2. Economic, S t a t i s t i c a l and Legal Subjects."" Frankfurt-am-Main, West Germany, 1964. Lipscomb, W. R. Survey measurement of the prevalence of a l coho l i sm . A r c h . gen. P s y ch i a t . , 1966, 15_, 455-461. Loewenstein, R., Colombotos, J . & E l i n son , J . Interviews hardest-to-obta in in an urban heal th survey. Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Pub l i c Health A s s o c i a t i o n , S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , D e t r o i t ; 1961. L o l l i , G . , S e r i a n n i , E . , Go lder , G. M. & Luzza t to-Feg iz , P. A lcoho l in I t a l i an c u l t u r e : Food and wine in r e l a t i o n to sob r i e t y among I t a l i ans and I t a l i an Americans. New Brunswick, New Je rsey : Pub l i c a t i ons D i v -i s i o n , Rutgers Center of A lcohol S tud ies , 1958. L o l l i , G . , S e r i a n n i , E. , Ban i sson i , F., Go lder , G . , M a r i a n i , A . , McCarthy, R. G. & Toner , M. The use of wine and other a l c o h o l i c beverages by a group of I t a l i an and Americans of I t a l i an e x t r a c t i o n . Quart . J . S tud. A l e , 1952, 13, 27-48. Manis , J . G. & Hunt, C. L. The community survey as a measure o f the prev -alence of a l coho l i sm. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1957, 18, 212-216. Maxwel l , M. A. Dr inking behavior in the State of Washington. Quart . J . Stud. A l e , 1952, 13, 219-239. Maxwel l , M. A. A quant i ty-frequency ana lys i s of d r ink ing behavior in the State of Washington. Northw. S c i . , 1958, 32, 57-67. Marcon i , J . T. The concept of a l coho l i sm. Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1959, 20, 216-235. Marcon i , J . T . , V a r e l a , A . , Rosenblat , E., S o l a r i , G . , Marches i , I., A l v a r -ado, R. & Enr iquez , W. A survey on the prevalence of a l coho l i sm among the adul t populat ion of a suburb of Sant iago. Quart . J . Stud. A l e . , 1955, 16, 438-446. Macrory, B. E. The tavern and the community. Quart. J . S tud . A l e . , 1952, 13, 609-637. Missour i State Medical A s s o c i a t i o n , Committee on A l coho l i sm . A lcohol i sm  in M i s s o u r i : A statement of the problem and recommendations. Kansas C i t y : 1954. Moss, M. C. & Dav ies , E. B. A survey of a lcohol ism in an Eng l i sh County. A l t r i ncham, Great B r i t a i n : St. Ann's P ress , 1967. 130 Mowrer, H. R. & Mowrer, E. R. Eco log ica l and f a m i l i a l f ac to rs assoc ia ted with i neb r i e t y . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1945, 6_, 36-44. Mu l fo rd , H. A. Toward an instrument to i d en t i f y and measure the s e l f , s i g n i f i c a n t o the rs , and a lcohol in the symbolic environment: An empir ica l study. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , State Un ive rs i t y of Iowa, 1955. Mu l fo rd , H. A. Dr inking and deviant d r i n k i n g , U.S.A. 1963. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1964, 25, 634-650. Mu l fo rd , H. A. A l c o h o l i c s , a lcohol ism and Iowa phys i c i ans . J . Iowa S t . med. S o c , Nov. 1964, LIV (11 ), 623-628. Mu l fo rd , H. A. Pub l i c conceptions of the dr ink ing and re la ted behavior d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the a l c o h o l i c . In W. Erbe & R. W. Wilson ( Eds . ) , The i nd i v idua l in the modern community: A report on the Newton study. Iowa C i t y , Iowa: State Un i ve rs i t y of Iowa Press , 1965. Mu l fo rd , H. A. " A l c o h o l i c s " , " a l coho l i sm" and "problem d r i n k e r s " : Soc ia l objects-in-the-making. Unpublished manuscr ipt , Un i ve r s i t y of Iowa, 1969. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. Dr inking behavior r e l a ted to d e f i n i t i o n s of a l c o h o l : A repor t of research in progress . Am. S o c i o ! . R., 1959, 24, 385-389. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. Dr inking in Iowa. I. Soc iocu l tu ra l d i s -t r i b u t i o n of d r i nke r s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1959, 20, 704-726. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. Dr inking in Iowa. II. The extent of d r ink ing and se lec ted soc i o cu l t u r a l ca tegor i es . Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1960, 21 ,^ 26-39. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. Dr inking in Iowa. III. A sca le of de f -i n i t i o n s of a lcoho l re l a ted to dr ink ing behavior. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1960, 21, 267-278. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. Dr inking in Iowa. IV. Preoccupation with a lcohol and d e f i n i t i o n s of a l c o h o l , heavy dr ink ing and t rouble due to d r i n k i n g . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1960, 21_, 279-291. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. Dr inking in Iowa. V. Dr inking and a l c o h o l i c d r i n k i n g . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1960, 21_, 283-299. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. An index of a l c o h o l i c dr ink ing behavior r e l a t ed to the meanings of a l c o h o l . J . H l th . hum. Behav., 1961, 1_, 26-31. