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.