TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do Harsh US drinking laws lead to more illegal drug use?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/c...6edmcos16p4.asp
Forum: Neoprohibitionists on a binge
Puritans who want to sequester young people from alcohol are actually undermining the cause of responsible drinking
Sunday, June 16, 2002
By Gerald K. McOscar
I first heard the word "neo-prohibition" used in casual conversation about 10 years ago while on my first date with an attractive, self-assured court reporter who had attracted my attention during a routine deposition. The fact that she enjoyed a good joke and an occasional beer added to her cachet.
Our get-acquainted conversation about assorted stuff and nonsense on our way to Philadelphia revealed that we had much in common. A farm girl, she was of a conservative mind, being especially passionate about personal autonomy tethered to personal responsibility. She labeled the then-burgeoning push to curb underage drinking faddish neo-prohibition, predicting that it would fail because it took no account of human nature and what it meant to be young. She was right.
Since then, a plethora of laws, regulations and zero-tolerance policies administered by cowed and clueless bureaucrats spurred by a need to cover their butts and appease an army of latter-day prohibitionists, politicians and opportunists have dictated compulsory abstinence for young adults under age 21.
No responsible adult would encourage binge drinking among young people, but these overwrought efforts to protect them from demon rum has accomplished little except to ensure that they remain forever children in a hermetically sealed world insulated from real life.
In a new study the National Institutes of Health discovered that college students drink a lot. Is it any wonder? Harsh laws and draconian penalties have driven teen-agers away from the watchful eyes of parents and responsible adults and toward other drugs, while adding the allure of forbidden fruit to alcohol's timeless allure.
Parents who wish to teach responsible drinking are stigmatized or prosecuted and cultural differences discounted or ignored. The combination of pent-up demand, the first exhilarating taste of freedom and prolonged adolescence readily accounts for so-called college binge drinking.
The spirit of puritanism coupled with a low grade anti-capitalist fever flourishes in America, particularly around guilty pleasures like drinking, smoking, SUVs and businesses profiting therefrom. Recently Columba University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse erroneously reported that "underage" drinkers between the ages of 12 and 20 consumed 25 percent of all alcoholic beverages ingested in the United States before reluctantly acknowledging that the true figure is closer to 11 percent.
Most of the "underage" drinking in America is actually done by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, technically underage, but old enough to vote and serve in the military.
The NIH study proposes harsher enforcement and restricted access, but The Wall Street Journal notes that the study doesn't suggest the most sensible approach: make collegiate drinking safe and legal by lowering the age to 19. Binge drinking became a "problem" in 1986 when the federal government forced states to raise the drinking age to 21.
When young adults are treated like hothouse flowers, with alcohol completely off-limits to anyone under 21, it's little wonder they have trouble learning to drink responsibly.
Winston Churchill proclaimed his "rule of life prescribes as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and the intervals between them."
In his will John Harvard, founder of Harvard University, bequeathed "one half of my worldly goods" to the establishment of a college of brewing science, "confident that it will aid in the establishment of a better regulated and nobler commonwealth than has hitherto blessed this earth."
Recent research by University of Calgary economist Christopher Auld indicates that light drinkers and teetotalers earn about 10 percent less than heavy and moderate drinkers. While warning against drawing any premature conclusions, Auld stresses that the "alcohol-income puzzle" has been "well known among economists for a decade."
Lawmakers and educators should stop treating young adults like children and, like Churchill and Harvard, acknowledge the social and health benefits of responsible, moderate drinking. Nations that teach children moderation over abstinence, such as France, Spain and Italy, may have higher overall rates of alcohol consumption, but far lower rates of alcoholism and alcohol-related diseases.
Truth, reason and common sense, not hyperbole, harsher laws and tighter screws, are the antidotes for binge drinking. Here's a scary thought. In light of the current anti-alcohol fervor on America's college campuses, would either Churchill or Harvard survive a semester?
These laws that "protect" citizens until they are 21 from alcohol, are utterly bullshit (excuse the language).
My flippin' neighbor is a drug dealer. With all the problems with drugs and kids, you would think they would want to protect them more from that. As a young child in sixth grade I had access to drugs easier than alcohol.
With the laws intact about not being able to purchase/drink alcohol until you are 21, most 18-20 year olds turn to drugs to get that high instead of alcohol, since they cannot get any.
All over the world, people can drink at the age of 18. What the hell is wrong with America?!
My cousin is visiting from Poland. He is 19. Long used to drinking (I bought alcohol there from the age of 14), and he can't even sip a beer.
My sister visited with her husband. They went to Disney. She forgot her passport that stated her age of 22. She tried to take a sip from her husbands beer, and nearly got kicked out of Disney.