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. Preoccupation with a lcohol and d e f i n i t i o n s of a l c o h o l : A r e p l i c a t i o n study of two cumulative s c a l e s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1963, 24, 683-696. 131 Mu l fo rd , H. A. & M i l l e r , D. E. The prevalence and extent of d r ink ing in Iowa, 1961: A r e p l i c a t i o n and an eva luat ion of methods. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1963, 24, 39-53. Mu l fo rd , H. A. & Wi lson, R. W. Ident i fy ing problem dr inkers in a house-hold heal th survey: A desc r ip t i on of f i e l d procedures and a n a l y t i c a l techniques developed to measure the prevalence of a l coho l i sm. Pub l i c  Health Serv ice Publ . No. lOQQ-Ser. 2-No. 16, 1966. Narcot i c and A lcohol i sm Advisory Committee. A lcohol ism in Montana. Helena: 1955, 48pp. Nat ional Center fo r Health S t a t i s t i c s . Ser ies 2, No. 16. Ident i f y ing problem dr inkers in a household health survey. Washington, D .C . : 1966. Optat . La consommation de drogues chez les etudiants du secondaire et du  c o l l e g i a ! de 1 ' t l e de Montreal en 1969 et en 1971. Montrea l : 1971. Piedmont, E. B. A review of prevalence estimates fo r a l coho l i sm. Int . J .  Soc ia l P s y ch i a t . , . 1960 , 8, 11-18. P i t tman, D. J . & Gordon, C. W. Cr iminal careers of the chronic po l i c e case i n e b r i a t e . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1958, 19, 255-268. Pomeroy, G. S. & G l o b e t t i , G. The M i s s i s s i p p i s to r y : A demonstration  p ro jec t i n a lcohol educat ion. Admin is t ra t i ve report No. 1. Dept. of Soc io logy and Anthropology, M i s s i s s i p p i State Un i v e r s i t y , 1968. Popham, R. E. The J e l l i n e k a lcohol ism est imat ion formula and i t s a p p l i c a -t ion to Canadian data . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1956, 17_,. 559-593. Popham, R. E. Some soc i a l and cu l t u r a l aspects of a l coho l i sm. Canad. psych i a t . Ass . J . , 1959, 4, 222-229. Popham, R. E. & Schmidt, W. A decade of a lcohol ism research . Brookside Monograph No. 3, Un i ve rs i t y of Toronto P ress , 1962. Reed, R. E. The problem of add i c t i ve d r i n k i n g . I. Beverage a lcohol i n simple and complex s o c i e t i e s . II. Some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the a l c o -h o l i c . N.C. med. J . , 1953, 14, 101-105, 227-229. Regional Index of B r i t i s h Columbia. Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , P rov inc i a l Government, V i c t o r i a , 1966. R i l e y , J . W., J r . & Marden, C. F. The soc i a l pattern of a l c o h o l i c d r i n k -i n g . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1947, 8, 265-273. R i l e y , J . W., J r . , Marden, C. F. & L i f s h i t z , M. The mot ivat iona l pattern of d r i n k i n g . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1948, 9, 353-362. Room, R. Measures of heavy d r i nk i ng : The d i f f e rence i t makes. The  Dr inking and Drug Pract ices Surveyor, January 1971, 3_, 3-5. Room, R. Survey vs . sa les data fo r the U.S. The Dr inking and Drug  P rac t i ces Surveyor, January 1971, 3_, 15-16, Room, R. Dr inking patterns in large U.S. c i t i e s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1972, 6, 28-57. ~ " ~ ~ Rosenblat t , E. , S o l a r i , G . , Marchesse, I., Marconi , J . , A l va rado , R. & Enr iquez , W. A study of ce r ta in socioeconomic cond i t ions in r e l a t i o n to a lcohol ism among a populat ion of Sant iago. Int. J . A l e . A l c s m . , 1955, 1_, 163-170. : R u s s e l l , J . S. Survey of drug use in se lected B r i t i s h Columbia school_  d i s t r i c t s . Vancouver: The Narcot ic Add ic t ion Foundat ion, 1970. R u s s e l l , J . S. Drug use among Vancouver secondary s tudents . Vancouver: The Narcot ic Add ic t ion Foundation, 1971. See ley , J . R. Est imat ing the prevalence of a l coho l i sm: A c r i t i c a l a n a l -y s i s of the J e l l i n e k formula. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1959, 20. 245-254. ~ ; : See ley , J . R. A lcohol i sm prevalence: An a l t e rna t i v e est imat ion method. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1960, 21, 500-505. See ley , J . R. The ecology of a l coho l i sm: A beginning. In D. J . Pittman & C. R. Snyder ( Eds . ) , Soc ie t y , c u l t u r e , and dr ink ing pa t te rns . New York: Wi ley, 1962. Pp. 330-344. Smart, R. G. A pre l iminary report on a t t i tudes and behavior of Toronto students in r e l a t i o n to drugs. Toronto: Add ic t ion Research Foundation 1969. Snyder, C. R. A lcohol and the Jews: A cu l tu ra l study of d r ink ing and  sob r i e t y . Monogr. No. 1. New Brunswick, New Je rsey : Rutgers Center of A lcohol S tud ies , 1958. S t a t i s t i c a l supplement to the regional index of B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a P rov inc i a l Government, Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , 1968. