27 October 2007: Up again, down again...the seesawing age to consume alcohol has evolved from "no such thing" to as old as 21-years of age. Twenty-one is the legal age in the United States, and doesn't account for 96 percent of teenagers here who have admitted taking a shot...or two or three... from the liquor cabinet down the hall from their bedroom. All of these teens are by law: Criminals.
As for the legal drinkers amongst us, if one group had its way we'd have to spend our evenings biting off our nails from stress-filled days here in the United States, when kicking back a few drinks certainly helps us cope with true ills of our day. But a rival organization to the prohibition movement now says the legal age to drink alcohol should again be lowered to 18 since the current age has failed to reduce alcohol consumption of the younger set. It is the view of this writer however that there should not be a drinking age. The decision must be left up to the drinker, the parent(s,) and the establishment that serves.
The oldest argument for lowering the drinking age (to 18 years old) is related to war games. If a boy is old enough to shoot and kill Iraqis, he sure as hell is old enough to cheer the killing with a shot of whiskey. Not so says the nation's parental watchdog group MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving.)
MADD calls the war ideology a myth.
"Many rights have different ages of initiation. You can get a hunting license at age 12, drive at 16, vote and serve in the military at 18, serve in the U.S. House of Representatives at 25, and serve as the U.S. President at 35," the group reported.
"In the case of alcohol, 21 is the minimum age because a person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s. Drinking alcohol while the brain is still developing can lead to long-lasting deficits in cognitive abilities, including learning and memory," the group reported.
If one were to believe MADD's argument: We shall trust a 12-year-old with a gun, but not with a shot of whiskey; and there is no way whatsoever 18-21 year olds have the brains to vote if they can't handle their liquor. But MADD doesn't address these points.
"...Not to mention that the early onset of drinking by youth significantly increases the risk of future health problems such as addiction," MADD contends.
There is no evidence from the Pentagon to suggest those brains supporting buzz cuts of military recruits are less developed at 18 or 21 based upon MADD's averages. However even the mighty Pentagon wouldn't attack mothers -- except for maybe Cindy Sheehan. No one in the United States dare speak against MADD without being taken to court for criminal intent...except for a new group out of Vermont calling itself Choose Responsibility and they have MADD hoping...well, mad.
MADD has been around for 27 years and carries corporate, political, and financial clout in Washington DC, and is a deeply rooted cause in the Christian Right movement. Choose Responsibility formed as a grassroots organization in 2007.
Choose Responsibility doesn't argue for 18-year-old warriors to drink simply because they've been trained to kill, but they did say that there is no scientific fact showing that drinking alcohol at the age of 18 (or any age for that matter) decreases brain power.
MADD's brain power argument, "represents a misinterpretation of sophisticated research. It dangerously oversimplifies the conclusions made by many neuroscientists who research the effects of alcohol on the adolescent brain," the group concluded.
All the moms at MADD have had their share of free publicity, candle light vigils, and roadside memorials trashing the nation's highways with litter ribbons...and the group claims sole responsibility for lowering drunk-driving related fatalities in the United States since 1980, a claim the Government Accountability Office doesn't buy. MADD, with its extremely liberal let-us-think-for-you value system, doesn't seem to take into account that their awareness campaign alone has in fact made people think before driving drunk. So, call it a win and go home now.
The group Choose Responsibility takes a new approach though, one deeply rooted in traditional conservative values, by keeping government out of your life and allowing those of 18 years old to consume alcohol after understanding the powers of drink. The group contends raising the drinking age had no impact on drinking behavior, but educating younger citizens about alcohol stands a better chance of success.
"The law has failed at actually preventing young people from drinking. In fact the average age of first drink has actually decreased since legal age 21 was implemented (in 1984) and has held steady around 14 years of age," Choose Responsibility concluded.
Neither group discusses why someone drinks (or over-drinks) alcohol in the first place, which is a typical side-step practiced in the stressed out United States. People drink to escape from the same let-me-tell-you-how-to-live society MADD and the Christian Right government dictates.
MADD's CEO Chuck Hurley formed a coalition to combat threats posed by Choose Responsibility by teaming up with the American Medical Association, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in support of keeping the legal drinking age at 21. In a press conference announcing the partnership, Hurley decided that lowering the drinking age to 18 would in fact automatically lead to binge drinking and roadside deaths across the United States.
Hurley charges that Choose Responsibility distorts the facts and endangers the lives of drivers.
Choose Responsibility argues that if either of the two groups were to challenge abusive drinking habits, they should be discussing these habits across the board -- not only when automobiles are involved. So, Choose Responsibility has the right idea -- they just don't go far enough to open dialog on why someone needs six shots instead of only one.
While the debate continues on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers aren't likely to side with changing the federal drinking age, states do hold the right to set the age.
Taking that one step further, on 6 November 2007, Iowa City, IA, will vote to further raise the age for which patrons may enter a drinking establishment. If the vote passes, bar owners would kick out those under the age of 21 when prime drinking hours usually occur. That means, 20-year-old Peter, who is having bottled water with his 23-year-old date Cynthia would have to leave the establishment. Cynthia will stick around though and find another corn husker before the night is through.
The issue in Iowa was rooted in a Harvard University study that found seven in 10 University of Iowa students engaged in binge drinking -- which has nothing at all to do with a bar's business hours. Students will drink in the dormitory if they can't go out, and are more likely to drink in excess because they see the bottle is still half-full.
The Harvard students who conducted the study consider themselves to be a cut-above their peers in Iowa and don't binge drink on campus in Massachusetts. They are too busy schmoozing for their first hedge fund job on Wall Street.
###
---This content is copyrighted by Think &
Ask, reproduction of any kind is not permitted without written
consent.---
