TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do Harsh US drinking laws lead to more illegal drug use?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Do Harsh US drinking laws lead to more illegal drug use?

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/index.html

Why young people need to vote.....

quote:

Promoting Marijuana Use? Beer is actually harder for teens to buy than marijuana, according to a national survey of 1,000 individuals under the age of 21. The results are also supported by a study conducted several years ago among high school students. By imposing strong measures to prevent anyone under the age of 21 from consuming any alcohol, we may nintentionally be encouraging the use of more easily-obtainable marijuana. Source: The National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse VII: Teens, Parents and Siblings. Conducted by QEV Analytics Interviews for the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse For earlier study, see http://csdp.org/ads/children.htm/.

quote:

Report to Congress on Underage Drinking The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report to Congress on underage drinking indicates that current alcohol laws treat adults age 18, 19 and 20 as children. The Academy stresses that it is difficult to explain convincingly to anyone why alcohol is acceptable to those who have celebrated their 21st birthday but is not acceptable for those who haven�t, The NAS also explains that the problem is exacerbated because the age of majority is higher for alcohol than it is for any other right or privilege defined by adulthood.� Source: National Academy of Sciences and National Institute of Medicine. Reducing Underage Drinking - A collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences and National Institute of Medicine, 2003.

you have to be 21 to buy alcohol?!

you poor bastards

^^
Indeed. I don't even drink (well that much) and I can't go see Chris Fortier in my own town (I'm a 19y/o adult). I don't have a problem with a private establishment setting whatever age limits they want. My problem is with the law and the neoprohibitionist zealots who lobby for these harsh laws. I doubt my opinion would change even if I were 30 years old.

quote:

Protecting the Innocent It is common practice for desigmated drivers and other abstainers under the age of 21 to be arrested and charged with illegal possession of alcohol when a party is raided. This practice discourages designated drivers and, in so doing, unintntionallly promotes drunk driving and related tragedies that can result. The practice both violates individual rights and is counterproductive, a bad combination for public policy. Now, a Montana state legislator, Jesse Leslovich, has proposed legislation to amend the state's underage drinking law to give non-drinking partygoers immunity when police arrest the drinkers. The bill wouldn't permit police to charge someone with underage possession just because that person is in the company of others who have been consuming alcohol. "We should not be punishing those who are obeying the law," sais Laslovich. That seems reasonable, but not to some alcohol activists. For example, one activist objected that the law would make it hard for police to prove who was drinking and who was not when a party is raided. His solution -- let's continue to define all of those present, including designated drivers, as guilty. That makes enforcement much easier. Yes, ignoring guilt or innocence certainly would make law enforcement easier. In addition to making mere association with drinkers by young people a crime, alcohol activists heavily promote involuntary alcohol tests for young people, censorship of alcohol ads and similar jackboot actions. Our alcohol activists would find plenty of support from numerous dictators and tyrants, past and present. But who would want to live in such a police state? Unfortunately, no cost seems too high to many alcohol activists as they attempt to impose their alcohol-free utopia. Source: Young Lawmaker Wants to Change Underage Drinking Law. Helena, MT: Associated Pres, Jan. 14, 2003.

The stupidist thing I've ever read in my entire life:

quote:

8 Year Prison Sentence A husband and wife recently threw a birthday party for their son at their house and unwisely served some alcohol to the teens in attendance. The young people had a good time and fortunately no one was injured, got into an auto accident, or suffered any ill-effects. But the large party got loud enough for some neighbors to call the police. The parents were arrested and each was sentenced to eight years in prison.... a total of 16 years in prison for the couple. It is clearly both illegal and unwise to serve alcohol to anyone else's child, even with parental permission, snd even if the "child" is an adult under the age of 21. Source: Penalty should shock us sober (editorial). The Daily Progress (VA), 2-12-03.

FFS

Why are the marijuana laws often less harsh than alcohol laws?

I'll never understand.