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Estimated populat ion by sex and age groups fo r Canada  and the prov inces . June, 1971. Catalogue No. 91-202, Ottawa, 1971. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Populat ion estimates by mar i ta l s t a tu s , age and sex, f o r Canada and the prov inces . Catalogue No. 91-203, Ottawa, 1971. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Populat ion of urban centers of 5,000 and over . Cat -alogue No. 92-754 AP 3, Ottawa, 1972. 133 Stennet, R. G. & Feenst ra , H. J . Tobacco, a lcohol and drug use reported  by London secondary school students. Add ic t ion Research Foundation and Board of Education f o r the c i t y of London, 1969. Stephan, F. F. & McCarthy, P. J . Sampling op in ions . New York: Wi ley , 1958. S t raus , R. Community surveys , the i r aims and techniques; with spec ia l reference to problems of a l coho l i sm. Quart. J . S tud. A l e . , 1952, 13, 254-270. S t raus , R. & Bacon, S. D. Drinking in co l l ege . New Haven: Yale Un iver -s i t y P ress , 1953. S t raus , R. & McCarthy, R. G. Nonaddict ive patho log ica l d r ink ing patterns of homeless men. Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1951, 12, 601-611. Survey of Markets. F inanc ia l Post. 1969. Taxat ion S t a t i s t i c s . Ottawa: Dept. of National Revenue, 1967. Teenage dr ink ing in Connect icut . A report of the teenage a lcohol use study commission, State of Connect icut , 1967. The South Caro l ina Commission on a lcohol ism and the South Ca ro l i na dep-artment of educat ion. Alcohol and drug abuse in South Caro l ina  high schoo l s . South C a r o l i n a , 1970. Wahl, C. W. Some antecedent fac tors in the fami ly h i s t o r i e s of 109 a l -c o h o l i c s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1956, 17, 643-654. Waisanen, C. E. & Mu l fo rd , H. A. A lcohol ism and Iowa phys i c i ans . 0_. Iowa St . med. Soc . , 1957, 47 , 565-569. Wal lace, J . Dr inkers and absta iners in Norway. Quart. J . S tud . A l e , 1972, 6, 129-151. ; W i l l i ams , A. F. , D i C i c c o , L. M. & Unterberger, W. Phi losophy and e v a l -uat ion of an a lcohol education program. Quart. J . S tud. A l e . , 1968, 29, no. 3, 685-702. W i l l i ams , P. H. & S t raus , R. Dr inking patterns of I t a l i ans in New Haven. U t i l i z a t i o n of the personal d ia ry as a research technique. Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1950, n_, 51-91, 250-308, 452-483, 586-629. W i l l i ams , R. J . The e t i o logy of a l coho l i sm: A working hypothesis i n v o l -ving the i n t e rp l a y of heredi tary and environmental f a c t o r s . Quart. J . Stud. A l e , 1947, 7, 567-587. 134 Zax, M., Gardner, E. A. & Hart , W. T . Pub l i c i n tox i c a t i on in Rochester : A survey of i nd i v i dua l s charged during 1961. Quart. J . S tud. A l e . , 1964, 25_, 669-678. Zax, M., Gardner, E. A. & Hart , W. T. A survey of the prevalence of a l -coholism in Monroe County, N.Y., 1964. Quart. J . Stud. A l e . , 1967, 28, 316-327. APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE 135 afbc 1970 NATIONAL HEALTH STUDY OF DRINKING PRACTICES pONrtff'NTlAi : ALL INFORMATION WILL BE MELD STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE SEEN ONLY BY PCRSONS CNGAGEO IN THIS SURVEY, A KO WILL NOT Br DISCLOSED OR RELEASED TO OTHERS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. DUE 10 THE PERSONAL NATUHC Or THE OuCS'lONS, NEITHER YOUR NAME NOR YOUR ADDRESS WILL APPEAR ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. AFTER IT C A L I R E P O R T 1 S I N G L l F A M I L Y D W E L L I N G U N I T 7 D U P L E * 3 ROOM INC. HOUSE 4 A P A R T M E N T HOUSE 3 M O T E L D A T E T IME • R E S U L T S 1 T>A T t T IME | R E S U L T S 1ST C A L L A.M. P.M. 1 6TM | C A L L 1 A.M. : P.M. F ?ND A.M. P . M , 7TH C A L L A.M. P.M. 1 3RO C»LI. A . M . P.M, 8TM C A L L A.M. P.M. IHCOHPU I t W-WMSS 4 t i l C A L L A.M. P . M . 9 T H C « I L A.M. <*.«. O l l f T I O N NO. " f ^ O W •>TM f Al | A.M. P . M . IOTM C A L L A.M. P.M. 1 " MO OHC MOWC ? « wo *r-.fLr H O M 1 ? « B f f U S A L UPON CN1HY BTfOOZ 4C*»CI;NI»IC (L I & t OL ( n i s f O h n c N T 4 - P i r u S * L B V T M f C L I G I B L C P [ ' > o O « i D f H t S t L C C K . O roa i • S C L E C ' C O PfSPOMOCMT . ( D M I K A 1 C D imtpvuu BCTOT ci»«PttTiow Ct « MH»H T * L I tv 8 • M O V C O T R O W cirv 9 « CANMOT L O C A T t 10 • Pf«SOM Sr.LtCUO » 0 " I H M R V I C W TMOM M I S U S U * L PL*CC OF P C S i D f h C C TOO L * f P C P I 0 0 or •.uevrv 11 « PI»SO*< s r n c ' t o FOP IMITPVICW too ILL oo s tK i i c fvj_» n oc I N t t . o v t t W f O ( C ' C L U W . S P t A S O N S O N L V T f M P O H * . » t L Y ILL. *»«0 C A * flf I N H R V I U I o OM * L A 11 ** C * L L J 11 • COMPLt.»C0 I H I ( » V f C W M I l H S C L t C T L O R f S P O M P C N l r u u l W l f , AND CCK 'ACN I S : S I G N A T U R E OF INTr R V I T W F R 136 START TIME: OEHOCRAPH IC la In WHAT YE*R WfRC YOU.PORH? S E L F PROXY 2 . Sex 1 MALE 2 ffHAI.r 1 MALE 2 FEMALE 3 . ARE YOU MARRIED, SINGLE, DIVORCED OR WIDOWED? 1A . ir MAooiro. ASK: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN M*PRIEO? 