Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should law enforcement target under-age drinking at public events?

By Howard B. Owens
C. M. Barons

Establishing an arbitrary age when alcohol consumption is legal is counter-productive. Alcohol can be consumed in a responsible and acceptable manner without age-based enforcement. Treating "drinking" as criminal has two undesireable effects:
Primarily it creates an illusion that alcohol is "bad" and corresponds to "bad behavior;" enhancing alcohol's allure as something subversive.
Secondarily, delaying the point when youngsters can legally experience alcohol denies them learning to drink in a socially acceptable manner.

Our culture and alcohol have a disturbingly hypocritical relationship. We preach sobriety and party, drunk. We don't have a glass of wine with dinner; we have a twelve-pack every Saturday. Why do we talk out of both sides of our mouth? We're so busy policing who is drinking, we never model social drinking. We leave drinking ed to the same anonymous educator who teaches sex ed.

Drinking is not a required part of growing up. It is a choice, and should be an informed choice. Alcohol is pervasive in society and learning more than its dangerous side is important. We need to find rational ground between the extremes of the advertised message (drink more) and the temperance message. We need to enforce laws against drunken behavior without criminalizing drinking.

Americans should also come to terms with mental illness. There are people who should not drink. We all know them. And we avoid them.

Jul 16, 2009, 11:30am Permalink
John Roach

Posted by C. M. Barons on July 16, 2009 - 11:30am
Establishing an arbitrary age when alcohol consumption is legal is counter-productive.

At what age do you think drinking, in public, should be?

Jul 16, 2009, 11:46am Permalink
Mai Knaym

Alcohol is a drug, just like cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, prescriptions, etc. ...it alters your body and mind. I think that anything done responsibly is acceptable, but should be disciplined when done irresponsibly. Where that line is, is debatable. Just my two cents.

Jul 16, 2009, 11:58am Permalink
Don Vickers

I agree, a little wine wine with dinner is fine in private regardless of age. I don't believe it should be practiced in public unless of legal age. I have always been against people who choose to drink to get drunk. I have never understood why someone would want to give up their control of their body and mind especially where someone else could see them. Maybe I am just a control freak. This just my 2 cents worth and I know my way of thinking is not very popular.

Jul 16, 2009, 12:09pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

To me, there are two issues -- at what age should it be legal to consume alcohol? And, if there is a law that sets an age, should it be obeyed?

I'm enough of a libertarian to believe there should be no age limit -- from 18 to 21, it's up to the individual; from 18 and below, it is a parental issue, except to the point where letting a child drink is an endangerment of a child type of crime (say, letting a five-year-old slug down Jack Daniels).

I'm enough of a conservative to believe that if it's the law, it should be obeyed and enforced. If you don't like the law, take steps to win support for changing it, but I have no problem with the cops going after under-age drinkers. Especially in the environment we live in, which as C.M. points out, practically begs kids to abuse alcohol. So long as it's illegal, society is practically forced to enforce it.

Jul 16, 2009, 12:24pm Permalink
Peter O'Brien

It was enforced much differently in your youth than it is today Howard.

Today you are a criminal, back then the cops took your beer and brought you home.

It completely ridiculous that in today's world you can get married and not have a champagne toast because you are too young to be served.

Jul 16, 2009, 1:43pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Don Vickers on July 16, 2009 - 1:54pm
Sparkling Cider works just as well!

Totally agree, Don. As long as this is the law, then sparkling cider will have to do (or depending on how young the couple is, maybe even a Jones Cream Soda.

Champagne doesn't make the wedding. I have attended many non-alcoholic receptions and, darn it, the marriage is still legal and a non alcoholic toast still holds meaning and significance for the couple and their guests.

Jul 16, 2009, 2:08pm Permalink
John Roach

It goes back to what the legal age to drink should be.

I still have a problem with a soldier at Fort Drum, NY, who comes back from combat in Iraq, with a Purple Heart, and can not have a beer becasue he is under 21.

Jul 16, 2009, 2:27pm Permalink
Richard Gahagan

You don't have a problem with law enforcement preying on young people attending large entertainment events to pad the town and county bank accounts.