GG Virginia.


p.s I'll contact the ACLU about this case

"8 Year Prison Sentence"
omfg. that is a law similar to having your hands amputated for shoplifting.

i think it's an unwritten law with police in aus. that if you get caught with alcohol under 15, your parents get a phonecall, over 15 no one gives a shit

i'm curious to know the sociocultural effects of legalised marijuana and the youth in holland:

quote:

The age minimum to purchase marijuana or hashish (a drug made from hemp) is 18, and the daily limit is 5 grams (.2 ounces), which is the equivalent of about five joints. The goal is to try to keep young people in particular away from the criminal drug environment that may get them involved with the harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. All Holland is doing is acting on pharmacological evidence that in terms of its acute and long-term affects, marijuana is a remarkably benign drug. http://www.masscann.org/News/articl...8_29_2001_a.htm

i think all countries should follow their lead

The biggest obstacles are large well funded neoprohibition groups in the US.

That's not to mention the lawmakers:

quote:

Congressional DWIs It appears that dozens of members of Congress each and every year escape DWI arrests by invoking their congressional priviledge of immunity (Article one, Section 6). The priviledge was originally provided over 200 years ago to protect members of Congress from politically-motivated arrests made in an effort to prevent then from voting or otherwise performing their official duties. The priviledge of immunity serves no useful purpose today and is an affront to law-abiding citizens. There are many pressures that could be applied to discourage it outrageous misuse. For example, the use of the priviledge by a senator or representative from a state could be used to lower that states score used by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in calculating the state's annual "grade." Unfortunately, MADD insists on remaining completely silent on the issue. Apparently, the organization, which receives massive taxpayer funding from Congress, doesn't want to ruffle feathers and jeopardize a rich source of income.

Hypocrites.

Let's not forget Bush who drank and drugged himself stupid when he was younger (and has a criminal record for drunk driving). LOL I remember the scandal with his daughters 'underage drinking' and most of the rest of the world was like, "So what?" I actually went to high school with them, but didn't know them.

actually if your looking for blame to place on why the drug laws are as such, your better off critizing the Drug Cartels, and the Pharmesuticals then the "neoprohibtionist" if your looking up a tree to bark conspiracy...

quote:

Originally posted by tathi you have to be 21 to buy alcohol?! you poor bastards

Thats why I've moved to the UK.

You moved to the UK just for the drinkin'?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ The stupidist thing I've ever read in my entire life: FFS Why are the penalties for marijuana use harsher than their alcohol laws? I'll never understand. GG Virginia.

LOL sorry.

I meant to say this:

Why are the marijuana laws often less harsh than alcohol laws?

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).

quote:

actually if your looking for blame to place on why the drug laws are as such, your better off critizing the Drug Cartels, and the Pharmesuticals then the "neoprohibtionist" if your looking up a tree to bark conspiracy...

i was talking to a psychiatrist on the weekend (not as a client :P) about a very similar concept. He believed drug laws are dogmatic and hypocritical and explained the dangers of legally available SSRI drugs etc. I also heard a rare side effect of valium is complete permanant loss of all bodily skin, soon followed by death, i assume by dehydration and infection, not the most glamorous way to die..

Interesting article:

quote:

http://tuberose.com/Drugs.html Street drugs kill only 10% as many people every year, as legal, prescription drugs (6-times more than those Americans killed in the Vietnam War). Americans are dying, one every three to five minutes, from the effects of FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs, used as directed!

quote:

Trail Blazers forward Randolph pleads guilty to underaged drinking September 26, 2003 MARION, Ind. (AP) - Portland Trail Blazers forward Zach Randolph pleaded guilty Friday in his home town to a charge of underaged drinking. Randolph was 20 when he was arrested over the Memorial Day weekend in 2002 after city police stopped the sport utility vehicle he was driving because it matched the description of one they were seeking. Police said Randolph's blood-alcohol content was less than half the state's legal limit to drive of 0.08 per cent. Randolph, who is now 21, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour count of possession of alcohol by a minor and was fined $1 US by Judge Thomas Hunt and ordered to pay $134 in court costs. He also will serve up to 60 days of informal probation, meaning he does not have to report to a probation officer and can leave the state. Grant County Prosecutor James Luttrull Jr. said the agreement with Randolph was in line with what other defendants would have received. "I simply wanted him to acknowledge his wrongdoing and plead guilty," Luttrull said. "I had several people asking me to dismiss the case, but I didn't want to do that. On the other hand, just because he's Zach Randolph doesn't mean he should get a $500 fine." Randolph attended the hearing, accompanied by a few family members and his lawyer. The judge went through the procedure quickly, wrapping up in just a few minutes. The six-foot-nine Randolph was a first-round pick of the Trail Blazers in the 2001 NBA draft after he played just one season at Michigan State. He averaged 8.4 points and 4.5 rebounds for Portland last season.

LOL. $1 is quite a bit less than 8 years in prison...


That judge's heart is in the right place.

8 years for giving little alcohol to teens????? That judge really lacks the common sense and has an iq whose number is the same as my shoe size.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 8 years for giving little alcohol to teens????? That judge really lacks the common sense and has an iq whose number is the same as my shoe size.

Not to mention he took away the kid's parents for 8 years.

- Im 19, live in Miami, where the WMC happens, all the big name DJ's that each TA dreams of seen.. I missed Armin van Buuren Friday, because the bouncer was an ass and took away my ID ( ye ye fake but .. but it was Armin ).. and tired of all this crap, all the government is doing is making US more inmature.. kids will never mature if all thise laws are imposed.. loook at england or all the other countries in the world, and the problems that we supposedly face here, they dont ( in terms of 18+ clubs and such ).. It's sick and tireing..

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Im 19, live in Miami, where the WMC happens, all the big name DJ's that each TA dreams of seen.. I missed Armin van Buuren Friday, because the bouncer was an ass and took away my ID ( ye ye fake but .. but it was Armin ).. and tired of all this crap, all the government is doing is making US more inmature.. kids will never mature if all thise laws are imposed.. loook at england or all the other countries in the world, and the problems that we supposedly face here, they dont ( in terms of 18+ clubs and such ).. It's sick and tireing..

I've studied a lot about this subject, and to be honest the UK is a terrible example of a country to emulate in terms of drinking culture. The young people there binge drink even more than we in America. I don't think it has anything to do with the drinking age there, but more the culture.

The problem is not with alcohol consumption itself, because it's been shown in dozens of studies from around the world that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers and (much) longer than bingers.
They also have lower risk of heart disease and stroke.
The problem is to figure out the best way to encourage responsible and more moderate drinking. Talking from personal experience, I have friends and cousins who used to binge a lot, and when they became legal they drank more often but binged less.

I just find it hypocritical that in the USA you are tried as an adult at 18 (or sometimes even 17), and there are US soldiers in Iraq who are 19 and 20 years old getting shot at who are treated as kids in their own country. I think at least those who would take a bullet for their country (those in the military) should be treated as adults, but that's only my personal opinion.

- Yeah, well, I have no research on the drinking, I know that Ibiza is all garbaged down by the English when they go to the island, they get trashed badly.. but besides that, I dont know much about that. Im not a drinker, I dont drink, in fact, I hate beer, I cant stand it, what I do is drink moderately some "Sex on the Beach" or any deli drink, but that would be like 2-3 at most a night.. I barely drink 2 though. But when it comes down to clubbing, 21+, is just stupid, but understandable, sadly, in a society like the US has. In Miami it used to be 18+ like 4-5 yeras ago, but since the 18 year old couldn't behave, they changed all the laws..

Story from the UK:

quote:

UK Addiction Expert Calls for Increased Drinking Age 9/29/2003 A leading addiction expert in the United Kingdom has called on government officials to increase the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, the BBC reported Sept. 11. Professor Colin Drummond, a consultant psychiatrist who is advising the government on alcohol matters, said, "Certainly, in America where this has been done, there has been a significant reduction in, for example, alcohol-related road deaths." Drummond said that alcohol misuse among 18- to 24-year-olds in the last 12 years is up 32 percent for men and 70 percent for women. "About a third of men and a fifth of women are now drinking above the government's safe drinking levels," he noted. Drummond also said the government should require health warnings, similar to those on cigarette packs, on alcohol bottles and cans.

