This week's article is very difficult to write about because I'm not exactly sure that there is a clear cut answer to the question. For one thing, I highly doubt that the "legal age" to buy alcohol really is the issue here. Since the article is focused on this specific point to the issue, we'll try to stay focused on it and look at both sides and maybe even find a solution (although I doubt it).
One of the big points for lowering the legal age to buy alcohol is the idea that so many other things happen when a kid hits 18 (voting, draft, smoking, etc.) that adding in alcohol would seem to be a logical step. A quote in the article is one I've heard a number of times... "If you're old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink in your country" (or however they end it). I'll admit that there is logic to this argument, but I'd rather use it backwards to flip the draft age so that 18 year olds don't go dying. Aside from that, it is a decent point. If the government somehow (I have no idea how) judges that when a kid hits 18, they are an adult who can choose to die in battle or from lung and mouth cancer and yet can't relax with a cheap wine cooler after a hard day working at McDonald's (sorry, cheap jab), it just seems to be an odd boundary.
Another point pushed by this camp is the "forbidden fruit" idea wherein underage kids drink so much because it is something that is rebellious and that if it were legal, the amount of young binge drinkers would drop. While there might be some validity in this argument, I'm not too sure how well it holds up. For one, it's more of a responsibility/maturity issue than a legal one, young kids have no problem getting ahold of alcohol as is, so making it easier to procure is kind of a solution to a non-problem.
On the other side of the argument are those who think that the legal age needs to remain the same and responsibility needs to be held to (at least in the article) college campuses and "of age" people to monitor and keep people from this binge drinking phenomenon (if you will). The problem I find with this argument is that it is what is allegedly already in place and seems to not quite work. The problem is deciding who exactly would be responsible. While the kids may indeed be at college, I don't think it is the college's job to watch kids and keep them "straight."
The answer that I can come up with is twofold. One is obvious, the other is pretty twisted and more than likely won't work. The first is to educate and raise kids right. Help them to learn that drinking (like everything) is best done in moderation. It's not something that is wrong and it's a fine thing to do (drink, that is) but it's something that can get out of control very easily and therefore boundaries need to be learned early on in order that overconsumption becomes the rarity and not (as it seems to be reported) the norm.
The second of my answers is the twisted one and deals with colleges: make them completely dry. That means not just a slap on the wrist, but full suspension/expulsion for drinkers. Yeah, it's really harsh and alcohol/drinking is supposedly a huge part of the college experience, but if we are expecting people to go to college in order to learn and not party, take away the party. I know this idea will never work, but it is also part of my whole theory that college is way too much of an emphasis in our culture as is. Kids are nearly forced to go and good jobs require some sort of higher education so we kind of bring this culture upon ourselves rather than providing alternate ways to get into the workforce.
Okay, I know that my second theory needs a lot of work and would probably never really work, so what needs fixing? What are other solutions? Should the legal age actually be dropped to 18?
One of the big points for lowering the legal age to buy alcohol is the idea that so many other things happen when a kid hits 18 (voting, draft, smoking, etc.) that adding in alcohol would seem to be a logical step. A quote in the article is one I've heard a number of times... "If you're old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink in your country" (or however they end it). I'll admit that there is logic to this argument, but I'd rather use it backwards to flip the draft age so that 18 year olds don't go dying. Aside from that, it is a decent point. If the government somehow (I have no idea how) judges that when a kid hits 18, they are an adult who can choose to die in battle or from lung and mouth cancer and yet can't relax with a cheap wine cooler after a hard day working at McDonald's (sorry, cheap jab), it just seems to be an odd boundary.
Another point pushed by this camp is the "forbidden fruit" idea wherein underage kids drink so much because it is something that is rebellious and that if it were legal, the amount of young binge drinkers would drop. While there might be some validity in this argument, I'm not too sure how well it holds up. For one, it's more of a responsibility/maturity issue than a legal one, young kids have no problem getting ahold of alcohol as is, so making it easier to procure is kind of a solution to a non-problem.
On the other side of the argument are those who think that the legal age needs to remain the same and responsibility needs to be held to (at least in the article) college campuses and "of age" people to monitor and keep people from this binge drinking phenomenon (if you will). The problem I find with this argument is that it is what is allegedly already in place and seems to not quite work. The problem is deciding who exactly would be responsible. While the kids may indeed be at college, I don't think it is the college's job to watch kids and keep them "straight."
The answer that I can come up with is twofold. One is obvious, the other is pretty twisted and more than likely won't work. The first is to educate and raise kids right. Help them to learn that drinking (like everything) is best done in moderation. It's not something that is wrong and it's a fine thing to do (drink, that is) but it's something that can get out of control very easily and therefore boundaries need to be learned early on in order that overconsumption becomes the rarity and not (as it seems to be reported) the norm.
The second of my answers is the twisted one and deals with colleges: make them completely dry. That means not just a slap on the wrist, but full suspension/expulsion for drinkers. Yeah, it's really harsh and alcohol/drinking is supposedly a huge part of the college experience, but if we are expecting people to go to college in order to learn and not party, take away the party. I know this idea will never work, but it is also part of my whole theory that college is way too much of an emphasis in our culture as is. Kids are nearly forced to go and good jobs require some sort of higher education so we kind of bring this culture upon ourselves rather than providing alternate ways to get into the workforce.
Okay, I know that my second theory needs a lot of work and would probably never really work, so what needs fixing? What are other solutions? Should the legal age actually be dropped to 18?
No comments:
Post a Comment