Sole Morality

The Drinking Age and The Lessons of Prohibition

Back in November of 2007, I wrote an entry that talked about possible beneifical aspects of lowering the drinking age. A year and a half later, the idea is popping up elsewhere.

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.
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

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.

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

Alcohol and Minors

From the Washington Post comes an article about a mom and her ex-husband who are going to jail. Here are the basic facts (I'll discuss her reasoning in a moment). Elisa Kelly and George Robinson decided to host a party for their son Ryan's 16th birthday. Ryan asked his mother to supply alcohol. Elisa and George supplied wine and beer upon the condition that none of them could leave the party. The police were called and found that nine of the sixteen party attendees had alcohol in their system, though none met the legal limit for intoxication.

There are assertions that she lied to the parents of the attending teenagers in saying that there would be no alcohol and also that she told the kids that gargling with vinegar would cover up the alcohol, though she denies both in this article. And if the history they give in that article is correct (substitute teacher, baseball coach, never had a parking or speeding ticket), I am inclined to believe her. After all, she has never denied what she did and has only contested the sentence (more on that to come).

Her reasoning is what really makes me think. She indicated that she believed that they were going to go get drunk whether she provided the alcohol or not. In fact, she notes in the second article that she would pick up these kids from other parties and they would be drunk. By her providing it, she was able to keep tabs on how much of what was consumed and, perhaps more importantly, she could control driving. In fact, according to her interview on this website, she went around collecting car keys and had other plans

I remember a friend of mine, Jerry (not his real name), losing his father while we were in high school. His dad suffered a heart attack while out horseback riding. The family was one of those families that welcomed anyone into it who needed some support. Consequently, there were about half a dozen other teenagers who felt as though they had lost their father figure. I remember stopping by that night and his mom walking up to me with a bucket full of keys, asking for my keys. She explained that her son and his friends were going to go out and get drunk to deal with this death whether she liked it or not and that there was nothing she could do to stop him. So instead she bought the beer and had them come to the house. That way, she could keep an eye on them and make sure no tried to drive home. I explained that I wouldn't be drinking and she told me that as long as I didn't even touch a bottle or can of anything, I could hang onto my keys. I conveyed my condolences to Jerry and talked with him and the other people there for about 20 minutes before I left.

It took me a while to process her reasoning, but in the end, I really agreed with what she did. Yes, she was breaking the law, but given her choices, she chose what I believe to be the lesser of the two evils. I don't know if any of those teenagers would have gotten killed driving home drunk had she not done what she did, but I do know that every one of them was at her house and not driving because of what she did.

Back to the 16th birthday party, I am left wondering the same thing about this woman and her son's party. The first article indicates that the judge was angry about the death of a teen the year before who was driving drunk. So, despite the prosecuting attorney's recommended 90 day sentence, the judge sent them each to jail for 8 years. Upon appeal to the Circuit Court, it was dropped to 27 months, the suggested 90 days plus 2 years.

So, to sum up, we have judge who wrongly lets a previous, completely unrelated incident of a teen killed while driving drunk sway his opinion in sentencing a man and woman who broke the law by throwing a party designed to keep teens from driving drunk. Anyone see anything wrong there?

I talked with a friend from Germany the other day who told met hat the legal age to drink in Germany is 16. The legal age to drive is 18. She told me that she went drinking at a club before she was 16 and there was a police sting. They simply made the under 16 leave the club but didn't do a thing about the fact that alcohol had been served to those under age. It simply isn't a big deal over there. You really don't even get carded. And drinking at home with your parents is the norm.

She went on to say that binge drinking isn't a problem over there. Drunk driving isn't either (although I am sure a better public transit system plays into this as well). Because it is open and accepted, teens don't have to find ways to sneak out to drink and then they don't feel the pressure to drink as much as they can because they may not be able to drink again anytime soon. They can learn to drink openly and (speaking generally) responsibly.

I wonder if that would work here in the United States. Would allowing teenagers to learn about and how to drink before they learn to drive and in a controlled and open manner reduce drunk driving and drunk driving deaths? I bet that more teens would be calling home asking for a ride instead of desperately attempting to make it home with their car and sleep off the buzz before their parents realize what they were out doing.

I realize that this is a rather controversial topic and there are probably a few of you out there with some differing opinions on the matter. I'd love to hear from as many of you as possible regarding whether you agree or disagree with me on any of my points above. Just be sure to include in your comment why you believe what you do. Purely visceral responses don't lend themselves towards productive discussion very well.

***Disclaimers***
Let me state explicitly for those who do not know or may be wondering at this point, I do not drink and have never tasted alcohol. I hope and plan to raise my children to do the same.

Also, I do realize that this line of reasoning can be easily extended to drug use. I realize that and I have chosen not to write about that. It very well may be addressed in a later post, but this one is too long already.