1 HARRIED 2 SINGLE 3 DIVORCED 4 SEPARATED 4 . I r EVER * * A » « i r o : D o v o u H*VC CHILDREN LIVING WITH YOU? 4A I r YES: HOW MANY CHILDRCN? 1 YES 2 NO 5 . WMAI IS TMT MI j H f ^T C * D C OF REGULAR SCHOOL LEVEL THAT YOU H A V r COMPLEHO? 1-NEVfP *TTf«CCD 2 KINM RO*"T [H 3 tLtwrwTABv ( 1 - 8 ) 4 MISM SCHOOL ( 9 - 1 2 ) rwrrw BOTH L E V E L AND YCAR «^  UNIVCRSHV TOR LEVEL CAMAir.TrD, EHTfR v c * n : 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? f l LEVEL 6. WHAT IS YOU* orLiGious PBErrotNCET Ir •pRoic«,r*HT", ASK: VMAI CCNOMIVATIOH? 7 . WMA-T DO VOU CONSIDER * 0 BE YOUR ETHNIC ORIGIN? SELF: PROXY: IF UUZl'RHtU, QOTSnON ABOUT ORIGIN OF FATHERS FAHILV. 8. APE YOU PRESENTLY EMPLOYED? OTHER I s P E C i r v ) EMPLOYE 0 ? UNEMPLOYED 3 RE TIP T D « MOUSEWIFE 5 SCLr-EMPLOYED 1 EMPLOYED ? UNF.MPLOYtD 3 p C TI RED 4 KOUSEWITE 5 SELF-EMPLOYED 6 ,OTM;ER, !sPt,q:iry) . 9. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION? (SPECIFY: BE AS COKPlETE AS POSSIBLE) SELF: PftOXY: 1 0 . HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THIS CITY? YEA»S 1 1 . How LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT THIS ADORESS? (TO CLOSEST YEAR) YEARS 1 2 . HOW MANY PREVIOUS ADDRESSES HAVE YOU HAD DURING THE PAST 5 YEARS? 137 13. WHERE WERE YOU BORN? SELF: PROXY: PROXY 14, WMCRC OIO YOU GROW UP? ( I . E . SPEND MOST or YOUR SCHOOL YEARS?) SELF: CITY OR: PROV./COUNTRY RURAL (STATE WHERE) PROXY: CITY RURAL (STATE WHERE) OR: PROV./COUNTRY 15. DO YOU OWN OR RI NT YOUR RESIDENCE? I V IF *0W>i*', AVt: HOW LONG M*VE YOU OWNED VOUB HOME? 1 OWN ? RENT 16. INTO WHICH GROUP DID VOUR TOTAL f*"i ;.y ' **co*r F*LL LAST v r * « ? (INCLUDING S * L « " l f S , PROFITS, RENTS, PENSIONS, ETC.) SHOW CARD A, UNDER l?,r*>o J2.000 - J3.999 $4,coo - i*,w> $6,000 - $7,990 J9.W0 - JO.999 $10,^00 - jU,999 $15,000 PLUS ii reHtf:t*r,: C''ANTiTY-fjfTQig:ti:v-v^ J-uniiiiY 17. THE NE"» rrw QUESTIONS ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR USE or VAPIQUS TVPES or OPINIO. WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE T«TS ROOKLTT (HAND PE^ P^ONQt'NJ BOOKLET) AND ON THE r i P S T PAGE PvT A CHCC -**A<*K NT'T TO THC ANSwf » THAT TELLS MOW OrTfN VOU V>\J * L L Y HAVE WtNC. PLE»SE BE SURE YOUR CHECK-MARK IS ON THE W>H 1C PAGE • 19. NOW PLE*SE TURM 10 THE GREEN PACT *NQ 0 0 THE SAME TOP BEER. 8E SURE. VOUP CHEC»:-»«A<»K IS ON THE GREEN PAGE. 19. NOW PLE*SE T U P S TO THC PIN* PAC,L AND DO Tnr. S*Mf rO«» DRINKS CONTAINING W*USKEV 0 ° .LJOUQW. INCLUDING SCOTCH, RYE, GIN, VODKA, R y M , ETC. BE si'°c YOUR CHECK-MARK IS ON THE PINK PAGE. 20. AND NOW TURN TO THE YELLOW PAGE ANO PLEASE CHECK HOW OFTEN YOU HAVE ANY KINO OF DRINK CONTAINING ALCOHOL, WHETHER |T IS WINE, BEER, WHISKEY OR ANY 0 THE R DRINK. 30QKLU; f W C*CH tgvtPAGi: 3 OR MO»C TIMfS PER DAY ? TVO TIMES A DAY 3 ONCE A DAY 4 NEARLY tVE«Y DAY 5 3 OO 4 TIMES PER WEEK 6 1 OR 2 TINES PER WEEK 7 2 OR 3 TIMES PER MONTH 8 AtlOUT ONCE PER MONTH 9 LESS TM A M ONCE PER MONTH BUT AT LEAST ONCE PEP YEAR 10 LESS THAN ONCE PER YtAft 11 I HAVE NEVER HAD • (HAKF SIF* THAT THC FREQUENCY OF DRIVING PEPGRTED OU THE LAST (YELLOW) PAGE IS MI-T LESS THAN THE FREQUENCY PEPOPTEO ON A W ONE OF THE OTHER PAGES. ATTACH BOOKLEl TO THE BACK OF QUEST IOIJNAISE Wll THE INTERVIEW IS ClWLElEDh (CHECK ACCORDING TO 0.20, LAST PAGE (YELLOW) OF THE BOOKLET). MO OR 1 {NEVER DRINKS OR DRINKS LESS THAN ONCE PER YEAR, SKIP TO 0.26 ON PAGE 4 . "9" DRINKS LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH BUT AT LEART ONCE PER YEAR. SKIP TO 0.24 ON PAGE _3_. LL IN: ALL OTHER CATEGORIES, CONTINUE WITH Q.21 ON NEXT PAGE. 138 ASK BEVERAGE QUEST IONS IF ANSVCR I S - 8 - OR L E S S WINE (CHCCK ACCORDING TO F I R S T PAGE OF THE B O O K L E l ) . 21 . (MAS WINE ABOUT ONCE A MONTH OR MOPC O T T f N , ASK THE FOLLOWING, OTHERWISE S K I P TO 21A ( G I V E RESPONDENT CARO B ) THINK OF A L L THE TIMTS YOU HAVE HAD WlME RECENTLY, WHEN YOU DRINK WINE, HOW OFTCN 0 0 VOU HAVE AS MANY AS F I V E OR S i t GLASSES? • 1 NEARLY EVERY T | M C . . . • 2 MOPE THAN HALF TMT T I M E * . 3 L f ' . S THAN HALT THE T I M E . . 4 OMCf I N A W H I L C . . . 5 N E V E R . . . • ( S K I P TO Q.22) ?lfi WHEN YOU D»INK WtH%. MOW OFTEN DO VOU HAVE THREE OR TOUR CLASSES? • 1 N E*PLV EVERY TIME... * ? MO»f TMAN HALT THE TIME.. 3 LESS THAN H*LF IHC TIME.. 4 ONCE IN A WILE... 5 NEVER... ' ( S K I P TO Q.7?) 21 C V HT N VOU WINK VINE. MOW OFTEN W> VOU HAVE ONE OA TWO CLASSES? 1 NE * RL V EVE RV TIME*.. 2 MORE THAN HALF TMC TIME.. 3 LESS THAN HALF THE TIME.. 4 ONCE I N A WHILC... 3 NEVER... - 3 -BEER (CHECK ACCORDING TO GREEN PAGE OF THE BOOKLET). 2? (HAS BEEN ABOUT ONCE A MONTH Oft MOPE OFTEN, ASK THE rOLLOW|NG, OTHERWISE SKIP TO 0- ,23 ) 2?A ( G I V E RESPONDENT CARD B ) THINK or ALL THE TIMES YOU HAVE HAD P,r.EW RECENTLY. WHEN VOU DfllNK BCEP, MOW OFTEN OO VOU HAVE AS MANY AS TIVC OR SIX GLASSES OR BOTTLES? # 1 NEARLV EVERY TIME... * 2 MORE THAN MALr THE TIME... 3 LESS THAN HALF THE TIME... 4 ONCE IN A WHILC.. . 5 HEVf P..» • ( S K I P 10 0.23) 2?B WMTN VOU DRINK B r TP. HOW OFTEN DO YOU HAVE THP{ E OP FOUR GLASSES 0 « BOTTLES? * 1 NCABLV EVERY TIME..* ' 2 MORE THAN HALF THE TIME... 3 LESS TMAN HALF THE TIME... 4 ONCE IN A VHILC... 