Nancy --
    Maybe the distinction I am remembering was in a later Alcohol and Health -- no. 3?? (which I don't have here.)  Incidentally, I looked at the 4th and 5th, and at that time NIAAA bought in surprisingly much to the kind of "it depends what you mean, there's no single figure" line which us epidemiological sociologists were comfortable with.  Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Olson <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: den 5 februari 2000 20:33
Subject: Re: How many alcoholics?


>In a message dated 2/5/00 10:02:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>Robin said:
>
>>  In the first Alcohol and Health report to Congress (1971), Mark Keller
>> played a major editorial role.  He was basically a problem deflator --
>> concerned that the number be kept down rather than up.  I don't have the
>> report in front of me, but I believe it distinguishes between "alcoholics
>and
>> "problem drinkers", with 5 million for the former and 9 million if you
>> included the latter.
>
>I have that first report, Robin.  The findings say in part:  "An estimated 7
>percent of the adult population in the United States manifest the behaviors
>of alcohol abuse and alcoholism.  Among the more than 95 million drinkers in
>the nation, about 9
>million men and women re alcohol abusers and alcoholic individuals."
>
>In a quick scan of the report, I don't find where they make the distinction
>and come up with the 5 million being alcoholics.
>
>Morrie Chafetz, testifying on the Hughes bill in May 21.1970, on behalf of
>the American Psychiatric Association (he had not yet taken over from
>Mendelson) said:  [Most] of us for decades have used the often quoted figure
>of 4,500,000 to 5,000,000 alcoholic people in this country.  But a recently
>completed scientific study shows the figure to be beyond 9 million.
>
>At an earlier hearing -- July 1969 -- Secretary Egeberg -- accompanied by
>Mendelson, was talking about 4-1/2 to 6 million.
>
>Robin said: "As I remember hearing it from Don at the time (slightly
>different from Gusfield's account), the original "nine million alcoholics"
>came from when Jack Mendelson, then the head of the Center in NIMH which
>immediately preceded NIAAA, was testifying to Congress, presumably in 1969 or
>1970."
>
>I'm confused about this because I think NCA would have grabbed on the figure
>and started using it.  In 1970 they were using 6-1/2 million.  Maybe he said
>it in '71.  When I have more time I'll look through the Senate hearings.  (I
>don't have the House hearing.)
>
>" But I was told that someone got up in Congress and, pointing to the 10
>million figure, said something like: Look how bad things are.  We've been
>fighting alcoholism for three years and the numbers have gone up by one
>million!"
>
>I suspect that was the late, great H.R. Gross of Iowa.  He considered himself
>the defender of the people's money and questioned EVERYTHING, especially if
>it was connected to Harold Hughes.  (H.R. Gross tried to get me fired one
>time -- called Hughes and told him to fire me.  Hughes told me my greatest
>job security was to have Gross tell him to fire me.)
>
>There will always be the gross Grosses of the world, but like the question of
>whether alcoholism is a disease the issue of how many was important
>politically.
>
>I've been taking another look at Wiener's book.  She hit a lot of stuff right
>on the nail. But on one issue -- that of the formula grant controversy -- she
>didn't have the full story.  I think she probably talked only to Hathaway's
>people on the Hill, rather than to me or Jay Cutler of Javits' staff.  It was
>a clear case of Hathaway's staff really messing up and then having to cover
>their back sides.  If anyone wants more of the story, let me know.
>
>I have been reading the stuff you people send for quite some time now, but
>rarely have anything to contribute.
>
>But this is a fun way for a retired 70 year old to spend a snowy Saturday
>afternoon.