CBL4 said:
Their logic makes sense: The kids are going to drink; it's better that they do it in a controlled, supervised environment.
I'm not sure the logic is sound or valid in all cases, though. I can, for instance, frame analogies which contradict this, quite easily, but I'm not sure that they are unflawed or appropriately similar enough to be comparable.
For instance, I could say "the Hoover Dam is going to break anyway, so why not pull it down a piece at a time?" That is obviously not the best answer. Why not repair it, rather than assist its destruction, enabling it to do still more damage to people and property?
Of course, MADD and the police are not happy about this trend.
I can't expect the police to be happy about it in areas where the drinking age is 21+. It's a violation of the law, and the argument "they're going to do it anyway" is highly flawed in that case. Just because a person is prone to breaking a particular law is no justification to assist them in that illegality.
If, however, the legal drinking age is 18, it does make sense for parents to supervise such parties. But by "supervise," I mean to closely monitor the amount of drinking (so as to avoid grads "drinking themselves into a coma"), and to force the party-goers to stay until the next day, taking their keys and not allowing them to drive (or even walk) away, until sober, sobriety being the key, here.
The police have decided to raid parties like this without warrants and force everyone to have a breathalyzer tests.
I'd protest that as a basic violation of "search and seizure," if it was attempted in my home. If police want to come into my home, they'd better have a warrant. Otherwise, they need to wait outside. Exceptions, however, abound. If someone was in the house beating the crap out of me, for example, I'd sure want the police to break in and stop him or her, Constitutional rights notwithstanding.
In one case, the parents refused to allow the test and the police cordoned off the block and administered the test when the guests left (no alcohol was served at this party.)
That's different, though. The police have a jurisdiction over public streets that they don't have over my home, and I expect the police to keep the streets as safe as possible for me. What you do in your home, to a certain extent, is your business. What you do on the streets where I might be, is my business. And if no alcohol was served, and everyone was sober, then they have nothing to worry about.
Just because alcohol wasn't "served" at this particular party doesn't mean some of the graduates didn't have alcohol, or other intoxicating substances, though. I'm not so old that I don't remember how easy it is to get pills, pot, acid, etc. into someone's house without Mommy and Daddy being any the wiser.
I know that there might be "sobriety checkpoints" on the streets on New Year's Eve, for example, so if I'm smart, I'll party at home, and stay at home, and everyone is happy and relatively safe. But I'm also of legal drinking age, so if I keep it at home, it's no one's business but mine.
The best answer is, of course, the hardest answer: teach children from a young age about alcohol and all its effects, benefits, and dangers, and rear them to be good critical thinkers, rather than to rely on their emotions for decision-making. But who has time to do that? (she said sarcastically.)
In general, the argument that "someone is going to do a thing anyway, so why not assist them in it," is not logical. It's too circumstantial, meaning it largely depends on what the thing is, and what effects or results the activity might have for the perpetrator and for others.
