Personal Breath Testing (PBT): A Pursuit for Higher Ed?
Because PBT devices are available on the market, is it advisable for colleges and universities to invest in such technology and provide it to students in order to monitor their consumption? Although not an option being considered by many schools, this is an approach to moderating high-risk and dangerous collegiate drinking on some campuses. Although not an expert on this topic, this post considers some of the issues if not potential risks associated with such a practice. For example:

1. If the decision is made to use some sort of PBT device, one will need to train students to use it...this will not be easy, not to mention time consuming and therefore expensive.
There a variety of personal breath testing devices available on the market and the cost will vary. As with all things in life, you get what you pay for. The more accurate and precise the device's measurement of blood alcohol level, the more costly per unit.

2. Once the decision has been made to use a “particular device,” training will need to be designed around that particular device and its limitations. For example, if the device is accurate to within “X% BAL,” then students will need to be educated to know this AND how to gage “their individual reading” and then abide by it.

3. With devices that simply indicate if the user has exceeded a particular BAL, say .05%, and do not record a “specific” BAL, will students pay attention to this? In other words, if my PBT device suggests that I am now at the .05% level, will I stop or even slow down or will I think, “okay, I am getting close to the legal limit, but I am not there yet; I can go on a bit longer.”

4. What about that particular type of student who sees this as an invitation to a new type of drinking game...who can make the PBT go off first or who can get the highest BAL before having to urinate, or whatever?

Personally, to motivate proactive decision making related to alcohol, I prefer activities that reward students for doing what is positive or protective rather than simply providing warnings or punishing them for doing something risky. For example, instead of PBTs for everyone — which I believe will be incredibly expensive when you factor in training — what about a breath testing station at each residence hall where student VOLUNTARILY can have their breath tested, have no judicial consequences irrespective of BAL (although a trip to the ER may be mandated if above “X” BAL) and anyone with a BAL under “Y” (.05%?) gets “Z,” a gift card for a free coffee/tea/hot chocolate at the campus coffee shop or gets a dining hall pass for a guest, etc.

Before anything is done, if a campus is leaning towards going with a "PBTs for everyone" decision, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY! I can see the law suit now if the school implements this program and John Jones or Mary Brown has a PBT and dies from an alcohol overdose. Yes, the campus can argue the PBT device was an attempt to reduce harm to help students who choose to drink, but a cleaver plaintiff’s attorney is going to argue, “Well, thank you very much, but you knew this was a high risk and all you did was provide a means to measure the risk, not address assertively or reduce it” or something like this.

As in counseling, there are two choices as to how to proceed...to move towards a desired outcome or away from a feared consequence. I suppose the PBT discussion could be framed as an example of either of these, but my personal thoughts regarding PBTs is more akin to an attempt to move away from a feared consequence.

To read more about PBT devises, visit http://bit.ly/bvmaKK or http://bit.ly/a8EmUj

What do you think?

Dr. Robert