Zero Tolerance Makes Zero Sense

[Luke T.]

After Prohibition, nearly all states restricting youth access to alcohol designated 21 as the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). Between 1970 and 1975, however, 29 states lowered the MLDA to 18, 19, or 20. These changes occurred when the minimum age for other activities, such as voting, also were being lowered (Wechsler & Sands, 1980). Scientists began studying the effects of the lowered MLDA, focusing particularly on the incidence of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers. Several studies in the 1970s found that motor vehicle crashes increased significantly among teens when the MLDA was lowered (Cucchiaro et al, 1974; Douglas et al, 1974; Wagenaar, 1983, 1993; Whitehead, 1977; Whitehead et al, 1975; Williams et al, 1974).

Research findings

A higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. When the MLDA has been lowered, injury and death rates increase, and when the MLDA is increased, death and injury rates decline (Wagenaar, 1993).


A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al, 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. At least 50 studies have evaluated this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993).


A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many minors still drink and purchase alcohol, the policy doesn't work. The evidence shows, however, that although many youth still consume alcohol, they drink less and experience fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths (Wagenaar, 1993).

The effect of the higher MLDA occurs with little or no enforcement.

American Medical Association

 

[Luke T.]

Double post.

 

[Luke T.]

Triple post.

 

[Luke T.]

This does not rebut my claim because it lumps 22 year olds with 65 year olds.

CBL

Well, this does:

After the nation's drinking age was raised to 21, the 21-24 age group quickly assumed the greatest share of alcohol-related fatal accidents.

http://www.asfar.org/zine/6th/cover.html

 

[Crossbow]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080801148.html

Of course, MADD and the police are not happy about this trend. A Virginia couple was sentenced to 8 years in jail (reduced to 8 months) for such a party. The police have decided to raid parties like this without warrants and force everyone to have a breathalyzers tests. In one case, the parents refused to allow the test and the police cordoned off the block and administered the test when the guest left (no alcohol was served at this party.)

CBL

(Darat: Corrected the formatting.)

Er, you guys that are going on about the drinking age being 21 when it used to be 18 should read the article that was posted.

The couple in question got into trouble for providing alcohol to minors!

...

For this the Andersons found themselves arrested and charged with supplying alcohol to minors. The case ignited a fiery debate that eventually spilled onto the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving oddly decided to make an example of William Anderson, a man who probably did more to keep drunk teens off the road that night than most Providence-area parents.

...

So even if the drinking age was 18, then the Andersons would still be in violation.

 

[delphi_ote]

16 for a drivers' license.
18 to own a rifle or shotgun.
18 to vote.
21 to own a handgun.
21 to drink.

You know, those last two leave me wondering...

When I was a teenager, I always joked that I'd buy a Beretta 9mm and a bottle of Jack Daniels on my 21st birthday.

Our country is sick. We all need psychiatric help. There is simply no way to rationally defend our attitude toward drinking.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Our country is sick. We all need psychiatric help. There is simply no way to rationally defend our attitude toward drinking.

Agreed.

However while I can't possibly condone jail terms for the people involved in the party in question - that's just ridiculous, and the judge, jury and prosecutors belong in jail themselves - I can't condone having a poorly-supervised party where minors drink either.

If such things are to be done, you should collect the bottles along with the car keys and have a sober adult playing bartender.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In general, tolerance makes zero sense. Its absolutely useless.

What we need is understanding. My worst enemies are merely human, with needs, desires, etc. If I dont understand their worldview I wont understand their actions.

If I really understand them, and this is an important point, they really understand me, we can reach agreements.

 

[bigred]

I saw that guy who was convicted on a "news" show. He was not supervising. He wasn't even in the room with the kids while they were drinking. They could have drank themselves into a coma for all he knew what was going on.

At best, you prevent the kids from drinking and driving for one night. At worst, you are encouraging underage drinking.

Well said on both counts (although I fear you're wasting your time). How can it NOT be absurdly obvious what an totally moronic idea this kind of "tolerance" is? That makes about as much sense as "kids are gonna have sex, so by golly let's pass out condoms at school." Dude. I'm all like, I mean, that like rocks.

Unbelievable.

