Perhaps I should devote another post to reiterating my stance concerning underage drinking. I am not as concerned with the age as I am with the attitudes towards and practices of drinking amongst college students. According to this article, “nearly half of America’s 5.4 million full-time college students abuse drugs or drink alcohol on binges at least once a month.” In addition, “the study found that college students have higher rates of alcohol or drug addiction than the general public.” Clearly there is a particular attitude concerning alcohol amongst college students that needs to be addressed. What is it about alcohol and binge drinking that is so attractive to college students?
At this juncture, supporters of lowering the age are likely to jump in and say, the fact that it is illegal makes it more exciting and glamorous for underage college students to drink. As I have pointed out in comments to the earlier post, this is an argument with poor logic because, if individuals break the law for popularity, and popularity is supposedly sought after by college students, shouldn’t college students be breaking more laws? Why just the drinking age law? Moreover, the argument also assumes that the “badness” of drinking is purely tied to its legality, or in this case, illegality. This is entirely untrue. In a significant majority of the United States, communities exhibit a strong aversion to alcohol. This is undeniable, whether or not one thinks it is reasonable. Consequently, part of the “badness” of drinking comes from social, and not just legal, censure. This also means that lowering the drinking age will not eliminate the “badness” of drinking. As a result, even if the syllogism of bad=cool, drinking=bad, therefore drinking=cool were valid, lowering the drinking age will have little effect on drinking attitudes and practices, because in the larger court of society, drinking would still be “bad”.
So, if college students cannot be said to have been induced to drink in excess because of the drinking age law, then, what drives them in this matter, and what can be done to address this issue? It is attitudes towards and practices of drinking amongst college students that is the problem, not law behind it. The law is merely one mechanism which can be used to tackle the situation. However, if changing the law is the focus of the debate on underage drinking and nothing is said about changing the drinking attitudes and practices of college students, then changing the age alone may only serve to deteriorate the state of affairs in college drinking.
Interesting post. I think you are correct to say that looking at the issue of underage drinking purely from an angle of arbitrary legal minimums misses out on the larger issue at stake - that of the underlying attitudes and practices which drive them to drink in the first place. This certainly widens the scope of debate on the drinking age considerably and moves away from the trap of arguing for an arbitrary age limit through a simple and ineffective appeal to contrarian cases of drinking ages in other countries.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the syllogism you raised "bad=cool, drinking=bad, therefore drinking=cool" was especially pertinent to your argument, though it could perhaps merit further investigation. I say this because I noticed that while you raised it as a theoretical possibility in the context of your argument, it seems to me on reflection (and in the context of my own topic on marijuana legalisation) that there may well be some actual cogency in this observation. What are some of the contributive agents that could have cemented the idea of "bad and drinking = cool?" in college students? Could this also encompass cultural-historio dimensions? Looking forward to reading your subsequent posts!
I like your syllogism with the conclusion of drinking=cool (just wanted to point that out :p).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you make a point in saying that lowering the drinking age and attitudes of teenagers are two different things. Lowering the drinking age may not affect the attitudes and mindset of teens.
It seems like we can never get away from law-breaking individuals without changing their attitudes...
An effective argument was the use of your example of drinking in comparison of its abuse with other laws. However, you must recognize the fact that drinking has a very low penalty than lets say murder. I'd prefer looking at it in the context of illegal substances which might not help your case as much, especially alcohol being so primitively available.
ReplyDeleteI more so agree with the statement that our drinking habits wont change. Our American culture drinks very differently from our neighboring countries such as Canada and Europe. So is it safe to say that nothing will come out of this argument? Will our mind set to heavy drinking remain constant? What are the effect of the Truth ads that counsel teenage binge drinking? I look forward to see your future entries.
To mediabully: You bring up a point which I am fishing for and will expand on in subsequent posts. You say that drinking and murder are different because there are different penalties. Perhaps that is one viable solution to the drinking problem. As much as it may horrify some to hear this, just because a machine is broken doesn't mean one needs to replace it. One could simply fix it. In other words, an alternative solution is not to scrap the law but to tweak it. And tweak it in a way that mediabully has implicitly suggested, make the deterrent punishment harsher.
ReplyDeleteAs for changing habits, i'm not saying that they won't change. Besides, that's a rather absolute position, which is usually untenable. First and foremost, I think the drinking habits NEED to change, which is, in fact, part of the main thrust of my argument. The debate is only relevant if we assume that drinking habits can change. And because I'm arguing that they need to change, I think the debate needs to go beyond just a numerical argument over age.