These laws are ridiculous, and are only leading people to drugs.
How can you be considered an adult at 18 if you are still treated like a child?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by surferfb The 21 drinking age may be unconstitutional. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ p.s I'll contact the ACLU about this case |
| quote: |
| ACLU Praises Ruling as Major Civil Liberties Victory for Young Adults FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DETROIT - In a ruling that will impact young adults throughout the state, a federal judge ruled that Bay City police may no longer force pedestrians under age 21 to take a Breathalyzer test without obtaining a search warrant, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan announced today. "This is a tremendous victory for the civil liberties of young adults," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "For years, police officers throughout Michigan have violated the rights of countless college students and others under the age of 21 by forcing them to submit to breathalyzers without a warrant. We expect other law enforcement jurisdictions to heed the Bay City ruling." The case stems from an encounter involving Jamie Spencer, a Bay City resident, with the Bay City police in August 2001, when she was 19 years old. She, her husband and some friends were leaving a city park after rollerblading, when two officers approached Mrs. Spencer and demanded that she blow into a Breathalyzer machine. She told the officers that she had not been drinking and did not want to take the test. However, when the officers threatened her with a $100 fine, she felt she had no choice. The test indicated that she had not been drinking. "Even though I had done nothing wrong, the police invaded my privacy," said Mrs. Spencer. "I am glad that because of this decision, the police will not harass innocent young people in the future by forcing them into such a demeaning situation." In a 23-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge David M. Lawson struck down the Bay City ordinance that makes it illegal for people under age 21 to refuse to consent to a Breathalyzer test. The ruling does not apply to drivers of motor vehicles. Judge Lawson held that the ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment because (1) a breath test is a search, (2) the Fourth Amendment ordinarily prohibits searches without search warrants, and (3) no exceptions to the search warrant requirement apply. Judge Lawson further emphasized that "the right to be left alone in public places ranks high on the hierarchy of entitlements that citizens in a free society have come to expect - at least in the context of citizen-police encounters." Since the Bay City ordinance is identical to a statewide law, the decision will bring welcome relief to college students across the state, according to Jonathan Knapp, president of the Central Michigan University Chapter of the ACLU. "It is a well-known and common procedure on campuses across the state for the police to stop students walking across campus on weekend nights and force them to take Breathalyzers whether or not they have been drinking," said Knapp. "This is a great student rights decision." David Moran, an ACLU cooperating attorney, noted that Michigan is the only state in the nation to make it illegal for a minor walking down the street to refuse a Breathalyzer test when the police do not have a search warrant. "We are gratified that the federal court has recognized that the state cannot take away the privacy rights of people just because they are under 21." In addition to Moran, Mrs. Spencer is represented by Michael J. Steinberg, Legal Director of the ACLU of Michigan and William T. Street, a volunteer ACLU lawyer from Saginaw. |
this really isn't thaaaat big a deal. when i was 16 in the states i had a fake id to buy beer. the few times that cops caught us drinking they just dumped out the alcohol and said that they were happy we werent doing drugs.
the thing that is kinda fuked up is the massachusetts factor. in mass. they dont sell alcohol on sunday. so everyone drives to new hampshire to get it. there's a liquor store right on the highway as you cross the state line. so ppl are drinking on the way back. how fucking stupid. it's pretty similar to the montreal and upstate NY/vermont thing.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 'mju:zik the thing that is kinda fuked up is the massachusetts factor. in mass. they dont sell alcohol on sunday. so everyone drives to new hampshire to get it. there's a liquor store right on the highway as you cross the state line. so ppl are drinking on the way back. how fucking stupid. it's pretty similar to the montreal and upstate NY/vermont thing. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PHALPAX You can buy booze on sunday now in Mass. The state legislature changed the law recently because alcohol vendors here were getting their ass kicked by N.H. in terms of sales. |
The drinking laws in America are stupid, in The Netherlands you can buy beer when you are 16, you can even buy it in the regular stores (stores like K-Mart) You have to be 18 to buy hard liquor, but they never ask so you can buy it when you are 14 or 15 years old.
I was in America and Canada 2 years ago and I wasn't allowed to walk around the camping site with a can of beer in my hands, I was lucky my parents told me cause otherwise I could have been in trouble.