Hey yknow what? Criminals are gonna commit crimes anyway, so we should just TOLERATE it, long as they let us supervise them doing it and don't use guns n stuff.

Common sense.....we hardly knew ye....

However I disagree that our country is sick. It is beyond that. In the 60s I might have said that, but the "disease" has progressed quite beyond that. It is insane. Again I can't imagine how that can NOT be painfully obvious.

 

[Tony]

Well said on both counts (although I fear you're wasting your time). How can it NOT be absurdly obvious what an totally moronic idea this kind of "tolerance" is? That makes about as much sense as "kids are gonna have sex, so by golly let's pass out condoms at school." Dude. I'm all like, I mean, that like rocks.

Unbelievable.

Hey yknow what? Criminals are gonna commit crimes anyway, so we should just TOLERATE it, long as they let us supervise them doing it and don't use guns n stuff.

Common sense.....we hardly knew ye....

However I disagree that our country is sick. It is beyond that. In the 60s I might have said that, but the "disease" has progressed quite beyond that. It is insane. Again I can't imagine how that can NOT be painfully obvious.

You act like you're proud of not recognizing your own fallacies.

 

[BPSCG]

Kids are going to have sex anyway, so you might as well provide them with condoms and a safe place to do it instead of the back seat of the car.

Kids are going to snort coke anyway, so you might as well provide them with a safe place to do it...

I think it's a fallacious argument from the get-go. Kids are not "going to do it anyway", if they've been brought up to not "do it anyway."

Article quoted in the OP says 47% of kids have had a drink in the last 30 days.

Okay. That means that 53% have not had a drink in the last 30 days. And a certain percentage of that 53% hasn't had a drink in the last six months. So claiming that "kids will drink anyway" is a cop-out by parents who don't want to take responsibility for how they've taught their kids to behave. Instead of saying "Kids are going to drink anyway", those parents should be saying "My kid is going to drink anyway."

 

[Snide]

Instead of saying "Kids are going to drink anyway", those parents should be saying "My kid is going to drink anyway."

Great points, all. I would add that when a parent says that, what they also really mean is, "My kids are going to drink anyway, and let's face it, having some beers one nigth isn't the same as doing acid or coke or whatever, so I might as well provide them a way to stay out of trouble."

 

[bigred]

I think it's a fallacious argument from the get-go. Kids are not "going to do it anyway", if they've been brought up to not "do it anyway."

But it goes beyond that. Even "good" kids sometimes want to be bad once in awhile.

But that doesn't mean it should be "tolerated" (and man o man am I getting sick of that word)....ie encouraged. To say "something is going to happen to some degree so we should give in and just let it" is totally asinine.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But it goes beyond that. Even "good" kids sometimes want to be bad once in awhile.

But that doesn't mean it should be "tolerated" (and man o man am I getting sick of that word)....ie encouraged. To say "something is going to happen to some degree so we should give in and just let it" is totally asinine.

Is it any worse than suggesting that preventing kids having access to condoms will stop them having sex?

What is worse, 100 kids having sex using condoms so that few if any get pregnant / transmit STD's or 50 kids having sex with no protection?

 

[delphi_ote]

Kids are going to have sex anyway, so you might as well provide them with condoms and a safe place to do it instead of the back seat of the car.

Kids are going to snort coke anyway, so you might as well provide them with a safe place to do it...

I think it's a fallacious argument from the get-go. Kids are not "going to do it anyway", if they've been brought up to not "do it anyway."

Article quoted in the OP says 47% of kids have had a drink in the last 30 days.

Okay. That means that 53% have not had a drink in the last 30 days. And a certain percentage of that 53% hasn't had a drink in the last six months. So claiming that "kids will drink anyway" is a cop-out by parents who don't want to take responsibility for how they've taught their kids to behave. Instead of saying "Kids are going to drink anyway", those parents should be saying "My kid is going to drink anyway."

Is drinking acceptable, healthy public behavior in our culture or not? How are kids going to learn responsibility and start drinking in a controlled way if they're told it's the ultimate forbidden sin their entire lives, until they're finally told they can buy it at any grocery store almost all hours of the day. Some amount of learning has to take place here. That learning can either happen over time with a little parental supervision, or the kid can learn self abusive patterns on their own or from their peers.

