drinkers against madd mothers
by Ian Schuldt
Published: September 17, 2008
“College presidents from about 100 of the nation’s best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.” - (AP)
This is going to come as a surprise to many of you, but it turns out college students drink. Even the ones who are underage! I know, it shocked me. In fact, it turns out that young adults who are typically not thought of as rebellious at all may even be binge drinking.
I know, mind blowing isn’t it? As any sane logical person who’s spent any time in college over the past 25 years or so can tell you, setting the legal drinking age to 21 hasn’t really prevented anyone from drinking. It has made it more inconvenient, it has made it so you have to go to great lengths to do it, and what many college presidents are finally starting to learn is it has actually made it more dangerous.
I’ve told the story before of my good friend who used to live one block from the downtown bars, yet he drove out into the middle of nowhere to an underage party to get drunk, and then died riding home with a drunk driver. An accident that wouldn’t have needed to happen if he could have walked across the street and drunk with his friends legally.
Lowering the drinking age hasn’t put an end to drinking. Like the years of prohibition in the 1920’s, all we’ve done is caused young people to go to extreme measures - hiding out in crowded neighborhood basements or corn fields in the middle of nowhere to get drunk.
Many of these colleges and institutions have finally put 2 and 2 together and realized that if we lower the drinking age to 18, it will allow some of these kids to start learning how to drink responsibly while they are still under the supervision of their parents, rather than have them figure it out on their own with a bunch of people they just met for the first time, in a place where they don’t know anybody. Not to mention it will allow these kids to drink on their own terms.
Before I turned 21, I usually spent my nights in some stranger’s house standing around a keg. If you’ve been to some of the sleazy parties, you know the beer can sometimes run out fairly quickly. So, to make sure we got our money’s worth, we would slam drinks, do keg stands, shoot the boot and any other crazy thing we could think of to get as drunk as we could before the booze ran out. Not surprisingly, that can cause you to get a lot more drunk than you should be, really quick, without realizing it.
Once I turned 21, that all changed. Since we could go to the liquor store or the bar whenever we wanted, there was absolutely no pressure to get drunk quick. My nights much more frequently just involved a few of my closer friends sitting around all night. Getting drunk over time made it a lot easier to know how drunk you were getting and to pace yourself. Not to mention we could do it in the privacy of our own apartment, with close friends who cared about us, rather then drive across town to some frat house owned by a bunch of older guys we didn’t know who were just trying to make a buck off the freshmen, and do who knows what to the freshmen girls.
As you can maybe tell from this article, I drinks a bit. While I’m beginning to reach the twilight of my binge drinking days, I still go out more often than I don’t. My rule is you can’t be an alcoholic until your 27. So I got about a year left before it’s time for me to settle down. To this point my drinking has yet to specifically cause me any major problems. However, the law enforcement put in place to try and keep me from drinking has caused me to almost get myself killed in the name of partying on multiple occasions (i.e. running across a frozen Mississippi River to avoid an Underage Drinking ticket).
I can tell you one thing is for sure - I’ve been drinking since I was 17, I’ve got a lot of crazy drinking stories, and all of the most dangerous ones came before I turned 21. Not because I suddenly woke up on my 21st birthday responsible, but because my reasons to drink dangerously all went away once I became legal.
You can say what you want about me being some crazy drunk college guy, but the reality is that few, if any of the politicians’ worthless attempts to protect kids from drinking are working. The problem is these people who are trying to pass these laws are too old and too sober to remember what they were like when they were that age. They simply hear about some stupid law that is supposed to protect the kids and they feel like they have to vote for it so it doesn’t get used against them in their next campaign.
Groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving spend millions of dollars every year lobbying for stricter laws that do nothing to prevent drinking and driving or underage alcoholic deaths. They simply turn the innocent young people they are trying to protect into criminals. Unfortunately, as long as groups like MADD skew statistics and talk about protecting the children, nobody will stand up against them.