5 NCVEP... • ( S K I P TO Q.?3) ??c WHEN YOU DRINK BIER, MOW OFTEN DO YOU HAVE ONE OR TWO GLASSCS OR BOTTLCS? 1 NEARLY rvCPV TINE... 2 MORE THAN HALF THE TIME... 3 LESS THAN M*LF THE TIME... 4 ONCE IN A WHILE... 5 N E V E R . • . LIQUOR (CHECK ACCORDING TO PINK PAGE OF THE BOOKLET). 23 (HAS WHISKEY OR LIOUOR ABOUT ONCE A MONTH OR MORE OFTEN, ASK TMC FOLLOWING, OTHERWISE SKIP TO 23A ( G I V E RESPONDENT CARD B ) THINK OF ALL THE TIMES YOU HAVE HAD DRINKS CONTAINING WHI^.KC^ OR jx J, 9*}°?: RECENTLY. fe'HL'N YOU HAVE HAD THf.M, MOW OTTfN DO YOU HAVE AS MANY AS FIVE OR SIX DRINKS? * 1 NEARLY EVERY T|UC... * 2 MORE THAN HALF TMC TIME... 3 LESS TMAN HALF T.1E TIME... 4 OMCC IN A WHILE... 5 NCVCR... • ( S K I P 10 Q.24) 23a WHTN vou HAVE WINKS CONTAINING WHISKEY ,0.?. LI QUO,". *C*W OTTiN DO YOU HAVE TMRtf. OR TOUR DA INKS? * 1 NEAPLV EVFPY TINE... • ? MO«C THAN HALF Twr. T | UE • * . 3 LESS THAN MALT THr, T|MC... 4 OMCf IN A yuILL... !> NEVER... • (SKIP TO 0 . ? 4 ) 23c WHEN YOU HAVE DRINKS CONTAINING WHISKEY OP li.L9.WP_?.* M 0 W OFTEN 0 0 YOU HAVE ONE OR TWO 0 « l"KS? 1 NEARLY EVERY TIWC... 2 MO»E THAN HALF THE TIME... 3 LESS THAH MALT THE TIME... 4 ONCE IN A WHILE... 5 NEVER... rOR DRINKERS ONLY C H A N G E S I N D R I N K I N G 2 4 . WAS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN YOU DRANK MOPE THAN YOU DO NOW? IF Y E S , ASK A, B AMD C. ?4A ABOUT MOW OLD WERE YOU AT THAT TIME? 24B WHAT ARC YOUR REASONS FOR DRINKING LESS MOW? 24C AT THE TIME YOU WERC DRINKING MORE THAN YOU DO MOW, DIO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE A... (READ L I S T ) 1 NO 1 VERY LIGHT DRINKER 2 F A I R L Y LIGHT DRINKER 3 F A I R L Y HEAVY DRINKER 4 HEAVY DRINKCR 139 ?5. AT TMC PRESENT TIMC, 00 VOU CONSIOCR YOURSELF TO BE A....(READ L I S T ) 1 VERY LISMT OP I NICER 2 FAIRLY LIGHT OR INKER 3 FAIRLY HEAVY DRINKER A HEAVY DRINKER fOP ABSTMNEPS ONLY 26. W i LS THERE A TIME WHEN YOU DRANK ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT LEA'.T A COUPLE OF T I MI'S * Y£A R*" IE YES, ASK A. 6, AND C< ?6A AT WHAT AGE DID YOU STOP DRINKING? 2f.B VAS THr^E EVER A TIME WHEN YOU CONSIDERED YOURSELF A FAIRLY HEAVY DRINKER? 26C WHY DID VOU OUlT ORINKING? 1 NO 2 YES 76o DID YOU RECEIVE AMY HELP? f(W *HS I AIMERS, S K I P TO PROXY OLE ST I Of 6 ( 0. 49 - 61) PAGE 7 UK. 71. PPIVCING OCX'S fOWS HOW Or TEN DO YOU DRINK ON VEFK-ENDS - THAT IS, FRIDAY NI GMT TO SIMOAY NIGHT - TAIRLV OFTEN, ONCE IN A WHILE, OR ALMOST NEVER ? 1 FAIRLV OFTtM 7 ONCE IN A WHILE 3 ALMOST NfVER HOW OF Tr N DO YOU DRINK ON WE, CK PAYS; - FAIRLY OFTEN, ONCE IN A WHILE, OR ALMOST NEVER? 1 FAiHLY oriiN 7 ONCE IN A WHILE 3 ALMOST NEVER Or THE TIMES VOU DRINK, HOW Or TEN ARE THESE TIMES DURING THE EVEN|NG HOURS? (AFTER 6 P.M.) READ L I S T , C^QU CARD C 1 ALMOST ALWAYS 2 OCCASIONALLY 3 NOT VERY OETEN 4 NCVC B 30. .AND HOW OFTfN ARE THESE DRINKING TINES IN THE MORNING OR AFTERNOON? 1 ALMOST ALWAYS 1 OCCASIONALLY 3 NOT VERY OFTEN 4 NEVER 31. WHEN to YOU PRETE» TO DRINK - THAT IT., WHAT OAY or THE WEEK AND WHAT TIME OF THE DAY? C I R C L E AS MANY AS APPLY 1 MONDAY 2 TUESDAY 3 WE WE 5 DAY 4 THURSDAY 5 FRIDAY 5 SATURDAY 7 SUNDAY 1 MORN 1NG 2 AFTERNOON 3 EVENING 140 L O C A T I O N 3 ? . | AH GOING TO *»r>D THROUGH A LIST OF DRINKING LOCATIONS AND I WOULD LIKE YOU 10 TFLL ME, OF THF TIMES YOU DRINKp HOW OFTEN Yi'U DRINK AT EACH LOCATION - OFTEN, SOMETIMES, RARELY, OR NEVER. (SHOW CARD D ) O F T E N SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER («) AT 1 2 3 <' (B) AT 1 2 3 4 U-) AT * micro 's non... 1 2 3 4 ( 0 ) AT ' 1 '? 3 4 IF) it COCKTAIL LOUHGrS.. ' 1 * 2 3 4 (rl - T suppr.fi ci.ua'. 1 7 3 4 <o) A> " 1 ' ? 3 4 (H, ST 1 2 3 4 c\ Uill l rW« l PATRONS O K U : WHO orl<« OR sr»*r tiwrs D»IKK AT OrC» P*HLO»'., C O C K 1 A I L LOUNGES, OR LEGIONS. Df .Ts^MUf WMICH n o C P I W : AI hos i o n r M i r u-r C L E A R FROM 3 ? 0 A W 0 , BY A S K I N G : 31. '"rff M Vf^ j riOIK  W01T OFTEN - IN BTI R RlBLOBS, COCKTAIL LOUNGES, OR 1 nrr.« PARLORS 2 COCKT»IL LOUNGES 3 LEGIONS ASK THE rOHQwlNG ACCCPD1KQ TO CHOICE: 3 * . AfioUT HOW MAHY T l H T S OO VOU USUALLY GO TO A (BEER PARLORS, COCKTAIL LOUNGE, LEG I ON ) C*la I MG A HON ' M ? 3^ . WHEN VOU GO, ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU USUALLY STAY? 3 6 . HOW HANY DRINKS RO VOU GFNCPALLV M*VT? 3 7 . ABOUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TIMES YOU GO TO T«E 0 0 YOU GO ALONE? ( I . E . ENTEO THE DOOP ALONE?) 3 8 . DO VOU EVFP GO TO A AND DRINK BY YOURSELF WITHOUT JOINING SOMEONE ELSE BEFORE YOU LEAVE? 3 9 . DO YOU EVER DP INK IN A DURING THE DAYTIME (GETORE 6 P.M.)? 40. WHEN YOU GO TO A WHO DO YOU MOST OFTEN GO WITH - ALONE, A FRIEND, YOUR WIFE (OR HUSBAND), OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE? 41. HOW MAMY PEOPLE WOULD THERE GENERALLY BE AT YOUR TABLE? 