Health
New Research Suggests Blacks Have Predisposition to Alcoholism
by Shantella Y. Sherman
Special to the NNPA from the Afro-American Newspaper
As the nation kicks off Alcohol Awareness Month, new research has come to light. It suggests that in addition to the stigma associated with alcoholism, African Americans suffer from a genetic predisposition to greater negative effects of alcohol consumption.
Tamika Zapolski, assistant professor of psychology in the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), recently examined a paradox in African-American drinking. She found that despite African Americans reporting an initiation to drinking at an older age, lower rates of use, and lower levels of use in nearly all age groups, they still encountered higher levels of problems related to alcohol when compared to whites.
“So much research has compared drinking habits and effects between African Americans and European Americans, but no one is truly investigating the reasons,” Zapolski said. “Understanding the reasons for these differences can ultimately improve diagnoses and intervention plans.”
Zapolski posits that genetic, historical, and sociocultural factors, including cultural norms with religious beliefs and societal disapproval, make African Americans more likely to abstain from drinking and drink less than other groups. So why do Blacks encounter more negative consequences and greater risks for alcoholism or other alcohol problems?
According to Zapolski, and others including Drs. Denise M. Scott and Robert E. Taylor, there exists a number of genetic variants of ADH and ALDH genes in African Americans that account for a higher rate of alcohol metabolism. This means that liquor breaks down quicker, is more potent, and has a greater effect in smaller amounts in their consumption. It also means a reduced likelihood of a family history of alcoholism and a greater likelihood of alcohol related chronic conditions such as cirrhosis.
“In plain English, the data is saying that liquor is poison to some of our bodies, just like ingesting arsenic,” said Wendell Carby, a recovering alcoholic with 20 years’ sobriety. “I took my first drink as a freshman in college and was a drunk before the semester ended. It was like kryptonite to my body, but I couldn’t stop drinking even after it started making me ill.”
Carby said the addiction was so swift and all-encompassing – creating damage in his nerves, stomach, and liver – that he had little time to brace himself for the financial difficulties and failed relationships that lay ahead. It was only when he began experiencing blackouts that Carby sought help.
With growing concern over the prevalence of heavy drinking among African-American youth, Carby believes national campaigns should focus more attention on steering young adults away from alcohol. The rate of binge drinking (drinking five or more drinks on a single occasion for men) among African Americans ages 12 and up was 20.1 percent – compared with the national average of 22.9 percent. Similarly, African Americans aged 12 to 20 in 2013 reported past-month alcohol use at a rate of 17.8 percent, compared with the national average of 22.7 percent.
“Our young people need to understand that alcohol is dangerous at any level because some of us are wired to become drunks and have to fight ‘putting the bottle down’ for the rest of our lives. The message should be the same as it was with crack in the ‘90s, ‘Just say no,’” Carby said.
Alcohol intoxication can be harmful or risky for a variety of reasons: impaired brain function resulting in poor judgment, reduced reaction time, a loss of balance, coordination, motor skills, or slurred speech, as well as increased risk of certain cancers, stroke, and liver diseases (e.g., cirrhosis).
Activism
OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook
As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.
Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.
Our community is hurting. Things have to change.
The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.
Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.
I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.
SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.
For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.
This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.
Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.
Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.
About the Author
Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.
Activism
Oak Temple Hill Hosts Interfaith Leaders from Across the Bay Area
Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.

Special to the Post
Interfaith leaders from the Bay Area participated in a panel discussion at the annual meeting of communication leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held on Temple Hill in Oakland on May 31. Distinguished faith leaders Rev. Ken Chambers, executive director the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC); Michael Pappas, executive director of the San Francisco Interfaith Council; and Dr. Ejaz Naqzi, president of the Contra Costa County Interfaith Council addressed the group on key issues including homelessness, food insecurity, immigration, and meaningful opportunities to care for individuals and communities in need.
Chambers, said he is thankful for the leadership and support of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints’ global ministry, which recently worked with the interfaith congregations of ICAC to help Yasjmine Oeveraas a homeless Norwegian mother and her family find shelter and access to government services.
Oeveraas told the story of how she was assisted by ICAC to the Oakland Post. “I’m a Norwegian citizen who escaped an abusive marriage with nowhere to go. We’ve been homeless in Florida since January 2024. Recently, we came to California for my son’s passport, but my plan to drive for Uber fell through, leaving us homeless again. Through 2-1-1, I was connected to Rev. Ken Chambers, pastor of the West Side Missionary Baptist Church and president of the Interfaith Council of Alameda County, and his car park program, which changed our lives. We spent about a week-and-a-half living in our car before being blessed with a trailer. After four years of uncertainty and 18 months of homelessness, this program has given us stability and hope again.
“Now, both my son and I have the opportunity to continue our education. I’m pursuing cyber analytics, something I couldn’t do while living in the car. My son can also complete his education, which is a huge relief. This program has given us the space to focus and regain our dignity. I am working harder than ever to reach my goals and give back to others in need.”
Richard Kopf, communication director for The Church of Jesus Christ in the Bay Area stated: “As followers of Jesus Christ, we embrace interfaith cooperation and are united in our efforts to show God’s love for all of his children.”
Activism
“Unnecessary Danger”: Gov. Newsom Blasts Rollback of Emergency Abortion Care Protections
Effective May 29, CMS rescinded guidance that had reinforced the obligation of hospitals to provide abortion services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when necessary to stabilize a patient’s condition. Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom is criticizing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for rolling back federal protections for emergency abortion care, calling the move an “unnecessary danger” to the lives of pregnant patients in crisis.
Effective May 29, CMS rescinded guidance that had reinforced the obligation of hospitals to provide abortion services under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when necessary to stabilize a patient’s condition.
Newsom warned that the rollback will leave patients vulnerable in states with strict or total abortion bans.
“Today’s decision will endanger lives and lead to emergency room deaths, full stop,” Newsom said in a statement. “Doctors must be empowered to save the lives of their patients, not hem and haw over political red lines when the clock is ticking. In California, we will always protect the right of physicians to do what’s best for their patients and for women to make the reproductive decisions that are best for their families.”
The CMS guidance originally followed the 2022 Dobbs decision, asserting that federal law could preempt state abortion bans in emergency care settings. However, legal challenges from anti-abortion states created uncertainty, and the Trump administration’s dismissal of a key lawsuit against Idaho in March removed federal enforcement in those states.
While the rollback does not change California law, Newsom said it could discourage hospitals and physicians in other states from providing emergency care. States like Idaho, Mississippi, and Oklahoma do not allow abortion as a stabilizing treatment unless a patient’s life is already at risk.
California has taken several steps to expand reproductive protections, including the launch of Abortion.CA.Gov and leadership in the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, a coalition of 23 governors supporting access to abortion care.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 28 – June 30, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress2 weeks ago
It Just Got Even Better 2026 Toyota RAV4 AWD GR Sport Walkaround
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Remembering George Floyd
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Hate and Chaos Rise in Trump’s America
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
WATCH: Five Years After George Floyd: Full Panel Discussion | Tracey’s Keepin’ It Real | Live Podcast Event
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
OP-ED: Oregon Bill Threatens the Future of Black Owned Newspapers and Community Journalism
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
PRESS ROOM: Black Leaders Detroit Launches 1,600-mile Ride for Equity to Raise Awareness, Funding for Entrepreneurs of African Descent