A Drunken Proposition

Have you heard the latest?

There’s a list of college presidents who want the drinking age to be lowered to 18. It’s their view that the whole reason why young people are abusing alcohol is because it is illegal, and therefore the “forbidden fruit” theory applies: they just want what they can’t have. They believe that lowering the drinking age will help remedy this situation.

I just gotta ask. Are they drunk?

Plenty of things are desirable because one can’t have them, but this isn’t enough of a reason to invite the whole heap of trouble that legalizing alcohol for teenagers is likely to bring. Of course, I wasn’t around in the days of Prohibition, but there’s no way that the problems with enforcing the no-alcohol law were greater than the problems caused by people abusing the drug in the decades after the law was repealed. DUI deaths and injuries, binge drinking, domestic violence. Serious subjects were talkin’ about here.

So serious that this idea is almost laughable.

I think the poor college folks just don’t want to deal with the trouble that illegal drinking brings. Sounds as though they’d rather just let it all be legal than get tough on sororities and fraternities and kick kids out of universities for engaging in excessive party behavior.

Let’s see, where else can we apply this type of reasoning? Lots of people speed. Should we keep raising the speed limit to keep up with them? Kids skip school because it’s against the law to do so. Just let ’em be. Why have truancy laws? Will making stealing something legal keep people from taking things that don’t belong to them? I doubt it.

The whole idea is enough to drive a girl to drink.

2 Comments

Rob G. on March 31, 2009 at 5:01 pm

May I respectfully suggest that you missed the college presidents’ point. They don’t argue that legalizing drinking at 18 years old makes it less desirable (e.g., your “forbidden fruit” analogy). Their point is that legalizing it brings it out into the open — in local restaurants, bars, etc. — rather than keeping it in secret, as the current prohibition does. Would you rather see college students drinking in back alleys behind frat houses and chugging beers in the closet of their dorm room to get lubricated for a party or have them gathering at a sports bar to watch the Final Four and doing their drinking in the presence of marginally more responsible bartenders and under other, albeit minimal supervision by older adults? I don’t think anyone would argue that legalizing (now) underage drinking makes all the problems go away, but their idea is that it become more manageable when it’s out in the open, and not in the closet. I’m just old enough to have gone to college back when the drinking age was 18 — and when we had an on-campus Tavern and beer was permitted (with the necessary permit) at campus parties. And I just don’t recall going through any of the horror stories that you hear on campuses today.

–Rob

coffeehousemom on March 31, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Hi Rob.

Thanks for your comments.

I hate to think of the precedent this could set-making a law more lenient in an effort to “keep up” with the violators of it.

I understand the point that you-and perhaps the college presidents-are trying to make (a few of those presidents actually did express their concern that the law as it stands in fact entices young people to drink more than if the age were lowered). And while it’s not altogether an unreasonable response to a seemingly unstoppable force, I can’t agree with the idea to, as you say, “bring it out in the open.”

I gotta be honest. If college kids are going to chug beers, I would much rather they do it in the back alley of a fraternity or in a dorm room closet. Of course, I see the irony. Being out and about somewhere instead may heighten the chances of someone stopping them if they decided to, say, then get in a car.

But the so-called “restrictive” laws aren’t to blame for underage consumption; the finger can be pointed to their own irresponsible behavior. Young people who want to party with alcohol don’t head to the nearest well-lit sports bar to drink under the ‘watchful eye’ of the bartender. A law that lowers the legal drinking age won’t change that.

Lawmakers in this country have done precious little to help curb DUI’s, prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors, or punish those who drink underage. If college presidents want to help, they should use their clout and publicity to put pressure on lawmakers to enact serious penalities and prison terms for first-time offenders.

And if they want to work on this problem on their college campuses, they should unapologetically and publicly kick students out of university, shut down offending fraternities, and help hand deliver violators to the police.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Rob G. on March 31, 2009 at 5:01 pm

May I respectfully suggest that you missed the college presidents’ point. They don’t argue that legalizing drinking at 18 years old makes it less desirable (e.g., your “forbidden fruit” analogy). Their point is that legalizing it brings it out into the open — in local restaurants, bars, etc. — rather than keeping it in secret, as the current prohibition does. Would you rather see college students drinking in back alleys behind frat houses and chugging beers in the closet of their dorm room to get lubricated for a party or have them gathering at a sports bar to watch the Final Four and doing their drinking in the presence of marginally more responsible bartenders and under other, albeit minimal supervision by older adults? I don’t think anyone would argue that legalizing (now) underage drinking makes all the problems go away, but their idea is that it become more manageable when it’s out in the open, and not in the closet. I’m just old enough to have gone to college back when the drinking age was 18 — and when we had an on-campus Tavern and beer was permitted (with the necessary permit) at campus parties. And I just don’t recall going through any of the horror stories that you hear on campuses today.

–Rob
coffeehousemom on March 31, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Hi Rob.

Thanks for your comments.

I hate to think of the precedent this could set-making a law more lenient in an effort to “keep up” with the violators of it.

I understand the point that you-and perhaps the college presidents-are trying to make (a few of those presidents actually did express their concern that the law as it stands in fact entices young people to drink more than if the age were lowered). And while it’s not altogether an unreasonable response to a seemingly unstoppable force, I can’t agree with the idea to, as you say, “bring it out in the open.”

I gotta be honest. If college kids are going to chug beers, I would much rather they do it in the back alley of a fraternity or in a dorm room closet. Of course, I see the irony. Being out and about somewhere instead may heighten the chances of someone stopping them if they decided to, say, then get in a car.

But the so-called “restrictive” laws aren’t to blame for underage consumption; the finger can be pointed to their own irresponsible behavior. Young people who want to party with alcohol don’t head to the nearest well-lit sports bar to drink under the ‘watchful eye’ of the bartender. A law that lowers the legal drinking age won’t change that.

Lawmakers in this country have done precious little to help curb DUI’s, prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors, or punish those who drink underage. If college presidents want to help, they should use their clout and publicity to put pressure on lawmakers to enact serious penalities and prison terms for first-time offenders.

And if they want to work on this problem on their college campuses, they should unapologetically and publicly kick students out of university, shut down offending fraternities, and help hand deliver violators to the police.