Police apparently have a new weapon in the perennial (and futile) crusade against "underage" drinking: all-terrain vehicles. Apparently raising the drinking age to 21, and the ever-toughening enforcement of this law, has (predictably) pushed teen drinking further and further into the woods than in the past, often into areas where cop cars can't enter. But now, in some places (such as Enfield, CT) the police will use ATVs to patrol remote wooded areas to check for teen drinking parties. No word yet on whether this has actually been successful in curbing "underage" drinking, but I think we already know the answer to that question, especially as far as 18-20 year olds are concerned.
In a word: NO.
Instead of patrolling the woods in an attempt to ferret out "underage" drinkers, wouldn't it be better to use those resources to patrol the roads to hunt down drunk drivers of all ages? That would save far more lives, but that would make too much sense, wouldn't it?
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Have A Safe And Happy New Year
With the New Year's Eve festivities approaching, we at Twenty-One Debunked want to remind everyone to celebrate responsibly. There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving at any age, period. We cannot stress this enough. It's very simple--if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive. And there are numerous ways to avoid mixing the two. Designate a sober driver, take a cab, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to. Or stay home and celebrate there. Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Truth is In: Swift Justice Works
According to the latest traffic fatality statistics, there was a 40% drop in alcohol-related traffic deaths in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) in the twelve months ending on September 30, 2011 compared to the same period a year ago. Such a massive drop in a single year is quite noteworthy indeed. While part of that may be due to significantly higher gas prices in 2011, the decrease in fatalities was apparently much larger in BC than the rest of the nation. So it had to be something specific to that province as well.
About a year ago, there were significant changes to BC's impaired driving laws. For example, under the new laws, if a driver is stopped by police and blows 0.05-0.08 BAC, the driver will immediately lose his or her license for three days for a first offense, a week for a second offense, and 30 days for a third offense. Vehicles may be impounded for up to the same number of days each time. If a driver blows 0.08 or higher, or refuses to be tested, he or she will lose his or her license for 90 days and the car may be impounded for up to 30 days. There are also stiff fines and towing and storage costs, and an ignition interlock device must be installed (at the driver's expense) when the impoundment ends. Thus, total costs can range from $600 to $4060 depending on the severity and number of offenses, and that alone can be a deterrent in itself for many people.
These administrative roadside penalties are also quicker and easier to enforce (and process) than the Criminal Code penalties as well due to their streamlined nature. Prior to the law change in September 2010, numerous drunk drivers (in fact the majority) were getting off relatively easily with only a 24-hour driving ban, while only relatively few were nailed with criminal charges and convictions. Like the rest of Canada, there were fairly tough laws on the books, but enforcement of those laws was another story. But since then, things have gotten much more consistent, and since police have spent less time processing suspects, they have had more time to catch drunk drivers. And if you look at the data, you will see a decrease in criminal charges (despite presumably increased enforcement) since then along with the decrease in deaths. It has been so successful that now the neighboring province of Alberta wants to adopt similar laws.
However, in November the BC Supreme Court had blocked some of these penalties from being enforced, after ruling that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because there was "no adequate avenue for review." Effectively, that aspect of the law was held to be unconstitutional by Canadian standards due to lack of recourse (i.e. due process) for those busted. The three-day license suspensions and impoundments, on the other hand, can still be enforced for those who blow in the "warn" range of 0.05-0.08, along with the rest of the penalties, but for those who blow above 0.08, things will revert back to the old law until the current law is rewritten to comply with the Charter. It remains to be seen whether these sanctions will be reinstated, and if not, what effect this will have on traffic fatalities in the future.
In the USA, most states have at least a milder version of what BC had instituted in 2010, usually minus the vehicle impoundment. Called "administrative license suspension/revocation" (ALS/ALR), it has generally held up in the courts provided that there is at least some semblance of due process, which is typically just an informal DMV hearing. This type of law has proven to be highly cost-effective in reducing traffic deaths. And while a temporary license is generally given pending the hearing, short-term impoundment of the vehicle and the driver immediately following arrest is not unprecedented (see "John's Law") and can very easily occur in some states. But all of these laws need to be strengthened and enforced better, as alcohol-related traffic fatalities remain unacceptably high despite being at a record low. Since we now know what works and what doesn't, what are we waiting for?