42. WHEN YOU GO TO THE MOW DO YOU USUALLY GET THERE - WALK, DRIVE, BUS, OR RIDE V I T M SOMEONE ELSE? 1 YES 2 NO • 1 YES 2 NO 1 ALONE 2 A FRIEND 3 SPOUSE 4 GROUP 1 WALK 2 EiRIVE 3 BUS OR TAX I 4 RI DC WITH OTHER 5 OTHER (SPECIFY)^  141 - 6 -4 3 . WHY DO YOU PREFER TO DRINK IN A ? ( L I S T EVERY FACTOR MENTIGNED) 44. WHICH ....... oo YOU DRINK AT MOST OFT E N ? (i.e. NAME or ESTABLISHMENT) WHAT WOULO YOUR SCCOND CHOICE BE? 4 3 . WHICH or Tnr FOLLOWING FACTORS ARC IMPORTANT REASONS WHY YOU PREFER THE ? (MENTION NAKE) ( A ) THE DRINKS ARE BETTER ( B ) MY TRICNOS OR INK THERE ( C ) TMC VA|T[RS ARE MO»T RTHEKDLV ( O ) IT IS E A S I E R TO MEET PEOPLE TMC«C 1 IMPORTANT ? UNIMPOfT* N T ( C ) SURROUNDINGS APE MORE PLEASANT (r) I T HAS A SMurri.EBOARo, Ji(K£DO< ( POOL T*0LC ( C ) IT IS MORI CONVENILNTLV LOCATED ( H ) THE SERVICE IS BETTLR 1 l*P0PT*NT 2 UNIMPOPT*NT 1 IMPOFTANT ? UN|MPOPT»NT 1 |MPORT * NT ? L'^lMr»OPT*HT 1 IMPO&TJNT 2UH|fc'"0"T>NT 1 |MP0PT»NT ? UNIMPORTANT 1 IMPORTANT ? U1IM»OPT*NT 1 1 IMPORTANT 2 UNIMPOPT*NT 4 6 . WHICH or THESE FACTORS OO YOU CONSIDER TO nt THE HQS.T IMPORTANT Bt«SON TOR DRINKING AT THE ? |_AKO 01 1 BC T 1 ( R PRINKS ? FRIENDS DPINt THE"C 3 FRIENDLY W A 1 T E » S 4 MEET PEOPLE fASIE» 3 SUPPOVNDI*GS PLEASANT fc P C C P E M I O N 7 CONVENIENT LOCATION 8 BE T T I •* St PVICC nPIKV.If.'C REM* VI Of 4 7 . NOV. I WAKT 10 ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT T H C KIND Or E F F E C T THAT ORIN KI KG HAS ON YOU IN VARIOUS SI TUATIC*<S: ( A ) ElftST, WHEN YOU ARE DRINKING Al H > E A LONE OR WITH J U S T THE IMMC DI * Tf FAMILY. WHAT |S T H E USU»L trrt.CT or ONE OR TWO DRINKS? (SHOW C A K O E ) (a) ... or FOUR OR F I V E DRINKS? (c) . . . OF S I X OR MORE DRINKS? ( D ) HOW ABOUT WHEN YOU ARE DRINKING IM A BEER PARLOR OR OTHER P U B L I C PLACE? (cj WHAT KIND OF ETFCCT DOES DRINKING HAVE ON YOU WHEN YOO ARE AT A PA£TY? (CHECK AS HAMY AS APPLY) £ff£CI * T M O M ^ * T M O W C A T HOMC AT A 1 ~m ? PPINKS 4 - DRINKS 6 QR. MftPL DP{NKS BtC R PAPLPP AT A P'PTJY 1 pri»*ro »KO S O C I A B L E 7 nrpRissrD 1 AWAI-r, A L I V E . t>CIltl> 4 IRRITABLE HAPPY. rUNWY. AC,Tlvr 6 S L E E P Y 7 Ar,r,pr<,sivr, APCUWENTATIVE fl sr*>—WANT TO n i P T 9"'«CVCR DRINK THAT MUCH IN THAT 51T T)NG 142 48. WHEN YOU AI-E DRINKING WITH A GROUP or TRIFNDS, ABOUT HOW OrTtH WOULD YOU SAY SOMEBODY GETS INVOLVED IN: (SHOW CARDF ) A) A STPIOUS ARGUMENT OR F I G H T ? - 7 -48A. b) St* IN A CONSPICUOUS WAY? C ) SOME M A D OF CAPEDEVIL A C T I V I T Y ? o) GCTS SICK OR PASSES OUT? I ) TOOUOIC WIT" POLICE OR NEIGHBORS? f) DRIVING AFTER 4 OR 5 DRINKS? G ) AN ACCIECNT OF SOME KIND? 1 USUALLY 2 FAt PLY OFTEN 3 sour, I IMFS 4 NEVER 1 USUALLY 2 FA 1 PLY OFTEN 3 SOME 1IMES 4 NEVER 1 USUALLY 2 FAlPLV OFTIN 3 SOMEMMES 4 NEVER 1 USUAl Lv-2 r A I ^ L Y OFTfN 3 SOM|;T|Wr.S 4 NEVER 1 USUALL* ? FA 1"LY OFTEN 3 SOMLTIMES 4 nr vc » 1 USUALLY 2 FAIRLY OriCN 3 sourTIMCS 4 NEVER 1 USUALLY ? FA i PLY or :r •: 3 SOMETIMES 4 NT vr R HOW DO YOU USUALLY F E E L AFTER A PARTY OR NIGHT Or DRINKING? HOW OFTEN DO YOU F E E L . . . (SJtOW CARDF ) A) T I P E O ? B) I R R I T A B L C ? c) DfPRrssco? O) ANXIOUS AND NERVOUS? C) G U I L T Y ? r) PHYSICALLY I L L ? G ) J U S T NORMAL? 1 USUALLY 2 FA|PLY or TE N 3 SOMETIMES 4 NEVER 1 USUALLY 2 F A i P L Y O F T I N 3 SOMCTIMCS 4 N C V C 1 USUALLY 2 F A I R L Y OTTEN 3 SOME TIMES 4 NCVFR 1 USUALLY 2 F A I P I Y OFTEN 3 SOM» TIMES _! Nf.VI P l USUALLY 2 F A I P L V OFT!N 3 SOMLTIMIS 4 NE vr p 1 USUALLY 2 F A I P L Y OTTI N 3 SOMETIMES 4 NIVIR DuPINf. THE. PAST Y r * R F MAS THE PC BEEN ANY StPlCUS DIFFICULTY IN YOUR MOUSfHOLO OUC 1 0 EXCESSIVE DRINKING? IT "YES" ASK: Wwosi opiNKiwG WAS INVQLVEO? 49A DOCS YOUR HUSBAND (OR WIFE) DRINK MORE THAN ONCC PEP VEAR? 49B DO YOU CONSICCP HIM ( H E P ) TO BE A vrpv L I G H T , F A I R L Y LIGHT, F A I R L Y H E A V V , OP HEAVY OR I N r. E R ? 1 USUALLY 2 F A I PLY OFTt N 3 SC*i T I M E S .4.MLXLR 1 NO 2 Y E S 1 VCS 2 N O 1 VERY L I C H I O«INKER 2 F A I R L Y LIGHT DRINKER 3 FA I %LY HEAVY ORINKTR 4 HEAVY DRINKER 1 IID C » O F U N C O N T R O L I E D D R 1 H K I N G Y E S LAST OCCURRENCE (YEAR) NO Sf.LF: PPOxv; 50. HAS AN EMPLOYER EVER F1 RED YOU OR THREATENED TO F I F E YOU i r YOU D I D NOT CUT DOWN OR OUIT DRINKING? 1 ? 51 . HAS YOUR WIFE (MUSBANO) EVER L E T T YOU OR THREATENED TO LEAVE YOU I F YOU DIO NOT DO SOMrTHING ABOUT YOUR DRINKING? 1 2 5 2 . HAS YOUR wire (HUSBAND) OR OTHER FAMILY MEMBER EVER COMPLAINED THAT YOU SPEND. TOO MUCH MONEY FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVEPAGES? 1 2 1'43 - 8 • INDEX OF LHCONTRQLLEP DRINKING (CONTINUED...) 53. H*vr YOU EVER BEEN PICKED UP OR APRfSTEO BY THE POLICE FOR INTOXICATION OR OTHER CHARGES INVOLVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES? 54. MAS A PHYSICIAN EVER TOLD YOU THAT DRINKING WAS INJURING YOUR HEALTH? 5!»» HAVE YOU ever; HAD ANY ILLNESSCS BROUGHT ON BY YOUR DRINKING? 5 6 . HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY DIrrICULTY IN MEETING BILLS BECAUSE TOO MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT ON LICUOR? 57. HAVE YOU EVER QUIT A .JOB OP CHANGTO JOGS BECAUSE YOU WIRE IN TROUBLE OR LIKELY TO GE I INTO DIFFICULTY DUE TO DRINKING? 58 . HAVE YOU EVER HAr-ANY ACCICCNTS OR INJURIES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO ORI NCING? '.•9. HAvr YDU EVER FAILED TO DO SOME Or TMT THINGS VOU SHOULD E» - L i r f KETPfNG APPOINTMENT*,, CE 1 TING Tn|KGS OC'NE ABOUND HOMf OR ATTENDING TO YOUR JOB - BECAUSE OF DRINKIMG? L A S T OCCURRENCE M O 1 ? 1 2 1 7 1 ? 