Alcohol: Who can handle it?
I’m not sure I want to hold conversations with my family members anymore.
Every time we hold discussions, I end up with a controversial column topic.
This past weekend my grandfather and mother visited me in Creston. While we were eating breakfast (which I suggest at The Family Restaurant), the topic of drinking came up.
We all agreed the legal age to consume alcohol should be 18 years old.
I was surprised that my mother, who rarely drinks, and grandfather, who has been a recovered alcoholic since the early 1990s, would have this stance.
Reasons given for changing the legal drinking age included voting rights and military service.
It really doesn’t make sense that an 18-year-old can lose his life defending our freedoms, or help choose “the leader of the free world,” but not have the freedom to drink in a bar.
My mother and grandfather talked about the days when 18-year-olds could drink. According to them, it wasn’t a problem.
My grandfather believes counties and states don’t want to lose the money for fines given to underage drinkers who are caught. This is a good thought, but if the legal age was lowered, more people could pay higher prices for alcohol at bars and restaurants. My guess is this would bring in more money in taxes than fines do each year.
If college freshmen and sophomores could legally drink there would be less “road tripping” and unsupervised parties. I’m sure most bars do a better job of regulating the amount of alcohol a person has consumed than the fraternity member carrying a beer bong. I’ve seen far more people cross the line between drunk and “dangerously” drunk at parties than at a bar.
Keeping people in town, not out driving the country roads while drinking, would almost certainly lower the amount of accidents. That is, if people chose to go to bars.
The number of accidents could go up if more people drank, but I believe anybody who wants to drink now probably does it regardless of the legal age.
Some opponents of changing the legal drinking age say 18-year-olds, who could still be in high school, would make it easier for younger kids to get alcohol.
I agree, but my experiences have led me to believe that most high school kids who want alcohol can find a way to get it anyway.
The Des Moines School District passed a rule stating students couldn’t consume alcohol at any time if they participated in sports. This included drinking at home with parents or in foreign countries.
That rule would have been a little over-the-top. The board did alter that rule, believing they shouldn’t punish students if they aren’t breaking the law.
The same rules could still apply. Irresponsible drinking could be punished.
Schools could still punish students for OWIs, open container violations or public intoxication charges. Currently, many employers have rules for disciplining employees who get OWIs.
I wouldn’t even be opposed to strengthening many of the drinking laws if the legal age were lowered.
A deputy at the Union County Sheriff’s Office told me he thought the laws were shifting toward a zero-tolerance stance on drinking and driving now, meaning the legal blood alcohol limit while operating a motor vehicle may eventually become .00.
The proper laws and education can make anyone a responsible drinker. If an 18- through 20-year-old gets in trouble while drinking, their right to drink could be suspended until they turn 21.
Drinking is frowned upon when it’s done illegally, but widely accepted when a person is “mature” enough to handle it.
Why not give the citizens who are mature enough to vote and fight overseas a chance to prove their maturity when it comes to alcohol?