I just think it is silly that you can drive a car when you are 16 years old, but you have to be 21 to buy beer. I think that it is much wiser to let young people get used to alcohol first, and then let them get a drivers license. I believe that there are a lot of drunk driving incidents in the States, and I think that this is the reason why. The teens don't know what alcohol does to your body, they think that 2, 3 or even 4 beers don't matter. Because they don't have any experience with alcohol, but they allready have their drivers license for 4 or 5 years, which makes them think that they are awsome drivers
hope I made any sense 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 'mju:zik this really isn't thaaaat big a deal. when i was 16 in the states i had a fake id to buy beer. the few times that cops caught us drinking they just dumped out the alcohol and said that they were happy we werent doing drugs. the thing that is kinda fuked up is the massachusetts factor. in mass. they dont sell alcohol on sunday. so everyone drives to new hampshire to get it. there's a liquor store right on the highway as you cross the state line. so ppl are drinking on the way back. how fucking stupid. it's pretty similar to the montreal and upstate NY/vermont thing. |
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-inf...1064263072.html
Responses to Arguments against the Minimum Legal Drinking Age
by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.
The federal government is spending taxpayer money in a questionable political campaign to defend the minimum drinking age against attempts in some states to lower it. In �Responses to Arguments against the Minimum Drinking Age,� the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) identifies arguments against the minimum legal drinking age and then suggests counter arguments. But in doing so, it plays fast and loose with the facts, a common tactic in politics.
Argument: �If I�m old enough to go to war, I should be old enough to drink�
Actually the argument is much stronger than the NIAAA acknowledges. The fact is that citizens are legally adults at the age of 18. They can marry, vote, adopt children, own and drive automobiles, have abortions, enter into legally binding contracts, operate businesses, purchase or even perform in pornography, give legal consent for sexual intercourse, fly airplanes, hold public office, serve on juries that convict others of murder, hunt wildlife with deadly weapons, be imprisoned, be executed, be an employer, sue and be sued in court, and otherwise conduct themselves as the adults they are. And, of course, they can serve in the United States armed services and give their lives defending their country. One of the very few things they can�t legally do is consume an alcohol beverage. They can�t even have a celebratory sip of champagne at their own weddings.
Counter-Argument: Federal agents suggest pointing out that people can obtain a hunting license at age 12 and a driver�s license at age 16. Ironically, this actually strengthens the argument against treating legal adults as children with regard to alcohol beverages. People can hunt wildlife with a deadly weapon at age 12 but can be trusted with a beer at age 20?
The government also suggests pointing out that people must be 25 to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, 30 to serve in the Senate, and 35 to serve as President. But these unusual restrictions were imposed well over two hundred years ago in a new country that was still largely reluctant to grant rights and in which neither women nor African Americans were trusted to vote. We�re now in the 21st century enjoying widespread rights and also a time when young people are infinitely more sophisticated.
Clearly, the agency�s arguments are extremely weak and unconvincing.
Argument: �Europeans let their teens drink from an early age, yet they don�t have the alcohol-related problems we do.�
Counter-Argument: The NIAAA responds that �the idea that Europeans do not have alcohol-related problems is a myth.� But no one suggests that Europeans have no drinking-related problems. Here the agency is guilty of using the straw person tactic.... create a very weak argument and then shoot it down.
In reality, research for decades has demonstrated that those countries and groups in Europe and elsewhere in which most people regularly drink but have few drinking-related problems all share three common characteristics:
Alcohol is seen as a rather neutral substance in and of itself. It�s neither a poison nor a magic elixir. Its how its used thats important.
People have two equally acceptable choices:
-Abstain or
-Drink in moderation.
What�s never acceptable is the abuse of alcohol by anyone of any age. Period.
People learn about drinking alcohol in moderation from an early age in the safe and supportive environment of the home, and they do so by good parental example. All of these groups would agree that it�s better to learn about drinking in the parents� house than in the fraternity house.
Age 21 is actually the highest minimum legal drinking age in the entire world and is a radical social experiment both internationally and in terms of our own national history. Those who call for all adults to be able to drink are traditionalists; whereas those who insist on age 21 are radicals.
Argument: Lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19-to 20-year-olds aren�t related to the age 21 policy, but rather they�re related to increased drinking-driver educational efforts, tougher enforcement, and tougher drunk-driving penalties.�
Counter-Argument: The agency wants us to argue that �Careful research has shown the decline was not due to DUI enforcement and tougher penalties, but is a direct result of the legal drinking age� and that �Achieving long-term reductions in youth drinking problems requires an environmental change so that alcohol is less accessible to teens.�
However, there are a number of weaknesses in what the bureaucrats want us to say. It�s true that lower rates of alcohol-related traffic accidents now occur among drivers under the age of 21. But they�ve also been declining among those age 21 and older, with one notable exception.
Raising the minimum legal drinking age has resulted in an apparent displacement of large numbers of alcohol-related traffic fatalities from those under the age of 21 to those age 21 to 24. In short, raising the drinking age simply changed the ages of those killed.