This is understandable. What kind of sick, twisted individual would stand up to women who have lost family members to drunk driving and tell them they are a bunch of lying, over-the-top lunatics who are doing more harm than good? It’s just not going to happen. Well, check back soon because I might.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
September 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I agree. As a mother (relatively new one), I have already decided that the place for my daughter to make mistakes and learn how to be an adult is at home. If you completely shelter your kids from life and they never learn the consequences of bad decisions in a safe environment, the real life results of their mistakes can be disastrous. I believe that stiffer penalties for drunk driving will lead to less drunk driving versus stricter limits on underage drinking.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I gaurantee if we let 18 year olds drink, but passed a law that make it manditory for all alcohol-related crimes to be punished by ripping the offender’s toes and fingernails off, along with a tatoo on the forehead that read “I once was a total loser,” we wouldn’t have any problems.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Doesn’t it just push the problem upstream though? So now instead of cruising the parties when you’re 17 or 18 to score beer from someone with the fake or some freshly turned 21 year old, you’re 15 or 16. Not just that, but rather than having a few years under your belt driving on these snowy gravel roads, you’ve got a brand spanking new license to test out your driving skills on that hairpin turn while drunk. I agree that MADD is out of their mind, but I don’t think lowering the drinking age would accomplish anything aside from satisfy the liquor lobby…
September 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Ummm… I do have to say that keg stands, shoot the boot, and other “crazy” things aren’t really a sign of getting your underage money’s worth, but the games of “newbies.”
When the drinking age is 18, you’ll just be doing that stuff at 15, like Scott said. Or if kids waited until they were 18, they’ll still do the stupid things you claim are simply a result of having to drink illegally.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I agree with Ian on this one. When people are breaking the laws, we just need to change the law so what they’re doing is legal. No one should have to go to great lengths to make bad decisions.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Ian,
Though I agree with you that parents need to take the lead in teaching their children responsible drinking behavior, I must say that your logic seems awfully suspect. In your third paragraph, you blame a friend’s death at the hands of a drunk driver on the fact that he had to drive out of town to get drunk. This is a terrible tragedy, but doesn’t your friend bear some responsibility for stepping into a car with someone who was inebriated? And doesn’t the driver bear the most responsibility for stepping behind the wheel?
You also say that the drinking laws have caused you to almost get yourself killed in the name of partying and cite an instance where you ran across a frozen Mississippi River to avoid a ticket. However, by this same logic, anyone that does something dangerous to avoid the police and gets hurt could blame the police and the law that they were breaking. Surely you don’t believe that police should be held responsible for the dangerous things people do to avoid them.
You also assert that your drinking behavior changed at 21, and I’m sure that the legalization of your activities was a factor. But it would be foolish to believe that it was the only factor. I know that right after I got my driver’s license I used to drive like a maniac, passing people in places I shouldn’t pass them, driving well over the speed limit, running stop signs. That behavior changed as I got older even though none of those things were ever “legalized.” Instead, I matured and realized how silly it was to take my life in my hands in the name of adventure, a rush of adrenaline, or even simple impatience.
Ultimately your argument boils down to a simple statement: “Everbody’s doing it, so it should be legal.” It is inescapably self-serving, since you are (or were) a part of “everybody.” Yet it fails to make a valid case for the lowering of the drinking age. If it can be shown that lowering the drinking age truly reduces the instances of dangerous behavior then I would by all means support it. But I can’t believe that teens and twentysomethings who would willingly flaunt the law in the name of a good time would somehow become more mature and responsible in their decision-making if the drinking age were 18 instead of 21.
Dave
September 18th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
So do you think that we’d all be safer if we made the drinking age 24? How about 30? How about just ban it all together?
Turns out we already tried that and it didn’t work. Nobody stopped drinking, they just turned to gangsters like Al Capone to get there liquor. It actually ended up making the country less safe.
The reality here is that drinking isn’t dangerous. It’s drinking irresponsibly that causes the problem. This law totally and utterly fails to prevent kids from drinking. Any one who’s 18-20 years old can tell you that. But what it does do is force kids to go to extremes in order to get drunk. And in many cases actually causes them to drink more irresponsibly then they would if it was legal.
It’s like people who want abstanence only education in schools. The idea being if you tell your kids not to have sex, then they don’t need to know how to do it safely, because they just won’t have sex. It doesn’t stop kids from having sex. It just makes it so when they do they don’t know how to get or use protection, which increases the likely hood they’ll get pregnant or an STD.
If the law is designed to keep kids from drinking, but it’s not keeping kids from drinking at all, then what’s the point? If they’re still drinking just as often as if it was legal, then it’s definately not making them more safe than if it was legal. But the reality is in some cases it does actually make people do dangerous things in order to get drunk.
The law was passed because we don’t think young people are responsible. But all we did was put them in a position where almost the only way they can drink is to do it irresponsibly.
Obviously my friend bares some of the blame for getting into a car with a drunk person. But the point is if it wasn’t for the law he wouldn’t have been forced into that decision. If you don’t think kids are responsible enough to drink in the first place, what makes you think they’re going to be responsible enough to do it responsibly.
Drinking isn’t dangerous, don’t pass laws to prevent people from drinking. Drinking irresponsibly is dangerous, we should pass laws to help people drink more responsibly.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Don’t take my argument to the opposite extreme. That’s a straw man, but it’s not my position. You’re reference to Prohibition is valid and well-taken. Actually, I think some of your points here are better arguments than your original article. The example of abstinence-only teaching is a good one, and though I do support teaching abstinence in schools I’m enough of a realist to know that teen pregnancies and life-ruining STDs are a greater detriment to our society than teenagers getting busy.
I also agree with your final statement, or at least its intent. The problem is this: irresponsibility is characteristic of virtually everyone under the age of 21. In fact, I would argue that most of the people who would engage in responsible drinking if the drinking age was lowered are probably already doing it. Responsibility can’t be legislated because laws are primarily negative in nature while responsibility requires positive action - not just restraint from action. But I think you are on the right track: are there provisions or changes we can make in the current drinking laws that encourage more responsible drinking behavior in young people?
I would encourage you to consider one more thing: your views on drinking and also your reference to abstinence seem to indicate that you value individual freedom in these areas in the sense that no one should have to refrain from something that “feels good.” But often the discipline of restraint in an area opens us up to greater freedom, just as any athlete disciplines his time to give him freedom on the field or a musician disciplines herself to give herself freedom on the instrument of her choice. Abstinence can give way to the freedom of a wonderful, committed sex life with a single partner and brings with it freedom from concern about STDs and undesired pregnancies. Refraining from irresponsible drinking behavior brings the freedom from poor decisions made under impaired judgment and the blight of alcoholism and drunk driving. The question is one of value versus value, not freedom versus oppression. Which freedom do you value more?
September 18th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Ian Schuldt said “Drinking isn’t dangerous, don’t pass laws to prevent people from drinking. Drinking irresponsibly is dangerous, we should pass laws to help people drink more responsibly.”
First, drinking is dangerous. If it wasn’t, those binges you were discussing wouldn’t be part of the argument. Second, you notion that it is irresponsible drinking that is the problem is also ludicrous. The very nature of alcohol lowers a person’s inhibitions and ability to make responsible decisions. Third, I am suprised to see a libertarian lobbying for more laws at all, even to “help people drink more responsibly.”
As for Prohibition, it really became more dangerous for those willing to break the law, not those who were law abiding citizens. Sure there were probably some innocents who got hurt, but that happens everyday on the roads of America when a drunk driver kills an innocent non-drinker.
As for Madd, let them grieve. Your un-righteous indignation has nothing on their true suffering. Your inconvenience is nothing compared to theirs. Let them be.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“irresponsibility is characteristic of virtually everyone under the age of 21″
And we hand them automatic weapons at 18 and send them to foreign countries to have people throw bullets at them really fast. Or we let them decide who are leaders will be. I do no drink but if we feel it is ok for you to do these other 2 things (military and voting) at 18, then why not this?
And like Chellerella types, let MADD be.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I also have really attrocious spelling and gramar skills. I must do a better job of reading something before I post it.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Well first off the idea that not drinking or abstaining from sex can give you more freedom is great and all. Try telling that to a class full of college freshmen though and they’ll just laugh at you. That may be a solid personal philosophy, but you can’t legislate it.
In terms of coming up with laws that will lead to more responsibilty though, I think it’s very possible. First off I don’t think there should be a drinking ‘age’ at all. I think the requirment to drink should be a high school diploma. The same is true for voting and smoking.