Jul 16, 2009, 2:34pm Permalink
Don Vickers

On private property behind closed doors I don't see anything wrong with someone having a drink or two. I am against people out in public drinking to get drunk and acting like fools. I understand any age can act this way, society sets a legal age in hopes to seperate the mature from the immature. No matter what the age is you are going to have mature and imature below the age and over the legal age.

Jul 16, 2009, 2:52pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

If this was 1968 the argument for a lowered drinking age due to service in the armed forces might have some merit but since there is no longer military draft I believe your point is invalid. Any individual signing up to serve knows the ramifications of what he/she is doing. Being able to buy a beer is a poor reason to enlist.

Jul 16, 2009, 2:54pm Permalink
Gary Diegelman

Richard ask yourself how do these underage youths get to these areas to consume and possess alcohol? They drive there. Even with a D D the rest in the car are drunk. To many young people are killed or kill innocent people like members of our families when car loads of youths get togather and party. Thats why the drinking age went up to stop the killing on our highways. If this isn't controlled now it will escalate even more out of control until someone from your family is killed. Then you may change your tune.

Jul 16, 2009, 3:44pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

I'm well aware of that. My point was since young males are no longer "required" to participate in the Armed Forces the fact that they are serving at the age of 18 should have no bearing on their ability to buy alcohol. That's an old argument that doesn't carry weight anymore.

Jul 16, 2009, 3:57pm Permalink
Richard Gahagan

Gary so they got 100 people out of what 15000 big deal. They aint protecting nobody just preying on kids easy pickens easy money extra cash

Jul 16, 2009, 4:19pm Permalink
Bob Price

I say lower it back to 18.Maybe we should have to get a license to drink alcohol-you know,where people take a class on how to drink responsibly,the state can get some more money from us,and if you abuse it,you lose it.You must show the alcohol license in order to purchase the alcohol or buy a drink at a bar/restaurant..It's still unbelievable how many people are stupid enough to drive drunk,and a good percentage of them don't have a license anyway.I try not to drink alcohol if possible,as with a CDL license,a .04 is DWI,no matter what type vehicle you are driving.

Jul 16, 2009, 4:22pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

I've taken C.M.'s post and substituted sex for drinking and alcohol. Same concept, everybody is doing it anyway so let's lighten up on the laws. Read it through the eyes of a parent of a teenager and then ponder if we should get rid of statutory rape laws.

Establishing an arbitrary age when having sex is legal is counter-productive. Sex can be enjoyed in a responsible and acceptable manner without age-based enforcement. Treating "sex" as criminal has two undesireable effects:
Primarily it creates an illusion that sex is "bad" and corresponds to "bad behavior;" enhancing sex's allure as something subversive.
Secondarily, delaying the point when youngsters can legally experience sex denies them learning to have sex in a socially acceptable manner.

Our culture and sex have a disturbingly hypocritical relationship. Why do we talk out of both sides of our mouth? We're so busy policing who is having sex, we never model social intercourse. We leave drinking ed to the same anonymous educator who teaches sex ed.
Sex is not a required part of growing up. It is a choice, and should be an informed choice. Sex is pervasive in society and learning more than its dangerous side is important. We need to find rational ground between the extremes of the advertised message (have sex more) and the purity message. We need to enforce laws against sex behaviors behavior without criminalizing sex.

Americans should also come to terms with mental illness. There are people who should not have sex. We all know them. And we avoid them.

Jul 16, 2009, 4:29pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Jeff, I don't think there any comparison between a 14-year-old having a glass of wine at dinner with his parents and a 14-year-old being induced into sexual activity.

Any psychologist will tell you, I believe, that sex is very powerful and youngsters are not yet emotionally equipped to handle it.

Alcohol is only damaging when abused. There's just no comparison.

Jul 16, 2009, 4:40pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Richard writes "You don't have a problem with law enforcement preying on young people attending large entertainment events to pad the town and county bank accounts. "
I ask, which towns and counties around here are so fortunate to be in a position to "pad" their bank accounts. I don't know of any who are flush with cash. Most(all) are struggling to balance budgets.
If in this very difficult economic climate a municipality resorts to enforcing the law and collecting the associated fine, I'm o.k. with it. If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.

