## **Media Advocacy Case Study: [Three Strikes and You're Out]{.underline}**

In 1994, the California State Legislature passed the "Three Strikes and
You're Out" law (Ryan and Mosher, 2000). The law permits revocation of
an alcohol license if a vendor is caught selling alcohol to minors three
times in a three-year period. The law gave community members concerned
with underage sales to minors the mechanism to shut down retailers that
would not comply with the law. The law also gave business owners warning
about taking measures to prevent sales to underage youth if they wanted
to stay in business. In addition, that same year, the California Supreme
Court ruled that minors could be used as decoys to conduct compliance
checks on licensees. Further, the following year the California State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC Department) provided
grants to communities for partnerships with law enforcement to reduce
problems associated with alcohol. Communities used the majority of the
grant money to establish minor decoy programs. The minor decoy programs
began to yield non-compliant retailers and the Three Strikes provision
began to pose a real threat to businesses selling to minors.

In 1998, a California state senator from San Diego introduced Senate
Bill 1696 in the legislature. In essence, the bill allowed a fourth
violation in a three-year period and restricted the ABS Department's
grant funding for decoy programs. Multiple food and beverage retail
associations, big breweries such as Anheuser-Bush and Miller, as well as
the Wine Institute supported the bill. However, when prevention
advocates learned about the SB 1696, they mobilized and made defeating
it a top priority.

The California Council on Alcohol Policy sent out legislative alerts to
people around the state. Members of the North City Prevention Coalition
in San Diego wrote letters to their Senator (the author of the bill)
opposing it. Members of the coalition also signed a petition opposing
the bill. Members of the San Diego Council on Alcohol Problems (SANDCAP)
also called, wrote and complained to the senator and demanded the bill
be dropped or dramatically changed. Other prevention and recovery
organizations also opposed the bill and wrote letters and spoke the
senator. The director of the San Diego Policy Panel on Youth Access to
Alcohol urged its influential members from a cross section of the
community to take appropriate measures to ensure the defeat of the bill.
One prevention services director estimated that the senator received
over 500 calls opposing the bill. California alcohol policy activists
met with the senator and wrote letters to the members of the policy
committee.

Policy advocates used their relationship with a San Diego newspaper to
gain public support in San Diego for defeating the bill. The newspaper
editor wrote an editorial describing the bill as beneficial to a special
interest group and not the public interest, which prompted many letters
to the editor. The newspaper ran eight more pieces on the topic within
the next few months. The newspaper articles allowed both sides to voice
their arguments. However alcohol policy advocates made strong arguments:

-   What's our priority, industry profit or safety for our children?

-   The beer industry sells an estimated 1.1 billion cans of beer each
    year to junior and high school students.

-   Kids already have ready access to booze. We should be making it more
    difficult to sell to them, not easier.

-   The industry is trying to "buy" a bill in the legislature to get
    itself off the hook. It made \$2.4 million dollars in donations in
    the 1996-97 legislative year.

-   Why let these "three strike" violators off the hook? Prevention
    strategies should be implemented without giving violators a break.

-   Ninety-five percent of Californians want stricter, not weaker,
    enforcement" (Ryan & Mosher, 2000, p. 15).

This local media coverage and activism by San Diego residents made it
clear that the senator's local constituency opposed the bill. These
statements also demonstrated that citizens new the research about the
alcohol industry in their community. They also framed the issue in a
manner that stated the policy that needed to be kept and not the youth
or parents' individual behavior.

Despite all the attention and criticism in San Diego, the bill moved
along with only minor revisions. Policy advocates opposing the bill
believed the bill was going to pass and decided to strengthen their
efforts in the media to defeat the bill. The advocates knew the media
statewide would be interested in the story. They had data on the amount
of money the alcohol industry donated to political campaigns, and they
"had a frame that would attract attention: the industry was trying to
protect their right to sell to kids" (Ryan & Mosher, 2000, p. 22).
Although, the advocates had been reluctant to criticize the senator and
the bill statewide because they did not want to anger her and risk their
ability to work with her in the future, they decided to be more
explicit. James F. Mosher, JD, Senior Policy Advisor at The Marin
Institute for Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems sent an
op-ed piece on SB 1696 to a newspaper in Sacramento and San Jose,
outlining the principal reasons why it was a bad bill. The piece ran a
few days later. Soon other major newspapers in the state were running
stories and editorials about the bill. The stories generated letters to
the editor, mainly in support of defeating the bill. The media took the
frame and called it the "fourth strike bill." One headline in San Jose
read, "responsible retailers do not need SB 1696. And the Community
doesn't need irresponsible retailers" (Ryan & Mosher, 2000, p. 24).

Apparently the media coverage worked. The senator agreed to meet with
policy advocates and seriously discuss their concerns. She amended the
bill by removing the fourth strike provision and keeping the grant
funding for the minor decoy programs. In this case, grass roots
organizing helped generate media coverage at the local level but did not
seem to be enough to defeat the bill. Nearly everyone involved in
defeating the bill felt these changes would not have happened without
the media attention the bill received. The surprise victory for the
alcohol policy activists proved they could do it and helped to
strengthen their confidence and commitment. Further and most importantly
because of the relationships that were developed, alcohol policy
advocates now sit at the table with legislators to assist in drafting
bills related to prevention issues and they continue to work with the
media (Ryan & Mosher, 2000).

## Summary

In summary, media advocacy can be used to advance many public policy
issues. Prevention professionals can use the skills described to
advocate for policies that are consistent with prevention practices.
Advocating in the media may be a new experience for some prevention
professionals but with a well thought out strategy a little practice,
and perseverance anyone can become a media advocate.

Reference: Ryan, B.E., & Mosher, J.F. (2000). [The campaign against SB
1696: No 4^th^ strike for California retailers who sell alcohol to
minors.]{.underline} San Rafael, CA: The Marin Institute for the
Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems.