Marsha Sutton: Teens, alcohol — rethinking a failed approach

Comment by: Russell Angelico Posted: October 9, 2009, 1:35 pm

Interesting thoughts. As a young person I’m probably extremely biased but I agree with all your points and would take them further. Yes, acknowledgement of the truth and facts of teen/young adult drinking is necessary. But something tangible is needed to accompany every abstract change we can make as an educated, safe society: lowering the drinking age. The risks involved are trumped by the societal rewards of understanding alcohol use the way it was meant to be understood - as something that can be good and acceptable in moderation or used heavily in SAFE, controlled environments (that’s my college student soul talking, feel free to ignore it

Comment by: Cledus Maggard Posted: October 9, 2009, 7:01 pm

I’m not a young person. I’m about the same age as Marsha Sutton. I agree with her and with the previous commentator. While in Europe, an Italian tour bus driver told me he would never drive in America because our young people are given car keys before they’re taught to respect the power of alcohol.

Comment by: Daniel Gettinger Posted: October 10, 2009, 12:42 pm

A few points:

1) Some teens do get into car crashes after having consumed alcohol. But so do adults. Raising the driving age will, by virtue of eliminating an entire class of drivers reduce drunk-driving incidents, but there are also significant costs to doing so. I doubt many parents will be thrilled chauffeuring their kids around for an additional two years, particular their 16-18 years, an age range in which many are leaving the house more than ever. The argument that “even one life saved is worth it” is not good enough. Society could certainly save a few more lives by investing millions of additional dollars in extra police protection, but it is not efficient to do so. Same with raising the driving age from 16 to 18.

2) I agree the drinking age should be lowered to 18 from 21. But not because the “mystique of drinking” wears off if it is legal. It does not. I recently turned 21, and my friends drink just as much as they ever have. Last year, I studied in London, where the drinking age is 18. Students there drank significantly more than the students I have observed here in America. Of course this evidence is purely anecdotal and might not hold if the observation sample is extended.

3) If our goal is reduce drunk driving, the best way to do so is also the simplest: raise the costs of driving drunk, and decrease the costs of the alternatives. Our society does not seem to view drunk drivers as the dangerous criminals that they are. People convicted of a DUI for the first time rarely serve jail time, and assuming nobody got injured, the crime is viewed as a simple mistake. If the punishment was more severe (jail time served, and a large fine levied), more people will choose to call a cab, or designate a driver prior to alcoholic consumption. In addition, the costs of alternatives must be lowered. Parents should tell their kids that it is okay to call them if they need a pickup. Regardless of the time of night. And they must be sincere about it. In addition, parents should encourage their children to sleep over at friend’s house if needed. Parents who allow their kids to host parties should insist on designated sleeping rooms, where kids can feel comfortable crashing for the evening. Sometimes, people drive drunk not because they want to, but because they feel like there are no reasonable alternatives.

Comment by: Elizabeth Posted: October 12, 2009, 11:09 am

For me, it is all about statistics and numbers.

While every drinking and driving death is a tragedy, we have to thank those who have taken a firm stand against drunk driving with stricter laws, because the fact remains the number of drunk driving fatalities is down. The numbers don’t lie. With stricter laws we have less deaths. With safer cars we have less deaths. With seat belt laws we have less deaths. (For your younger readers seat belts were optional at one time, and there was quite a fight to preserve freedom and make seat belts a choice…can you imagine not wearing a seat belt today?)
We are making strides against drunk driving and to say we should go back to having teens drink at 18 is counter intuititive. “They are going to drink so let them drink at 18 rather than 21″ is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. That would be like saying “well they wore a seat belt, but died anyway”. Should we ditch seat belt laws? It just doesn’t make sense. Then add all the new information we have learned about teen age brain development…scientists have concluded that reason and judgement are last to develop. Last to develop. Letting them drink legally at 18 seems ridiculous when you know that fact.
Changing the drinking age back to 18, because “Europeans” do it, is absurd. We live in a community where scientific minds prevail. Read the data, look at the results. Progress has been made. No we are not there yet, but we are making improvements.
Did you know that there have been 73% less alcohol related arrestes in Pacific Beach since the Booze ban was enacted? The government, and you and I who pay taxes, cannot affort to pay for the party anymore. We cannot afford the loss of life, and the cost associated with policing the activity. Look no further than Pacific Beach to see that the alcohol ban has proven this. Yes, are kids still going to get drunk, yes, but making it more difficult seems to be a pretty darn good deterent. Ask any public official, lifeguard, fireman or police officer if the new law works in Pacific Beach… if that new law has helped with crime, death rates, public drunkeness, even pollution..and they will all give you a resounding “yes”. Shouldn’t we listen to what they have to say? They are the ones out there and see it and working it every day; they are so thankful for the new law. Ask them. They tell the real story.

