Bottle Conditioned

MSNBC is reporting today on the growing surge of attention that the drinking age has been receiving as of late.  An increasingly vocal contingent of the population is proposing that the drinking age be lowered to 18, citing a lack of benefit to the current “over 21″ laws in place now.

I’ve got to say…I think I agree here.

I’ve thought for a long time, and will continue to stand by this point, that the restriction of alcohol to a certain group of people creates the reverse effect of what is intended.  If you make it harder to get, people who can’t have it will try harder to get it.  ‘Nuff said.

When I was around 18-19 years old, I occasionally drank with my parents.  Not often, but here and there.  Because of that, I never felt like I had to “sneak away” to drink and there was never any type of allure to it as something that was rebellious in nature.

Teenagers want to rebel.  Fact.  Why, I don’t know, but most do.  Drinking alcohol has to be one of the largest ways in which teenagers can rebel and “prove themselves as adults”.  The only reason that teenagers reach to drinking for this purpose is simply because they can’t do it.  If the option had always been there, it would quickly lose its stature as a rebellious act and teens would be less likely to turn to it as a display of adulthood.

Personally, I don’t think any drinking age is the solution.  By establishing a set age (and honestly, a quite arbitrary one) at which people can begin drinking, a social stratification is set into place artificially that immediate separates the public into a new group of “haves” and “have nots”.  By doing so, the stage is set for the “have nots” (those under the legal age) to pursue and desire to become equal.  Thusly, the age does nothing but increase a desire in the restricted group to break that restriction.

It starts with education.  Parents have to take responsibility.  In this nanny-state world we’re living in now, there still has to be some responsibility placed on parents to educate their children.  It’s their freaking job.  By limiting drinking to those above 21 (and 18, for that matter), parents don’t have the ability to truly educate their children about drinking, the dangers associated with it, and the responsibility that it commands. 

Furthering that, does it make sense for an individual’s first experience with alcohol to be at an age where they can drive after drinking?  If someone is drinking for the first time, doesn’t know their limits and isn’t accustomed to the effects of alcohol, how can they be expected to act responsibly even given the best intentions?  If the same person is exposed to alcohol at a younger age when driving isn’t a concern, that person has more of a chance of learning their tolerance and learning the responsibility involved while taking the dangerous act of operating a motor vehicle out of the equation.

So, am I saying that 8 year olds should drink?  No, not necessarily, but I’m saying that I think that’s a parenting decision, not a state decision. 

I’m shocked that this is even getting media coverage in a time when it seems the neo-prohibitionists of the world are becoming more and more vocal.  Perhaps it’ll make it into the ‘08 election, that would certainly be interesting.

What do you think?  Raise it, lower it, or get rid of it altogether?

Powered by ScribeFire.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!