Buying booze at 18?

August 20, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
College presidents around the country have come together to unite against binge drinking on campuses. They aren’t working together to develop and implement programs to educate high school and college students about the dangers of binge drinking. They aren’t going to the students’ parents asking them to talk to their kids about drinking.

The higher-ups at the universities want lawmakers to fix the problem.

College leaders have signed a letter asking lawmakers to make it legal for 18-year-olds to drink.

The problem isn’t the age of the students; it’s the attitudes of the students and their parents. Lawmakers could lower the drinking age to 16 or raise it to 30, and teens who want to drink will still find a way to do it. Does it make it right? No, of course not, but it’s a reality that everyone who has ever been to high school and college is aware of.

Instead of curbing the problem of binge drinking in college, it will magnify the issue even more in high school. Eighteen-year-old seniors will be able to buy booze and get it to their younger classmates even easier than finding an older sibling or adult to buy the alcohol for them. Some high school students drink. Some parents even let their kids drink at home.

And that’s the problem.

If colleges and university want to curb binge drinking, reach out to high school parents. Parents can talk to their kids before and while they are in high school and let them know it’s not OK to drink right now and it’s never OK to drink and drive. Being observant of your kids and knowing who they hang out with and what they do on the weekends can help tackle the problem more than lowering the legal drinking age.

Teens love the freedom college gives them – they can stay out late, eat whatever they want, hang out with whomever they want, and they don’t have to come home to mom and dad’s house. But if mom and dad taught Junior the dangers of drinking – especially binge drinking – maybe he will think twice before he bongs his fifth beer. Educating kids at an earlier age and expecting more parental responsibility will help curb binge drinking more so than lowering the legal drinking age.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT