In recent discussion about underaged drinking, a issue of controversy has been wether the current system, where drinking under the age of 21 is illegal, is effective at reducing the dangerous amount of underaged drinking out there. From the viewpoint of the many who criticize the law on underaged drinking, making it illegal to drink under the age of twenty one makes it impossible for mature adults to teach people how to drink at the age they want to start drinking which is often under the legal age limit. On the other hand, however, the people who support the law claim that it has done a great job at reducing the number of alcohol related car crashes and fatalities. In the words of John McCardell Jr., one of the main supporters of a change in the drinking policy in the U.S., "The problem today is reckless, goal-oriented alcohol consumption that all too often takes place in clandestine locations, where enforcement has proven frustratingly difficult." According to this view, it is not the consumption of alcohol that is an issue rather it is the excessive use alcohol that is the issue. In sum then, the issue is wether the law should be kept in place or replaced by a new system that tries to educate young adults how to drink through controlled experience.
My own view is that in fact the system is flawed, and that it should be replaced by a system that is more aimed towards reducing the amount of dangerous and fatal type of drinking rather than the casual and harmless type. Although the law against drinking has helped in reducing the number of car accidents due to alcohol, the real issue to be solved is to not allow young adults to be in that situation in the first place because they were responsible drinkers and had a designated driver. This issue is an important one because as a student in his first year of college I have seen way too many people that are my age plus or minus two years that have no idea what they're doing when it comes to drinking the right way. I feel had they had adults around them that are allowed to teach them how to drink properly through experience they would be much better off then if they all of a sudden decide they'll have a drink or two and end up on the bathroom floor.
The problem with law-making is that we have to create universally applicable rules that bind everyone. So it could prove difficult to differentiate between the two types of drinking in the eyes of the law. You mention a "fatal type of drinking" and a "casual and harmless type." How would we enforce a designated driver requirement? Furthermore, what do you mean by "drinking properly." How would we define that legally in a way that's easily enforced and doesn't allow for an interpretive "shadow of doubt" to make it practically unenforceable?
ReplyDeleteAre you finding sources that make this argument? What do they say about enforceability and finding clear, legal definitions that aren't mired down by shades of gray?