Brendan Bailey Mission Update

[dgies9156]

What do they call a sofa in Davenport?

As a former Quad Citian, they call it a sofa.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

As a former Quad Citian, they call it a sofa.

In Morgantown, they call it kindling.

[fjm]

Brew and Tower make great points. The Opiate Epidemic is out of control. And it is solely on providers.

That said, the group i work with and for is discouraging the distribution of Opiates and I think the new DEA memo that went out about a year ago does a great job addressing the issue. Along with the new Wisconsin Prescribers Network where you can see every med a pt has been prescribed and how much.

[4everwarriors]

Sounds great, but it will never work. Providers aren't going to be the bad cop. Frankly, I prescribe what I know will be effective for the procedure concluded. Nothing more and nothing less.

[keefe]

Sounds great, but it will never work. Providers aren't going to be the bad cop. Frankly, I prescribe what I know will be effective for the procedure concluded. Nothing more and nothing less.

AFSOC docs might dispense opiates for post-procedure care but typically did not. They almost never dispensed them for chronic pain as the likelihood of getting hooked was too great.

As I said, we ate Motrin like candy. Eschewing hard meds is almost a badge of honor for guys who live by the warrior ethos.

JSOC has an intense workout culture but also gathers around bottles at the end of the day (if not deployed.) Substance abuse takes many forms and it is easy to find solace in a bottle from the physical and emotional aches and pains we carried. If opiate abuse was not a problem alcohol most certainly was.

Back in the day, MU had an intense drinking culture that started on Day One of Freshmen Orientation. Milwaukee was then an epicenter of beer production and Block Party set up was essentially trucks filled with kegs from Pabst, Schlitz, and Miller rolling up.

I saw several good guys drink themselves out of school. By the end of the very first semester at least 6 guys from McCormick 8 were gone.

Let's face it - Milwaukee in the dead of winter had little to offer kids on a budget besides drinking. I wonder how many people cultivated long-term problems from their days at Marquette. 

[real chili 83]

This isn't an exclusively MU issue. 

With that said, I watched a guy do that sophomore year.  He ended up running away, and of all things, joined the military.  His wealthy father had to hire a PI to find him.  Came from an extremely prominent Wisconsin family too. 

We also had an ND transfer move across the hallway sophomore year.  His father had a building named after him at ND...that kind of prominent.  Dude took one of the bathroom mirrors from 10S to do lines in his room.  He didn't last too long either.  He probably transferred to Iowa State after that.

[Newsdreams]

AFSOC docs might dispense opiates for post-procedure care but typically did not. They almost never dispensed them for chronic pain as the likelihood of getting hooked was too great.

As I said, we ate Motrin like candy. Eschewing hard meds is almost a badge of honor for guys who live by the warrior ethos.

JSOC has an intense workout culture but also gathers around bottles at the end of the day (if not deployed.) Substance abuse takes many forms and it is easy to find solace in a bottle from the physical and emotional aches and pains we carried. If opiate abuse was not a problem alcohol most certainly was.

Back in the day, MU had an intense drinking culture that started on Day One of Freshmen Orientation. Milwaukee was then an epicenter of beer production and Block Party set up was essentially trucks filled with kegs from Pabst, Schlitz, and Miller rolling up.

I saw several good guys drink themselves out of school. By the end of the very first semester at least 6 guys from McCormick 8 were gone.

Let's face it - Milwaukee in the dead of winter had little to offer kids on a budget besides drinking. I wonder how many people cultivated long-term problems from their days at Marquette.

Drinking right now

[real chili 83]

Mamajuana bro

[real chili 83]

TAMU, how many in the hopper?  Triplets????

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU, how many in the hopper?  Triplets????

Been less than a month Chili man. I don't think Mrs. TAMU could even know at this point!

[MU82]

TAMU, how many in the hopper?  Triplets????

I'm sure the TAMUs already have chosen names: MU82 (after me), MU83 (after my wife) and MU#1 (just because)!

[dgies9156]

Back in the day, MU had an intense drinking culture that started on Day One of Freshmen Orientation. Milwaukee was then an epicenter of beer production and Block Party set up was essentially trucks filled with kegs from Pabst, Schlitz, and Miller rolling up.

I saw several good guys drink themselves out of school. By the end of the very first semester at least 6 guys from McCormick 8 were gone.

Let's face it - Milwaukee in the dead of winter had little to offer kids on a budget besides drinking. I wonder how many people cultivated long-term problems from their days at Marquette.

Boy you got that one right. The only thing in the dead of Milwaukee winters was MU basketball and beer.