I'd make the same argument for sexual behavior. There is grey area you're pretending doesn't exist between the extremes of wild sex party and forbidding condoms. If you reject teenagers during this time, you're not going to be able to guide the them through some of the most difficult decisions they'll have to make.

Puritanism went out in the 1800's, but it doesn't seem like America understands that right now. Teenagers are becoming adults, but our culture doesn't seem to want to treat them that way. It seems like we're more afraid of them than anything else. Instead of allowing them to grow up with love and support, we treat them like babies and force them to reject us.

I promised myself I wouldn't forget what it was like to be a teenager. Clearly you have. You are so far out of touch with the situations kids face these days, it would be joke if it weren't so tragic.

 

[RandFan]

But it goes beyond that. Even "good" kids sometimes want to be bad once in awhile.

But that doesn't mean it should be "tolerated" (and man o man am I getting sick of that word)....ie encouraged. To say "something is going to happen to some degree so we should give in and just let it" is totally asinine.

There are good reasons to accept certain realities like underage drinking. Sticking your head in the sand won't solve the problem. However you are absolutely correct. The logic that they are going to do it anyway so we might as well make it safer is rediculous. If the laws are wrong then change the laws.

 

[Tony]

Kids are going to have sex anyway, so you might as well provide them with condoms and a safe place to do it instead of the back seat of the car.

Kids are going to snort coke anyway, so you might as well provide them with a safe place to do it...

I think it's a fallacious argument from the get-go. Kids are not "going to do it anyway", if they've been brought up to not "do it anyway."

Article quoted in the OP says 47% of kids have had a drink in the last 30 days.

Okay. That means that 53% have not had a drink in the last 30 days. And a certain percentage of that 53% hasn't had a drink in the last six months. So claiming that "kids will drink anyway" is a cop-out by parents who don't want to take responsibility for how they've taught their kids to behave. Instead of saying "Kids are going to drink anyway", those parents should be saying "My kid is going to drink anyway."

Good points, and I agree, mostly. Kids often rebel against what their parents teach them, some parents recognize this. I don't think that means they don't want to take responsibility for how they've taught their kids. They just recognize certain realities.

Also, what difference does it make? It's legal for parents to indoctrinate their children into religious cults and it's legal for parents to hit/spank their kid when the kid does something the parent doesn't like. If that stuff is legal, it's silly to criminalize letting your kid drink.

 

[CBL4]

I saw that guy who was convicted on a "news" show. He was not supervising. He wasn't even in the room with the kids while they were drinking. They could have drank themselves into a coma for all he knew what was going on.

Perhaps he limited the amount of alcohol around. Perhaps all they had was beer.

At best, you prevent the kids from drinking and driving for one night. At worst, you are encouraging underage drinking.

At best you are preventing someone from dying tonight. At second best, you are teaching kids to drink responsibly and the dangers of drinking and driving.

I agree that at worst, you are encouraging underage drinking but what exactly is wrong with an 18 year having a few drinks? Most of us over the age of 40 drank while we were 18. I threw up a few times but never caused me or anyone else any real damage or endangered them.

CBL

 

[Luke T.]

Perhaps he limited the amount of alcohol around. Perhaps all they had was beer.

Wow. I've haven't heard someone make the "it's only beer" argument in ages. The first case of alcoholic poisoning I ever saw was a beer drinker.

At best you are preventing someone from dying tonight. At second best, you are teaching kids to drink responsibly and the dangers of drinking and driving.

I agree that at worst, you are encouraging underage drinking but what exactly is wrong with an 18 year having a few drinks? Most of us over the age of 40 drank while we were 18. I threw up a few times but never caused me or anyone else any real damage or endangered them.

CBL

The statistics in the AMA article I linked override your personal experience.

The only unknown in all this is what effect the condoning of underage drinking at home has. Does it make the kid more responsible or does it make him more liable to drink out of sight of his parents? That's a hell of an unknown risk to take with your kids' lives and with the lives of the society around them.

 

[Luke T.]

Also, what difference does it make? It's legal for parents to indoctrinate their children into religious cults and it's legal for parents to hit/spank their kid when the kid does something the parent doesn't like. If that stuff is legal, it's silly to criminalize letting your kid drink.

Let's see. Is that a "two wrongs make a right" argument, or a false analogy?