While I realize the following
essay is
controversial, I ask that those who
would criticize it please read it in full and, if you find it
distasteful,
please add a
writeup here containing a
thoughtful response, rather than
simply
downvoting or
flaming me.
Footnotes are indicated by
numbers in
curly brackets.
-----
The sheer
hypocrisy of the
underage drinking law is
overwhelming. I
cannot begin to describe how
harshly I look upon this
law; I have nothing
but
contempt for it. This law is nothing less than
oppression.
The common
arguments{1} for this law go:
"x number of lives were saved by raising the drinking age."
"x dollars were saved by raising the drinking age."
"There is a different age of initiation for everything."
These are, of course, gross
oversimplifications, but they capture the
gists fairly well.
Let us begin with the first two:
"x number of lives/dollars were saved by raising the drinking age."
I do not
contest these arguments directly, as they are quite
correct. Yet
I believe the same results can be achieved through different means. I propose
some
alternative solutions below.
More interesting is argument 3, as it strikes at the
crux of the hypocrisy
of drinking
age limits.
Argument 3 is correct in that there are different and
appropriate ages of
initiation for everything, yet it fails to address the
monumental
importance of being required to
serve the draft. Being asked to
give our
lives for our country carries with it
great responsibility and
sacrifice.
It is only
fair to expect that we give ourselves for the same
citzenship
that others enjoy{2}.
It was this
revelation that ultimately led to the instatement of under-21
suffrage--in the
1960s, our
youth became
outraged at the
inequity of
their peers' sacrifices for
liberties that they could not enjoy simply
because of their age. Thus, the
26th amendment was born and a new emphasis
was placed on the rights of our youth.
Here, I must make a painful
concession. In the wake of the 26th amendment,
our youth became
complacent.
Voter turnout among us is terrible--it is
consistently the lowest, by far{3}. To borrow some
timeless rhetoric,
freedom is truly a flame that is easily extinguished when left
unattended.
Thus,
we are screwed. I
postulate that the age limit laws were ultimately
applied to our age group because we were the ones who would not (and, in all
likelihood, will never)
retaliate in the polls{4}.
This is why I have such
great contempt for this law. It stands as a
disgraceful reminder of the
political atrophy that grips
my generation.
It also points to a steady erosion of a great and newfound liberty, that came
only after much struggle--the right to vote and the equity it affords.
We MUST restore this equity. It is our
responsibility as citizens to
exercise our right to vote. A failure to understand what our
apathy is
costing us is only a
forecast of bad citizenship to come, as our youth ages
and replaces the generations before it.
That being said, I am not cold to the problems of
alcohol abuse. I offer
the following two
ideas, which are neither original nor complete, but of
which I am rather fond:
RESTRICT DRINKING FOR PEOPLE OF ALL AGES
I realize that
prohibition was tried and has failed, but I refuse to believe
that less restrictive, yet equally
effective measures do not exist. An
attractive solution is a nationwide "alcohol curfew"--restricting
purchase of
alcohol or its
consumption during certain times of day (especially later at
night).
CREATE A POSITIVE SOCIETAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS DRINKING
Easier said than done. Yet I think this is necessary even if the age-21
drinking laws stand. I applaud the various
special interest groups who
fight
drunk driving in
advertising campaigns. This should be extended to
creating a
realistic,
proactive attitude towards drinking in
society.
By realistic, I mean an attitude which does not
demonize alcohol to the
point that it is seen as a "
forbidden fruit{5}."
I do not believe that these options are the only measures to be taken, nor do
I believe that either is a solution in itself.
In any case,
WE MUST REPEAL THE DRINKING AGE LIMIT.
Despite its
good intentions, this law cannot stand. It is an
abomination
to the
greater principles of society. Repeal it and let us work towards
fairer solutions to the drinking issue.
FOOTNOTES
-------------------------------
1. Some URLS for those who would research these arguments farther:
www.madd.org
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/alcfacts.html
There are other arguments, but I consider these to be the most important for
their frequency of invokation and their
implications.
2. This claim is
self-evident to me, but I realize that there are myriad
arguments against it. Particularly troublesome is the idea that drinking is
not a "right," but a
privilege. I disagree with this notion; if it is
merely a privilege, then it is quite important nonetheless--enough to drown
out previous attempts to prohibit it, en masse (and with a
constitutional
amendment, no less!).
3.
Voting statistics for
federal elections since
1972:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/agedemog.htm
4. The argument can be made that
underage citizens supported the age
limits.
Rampant underage drinking in spite of the law leads me to conclude
otherwise; I welcome any arguments to this effect.
5. The
forbidden fruit theory of alcohol prohibition is intruiging. For
more information, see the research by
Dr. Ruth Engs at
http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/