It's a fact that the vast majority of those who cause drunken driving crashes (at least in the US) are middle aged men, and not young people. The evidence he's referring to does not conclusively show that raising the legal age to 21 in the states is the cause of reduced alcohol-related vehicle crashes among teens from the 1980's to the 1990's. Indeed there were many different factors that could have contributed to this decline including:

-greater awareness of the dangers of drunk driving among Americans
-implementation/utilization of designated sober drivers among society
-improved safety of autos
-increased use of seatbelts
-increased utilization of taxi services (which often give people free rides home if they have too much to drink)
-the number of people drinking in the country has been on the decline


All that is not to mention the fact that there were sharp declines in alcohol-related vehicle crashes across all age groups (not just teens) in this time span. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that raising the drinking age in the States may have helped reduce teen vehicle crashes, or it may not have because of all the other variables. (It certainly didn't hurt of course)


It seems to me that if young people have to drive out to the woods or to a friends house for a keg party instead of going to a bar they will not be able to use the free "safe ride home" taxi services offered for people in most cities' bar/club/entertainment districts. Thus they would be more likely to drive drunk. Raising the drinking age doesn't stop drinking by teens, it only pushes it underground in an unsupervised environment where there are only like-aged individuals who perpetuate the same mentality of binging. Better to drink in a public place like a restaurant where it's not socially acceptable to puke on the ground, don't you think? Besides this law is discriminatory on the basis of age, and you have the laughable situation of two people who can legally get married at 18 but are illegal to drink champaign at their own wedding!

The last state to raise their drinking age from -21 to +21 was Louisiana. The state supreme court even ruled that the higher age was unconstitutional on the basis of age, but the anti-alcohol groups are masters at manipulating the media. The media pressure caused the court to later reverse it's decision. In New Orleans they hardly seem to enforce the law however.


Despite all these gains in reducing alcohol-related morbidity on the roads in the last few decades, the US still leads the world in the number of people killed or maimed in alcohol related vehicle crashes. This is probably due to the fact that:

-almost everyone drives from the age of 15-17 years old
-the country is more spread out than other countries and has more roads
-thus public transportaion/walking to licensed establishments is less practcal
-we have a larger population than most other countries



-I should also add that all the U.S. territories that I'm aware of (Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands etc) are still 18+ drinking age

I think it has clearly been shown that as far as drugs go, making something illegal does not lower usage rates. Instead it created subcultures, and groups based around the illegal activity, which are much harder to control because their outside the mainstream.

Since we are talking about drinking here I think the mainstream obviouselly involves going to a bar or club and the underground involves someones house, a park, etc. In a bar if you've had to much to drink the bar can, and often will refuse to serve you. In another situation people can keep drinking until they run out of alchohol. In a bar the bartender can, and again often will take away your keys so you cant drive home. In another situation you have noone to stop you. If we want to look at a very extreme example another point is that in a bar if you drink enough to suffer from alchohol poisoning you have sober people there with a responcibility to get help, in another situaiton you often do not.

Here in Canada the drinking age varies from province to province, but is I believe either 18 or 19 throughout. Penalties imposed are again provincial so I am only speaking for Ontario, but like most things, not nearly as strict as in the U.S. Here one of three things will happen: they will either been taken home (as happened to me on one occasion), ticketed which is the most common thing, or in a real extreme taken to and put in a cell over night to sober up. I am not actually sure if the law gives them any more power then this but these are the only things I have ever heard of happening. I think the only place you can really run into trouble is if you are caught trying to buy alchohol with either a faked government ID, or an altered one. I believe that can actually be considered to be a semi-serious crime.