UPDATE: On Dec 23, just in time for the holidays, the judge who struck down parts of the controversial BC law ruled that the entire law can temporarily remain in effect as written until June 30, 2012, citing public safety concerns. The province has until that date to amend the law so it will comply with the Charter, or else it will be automatically void after that date. Which can and should be easily done simply by creating some kind of appeals process, and confirming any failed roadside breath tests with a more accurate machine. That said, all penalties are back on the menu for now, so drunk drivers beware.
About a year ago, there were significant changes to BC's impaired driving laws. For example, under the new laws, if a driver is stopped by police and blows 0.05-0.08 BAC, the driver will immediately lose his or her license for three days for a first offense, a week for a second offense, and 30 days for a third offense. Vehicles may be impounded for up to the same number of days each time. If a driver blows 0.08 or higher, or refuses to be tested, he or she will lose his or her license for 90 days and the car may be impounded for up to 30 days. There are also stiff fines and towing and storage costs, and an ignition interlock device must be installed (at the driver's expense) when the impoundment ends. Thus, total costs can range from $600 to $4060 depending on the severity and number of offenses, and that alone can be a deterrent in itself for many people.
These administrative roadside penalties are also quicker and easier to enforce (and process) than the Criminal Code penalties as well due to their streamlined nature. Prior to the law change in September 2010, numerous drunk drivers (in fact the majority) were getting off relatively easily with only a 24-hour driving ban, while only relatively few were nailed with criminal charges and convictions. Like the rest of Canada, there were fairly tough laws on the books, but enforcement of those laws was another story. But since then, things have gotten much more consistent, and since police have spent less time processing suspects, they have had more time to catch drunk drivers. And if you look at the data, you will see a decrease in criminal charges (despite presumably increased enforcement) since then along with the decrease in deaths. It has been so successful that now the neighboring province of Alberta wants to adopt similar laws.
However, in November the BC Supreme Court had blocked some of these penalties from being enforced, after ruling that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because there was "no adequate avenue for review." Effectively, that aspect of the law was held to be unconstitutional by Canadian standards due to lack of recourse (i.e. due process) for those busted. The three-day license suspensions and impoundments, on the other hand, can still be enforced for those who blow in the "warn" range of 0.05-0.08, along with the rest of the penalties, but for those who blow above 0.08, things will revert back to the old law until the current law is rewritten to comply with the Charter. It remains to be seen whether these sanctions will be reinstated, and if not, what effect this will have on traffic fatalities in the future.
In the USA, most states have at least a milder version of what BC had instituted in 2010, usually minus the vehicle impoundment. Called "administrative license suspension/revocation" (ALS/ALR), it has generally held up in the courts provided that there is at least some semblance of due process, which is typically just an informal DMV hearing. This type of law has proven to be highly cost-effective in reducing traffic deaths. And while a temporary license is generally given pending the hearing, short-term impoundment of the vehicle and the driver immediately following arrest is not unprecedented (see "John's Law") and can very easily occur in some states. But all of these laws need to be strengthened and enforced better, as alcohol-related traffic fatalities remain unacceptably high despite being at a record low. Since we now know what works and what doesn't, what are we waiting for?
UPDATE: On Dec 23, just in time for the holidays, the judge who struck down parts of the controversial BC law ruled that the entire law can temporarily remain in effect as written until June 30, 2012, citing public safety concerns. The province has until that date to amend the law so it will comply with the Charter, or else it will be automatically void after that date. Which can and should be easily done simply by creating some kind of appeals process, and confirming any failed roadside breath tests with a more accurate machine. That said, all penalties are back on the menu for now, so drunk drivers beware.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
So Where Do Very Underage Drinkers Get Their Booze?