All the things you discussed, I can vouch to as well. The problem was and is you have kids on their own for the first time in their lives. Up until now, many were sheltered and Mommy or Daddy made all their decisions. There are tempted for the first times and they have not cultivated an ability to say no.

The sad thing about raising the drinking age to 21 was that you moved it from the bars, where there was some control to houses and private parties, where there is virtually no control, no licensing and no bartenders taught to control excessive drinking. I understand there is as much drinking as there ever was on campus when the age was 21. It's just far more underground now.

[MUDPT]

I will jump in to the opiate discussion to campaign for Physical Therapy.  Our hope is that by getting patients to Physical Therapy quickly, we can reduce the amount of opiate prescriptions.  In Wisconsin (and many other states), you can see a PT without a prescription (except if Medicare is your primary insurance). 

[Jockey]

In Morgantown, they call it kindling.

I thought it was a lawn ornament.

[Benny B]

The sad thing about raising the drinking age to 21 was that you moved it from the bars, where there was some control to houses and private parties, where there is virtually no control, no licensing and no bartenders taught to control excessive drinking. I understand there is as much drinking as there ever was on campus when the age was 21. It's just far more underground now.

Fun fact: A 21 year-old drinking age benefits beer companies.  Or at least it used to before college kids were simply given a credit card that mommy and daddy paid off every month.... consider that college students' capacity for alcohol consumption was more often defined by $ rather than quantity.  For example if Johnny has $20 to spend on beer for the weekend, he is going to spend every cent of that $20. 

If Johnny spends $20 at the bar, let's assume he would get 8 beers; however, if he instead spent that $20 at the liquor store instead, he gets 24 instead.

Here's the key... the bars and liquor stores have the same distributor and what is paid to the distributor is the same whether you are a bar or a liquor store (rarely are there any "bulk" discounts, and if there are, it's minimal, like a few cents a can/bottle).  So the beer company's revenue is the same per bottle/can no matter where the consumer purchases it... so a beer company makes more money when the $20 is spent at the liquor store (on 24 beers) rather than at the bar (on 8).

Now ask anyone you know, and they will tell you that drinking at a bar is almost universally more preferable than drinking in a dorm room to a college-aged student... so given the choice, and a fixed amount of cash, less of Johnny's $20 will end up with the beer company.  But because drinking anywhere is more preferable than not drinking at all, if there was an external influence behind Johnny drinking in his dorm - say some minimum drinking age that precludes him from his first preference - then the beer companies will end up with more of Johnny's $20.

Next time you see a beer company's "21 means 21" advertisement, you'll know what their true motivation is.

[MarquetteDano]

Fun fact: A 21 year-old drinking age benefits beer companies.  Or at least it used to before college kids were simply given a credit card that mommy and daddy paid off every month.... consider that college students' capacity for alcohol consumption was more often defined by $ rather than quantity.  For example if Johnny has $20 to spend on beer for the weekend, he is going to spend every cent of that $20. 

If Johnny spends $20 at the bar, let's assume he would get 8 beers; however, if he instead spent that $20 at the liquor store instead, he gets 24 instead.

Here's the key... the bars and liquor stores have the same distributor and what is paid to the distributor is the same whether you are a bar or a liquor store (rarely are there any "bulk" discounts, and if there are, it's minimal, like a few cents a can/bottle).  So the beer company's revenue is the same per bottle/can no matter where the consumer purchases it... so a beer company makes more money when the $20 is spent at the liquor store (on 24 beers) rather than at the bar (on 8).

Now ask anyone you know, and they will tell you that drinking at a bar is almost universally more preferable than drinking in a dorm room to a college-aged student... so given the choice, and a fixed amount of cash, less of Johnny's $20 will end up with the beer company.  But because drinking anywhere is more preferable than not drinking at all, if there was an external influence behind Johnny drinking in his dorm - say some minimum drinking age that precludes him from his first preference - then the beer companies will end up with more of Johnny's $20.

Next time you see a beer company's "21 means 21" advertisement, you'll know what their true motivation is.

Interesting theory.  I think demand is a little higher at a bar versus elsewhere,  so Johnny may be willing to drop $20 at a bar while $15 at a party/liquor store.  But even with that difference the number of units sold would still probably be higher at the party/liquor store versus the bar.

[NWarsh]

Interesting theory.  I think demand is a little higher at a bar versus elsewhere,  so Johnny may be willing to drop $20 at a bar while $15 at a party/liquor store.  But even with that difference the number of units sold would still probably be higher at the party/liquor store versus the bar.

