Drinking laws should not focus on age

I was born on January 2, 1982 at 4:35 p.m. At least that’s what my birth certificate says (I personally don’t remember that day too well). This means two things: One, I’m a Capricorn, and two, I’m 19 years old.

In this country, being a 19-year-old can be pretty exciting. I’ve been out of high school for a while, doing the whole college bit. Some of my classmates in high school are out in the work force, some have kids, and some are even married. To us, every possibility the world has to offer is attainable.

No. Wait. I lied.

I can’t buy beer.

In fact, no one between the ages of 18 and 20 can buy alcoholic beverages in this country. Why is that?

I mean, there was a time that 18-year-olds could actually buy alcoholic beverages in parts of this nation. You’ve seen "Dazed and Confused," right?

So why aren’t we allowed to purchase alcohol? I’m sure you’ve all heard of the now clichéd reasons people before me used while discussing this topic:

"We’re expected to fall on grenades and catch bullets for our country if needed, but we can’t buy a beer."

Or, "I can vote for the leader of the nation, and can choose my representation in Congress, but I can’t choose to drink."

What about, "I’m allowed every other "vice" legal in this country (smoking, gambling, pornography), so why not beer, too?"

And, "I can choose to sentence a man to die through the power of a jury I may be assigned to, but I can’t choose to drink."

And all these points are valid. I’ve voted. I’ve gone to the horse track near my home in central Indiana (though there’s always one horse breaking up my trifecta), I’ve filled out my Selective Service card, and though I’ve never served on a jury, a friend three months my junior has already served on two.

So, if I’m afforded the responsibilities (and consequences, should I ever commit a crime) that come with "legal" adulthood in this country, shouldn’t I also be afforded the privileges as well? Or does Uncle Sam know something I don’t?

The reason the legal age of consumption was raised to 21 was to cut down on drunken driving accidents in the 16-21 age group. The national concern for our safety was the reason the limit was raised. Believe it or not, cops and lawmakers didn’t write and enforce these laws just to make extra money on fines or to liven up a dull evening in a patrol car. At the end of the day, they just want us to be safe.

But at the same time, I wonder if the manpower used to bust underage drinking, both here in the Purdue/West Lafayette area and across the nation (especially on other college campuses), could be better allocated. Let’s face it, a twenty year old sitting in his apartment watching Saturday Night Live, and drinking a few beers (to make Molly Shannon seem funny), is a far less immediate danger than someone of ANY age behind the wheel while intoxicated. Unless our man in the apartment begins lighting his furniture on fire or imitating Mary Catherine Gallagher, he is much less of a danger to the general populous than Mr. Tipsy behind the wheel.

So why are there far more (in some cases three times as many) minor consumption busts than drunken driving busts on college campuses around the country? Part of it may be that cars aren’t commonplace on some college campuses, and part of it may be that most college students actually ARE intelligent. Hard to believe for some of you, I know, but it’s true. According to the Student Wellness Office (the same people that brought you "67% of Purdue students drink four or fewer drinks when they party"), 88.2% of us do not drink and drive, according to a recent study. That’s an impressive number of us. But the other 11.8% of us worries me. It doesn’t seem to be too much, but that means there are over 4,000 students on this campus that have or will drink and drive. If you were to spread this number of drunken drivers out equally over four years, and assuming that each person only drives while intoxicated ONCE, that means you have two or three drunken drivers in or around campus per day. How many lives are at stake with each drunken driver? At least one, if not two, or five, or maybe ten. But we’ve got to bust those underage drinkers, don’t we?

Alcohol abuse and drunken driving is dangerous. We’ve been told this umpteen times, and it’s pretty much true. Hell, even companies that produce the alcohol urge us to "enjoy responsibly." The fact is, alcohol problems aren’t just something colleges have to deal with, it’s a problem for communities across the nation.

Personally, I think those between the ages of 18 and 20 should be afforded the right to imbibe alcohol. Not because I want license to be wickedly trashed every day of the week (except Sundays…Indiana Blue Laws), but because I think that if we're adult enough for the responsibilities, we're adult enough for the privileges.

Cheers.

Matt Poston is a sophomore in the School of Management. E-mail your thoughts to opinions@purdueexponent.org.

Drinking laws should not focus on age

Slavery issues remain prevalent in North

OPINIONS DESK PHONE:
(765) 743-1111 ext. 256

Opinions editor:
Tom McHenry

To send a letter to the editor, please email opinions@purdueexponent.org