All 50 states and DC have a legal drinking age of 21 thanks to federal coercion, but apparently there are some parts of the country where the average age of onset of drinking is as low as 12. Think about that for a moment--that's nine years below the legal age, and that's the average in some communities!
So with all of this very underage drinking going on, with numerous kids starting to drink nearly a decade before they are legal, where are they getting all that booze? The answers can be found in a survey of kids in one such community in South Dakota. And 37% of the kids surveyed said that friends over age 21 would buy it for them, while 8% got strangers to buy for them and 4% had other means. But wait--wasn't raising the drinking age to 21 supposed to stop kids under 18 from getting their older friends to buy for them? Guess not.
Of course, the average age of onset in the USA as a whole has generally been in the 16-17 range since 1965 despite fluctuations in the legal drinking age. And the average age at first drink actually dropped from 16.6 in 1980 to 16.2 in 2002. Even 8th graders (13 year olds!) can apparently their hands on alcohol more easily than even cigarettes, which have an age limit 18 in 46 states (and often poorly enforced). There seems to be little to no correlation between the legal drinking age and the average age of onset of drinking. But if not that, what does explain why some communities drink earlier (and/or more so) than others? Like the above-referenced article points out, a combination of socioeconomic disadvantage, low alcohol prices, and the drinking patterns of their parents and grandparents seems to be the main culprit. And there is nothing at all surprising about that.
A community group has made recommendations to address the problem. Such recommendations include restricting alcohol advertising in the area, raising alcohol taxes, working with retailers on pricing and the placement of alcohol in stores, and increasing compliance checks on retailers by law enforcement. We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that these commonsense measures are a good idea overall, and would support them even more if the drinking age was lowered to 18 as well. Remember that the success story of Puerto Rico did not require a drinking age of 21 to succeed. And nor did America's experience with tobacco use reduction over the past few decades require an increase in the smoking age to 21.
So with all of this very underage drinking going on, with numerous kids starting to drink nearly a decade before they are legal, where are they getting all that booze? The answers can be found in a survey of kids in one such community in South Dakota. And 37% of the kids surveyed said that friends over age 21 would buy it for them, while 8% got strangers to buy for them and 4% had other means. But wait--wasn't raising the drinking age to 21 supposed to stop kids under 18 from getting their older friends to buy for them? Guess not.
Of course, the average age of onset in the USA as a whole has generally been in the 16-17 range since 1965 despite fluctuations in the legal drinking age. And the average age at first drink actually dropped from 16.6 in 1980 to 16.2 in 2002. Even 8th graders (13 year olds!) can apparently their hands on alcohol more easily than even cigarettes, which have an age limit 18 in 46 states (and often poorly enforced). There seems to be little to no correlation between the legal drinking age and the average age of onset of drinking. But if not that, what does explain why some communities drink earlier (and/or more so) than others? Like the above-referenced article points out, a combination of socioeconomic disadvantage, low alcohol prices, and the drinking patterns of their parents and grandparents seems to be the main culprit. And there is nothing at all surprising about that.
A community group has made recommendations to address the problem. Such recommendations include restricting alcohol advertising in the area, raising alcohol taxes, working with retailers on pricing and the placement of alcohol in stores, and increasing compliance checks on retailers by law enforcement. We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that these commonsense measures are a good idea overall, and would support them even more if the drinking age was lowered to 18 as well. Remember that the success story of Puerto Rico did not require a drinking age of 21 to succeed. And nor did America's experience with tobacco use reduction over the past few decades require an increase in the smoking age to 21.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Happy Drink Nothing Day!
You have probably heard of Buy Nothing Day. Celebrated on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving and the biggest shopping day of the year, this self-explanatory holiday is meant to be a protest against consumerism. But perhaps you didn't know that the biggest drinking day of the year is the day before Thanksgiving. That's right, it's not New Year's Eve, but Thanksgiving Eve.