1 7 1 2 1 2 3 SOT: PROXY: rproutHTiv 60. WITHOUT REALIZING WHAT rou A»?. DOING, PO YiHJ ' N r . U-1 DRINKING M-«»r THAN YOU HA:- ft AIMED ? 61. CN:I YOU -JTART DRINKING, I *. IT D l i r i ' U l T TOR YOU TO ^TOP UNTIL YOU B L * ( W i C O M i ' l l T l t Y INIO<ICATED? (FREQUENTLY, SOMETIMES, NEVER) FOR ABSTAINERS SKIP TO Q,73. PAGE 10 INTr.PvtEVER: IF RESPONDENT ANSWEPS 'YES* TO AT LEAST TWO ITEMS FOR QUESTIONS 5 0 TO 5 9 *NO REPORTS THIS OCCURRED DURING THE P A S T VEAP OR I F H E A N S W E R S " F R E Q U E N T L V " TO E I T H E R I T£M 60 OR 61, DO SPECIE DRINKING SECTION (0.62 T O 0.72). OTHCRWISE.^KIP TO Q.7?. S P E C I A L D R I N K I N G S E C T I O N : "WE ARE ESPECIALLV INTERESTED IN CHANGES OVER THE YEARS IN PEOPLES' DRINKIMG HABITS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD THE IR ORINKING. IT MAY BE DIFFICULT, BUT WE. WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH IF YOU WOULD TRY TO REMEMBER AS BCST YOU CAN AND ANSWER SOME 0UCSTIONS AOOUT EARLIER PERIODS IN YOUR L l f E . " (SELECT ANY THREE 5-YEAR PERIODS WHICH DIVIDE THE RESPONDENT'S LIFE SINCE 20 YEARS 0L0. FILL IN AGE PERIODS Bf FORE BEGINNING). 62. WHEN YOU WERE BETWEEN AND , WHERE WERE YOU LIVING? WERE YOU DOING THE SAME KIND OF WORK THEN? Wr.PE YOU MARRIED? (ncTT (ASlTpNEPAL QUESTIONS TO GET THEM INTO EACH PERIOD). 144 (KINKING PERIOD 5 YEARS AGE: _ _ TO TO _ _ TO 6 3 . DURING THIS PCRIOO, OIO YOU CVER THINK THAT VOU MIGHT BE AN ALCOHOLIC OH PROOLCM DRINKER? 1 Y£5 2 N O 1 YCS 2 MO 1 VES 2 N O 64* OIO YOU THINK THAT YOU WCRC ORINKtNG TOO MUCH? 1 YES 2 NO 1 YES 2 N O 1 VES 2 HO 6 3 . Dio YOU TMTNK THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING UNUSUAL O B WRONG WITH THE WAY YOU WERE DRINKING THEN? 1 YES 2 N O 1 vcs 2 N O 1 YCS 2 NO 6 6 . DURING THAT PERIOD, DID VOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE ELSE THOUGHT THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING UNUSUAL OR WRONG WITH THE WAY YOU WERE DRINKING? I F vr.S. ASK; wo? 1 YES 2 N O \ YCS 2 N O 1 YES 2 MO 6 7 . DID ANYONE EVER soGcrs* THAT YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT T H E WAY YOU W E R E OPINKING? I F YCS. ASK: WHO? 1 YCS 2 MO 1 YES 2 NO 1 YCS 2 HO 6 8 . How oo vou THINK YOUR DRINKING COMPAPCD WITH THE DRINKING OF OTHER PEOPLE - WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU DRANC 'MORE*, •THE SAME*, OR *LESS THAN*: (A) THE AVERAGE PERSON (B) MOST OT YOUR BEST FRIENDS (C) Y O U R MUSftAMD/Wirc, G I * L 1 R 1 C N O / B O Y FR 1 ENO H S L H S I M S L K S L h S L M S L M S L H S I M S I 6 9 , DID YOU MAHC ANY SERIOUS ATTEMPTS TO OUM DRINKING? 1 Y E S 2 N O 1 YCS 2 MO 1 YCS 2 N O 7 0 . ABOUT MOW onrw DO YOU THINK YOU DPANK MORE THAN YOU HAD PLANNED TO - FREQUENTLY, SOMETIMES, O R NEVER? 1 FREQUENTLY ? S O M E T I M E S 3 NEVER 1 rfifQUINTLY 2 SO«(TIMES 3 NEV-R 1 FREQUENTLY 7 SOMETIMES 3 NCVER 7 1 . ABOUT HOW OTTEN WOULO YOU SAY THAT YOU rouno IT oirncucT TO STOP ORINKIMC BCrORE YOU BECAME I K T O H C A T C D - FREQUENTLY, SOMETIMES, O R NEVER? 1 FREQUENTLY 2 SOMETIMES 3 NEVER 1 rRfQUFNTL,> 2 SOMETIMES 3 NEVER 1 rREOUTNTLY 2 SOMETIMES 3 NEVER 7 ? . AT ANYTIME DURING THIS PERIOD, DID YOU SEEK PROFESSIONAL OR N O N-PROrtS5IONAL HELP O R COUNSELLING rOR YOUR DRINKING? I F "YFS": WHERE DID YOU SEEK HELP? WHAT HAPPENED? 1 YCS 2 NO 1 YES 2 N O 1 YCS 2 N O 145 - 10 -• A l C O H O l l C S I H A V E K N O W N -(ASK EVERYONE ALL QUESTIONS FOLLOWING) •Now I WOULD LIKE TO ASK VOU A TCW QUCSTIONS ABOUT THE DRINKING HABITS O r OTHER PEOPLE YOU KNOW,* 73, Af»f TMCftt ANY PEOPLE WHO YOU KNOW AND T H I N K ! <A) ARE O C r i N I T t E Y ALCOHOLICS (B) ARC PROBABLY ALCOHOLICS (KEEP ASKING UNTIL 7>CY ANS^ tP •YES* TO ONE, 7K.N GO (C) MAY BECOME ALCOHOLICS ON TO 0.74) {V} WHO DRINK ABNORMALLY 1 YES 2 NO 1 YCS 2 NO 1 YES 2 NO 1 YCS 2 NO 74. IA, VMAT IS IT ABOUT THEIR DRINKING THAT MAKES YOU THINK THCY APC ? (fl) WHAT PCLATIONSHIP OO VOU HAVE WITH T H I S PCPSOM - A RlLATIvt, FRIEND, CO-WORKCR, ACOUAIHTANCC, OR? (<) To YOUR KNOWLEDGE, K*S ANYONE EVER T R I E D TO GET THEM (MIM, HER) TO CUT DOWN ON TWttR DRINKING? 1 RCLATIVE 2 rPICND 3 CC—VORKTR 4 ACQUAINTANCE "> OTHER 1 YES 7 NO * H 0 » . THINK OR ALL TMC PEOPLE IN TOWN WHOM YOU KNOW F A | P I Y WELL..." 75. WHAT PEPCCNTAGC WOULD YOU SAY HAVE VARIOUS PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DRINKING TOO MUCH? (ZfRO IN ON A riGlXE: E .G . 1 I O , I IN 10, X I N 20, 1 IK 30 CTC.) « 76. WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU SAY DRINK •HEAVILY", THAT I S , HAVE SCVCPAL DRINKS CVEPY DAY OR GET PRETTY D»UNK EVIRY TIME TH C Y DRINK - ABOUT ONCE A WEEK? i 77. WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU SAY DRINK •MODERATELY", T H A ? I S , ONE OR TWO DRINKS AT A TIMC - MAYBE A r£W MORE AT A PARTY, BUT RARELY.G(.l PCALLY DRUNK? % 78. WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU SAY ARE "LIGHT DRINKERS", THAT 15, PEOPLE WHO DRINK VERY L I T T L E , EVEN AT PAR T I E S AwD RAPELY HAVE MORE THAN ONF. DRINK OTHERWISE? % 79. WHAT PERCENTAGE COMPLETELY ABSTAIN? s INTERVIEWER.