< Back | Home

While the law seting the drinking age at 21 may not make sense, until maturity is exercised by all parties involved it will never be considered for revising.

Underage drinking responsibilities underestimated

By: Marianne Bossert

Posted: 10/2/06

In the last year vandalism, fighting and excessive noise on the parts of some intoxicated Western students has led local law enforcement to crack down on underage drinking.

In Macomb, the police occasionally come into bars and accusingly ask everyone inside for an ID. If these students are drinking illegally, they will certainly receive a citation for underage drinking, and if they are in the bar illegally, they will face more severe legal consequences.

These efforts on the part of law enforcement are hopefully well-intentioned, but they are misguided and don't address the problems they are trying to solve.

When local law enforcement and the university speak about stopping underage drinking, they cite the vandalism, fighting, noise and drunk driving that the Macomb community is so adamantly against.

They are ignoring the obvious: Why not, instead of cracking down on underage drinkers, crack down on vandalism, fighting, noise and drunk driving?

Everyone with concerns about this issue overlooks that, yes, a vast majority of Western Illinois University students drink or go to the bars underage, but a vast majority of those students do so as responsibly as those who drink legally.

Most of them will drink but will refuse to drive home if they don't feel sober enough to do so. They will walk or arrange for rides to their dorms or homes.

If they walk home, they will not fight with each other, vandalize property or scream in the streets. They will behave as responsibly as those who drink at age 21. Law enforcement also has no proof that those who commit these offenses are not drinking legally.

Unfortunately, no one in power seems to be willing to admit that there is an obvious difference between those who drink underage and go home, and those who drink underage and get behind the wheel or use their alcohol consumption as an excuse to commit other crimes. The second type is the true problem in the Macomb community, and local law enforcement ought to shift their focus to reflect that.

Another concept that law enforcement overlooks is that the fighting and vandalism may not be caused by intoxication at all, and if it is a cause, the intoxication may only be an excuse for this behavior and not the actual root of the problem.

At the original Woodstock music festival, which likely had more drug use occurring in a small area than at any other time in history, not one violent crime was reported. The only crime committed other than drug use and public exposure was an incident where a concertgoer broke into a basement and stole a can of beans, for which he left money on the table.

This kind of behavior would not occur in Macomb today, but this story serves as a glaring reminder that alcohol and drugs do not necessarily cause anyone to behave violently.

Perhaps the authoritative culture that tells us alcohol will make us behave erratically is turning their claim into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If those in power were more honest about the effects of alcohol on the senses, the kind of behavior that occurs in Macomb under the influence of alcohol may be avoided entirely.

The most obvious problem with the system in place is that the legal drinking age in this country should be changed to 18. Realistically, now that most people in the United States between 18 and 20 go to college with students over 21, there is no decisive difference in life stages between these age groups. People in college are likely to have a maturity level similar to other people in college, whether they are freshmen or seniors.

The access to alcohol at the age of 18 has also greatly increased. When one makes friends over 21, acquiring alcohol is no longer difficult. Because this tends to happen at the beginning of college, changing the drinking age to 18 would more realistically reflect societal norms.

Another sensible reason to change the drinking age to 18 is that at 18 one is no longer considered a minor. All non-minors should have access to the full range of rights, because they are considered mature enough to make their own decisions. A country that tells someone that he is responsible enough to kill for his country but not responsible enough to have a beer doesn't seem to have its priorities in order.

Realistically, the legal drinking age in Macomb or in this country is unlikely to be changed any time soon. Maybe in the future the government will come to its senses on this issue, but until then, those in power in Macomb may want to take these suggestions under consideration. Tolerance, honesty and wise choices by both parties are key to reconciling differences between law enforcement and students.