Jul 16, 2009, 4:43pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Howard,
If I'm not mistaken, none of the kids arrested for underage drinking in the article that started all this were having a glass of wine with their parents. Many more psychologists will tell you that consumption of alcohol and the coinciding effects on ones behaviors and decision making abilities are very powerful and youngsters are not equipped to handle it. And sex is only damaging when it is abused. I find it to be a perfect comparison.

Jul 16, 2009, 4:48pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

I'm with Richard on this..If this is not about some kind of money grab or GCASA deal..Then don't fine them.Make them do some kind of community service..Mow lawns for those who can't ,paint light poles..Clean the parks..Pick up trash on the roadways,help out at the nursing homes..Make this not about money..I'll bet they don't...

Jul 16, 2009, 5:25pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Mark Potwora on July 16, 2009 - 5:25pm
I'm with Richard on this..If this is not about some kind of money grab or GCASA deal..Then don't fine them.Make them do some kind of community service..Mow lawns for those who can't ,paint light poles..Clean the parks..Pick up trash on the roadways,help out at the nursing homes..Make this not about money..I'll bet they don't...

The sad thing is that no fine, no amount of community service is going to change someone who is hell bent on destroying themself with drugs or alcohol.

Jul 16, 2009, 6:56pm Permalink
C D

Drinking alcohol and having sex both deal with a matter of maturity that varies from individual to individual.

Since it's rather improbable to determine at what age each individual is able to partake in each of the above actions, it's easier for the government to set an arbitrary age while everyone complains about the inherent disadvantages.

To be brutally honest, those that are mature enough are usually intelligent enough to partake in said activities without drawing attention to themselves.

Jul 16, 2009, 7:30pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Mark, I'll give in to your point since you make an excellent one with community service. You have a great idea with the work for punishment since too often the reality would be Mom and Dad paying the fine and junior learning nothing at all. Thank you Chris, my point in the sex/alcohol comparison is that at some point we have to stop arguing semantics and yield to the fact that our laws are based on moral absolutes. That right is right and wrong is wrong and in some cases not open to lengthy and unecessary interpretation

Jul 16, 2009, 9:04pm Permalink
Chelsea O'Brien

The problem with using community service as a punishment, is then that begins a stigma around community service. I agree it's good to give back to the community, but forced community service may not be the way to do it. What about volunteering at GCASA and seeing what alcohol does, or at a soup kitchen, or something that would not only give back but also teach life-long lessons from others' mistakes.

Jul 17, 2009, 9:02am Permalink
C. M. Barons

That there be no misunderstanding, I am not an advocate of teenage drinking. I question the prudence of cultivating responsible behavior by way of the legal system. For youngsters to behave responsibly, they must model responsible behavior. That does not mean that children should be encouraged to participate in any necessarily adult behavior. It is the parents' role to guide and act as models of adult behavior. Unfortunately, not all parents are able or willing to affect such modelling- particularly when it comes to behaviors so complex and personal that comfort levels prohibit sharing those experiences. Despite comfort, it is the parents' role to provide such guidance. And no surrogate (school, clergy, mental health professionals, courts, law enforcement official) exists to replace (or reverse) the parent as primary behavior influence. Too many parents are willing to defer discipline to those who encounter their children outside the home.
Do parents allow teens to drive a carload of friends to a concert, ignoring drug and alcohol use? Where did the teenagers acquire the alcohol? Why isn't the concert venue checking vehicles for alcohol? Why isn't the venue security force discouraging parking lot drinking? To my knowledge, Darien Lake does not allow beverages purchased outside the park into the grounds. Why would they tolerate consumption in the parking lot? Why are road patrols policing a private parking lot? There are a number of issues in this situation that indicate both parents and park are shifting responsibilities onto law enforcement.

Jul 17, 2009, 9:28am Permalink
Mark Potwora

Maybe Howard could put up a poll on this matter...community service or fines ,for underage drinking..It's to easy to pay your way out of it..Plus its a unfair way to punish..
For someone with alot of money its no big deal..To someone without any it is a big deal to have to pay..

Jul 17, 2009, 9:59am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

To me the issue isn't a big deal. Responsible drinking is what has to be established, not potentially ruining someone's career (in the case of military member) for catching them drinking a beer.

Jul 17, 2009, 11:51am Permalink

Authentically Local