Another problem posed by some of the drinking laws is that it gives police extensive powers to violate peoples civil rights. Police will often hassle people and search them simply on the basis they are hanging out and look or sell intoxiated.

As for the leading to more illegal drug use, I think that this is quite possibly true. Before I ever really drank I had smoked pot and taken mushrooms, and they were both more available. That being said had alchohol been available I am in no way sure that I would of used it instead of pot, which was the main drug I did at the time.

I think that 18-20 year olds are considered second class citizens in the US. The 21 drinking age may be unconstitutional. Equal protection of the laws, if we become citizens at 18, the laws are discriminating on because of age. Someone needs to start a movement b/c these poor kids in Iraq are getting shot at, but when they go home, they can't go get a beer at the bar.

quote:

Originally posted by surferfb I think that 18-20 year olds are considered second class citizens in the US.

I would tend to agree with that assertion.

To be completely honest though, I'd feel a bit ansy about 18 year olds being able to buy handguns or have handgun permits. Drinking is a different because it's a cultural issue, and alcohol is very much intertwined with youth culture. You can't legislate something like that away. As you can see the penalties for breaking alcohol related laws vary depending on where you are, and tend to be harsher in the more conservative areas (e.g. Virginia).

I totally agree about the soldiers who can't buy alcohol thing. It's an incredible hypocrisy that the US government would gleefully allow under 21 kids to go off and fight its wars, yet not allow them a little fun when they get home. "Second class citizen" is right for the 18-20 age group. I think that the US gov't believes it can take advantage of people that age. Sure, let them go to Iraq and risk their lives and get shot, but should these heroes be allowed to come home and have a drink with their buddies? No way, they're too young!

Here in Canada, when you become an adult (18 in Quebec and Alberta, 19 everywhere else), you get treated like one, instead of being given all the responsibilities at age 18 but none of the perks until you're 21.

Drunk driving fatalities have increased in the state of Vermont (Howard Dean's state) instead of decreased because of Vermont raising the drinking age, and Canada having a lower age:


http://www.house.gov/bernie/town_me...ighSchool3.html

quote:

CHELSEA DOWNING: Drunk driving has become a major problem in the small towns of northern Vermont. Just a year ago, four teens were killed in a car accident on their way back from Canada. Alcohol was proved to be a factor in this crash. Since the drinking age above the border is 18, teenagers drive to Montreal to enjoy bar-hopping with their friends. The driving coming home from the bars can be hazardous. How can these problems be prevented? The question has lingered in the minds of many, since the number of Vermont traffic deaths involving drunk drivers under 21 have increased. Stopping underaged drinking altogether is an extremely difficult task. If we can reduce the driving while young people are under the influence, serious deaths and injuries can be prevented. We need to focus on the driving aspect, because it yields much more serious consequences than just drinking alone. The teen curfew is one action the state legislature has discussed. The curfew will prevent drivers under 18 from being on the roads after 11 p.m. This would restrict inexperienced drivers from being on the road when the risk period is high. But it also restricts young people from doing normal things, such as going to movies or the drive-in, or simply getting together with their friends. People above 18 can still drive. These are the people who can drink legally in Montreal. This curfew will not affect these teens, who face a long drive home from the bars in Canada. We have proof that this trip can be fatal. The state of Vermont has recognized that we have a problem. Increased numbers of police officers, strict DWI laws, and teen curfews are a few of the things they are in charge of. These measures can help solve the problem, but what really will make the difference is what these teenagers are exposed to in their everyday lives. Their school, friends, and especially their parents are all responsible for the decisions they will have to make.

This is a similar result to limiting the amount of alcohol selling establishments. The people have to drive further, and are more apt to drive a longer way while intoxicated.