Whose civil liberty is more important, allowing an 18 year old to drink or the Mother of an 18 year old who was killed by a drunk driver?

Don’t ever doubt the numbers; the numbers say the efforts on educating people on drunk driving, along with stricter drunk driving laws all work.

My heart breaks for everyone in this tragedy, and in so many senseless tragedies that have ocurred before this. But I hope we always rely on science and real data to enact laws that protect our citizens. These laws work. The data proves it.
Here is an excerpt from MADD, Mother’s against Drunk Driving, it details how they started and how far they have come…after reading it, could you imagine going back in time? I say “no way to drinking at 18″.

“Twenty-five years ago, a heartbroken mother made a pledge in her
deceased daughter’s bedroom. She would do something about the
outrage of drunk driving—a decision that quickly inspired a handful
of grieving, determined mothers to join in the fight. Though united
in cause, they had no office, no money and no clout. In fact, all they had
was sorrow, pluck and a picture of a pretty, 13-year-old girl killed by a
drunk driver. Yet they initiated one of the great grassroots successes in
American history. n They were as their name suggests: MADD. As their
fledgling organization grew, they stood toe to toe with politicians who knew
the stats but did not act. They took on a powerful industry that put profit
over safety. They challenged a society that viewed drinking and driving as
acceptable—even laughable. And they caused a visceral reaction. The
getting there wasn’t easy. It was tough. It was messy. And it was fraught
with obstacles. Yet MADD proved, time and time again, that it would not
be bullied or derailed. In fact, MADD blazed a trail that other organizations
have since followed. They made hard, cold statistics come to life.
They did not just say that drunk driving killed thousands and injured
millions.
They held up photographs—and described every nuance of their
loved ones’ lives—to prove it. As a result, a mountain of traffic safety
and victims’ rights legislation has been passed. Annual alcohol-related traffic
fatalities have dropped from an estimated 30,000 in 1980 to fewer than
17,000 today. And, perhaps most important, society no longer views drunk
driving as acceptable. Looking back over 25 years, it’s an amazing story. A
grieving mother’s determination sparked a volunteer movement that swept
the nation and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

Comment by: Jackson-town Posted: October 13, 2009, 12:53 pm

There are so many issues here. One is safety. One is freedom. In other words the whole Political Theory 101 Hobbesian struggle between freedom and security.

One issue is the civil rights of young adults over the age of 18 who can serve the country in the military (and kill, be killed, be seriously physically and psychologically wounded); be adult entertainment models; use tobacco products (number two cause of preventable death in the US); vote; pay taxes; work; serve as jurors; get married; etc., yet cannot legally drink even though everyone knows that outside of certain religious communities (such as observant Mormons and Muslims), almost all young adults consume alcoholic beverages in social situations.

Then there is the whole driving issue. In most other advanced industrial nations, one needs to be at least 18 years old to drive. It is also more difficult and expensive to get a license. Rules against drunk driving are enforced seriously with more significant penalties. However, in most advanced industrial nations, there is also excellent public transportation (buses, subways, trams, commuter trains, high speed trains, long distance trains, etc.) and usually more walkable and bicycle accessible communities. Until the US catches up with the rest of the world in public transportation, it will be difficult to make the case that the driving age should be raised to 18 (that should be the eventual goal), given the need for young adults under 18 to work and to have the beginnings of adult responsibilities and freedom.

