2008 Woodie Awards
Editorial: Time to grow up, lower drinking age
Issue date: 11/8/07 Section: Opinion
Some people have suggested lowering the drinking age in Texas to 18.
The reasons offered for this change of law concern the approach to alcohol education. In the past, young adults learned about drinking through their peers or by experimenting on their own. There was no formal education unless someone got arrested.
And then they often take the classes under judge's orders.
The classes are similar throughout the state. Pictures of wrecked vehicles intermingle with PowerPoint slides stating statistics about how many drinks a 95-pound girl can have before she is legally drunk. In Texas, the sessions are typically capped off with the story of a nursing student from South America who was hit by the All-American football player in his truck. She now lives with scars from being trapped in a burning car for minutes. He is serving a long prison term. The two act as tag-team spokespersons, hitting whichever end of the spectrum the audience member might sympathize with most.
The classes are a form of punishment and only occasionally have instructors who present the material in a way the court-ordered students enjoy and might benefit from in a lasting way.
This method is not working. Drunk driving and alcoholism continue to be problems.
Why not try a different approach?
Let's start educating young people before there is an arrest or ticket.
New theories on alcohol education seek to teach young people before they are in trouble. State legislators could mandate alcohol awareness courses for all beginning drivers.
Picture this: Bobby, a 16-year-old, wants to get a learner's permit. He signs up for driving school and an alcohol-awareness course. After completing both, he is granted a license. He is rewarded with a driver's license at 16 and two years later is able to drink legally.
Why lower the age at all? Because there is no reason to keep it at 21. European countries have lower age limits and have fewer alcohol-related crimes. Perhaps it is because our Old-World counterparts approach drinking in a way that doesn't stigmatize it, thus reducing the "forbidden fruit" appeal.
If lawmakers want to be proactive in combating irresponsible drinking, they should teach young people about it before they are in trouble with the law.
Perhaps then they will not be so tempted by the vine.
The reasons offered for this change of law concern the approach to alcohol education. In the past, young adults learned about drinking through their peers or by experimenting on their own. There was no formal education unless someone got arrested.
And then they often take the classes under judge's orders.
The classes are similar throughout the state. Pictures of wrecked vehicles intermingle with PowerPoint slides stating statistics about how many drinks a 95-pound girl can have before she is legally drunk. In Texas, the sessions are typically capped off with the story of a nursing student from South America who was hit by the All-American football player in his truck. She now lives with scars from being trapped in a burning car for minutes. He is serving a long prison term. The two act as tag-team spokespersons, hitting whichever end of the spectrum the audience member might sympathize with most.
The classes are a form of punishment and only occasionally have instructors who present the material in a way the court-ordered students enjoy and might benefit from in a lasting way.
This method is not working. Drunk driving and alcoholism continue to be problems.
Why not try a different approach?
Let's start educating young people before there is an arrest or ticket.
New theories on alcohol education seek to teach young people before they are in trouble. State legislators could mandate alcohol awareness courses for all beginning drivers.
Picture this: Bobby, a 16-year-old, wants to get a learner's permit. He signs up for driving school and an alcohol-awareness course. After completing both, he is granted a license. He is rewarded with a driver's license at 16 and two years later is able to drink legally.
Why lower the age at all? Because there is no reason to keep it at 21. European countries have lower age limits and have fewer alcohol-related crimes. Perhaps it is because our Old-World counterparts approach drinking in a way that doesn't stigmatize it, thus reducing the "forbidden fruit" appeal.
If lawmakers want to be proactive in combating irresponsible drinking, they should teach young people about it before they are in trouble with the law.
Perhaps then they will not be so tempted by the vine.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
eva
posted 11/03/08 @ 1:13 PM CST
i beleive that by lowering the drinking age to 18 we are signing up for a whole world of trouble. just because european countries have lower age limits and less problems dosnt necissarily meen we will we have enogh problems to deal with all ready do we really need this on our plate as well. (Continued…)
Post a Comment