I have, in fact, been involved recently in a serious car accident because of drinking. Since we are underage (18), we had to go to the woods to drink because we had nowhere else to go. After drinking, we had to drive out of the woods (no other way to get back), and going only 15 miles per hour, we slid off of the road and rolled 10 times down an embankment, off of a 20 foot clay wall, and hit a tree to come to a stop. The driver suffered a broken collarbone and a broken arm, I suffered a cracked skull (after hitting the window with my head and breaking it) a 5 inch laceration in my right arm, 3 broken fingers, and misc. places with glass stuck into the skin, the person next to me suffered 3 broken ribs, a concussion, and a torn muscle in his back, and the person sitting next to the driver suffered a broken arm and 2 teeth knocked out. After it all we climbed out of the windshield (after reviving the person next to me, knocked out cold), we climbed back out of the area we were stuck in and called an ambulance. Luckily, no one died but many of us still have pain from the accident. Irresponsible, I know, but if we had had somewhere safe to drink, it would have never happened.

To sum it all up, I hope that someday, people of my age group can be treated as adults in full effect and not as, "of age yet still not old enough."

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHI...1203/news1.html

Good times go bad

>> School authorities bust New York teens for behaving like Montrealers


by KRISTIAN GRAVENOR

Anybody who has walked downtown on a weekend evening probably has a good idea that countless young American students regularly visit to sow their wild oats.

But a hushed-up scandal involving students from Blind Brook High School in posh Westchester County, New York, shows that such activities aren�t always meant to be on the travel itinerary. Thirty of 67 Blind Brook junior year students who spent the weekend of May 16 in Montreal have been put under on-campus lockdown. Their privileges have been revoked and they have been forced to attend counselling after visiting bars, going to strip clubs and playing video lottery terminals in our city, according to local reports.

The school is in a well-off suburb of New York City and, according to one town journalist, �95 per cent of the students from that school go on to elite colleges.� But their educational trip apparently included several extracurricular, unscheduled lessons in grown-up behaviour. On May 30, school superintendent William Miles told local television and print media that the students engaged in six forbidden activities, although he refused to name them.

Miles failed to return several phone messages left by the Mirror asking for more lurid details concerning the students� drunken merriment. One parent, reached by phone, said that the students had been instructed to not talk to media. The events happened even though students had been lectured by a police officer prior to the trip about the dire consequences of underage drinking.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan threatened to withhold federal funding to states that didn�t raise the legal drinking age to 21. All have now complied, making the USA the country with the world�s highest minimum drinking age. In contrast, in Quebec, people are not only legally allowed to order a drink at age 18 but are tacitly welcomed into some bars much earlier. When asked how often police raid bars for youth alcohol consumption, Montreal police rep Luc Belhumeur says it�s �almost never. There has to be a complaint to launch an investigation. Underage drinking isn�t something we get a lot of complaints about.�

Dry zeal

Some American experts question whether the strictly-enforced ban on alcohol consumption in the states is either legitimate or beneficial. David J. Hanson, a retired professor from nearby Syracuse University, has studied youth drinking and likes Montreal�s laissez-faire policies.

�I think it�s a sensible, common-sense European approach. What we�ve done in the U.S. is try to stigmatize alcohol,� he says. �There�s an effort to prevent drinking rather than prevent alcohol abuse.

�The zero tolerance policy is counter-productive. It�s a specific prohibition that leads youth to engage in heavy episodic drinking that leads them to car crashes,� he continues. He also notes that the policy has led to a rise on alcohol-related crashes between those aged 21 to 24. �We�ve simply displaced the problem and pushed those fatalities onto people who are older.�

Alex Koroknay-Palicz, the 21-year-old president of the Maryland-based National Youth Rights Association, also dislikes the age-specific prohibition. �The complete aversion to youth alcohol use is way over the top in this country,� he says. �For whatever reason, we have a complete aversion to youth alcohol use, even though pretty much all other countries in the world, including our neighbours, have much lower drinking ages and alcohol is handled much safer than here.�

Koroknay-Palicz says that throughout the States, police actively enforce the law through such methods as sting operations on beer sellers and by busting adult-supervised house parties where kids sleep over rather than drive home drunk.

�Even though America is "the land of the free," Canada seems to be far more free towards young people,� he says.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.