The argument that we need to make alcohol less accessible to adults under the age of 21 fails to recognize the fact, well established by governmental surveys, that its easier for young people to obtain marijuana than alcohol.
It�s also foolish to think that effective prohibition can be imposed on young adults. The U.S. already tried that with the entire population during National Prohibition (1920-1933). The result was less frequent drinking but more heavy, episodic drinking. The effort to impose prohibition on young adults has driven drinking underground and promoted so-called binge drinking. This is a natural and totally predictable consequence of prohibition.
Argument: �We drank when we were young and we grew out of it. It�s just a phase that all students go through.�
Counter-Argument: Interestingly, NIAAA wants us to argue that �Unfortunately, many teens will not �grow out of it�.� Implicit is the belief that adults should not consume alcohol even when legally able to do so. The agency apparently envisions a society in which abstention from alcohol is the norm, a vision that it shares with temperance and prohibition advocates.
While not all students will try alcohol, virtually all normal young people will do so and they will do so without ill effects. But NIAAA wants us to promote the discredited and simplistic �steppingstone� hypothesis that suggests that drinking leads to smoking which leads to marijuana, which leads to crack, which leads to cocaine, which leads to degradation and illness, which leads to death.
Argument: �Making it illegal to drink until 21 increases the desire for the �forbidden fruit.� Then, when students turn 21, they�ll drink even more.�
Counter-Argument: NIAAA wants us to assert incorrectly that �Actually the opposite is true. Early legal access to alcohol is associated with higher rates of drinking as an adult.�
In reality, research has clearly demonstrated the �forbidden fruit� phenomenon among adults under the age of 21. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the increased desire to drink continues after students turn 21. In fact, upon turning age 21, many adults find that it�s no longer so much fun to get into bars and drink precisely because it is legal for them to do so.
Observation
While the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism may be guilty of presenting deceptive and misleading arguments in promoting the current minimum legal drinking age, a larger question is the legitimacy of the agency to intrude itself into public and political debates. Perhaps greater congressional oversight of the agencies activities is in order.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz Compared to all the problems in the world, no it's really not a big deal. But, based on personal experience, and all that I've read, it's my belief that these harsh laws make young people in America drink more abusively, interfere with parenting traditions of Italians, Greeks, Jews, etc who live in the country, and lead young people to use more dangerous drugs that are more easily accessable to them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ-Fuq No illegal drug is more dangerous than alcohol. |
uhm ok
that what i think is funny ...
"But retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the former U.S. "drug czar," believes marijuana is a steppingstone to harder drugs.
"We don't agree that marijuana is a benign drug. We think it leads to dysfunctional behavior, it requires effective drug treatment and we want to see high social disapproval of marijuana use," McCaffrey told Downtown .
He has called Dutch drug policy "an unmitigated disaster," and says that half the teenagers entering drug treatment programs in the United States are chronic abusers of marijuana. "
Of course American knows better then the dutch itself
American comments just pisses me off
Uhm
In Hungary the age limnit for drinking is like 16 , but when i was 12 my dad used to sent me to the store to buy him a beer, no cashiers told me that i cant buy that beer, they asked me " Is it for your dad?" , also i was 14 we and my friends used to go tothis local pub, thing and nobody asked us if we are 16, so at age 14 my friends allways drank red wine with coke mixed drink, in Hungary everybody said, " one glas of wine is healthy."
Plus in Hungary , dads allways take they kids out to easter shower, and there everybody ask the lil 8-9-10 years old kids if they want a glass of wine . Also on new years eve my parents allways gave us champagne on new years eve , i was drinking shampaing first when i was like 4-5 years old.
But still you wont see 14-15-16 years old kids tunning around puking or being stupid. I think in Hungary we have a culture of drinking . Age doesnt matter in Hungary, becouse parents let kids drink and the goverment knows , evevrybody has they own freedom to decide if they let they kids drink or not
ops
sorry about my spelling, im just too tired to go over and check out the mistakes
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus sure, keep telling yourself that over and over... you'll be juuuusst fine |
Re: uhm ok
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardstyle He has called Dutch drug policy "an unmitigated disaster," and says that half the teenagers entering drug treatment programs in the United States are chronic abusers of marijuana. " |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus actually this sort of connects to this debate; I am taking a class here this semster (Pyschology of Advertising) which is being conducted by a professor who actually has studied the effects of the USA's antidrug campagin, and found that it actually promotes illegal drug use then prevent it as intended (this is what he did his graduate thesis on, and it got him to do the circut on the TV news shows). |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.