Thus, last year we at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to create our own protest holiday, Drink Nothing Day. It is designed as a way for people 21 and over to show solidarity with those under 21 by not drinking any alcohol that day. To observe this holiday, which can only logically be done by folks over 21, one must not drink any form of alcohol at all during the entire 24 hours of that date, as well as the following day until sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner (or until the sun goes down, whichever occurs earlier). Then, one may drink, but one must give thanks that prohibition no longer applies to him or her. Other things include wearing two black armbands: one to symbolize those soldiers who died before being able to drink legally in the very country they served, and another to symbolize those under 21 who were killed by a drunk driver over 21.
We will continue to observe this holiday until the drinking age is lowered to 18 in all 50 states.
Thus, last year we at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to create our own protest holiday, Drink Nothing Day. It is designed as a way for people 21 and over to show solidarity with those under 21 by not drinking any alcohol that day. To observe this holiday, which can only logically be done by folks over 21, one must not drink any form of alcohol at all during the entire 24 hours of that date, as well as the following day until sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner (or until the sun goes down, whichever occurs earlier). Then, one may drink, but one must give thanks that prohibition no longer applies to him or her. Other things include wearing two black armbands: one to symbolize those soldiers who died before being able to drink legally in the very country they served, and another to symbolize those under 21 who were killed by a drunk driver over 21.
We will continue to observe this holiday until the drinking age is lowered to 18 in all 50 states.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Yet Another Sketchy Study--DEBUNKED!
A recent study now claims that raising the drinking age to 21 saves the lives of roughly 1200 women per year who otherwise would have died of suicide or homicide, including later in life as well. The pro-21 crowd (and the media) are really eating it up. But is it really true, or should we be skeptical?
It turns out that there are in fact several reasons one should be skeptical of such an audacious claim. First of all, there was no noticeable effect of the drinking age on suicide and homicide rates among the general population exposed to the law change--only when the results were separated by gender was any sort of pattern noticed, and only among women born after 1960. The fact that men (who tend to drink more than women, and who also are more likely to kill themselves and others) were completely unaffected is very difficult to explain away assuming the effect is genuine. Secondly, the odds ratios were fairly small, 1.12 and 1.15, and any odds ratios less than 2.0 ought to be taken with a grain of salt (if not a whole pound). It could very likely be the result of chance, bias, or confounding factors. Thirdly, the study only looked at where the individuals were born, not where they lived at age 18. Fourthly, comparing the USA with countries with lower drinking ages does not appear to support the claim that allowing 18-20 year olds to drink results in higher homicide and suicide rates. For example, Canadians of both genders have lower homicide rates than Americans, and suicide rates that are intermediate between the lower 48 states and Alaska.
Unfortunately, we were unable to access the full text of the study, so we don't know what confounders (if any) the authors attempted to adjust for, except for state and birth-year fixed effects. However, since summaries of the study say that the effect was seen in 38 out of 39 states, that implies that the 12 states that did not change the drinking age at all (remained at 21 throughout) were not included. This is important since that would be a rudimentary way to test for secular trends, as we have done in this previous post. So many other things have changed during that time, making it difficult to tease out the impact of the drinking age change. And why weren't women (or men for that matter) born before 1960 affected? This study seems to leave the reader with more questions than answers.
The true believers in the 21 drinking age will need a lot more convincing in the error of their ways, however. That's why we took the initiative and looked up the mortality data ourselves in the publicly available CDC WONDER database. And here is what we found:
The above charts look at the female homicide and suicide rates of various age cohorts (15-19, 20-24, 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54) for the years 1979-1998. The study we are critiquing used the years 1990-2004 instead of 1979-1998, but we felt the latter would be more appropriate since a) the WONDER data are grouped into 1979-1998 and 1999-2007, each with somewhat different death codes, and b) more cohorts would be included. Voila--there is essentially no difference in the patterns of either rate over time between the various groups of states (all states, states that were always 21, and states that were 18 at some time) despite changes in the legal drinking age.