I can’t think of a single thing that would incourage more dead beats to finish school and get their diploma than marrying it with their ability to drink beer.
Secondly we could give people the abilty to drink beer at 18/graduation, but not hard liquor until they were 21. Almost any time you hear about some young person dying from alcohol poisoning it’s because of hard liquor. It’s almost physicially impossible to drink so much beer that you kill yourself.
If you can get drunk legally with beer, but you have to break the law just to try hard liquor it wouldn’t be worth it and very few people would bother.
Any time you try and ban something you have a certain percentage of the population that will obide by your ban, but you’ll also have a certain percentage that will refuse to obey it and go to dangerous lengths to avoid getting caught. When a significant percenatage of the population falls in to the second catagory the law becomes more dangerous than it’s worth.
September 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Mike, I don’t think your examples are necessarily congruous. We let people into the military, but the military is in the business of teaching personal responsibility through discipline. We let people over the age of 18 vote, but the choice to vote itself requires some measure of responsibility. In addition, the choice to be an informed voter is one that few make regardless of age.
Ian, I like your thoughts - they are certainly outside the current box. However, I’m sure you can imagine the difficulties of enforcement that these would take on. How many people would carry their diploma around to prove their legality? How would you enforce a hard liquor law at a party where both age groups are present with a variety of alcoholic beverages? Perhaps more importantly, do you think anyone would respect these laws any more than the laws we currently have?
Finally, I think you’re right on both points in your first paragraph. I’m certainly not advocating the legislation of those views. But, as this discussion clearly indicates, personal convictions and values are probably the most important factor in decision making, not the particular law at hand. We’ll never come up with a law that effectively “legislates responsibility,” but we can work to instill values that encourage people to look beyond the short-term self-centeredness that comes so naturally and adopt behavior that values long-term happiness and responsibility to others.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
We should reverse prohibition, that would instill social responsibility…. don’t you think… We should make laws that don’t age discriminant, that would make us righteous….don’t you think… We should repeal woman’s right to vote because that would eliminate 1/2 the problem voters who vote for the wrong reason.. …we should make a law that all beer drinkers can not vote (because anyone who drinks is not responsible)..And finally…to be fair about it let take away all voter rights for men… OH shoot,,, lets suspend the Constitution and put everybody in jail because all people some times show signs of not conforming to some sort of social responsibility…. Have a Bud ale and relax…this herring been around fer a long time……. this article is a little fishy.. don’t you think………..
September 20th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Dave, you said, “We should reverse prohibition, that would instill social responsiblity,” but I said to Ian, “Your point about Prohibition is valid and well-taken.”
You said, “Anyone who drinks is not responsible,” but I said, “Are there provisions…we can make in current laws to encourage more responsible drinking behavior in young people?” - the implication being, of course, that it is possible to drink responsibly.
You said “Let’s…put everybody in jail because all people sometimes show signs of not conforming to some sort of social responsibility,” but I said, “I’m certainly not advocating the legislation of those views [on social responsibility].”
So my question to you is this: what article were you reading? Not only is your sarcasm bringing down an otherwise intelligent discussion, but you’re clearly not even reading what I’m saying. I would encourage you to be open-minded and not assume that anyone who would assert even a moderately conservative position is a two-bit no-brain Fundamentalist bent on destroying the Constitution and restricting everyone’s freedom.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:49 am
The article I was reading:
drinkers against madd mothers
by Ian Schuldt
Published: September 17, 2008
What’s the matter here? Maybe U should have me kicked off this cafe cause my sarcasm doesn’t cut your mustard?
Why don’t u chill out and have a Bud ale.
September 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
You could put a stamp on a drivers license stating you graduated, just as easily as you could put a birth date on there.
Although I’m sure a lot of young people would still drink hard liquor from time to time at parties, I do think it would be a lot less. I know a lot of times when I was underage I would specifically drink hard liquor because it was easy to conceal. You could just pour a little into a bottle of coke or OJ or something.
If someone older is drinking hard liquor at a party some young people might still try it now and then, but by in large if you can walk into a liquor store or a bar and order a beer legally very few people would go through the hassle of trying to get hard alcohol.