CAMPUS

Johnny gets a new car!

RE: Steven Nelson’s Promote responsible alcohol consumption, not prohibition

Johnny’s parents said that they would not tolerate any grade less than a B, but he has been getting C’s and D’s.  Johnny’s parents have punished him for this, but it does not seem to help.  Johnny’s parents gave up and decided to give him… a new car?  This logic does not work, neither does the logic that simply lowering the drinking age is going to solve the problem that people are irresponsible with alcohol consumption, especially people in the 18-20 age group. Rewarding their law-breaking will not improve the situation.

Education is not meant as a fix-all solution to the problem, and is certainly not meant as propaganda. It is no secret that the education we are giving young people is not sufficient. While you may look at education as scare tactics, I look at it as an opportunity to be honest about what sometimes happens when people are not responsible. No law entirely eliminates behavior, that is why there are consequences for breaking laws. Believe it or not, there are those 18-20 year old youth who do not consume alcohol because of the law; however, the notion that education has been argued as the fix-all, it absurd and illogical. As for people who have blemishes on their transcripts the solution is quite simple, don’t break the law or don’t get caught! Should one feel bad for a good student who plagiarized on just one paper and got caught? Absolutely, it was wrong and the student should be punished.

The argument that changing the drinking age to 18 is going to help parents teach their children responsibility is laughable, because it is also argued that once one reaches 18 they are adults (adults should not be in need of such responsibility training in the first place). Perhaps one should argue that some states (such as Wisconsin) have drinking laws that allow parents to give consent for their children to consume alcoholic beverages in their presence. Perhaps this is a better solution that simply lowering the drinking age.

Furthermore, the argument that “prohibition does not work, ever” is a dangerous argument. One should think carefully before placing qualifiers such as ever, never, or always in an argument. By whose standards are you measuring the idea that prohibition of any kind does not work? People murder all the time, but if the law was lifted it would most certainly happen more. If illegal and prescription drugs were legalized for all, I am more than sure that people would be shooting up and popping pills left and right. Laws play an important role in society, regardless of if everyone follows the law. Saying that prohibition has not “ever” worked is not a good reason to lower the drinking age.

Perhaps an argument for implementing a parental consent law is more reasonable and in-line with the argument made that parents should be able to teach their children responsibility. However, this will not keep irresponsible parents from demonstrating even more damaging behavior, but this time involving their children. The fact is, implementing a parental consent law might be a good idea, but based on the argument set forth it will not completely solve the problem, therefore, more alternatives need to be considered. Until some more concrete arguments are set forth, the drinking age will have to remain.