CBS Evening News did a story[1] on it a couple of nights ago and note that some experts believe, like I theorized in my entry, that the higher drinking age of 21 is "actually contributing to an increase in extreme drinking."
In the story they talked with Mark Bckner, the chief of police in Boulder, Colo., a college town. "We'd find a party where we know there's underage drinking. We would seal the house. Surround the house with officers and we would write every single underage person coming out of that house. We wrote hundreds and hundreds of tickets those years. All we did is we pushed it further underground," said Beckner.
Beckner commented about lowering the drinking age to 18, something he is in favor of, "The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving. Those are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give 'em a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."
The story also comments about a college freshman, Gordie Bailey, who died of alcohol poisoning during a fraternity initiation. The fraternity members left him on a couch for 9 hours before someone called 911. He died because, according to Gordie's parents, the other college kids were too scared to call for help because the drinking was illegal.
It isn't just some police chiefs that feel a lower drinking age would be better. Minnesota legislators are also looking at the issue, considering a bill that would lower the drinking age to 18 in their state. They also are proposing allowing 16 and 17 year olds to drink at bars when accompanied by parents.
Both stories highlight something that escapes a lot of supposedly "enlightened" people in this day and age: banning something doesn't eliminate it. It is illegal for someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol, right? But yet, from the SADD website:
In 2005, about 10.8 million persons ages 12-20 (28.2% of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.2 million (18.8%) were binge drinkers, and 2.3 million (6.0%) were heavy drinkers.To all the people out there that don't want to lower the drinking age because they don't want teenager drinking, BREAKING NEWS: they already are.
2005 SAMHSA National Survey on Drug Use and Health
Three out of every four students (75%) have consumed alcohol (more than just a few sips) by the end of high school.
2005 Monitoring the Future
About two fifths of students (41%) have consumed alcohol (more than just a few sips) by 8th grade.
2005 Monitoring the Future
Prohibition should have taught us that telling people who want to drink that they can't won't stop them. The war on drugs should be teaching us right now that making something illegal doesn't stop it. All it does is drive it underground, create a mistique around it, and put it in the same realm as other much more harmful things.
I recently read about, though I can't remember exactly where, the idea that by eliminating things from being illegal and underground, you remove the connection to worse items. For example, a party at which significant underage drinking is taking place would also be more likely to have drugs at them.
If teens don't have to find a less than reputable "source" for their alcohol, they may be less likely to get involved in major drugs. After all, "more than 67% of young people who start drinking before the age of 15 will try an illicit drug. Children who drink are 7.5 times more likely to use any illicit drug, more than 22 times more likely to use marijuana, and 50 times more likely to use cocaine than children who never drank."[3] You can argue that drinking itself makes them more likely to abuse other substances but I am more inclined to believe it is the atmosphere into which they immerse themselves in order to consume alcohol underage.
I have my opinions on this topic. I'd love to hear yours.
***
[1] H/T http://www.thelibertypapers.org/
[2] H/T http://hotair.com/
[3] Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, 1994 as referenced at http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles.php?aid=318
4 comments:
With the drinking age at 21, you have adults having to hide from authority, drinking and trying to learn what responsible drinking is. There is no one there to say
"OK, you've had enough"
If the drinking age was 18, colleges could resume hosting parties (that students would go to) in dorms. The adults would have supervision as they learned there limits, and there would be a lot less people driving home at the end of the night.
The interesting question is where does the liquor lobby side on this? Are they for lower the drinking age because they think it will increase there market? Or are they against lower the drinking age because they worry once it's legal 18-20 year olds might drink less? If the liquor lobby isn't for lowering the drinking age we should definitely lower it.
When you think of the life altering things we allow 18 year olds to do like join the military, get married, get a tattoo or have cosmetic surgery, it's seems a little hypocritical to not allow them to enjoy a cold beer on a hot day.
I actually watched this piece on the news last week. . .
The opposition to lowering the drinking age (organizations like MADD and the AMA, I think) centers their argument more around alcohol-related fatalities, driving specifically. If you allow more individuals to drink, the correlation is more individuals driving who have drank, and more accidents, etc.
I'm not sure that this is exactly true, because when the stigma goes away, and young adults are not having to hide their drinking activity, then it is easier for them to call it quits earlier, assign a DD, call a cab, or make other responsible choices. Theoretically, by being able to drink earlier, and not have it be only under a binge mentality, they should (would) learn to pace themselves, to enjoy a glass of wine with a meal or a beer by the pool, how to enjoy an alcoholic beverage. Ideally, this would be with other, older responsible adults.
Still - there will always be a concern over the company you keep and it which manner ANYONE is drinking. I have heard stories of a sleepover at so-and-so's house: the parental units say anyone who comes, can drink - as long as they stay the night. I am NOT for co-ed sleepovers. At all. But if Mom and Pop serve alcohol, and act as bartenders, refusing to offer more to someone who has had enough, providing lots of water until Jane and John are ready to drive, I don't see an issue.
I can see both sides on this one, and I really think it comes down to the human capacity for regulating one's own self. We teach our kids discipline and limits with television, sweets, and activities. Why would you not teach them the same with alcohol?
This is really such an interesting idea. My bottom line though, is, that 18 is the magic number for so many other "adult" activities, that it is simply unfair to say someone can be married or die in war, and not have a margarita to enjoy, also!
To all the people out there that don't want to lower the drinking age because they don't want teenager drinking, BREAKING NEWS: they already are.
Hah. That's the crux of it, I think. I totally agree.
Just one question: If we make marijuana legal, will it promote "more responsible use"?
My feelings are to enforce the law and make the punishment such that it will deter the activity. I am not saying put some 19 year old in jail for six months for drinking underage - but fine the daylights out of him and put him to work in community service for a few hundred hours.
Just my thoughts.
Post a Comment