It turns out that there are in fact several reasons one should be skeptical of such an audacious claim. First of all, there was no noticeable effect of the drinking age on suicide and homicide rates among the general population exposed to the law change--only when the results were separated by gender was any sort of pattern noticed, and only among women born after 1960. The fact that men (who tend to drink more than women, and who also are more likely to kill themselves and others) were completely unaffected is very difficult to explain away assuming the effect is genuine. Secondly, the odds ratios were fairly small, 1.12 and 1.15, and any odds ratios less than 2.0 ought to be taken with a grain of salt (if not a whole pound). It could very likely be the result of chance, bias, or confounding factors. Thirdly, the study only looked at where the individuals were born, not where they lived at age 18. Fourthly, comparing the USA with countries with lower drinking ages does not appear to support the claim that allowing 18-20 year olds to drink results in higher homicide and suicide rates. For example, Canadians of both genders have lower homicide rates than Americans, and suicide rates that are intermediate between the lower 48 states and Alaska.
Unfortunately, we were unable to access the full text of the study, so we don't know what confounders (if any) the authors attempted to adjust for, except for state and birth-year fixed effects. However, since summaries of the study say that the effect was seen in 38 out of 39 states, that implies that the 12 states that did not change the drinking age at all (remained at 21 throughout) were not included. This is important since that would be a rudimentary way to test for secular trends, as we have done in this previous post. So many other things have changed during that time, making it difficult to tease out the impact of the drinking age change. And why weren't women (or men for that matter) born before 1960 affected? This study seems to leave the reader with more questions than answers.
The true believers in the 21 drinking age will need a lot more convincing in the error of their ways, however. That's why we took the initiative and looked up the mortality data ourselves in the publicly available CDC WONDER database. And here is what we found:
Female homicides, all USA:
Female suicides, all USA:
Female homicides, "always-21" states:
Female suicides, "always-21" states:
Female homicides, "18 at some time" states
Female suicides, "18 at some time" states
The above charts look at the female homicide and suicide rates of various age cohorts (15-19, 20-24, 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54) for the years 1979-1998. The study we are critiquing used the years 1990-2004 instead of 1979-1998, but we felt the latter would be more appropriate since a) the WONDER data are grouped into 1979-1998 and 1999-2007, each with somewhat different death codes, and b) more cohorts would be included. Voila--there is essentially no difference in the patterns of either rate over time between the various groups of states (all states, states that were always 21, and states that were 18 at some time) despite changes in the legal drinking age.
It is really transparent and obvious why a study like this would come out now, at a time when many policymakers are seriously considering lowering the drinking age. After the arguments about drunk driving fatalities have been debunked time and time again, it was necessary to come up with other "public health" arguments for continuing to violate the civil rights of 18-20 year old young adults. But make no mistake--these arguments are really just a more socially acceptable way of saying that some people's rights are more important than others. That is, the antithesis of what America supposedly stands for.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Australia Revisited
Every once in a while, it seems that a vocal minority of Australians want to raise their country's drinking age (currently 18) to 21. Recently, this issue has been revisited due to the nation's notorious drinking problem, in a land where binge drinking is an art form among all ages. But many Australians are not at all convinced that raising the drinking age will solve anything.
A case in point is the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, who originally suggested that the drinking age should be raised but is now against the idea. He knows that it would not fix anything, and that the real problems have other solutions. For example, Professor Sandra Jones (University of Wollongong) notes that raising the prices of alcohol (i.e. through taxes and/or a price floor), reducing overall availability, and reducing advertising would all go a long way to reducing Australia's drinking problem, citing the nation's experience with cigarettes. But more fundamentally, the problem is largely a cultural one that raising the drinking age simply won't do jack to fix. And all they have to do to is come to America to see what we mean.
For more info about Australia's drinking age debate, see our previous post about this issue.
A case in point is the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, who originally suggested that the drinking age should be raised but is now against the idea. He knows that it would not fix anything, and that the real problems have other solutions. For example, Professor Sandra Jones (University of Wollongong) notes that raising the prices of alcohol (i.e. through taxes and/or a price floor), reducing overall availability, and reducing advertising would all go a long way to reducing Australia's drinking problem, citing the nation's experience with cigarettes. But more fundamentally, the problem is largely a cultural one that raising the drinking age simply won't do jack to fix. And all they have to do to is come to America to see what we mean.