- ADD TOTAL FOR PERCENTAGES F I V E N ron o. 76, 77, 78 AND 79, TOTAL SHOULO BE 100* - ir IT IS NOT, ASK RESPON DENT tr ME WISHES TO RE V I S E ANY OF H I S rsTiMATrs. TREATMENT AGENCIES: 80. SUPPOSE AN ALCOHOLIC ASKED YOU WHERE HE COULD GCT PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HELP - WHAT WOULD YOU SAYI 146 61. SUPPOSE A PERSON ASKED YOU WHERE INFORMATION TOR A SPEECH ON THE PREVENTION or ALCOHOLISM CCXJLO BE OOTAINEO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? 6 2 . HAVE VOU EVER HEARD o r ANY o r THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS? THE PROVINCIAL COUNCIL ON ALCOHOLISM THE ALCOHOL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION COUNCIL THE ALCOHOLISM rouNDATiON o r e . c THE COMMITTEE TOR EDUCATION ON ALCOHOL AND DWG USE ALCOHOLICS-ANONYMOUS HOLLYWOOD H O S P I T A L THE NARCOTIC ACOICTION FOUNTS*TION o r a.c. 1 YES 7 NO T YES" ' 1 YES ? NO 1 Y E S 2 NO \ YES 1 YES 1 Y E S 2 NO _ 6 3 . V f R E YOU AW*.RE o r THE E X I S T E N C E o r THE ALCOHOLISM FOUNDATION or B.C. BEFORE VOU BEGAN TO ANSWER T H I S OUESTIONNA(RE? 1 YES 2 NO 8 4 . Is THERE AN ALCOHOLISM FOUNDATION OF B.C. OUT-PATICKT C L I N I C IN YOUR COMMUNITY? 1 YES 2 MO 6 5 . VOULO YOU SAY THAT ALCOHOLISM IS A B I G OH A SMALL PROBLEM IU B.C.? 1 BIG P R O B L E M 2 SMALL PROBLEM 1 &Ott'T KNEW 8fc. DO YOU THINK THAT ALCOHOLISM IS MORE OR LESS OF A PROBLEM IN YOUR COMMUNIT RELATIVE TO OTHER INTERIOR CITIES? $H0W CARD G ( ) MUCH MORE OF A PPOfiLEM HERE SLIGHTLY GREATER PROBLEM HERE ABOUT THE SAME PROBLEM MERE SLIGHTLY LESS OF A PROBLEM HERE MUCH LESS Or A PROBLEM MERE 1 MUCH MORE... 2 SLIGHTLY GREATER. 3 ABOUT THE SAME... 4 SLIGHTLY LESS... 5 MUCH LESS... 87. DO VOU THINK THAT PROBLEM DRINKING AND ALCOHOLISM HAVE INCREASED OR DECREASED IN YOUR COMMUNITY DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS? SHOW CA.RO H ( ) CONSIDERABLE INCREASE I j MODERATE INCREASE ( J NO CHANGE ( ) MODERATE DECREASE ( ) CONSIDERABLE DECREASE 1 CONSIDERABLE. .. 2 MODERATE INCREASE 3 NO CHANGE 4 MODERATE.DECREASE 5 CONSIDERABLE IN YOUR OPINION, IS TOO MUCH, THE RIGHT AMOUNT, OR TOO LITTLE BEING DONE TO TREAT ALCOHOLICS IN B.C.? 1 TOO MUCH 2 RIGHT AMOUNT 3 TOO L I T T L E 4 DON'T KNOW 8 9 . DO YOU TM(NK THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL SUPPORT rOR AGENCIES DEALING WITH ALCOHOLISM? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON'T KNOW 9 0 . DO YOU THINK THAT, IN GENERAL, LOCAL TREATMENT rACILITIES FOR ALCOHOLISM ARE! ( ) ADEQUATE ( ) INADEQUATE ( j DON'T KNOW 1 ADEQUATE 2 INADEQUATE 3 DON'T KNOW 147 P R u c use . ! 91. 00 YOU SMOKE C I G A R E T T E S ? IT "NO", HAVE YOU EVER SMOKED? WHFN DID YOU QUIT? Ir "YCS", fSK: How MUCH* DO (OR DID) YOU SMOKE? ( ) L E S S THAN 10 PER DAY } B E T W E E N 10 ANO 20 P E R DAY J 21 - 30 P E R DAY j 31 - 40 PER DAY ) MORE THAN 40 PER DAY 1 YES 2 N O 1 Y E S 2 NO 1 L E S S THAN 10... 2 BCTWECN 10 - 20.. 3 21 - 30 PER DAY 4 31 - 40 PER DAY 5 MORE THAN 40... 92. HAVE YOU EVER USEO ANY or THE FOLLOWING DRUGS? C I R C L E DRUGS USEO HARBITURATES I R A N Q U I L L U E R S (A) WHEN DID YOU rIRST USE I T ? MONTHS AGO MONTHS' AGO AMPHETAMINES MONTHS AGO MARIJUANA OR HASHISH MONTHS AGO LSD OR ".."•WE MONTHS AGO 1 BARB I TURATCS 2 TRANQUILLIZERS 3 AMPHF TAMI Nt.S 4 MARIJUANA 5 LSD OR MESCALINE ( B ) ARf YOU S T I L L USING I T ? 1 Y E S 2 NO 1 YES 2 N O 1 Y E S 2 NO 1 YES 2 NO 1 Y E S 2 NO ( C ) HOW OFTEN PER MONTH DO (OR 01O) YOU USE P E R MONTH P E R MONTH PER MONTH (o) How MANY or YOUR F R I E N D S U S E I T ? 1 N E A R L Y E V E R Y O N E 2 MOST 3 S E V E R A L 4 A rrw •3 r"°HT- ( E ) D I D YOU OBTAIN I T BY PRESCRIPTION? COMMENTS: 1 YES 2 NO 1 Y E S 2 NO 1 Y E S 2 NO 1 Y E S 2 NO 1 YES 2 NO WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARO T M F FOLLOWING P O S S I B L E CHANGES IN LIQUOR L E G I S L A T I O N ? SHOW CARD I ( A ) THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH MEALS ON SUNDAY STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE S T R O N G L Y O I S * G R £ E ( B ) P E R M I S S I O N TO A D V E R T I S E A L C O H O L I C B E V E R A G E S IN A L L M E O I * S T R O N G L Y A G R E E A G R E E U N D E C I D E D D I S A G R E E ( C ) T H E L E G A L AGE FOR D R I N K I N G B E R E D U C E D TO 1 9 S T R O N G L Y A G R E E A G R E E U N D E C I D E D D I S A G R E E ( O ) T H E S A L E OF A L C O H O L I C B E V E R A G E S ON E L E C T I O N DAYS S T R O N G L Y A G R E E A G R E E U N D E C I D E D D I S A G R E E ( E ) THE E S T A B L I S H M E N T OF N E I G H B O R H O O D P U B S NOT C O N N E C T E D W I T H H O T E L S ( l . E . TO S E L L B E E R , W I N E , AND S P I R I T S B Y T H E O L A S S ) S T R O N G L Y A G R E E A G R E E U N D C C I D E O D I S A G R E E S T R O N G L Y D I S A G R E E (r) T H E C O N S U M P T I O N O F A L C O H O U I C B E V E R A G E S I N P U B L I C A R E A S S U C H A S P A R K S , SWIMMING P O O L S & S P O R T S E V E N T S S T R O N G L Y A G R E E A G R E E U N D E C I D E D D I S A G R E E S T R O N G L Y D I S A G R E E S T R O N G L Y D I S A G R E E S T R O N G L Y D I S A G R E C S T R O N G L Y D I S A G R E E STOP T I M E : 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101405/manifest

Comment

Related Items