The Original Title of this Article was “Drinking Laws: Why Still 21?” and published in the George Street Observer on August 28th, 2008. I wish to revisit this article now that I have more knowledge.
Throughout the collegiate world, faculty and staff recognize that state alcohol laws that are forced upon the states by federal alcohol policy as impossible to enforce. Attempts to support the current policy show it to be ineffective and troublesome. Just across the pond, children reach for a glass of wine or a cold beer while at mealtime unlike older Americans whom are expected not to consume any alcoholic beverages until 21. European culture dictates a much different attitude towards alcohol as it is used in moderation, unlike in America where teens are much more likely to binge.
Rather then reconsidering a law that continues to invite disaster, a blind eye is taken to drinking age reform. Now those closest to the problem are taking action to change this flawed formed policy from their desks around campuses.
As of today, 135 college presidents and chancellors from around the country joined the Amethyst Initiative, including Tufts University, Syracuse University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, and Ohio State University. They are showing support for a petition to lower the drinking age from 21. To understand this debate best, it is important to return to when alcohol was the forbidden fruit that America would briefly deny fermentation.
On January 16, 1919, the 18th amendment, Prohibition was ratified disrupting saloons across America. Passing over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto, intoxicating beverages became illegal, and predictably, withdrawal was swift. Many found innovative and even dangerous ways of obtaining alcohol. Speakeasies popped in where saloons had formerly stood. Organized crime expanded under the undying demand of the public thirst.
Sound familiar? Young students have been forced to develop their older classmates into the modern day speakeasies. For taking the same risk as those of organized crime, an extra fee is expected, a toll of sorts, but for the added inconvenience college students have successfully circumvented the laws of this state government that attempt to regulate hydration.
The federal government has taken on an unneeded burden in forcing state regulation of the sale of alcohol by holding highway funding hostage for states that don’t comply with a drinking age of 21. 135 pro-active college presidents have recognized this realm as an unnecessary one for the paws of the government to delve into. The people of Washington in their stuffy offices lack the experience to claim expertise over men and women of the academic world who are surrounded by students regularly. At the end of the day, students trust Victor Wilson, not Joe Lieberman.
It is paramount that alcohol policy changes, as a drinking age of 21 has not solved any problems, but instead created more. The longer it takes for change, the greater the side effects. Americans need to make their own decisions, and the protection of a parent state America does nothing for the people. The government’s duty is to protect the people, not to forbid its people’s actions nor curb their civil liberties. Why must the men and women of Washington D.C. continue to grasp on for dear life to a policy that can’t be enforced and clearly is not beneficial to any of the people congress represents. Tell your representatives to ask the federal government to stop holding our roadways hostage. Let the states decide for themselves!
0 thoughts on “An Update of an Old Article”