Then we have the “mourning mother syndrome” which is evidenced by MADD which has evolved into a non-compromising prohibitionist organization that focuses on the “drinking” part but not enough on the “driving” part. Because of the emotional aspect of the “mourning mother”, to which we can all identify, politicians do the easy thing and thoughtlessly pass populist legislation that is damaging or infringes upon civil rights instead of doing the right thing which is thoughtful and rational discourse. It is just as horrible for a 30 year old drunk driver to kill innocent people as it is for anyone under 21 or under 18 to commit these crimes. We need to make sure that no one drinks and drives. Education, law, stringent enforcement and especially alternatives to driving need to be promoted.

Another whole issue is the infantilization of youth. Throughout history and in most of the world today, young adults under the age of 18, were considered adults. In much of the world, a large portion of those whose age correspond to our high school age population, especially those older ones who are 16 and 17, are often working full time and often also parents themselves. We expect young adult to take on incredible pressures to succeed academically in order to get into the “right college”. We encourage them to be very active with sports, extracurricular activities, volunteer activities, etc. We encourage them to work long hours in entry level service jobs so that they can have money for college plus have work experience. Yet we allow them almost no freedoms and rights.

As a parent I find it frustrating, that unless I travel to another nation, I cannot properly teach my son the adult “pastime” of responsible alcohol consumption. Outside of certain conservative religious communities, any parent who seriously expects their son or daughter to wait until they are 21 (or even 18) to drink is being naive. If I wait to my son is 21, it will be far too late, as if he is a normal kid with a social life, he will have been drinking since he was 18 or probably even sooner.

Yes, I can and do allow my son to have a beer at home with “his old man” once and awhile a(legal at least in my state) and, yes, he is reluctantly learning how to sip a glass of wine at dinner at home with his parents, but I cannot allow him to have even a small party with alcohol without committing a crime. I cannot bring him to a bar or even a restaurant so he can have his first drink with his father.

We also have the facts that the high drinking age is causing more harm than it would be otherwise. There is a whole movement revolving around the Choose Responsibility organization that strongly suggests that empirical data indicates that the drinking age of 21 only causes more binge drinking and more irresponsible situations concerning alcohol.

The most important thing to do is to have a rational discussion without allowing emotion to cloud reason on the issues of transportation alternatives, driving ages, drunk driving, drinking ages, youth rights, etc.

Comment by: JSearles Posted: October 14, 2009, 5:50 am

A very well-written piece. However, Ms. Sutton’s data source appears to be the anecdotal reports by her son. On the other side, there are literally hundreds of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate the devastating effects of a lower drinking age. There are at least 5 scientific studies that have been published this year alone which support MLDA-21( and more in the pipeline). There are NO studies demonstrating a positive benefit to loweredc MLDA. A previous commentator (Jackson-town) seems to think that MLDA-21 is “causing more harm.” However, he does not specify a particular mechanism by which this would occur or how increasing access to alcohol in this age group would result in a decrease in alcohol-related injuries. The idea that 18-year old individuals would somehow act responsibly because they were expected to is not a sound psychological theory and enjoys not one iota of empirical support

Another argument is that a 21-year old drinking age discriminates against these individuals unfairly. However, there are other areas that carry either government or industry minimum age requirements. The US Constitution requires an individual to be 25 years old to be a member of congress, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president. In addition, it is illegal for anyone in the US under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun or qualify for an interstate commercial driver’s license. State governed casinos in the US do not allow individuals under the age of 21 to enter or gamble; most rental car companies will not rent a car to individuals under the age of 25, and it is quite difficult for anyone under the age of 21 to rent a hotel room. These are reasonable age restrictions based on an approach that recognizes that at least some responsibility accrues with increasing developmental age.