Teen Drinking Taboo: That's Why They Do It
by Joe?Pulcinella
Just saw this in the WSJ. I don't know about anyone else but I was always allowed to drink at home which is why it never seemed like fun to me. Needless to say, the mystique and taboo was sucked out of it.
In one sense, the Andersons' party was a success. None of the drunken students put themselves or others at risk on the roads of West Warwick that night in May 2002. But the party sparked an emotional debate in Rhode Island that has continued in the statehouse and in homes, where parents often wage Herculean efforts to make sure that even if their teens aren't sober, at least they are safe.
This guy was lucky but many parents are not. Let's hope that we eventually come to a common-sense conclusion about alchohol consumption. Europe doesn't have the Draconian laws that have have concerning underage drinking and consequently don't have the associated problems that stem from our prohibition.
Comments
Again, I agree. Years ago, instead of the micromanagement state we live under now, where millions of laws proscribe absolutely all behavior, when we (us oldsters!) were growing up we lived, relatively speaking, under a practical anarchy of sorts, where behaviors went unregulated unless harm actually occurred. Not only that, but police and courts were allowed discretion, something that is not permitted today. When I was a kid, we had plenty of "druggies" and "potheads" around, well-known to everyone, including the fuzz. Yes, they were occasionally hassled by the cops, but no one thought of these people as dangerous to anyone, except themselves. Eventually, they either straightened up, or crashed and burned on their own. Then the "War On Drugs" happened, which took all common sense and legal discretion regarding drugs off the table. Nowadays, these guys wouldn't stand a chance - they'd be serving life in prison. Is ours a better world because of it?
I didn't say, "Power to the parents to let their kids have illegal beer parties!" I am pointing out: 1) the stupidity of teen drinking prohibition and 2) that a black market is arising out of a need for parents to keep their kids safe. Would kids be safer NOT binge drinking? Yes. But they have proven over and over again that they will drink in direct proportion to the amount of times that you tell them not to.
Sucking the fun out of it (in the eyes of a teen) by making it legal will drive down the frequency. The drinking will find its own level. This is the ONLY alternative to prohibition. Elimination of all teen drinking is simply no more an option than the complete eradication of marijuana.
I agree with your premise. I think that simply enforcing strict liability for the underage drinkers and the party hosts would achieve a lower rate of teen drinking and driving than any law could. But parents who sponsor drinking parties in the current legal environment are grist for the mill of the professional nannies, who live off of government and foundation money, inflict fear on the populace through misinformation, and lobby the legislature to pass more laws. Somehow I don't see this kind of civil disobedience being terribly productive. But ultimately, you are responsible for your own children, and you have to do what you think is best for them. The state certainly isn't going to.
My wife spent her some of her teen years in Germany as an Army brat where they had no drinking age. She drank beer in bars with her friends and no one had any problem. Drinking is not taboo in Europe.
The "drinking party" phenomenon is a blackmarket outgrowth of a stupid, arbitrary law. I don't like drug dealers but we've all come to agree that legalizing drugs will force drug dealers OUT of business, not empower them.
As far as discouraging behavior goes, you are implying that a government seal of approval of teen drinking bans is somehow a legit way of enforcing behavior that you see as right. That right should default to the parent.
I'm not a big fan of parents organizing "drinking parties" for their underage kids, because it demonstrates approval, not just of drinking, but of lawbreaking. Remember though, the drinking age in most states was only 18 up until 20 years ago or so, before the efforts of MADD and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation began to really target outlawing alcohol consumption outright, as opposed to reducing drunk driving. Clearly, as much as adult approval stimulates drinking, writing more and more restrictive laws makes more criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens. This tends to drive the behavior into hiding, while discouraging it almost not at all. Notice, too, that most of the opinions critical of the parents are from professional "nannies" that exist at the pleasure of government and the RW Johnson Foundation.
Post a Repsonse
?