Yeah, too many variables to make this theory right.  What Benny is forgetting to take into account is the COGs impact on this.  The most profitable beer for beer companies are ones that have high margins (think most of your craft, FMBs, above premiums), obviously.  Now they want to push that in something with the lowest amount of COGS (kegs are 1/3 the cost of cans and 1/4 that of bottles).  This is why you will see all the sales people fighting for draft handles, that is where they really can make their largest amount of profit by pushing volume through on-premise draft sales.

[Newsdreams]

Fun fact: A 21 year-old drinking age benefits beer companies.  Or at least it used to before college kids were simply given a credit card that mommy and daddy paid off every month.... consider that college students' capacity for alcohol consumption was more often defined by $ rather than quantity.  For example if Johnny has $20 to spend on beer for the weekend, he is going to spend every cent of that $20. 

If Johnny spends $20 at the bar, let's assume he would get 8 beers; however, if he instead spent that $20 at the liquor store instead, he gets 24 instead.

Here's the key... the bars and liquor stores have the same distributor and what is paid to the distributor is the same whether you are a bar or a liquor store (rarely are there any "bulk" discounts, and if there are, it's minimal, like a few cents a can/bottle).  So the beer company's revenue is the same per bottle/can no matter where the consumer purchases it... so a beer company makes more money when the $20 is spent at the liquor store (on 24 beers) rather than at the bar (on 8).

Now ask anyone you know, and they will tell you that drinking at a bar is almost universally more preferable than drinking in a dorm room to a college-aged student... so given the choice, and a fixed amount of cash, less of Johnny's $20 will end up with the beer company.  But because drinking anywhere is more preferable than not drinking at all, if there was an external influence behind Johnny drinking in his dorm - say some minimum drinking age that precludes him from his first preference - then the beer companies will end up with more of Johnny's $20.

Next time you see a beer company's "21 means 21" advertisement, you'll know what their true motivation is.

As I recall while I was at MU the beer co's lobbied against increasing drinking age. Wasn't Wisconsin last state to increase drinking age? Still 18 down here, rum companies always lobby against increasing age.

[Benny B]

Yeah, too many variables to make this theory right.  What Benny is forgetting to take into account is the COGs impact on this.  The most profitable beer for beer companies are ones that have high margins (think most of your craft, FMBs, above premiums), obviously.  Now they want to push that in something with the lowest amount of COGS (kegs are 1/3 the cost of cans and 1/4 that of bottles).  This is why you will see all the sales people fighting for draft handles, that is where they really can make their largest amount of profit by pushing volume through on-premise draft sales.

Sure there are other variables... for one is the MLDA-21's effect on depressed demand amongst underage college students; however, any research on the subject will show that those people who abstained or mostly abstained from alcohol before the age of 21 weren't exactly binging and tearing it up every weekend at the bars once they turned 21.

Also MLDA-18 was a different animal than MLDA-21... under MLDA-18, the vast majority of people increased overall alcohol consumption after becoming legal at 18.  After MLDA-21 was introduced, the inflection point of overall alcohol consumption remained at 18 and while overall consumption did see a slight bump at 21, it was on the back of liquor consumption... beer consumption actually fell from the ages of 18-20 to 21-23, arguably because college students are more likely to order a mixed drink (in lieu of beer) at a bar whereas their earlier (underage) off-premise consumption was almost exclusively beer.

[NWarsh]

Sure there are other variables... for one is the MLDA-21's effect on depressed demand amongst underage college students; however, any research on the subject will show that those people who abstained or mostly abstained from alcohol before the age of 21 weren't exactly binging and tearing it up every weekend at the bars once they turned 21.

Also MLDA-18 was a different animal than MLDA-21... under MLDA-18, the vast majority of people increased overall alcohol consumption after becoming legal at 18.  After MLDA-21 was introduced, the inflection point of overall alcohol consumption remained at 18 and while overall consumption did see a slight bump at 21, it was on the back of liquor consumption... beer consumption actually fell from the ages of 18-20 to 21-23, arguably because college students are more likely to order a mixed drink (in lieu of beer) at a bar whereas their earlier (underage) off-premise consumption was almost exclusively beer.

The only thing I disagree with in your statement is the assumption you make that if you are buying cans/bottles at a store you will also be buying cans/bottles at the bar.  All the data shows that if you are going to the bar you will be buying draft and specifically premium lights (Miller Lite, Coors Light, Bud Light).  Also, if you were like everybody I knew in college you were buying the economy stuff at the stores and not the "expensive" premium lights.  So the law reduced the overall consumer base, and also generally pushed people from buying a higher margin liquid in the least expensive package (keg) to a low margin beer in a more expensive package (cans and even worse bottles).  This is why all the beer companies lobbied against the age increase.