For more info about Australia's drinking age debate, see our previous post about this issue.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Still More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do (Part 4)
See previous posts. In the past week or so:
An underage drinker did NOT injure six innocent children at once while driving drunk.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly flip her vehicle with her 4 year old inside, fleeing the scene alone with the child still inside (while her other two kids were left home alone).
An underage drinker did NOT get in a drunken rage and rip the door off of a house and assault her boyfriend because he refused to have sex with her. (Yes, you read that correctly!)
An underage drinker did NOT go to a bar and start two separate fights--with his 9 month old baby in tow.
An underage drinking couple did NOT get sloshed at a Cleveland Browns game, get into a fight, and leave their 9 year old foster son with some strangers.
The presumably drunk homeless man who allegedly raped an elderly woman that was trying to help him was well over 21.
An underage drinker did NOT leave her 9 month old twin babies home alone in a playpen so she could go out on a drinking binge.
An underage drinker did NOT drive so wasted that he stopped at green lights and ran the red ones, and eventually killed an elderly man.
An underage drinker did NOT drive drunk and kill two pedestrians on a bridge.
And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.
An underage drinker did NOT injure six innocent children at once while driving drunk.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly flip her vehicle with her 4 year old inside, fleeing the scene alone with the child still inside (while her other two kids were left home alone).
An underage drinker did NOT get in a drunken rage and rip the door off of a house and assault her boyfriend because he refused to have sex with her. (Yes, you read that correctly!)
An underage drinker did NOT go to a bar and start two separate fights--with his 9 month old baby in tow.
An underage drinking couple did NOT get sloshed at a Cleveland Browns game, get into a fight, and leave their 9 year old foster son with some strangers.
The presumably drunk homeless man who allegedly raped an elderly woman that was trying to help him was well over 21.
An underage drinker did NOT leave her 9 month old twin babies home alone in a playpen so she could go out on a drinking binge.
An underage drinker did NOT drive so wasted that he stopped at green lights and ran the red ones, and eventually killed an elderly man.
An underage drinker did NOT drive drunk and kill two pedestrians on a bridge.
And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Still More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do (Part 3)
See previous post. In the past few weeks or so:
An underage drinker did NOT take two naked men hostage the morning after a night of forgotten drunken sexual activity "in case she was raped".
An underage drinker did NOT get sloshed and then get busted committing the apparent "crime" of "impersonating a stripper" at the local "gentleman's club".
An underage drinker did NOT get busted TWICE for DUI within a span of two days, with her kids in the car, after rear-ending another car on the road.
An underage drinker did NOT give his daughter a black eye and then drunkenly wreck his vehicle with his kids inside, abandoning it with the kids still inside, and then resist arrest when busted.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly rear-end another vehicle in his SUV while more than double the legal BAC limit, with his 5 year old son in the car with him.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly hit and injure a police bicycle officer with his van.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a police cruiser and try to drive away.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into and kill two people who were riding a motorcycle--but both of the victims were under 21, and thus never got a chance to drink legally.
And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. Funny how what people over 21 do is their own business, but whatever an 18-20 year old does is used to justify abridging the civil rights of all 12 million 18-20 year olds. Honestly, does that really make any sense?
An underage drinker did NOT take two naked men hostage the morning after a night of forgotten drunken sexual activity "in case she was raped".
An underage drinker did NOT get sloshed and then get busted committing the apparent "crime" of "impersonating a stripper" at the local "gentleman's club".
An underage drinker did NOT get busted TWICE for DUI within a span of two days, with her kids in the car, after rear-ending another car on the road.
An underage drinker did NOT give his daughter a black eye and then drunkenly wreck his vehicle with his kids inside, abandoning it with the kids still inside, and then resist arrest when busted.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly rear-end another vehicle in his SUV while more than double the legal BAC limit, with his 5 year old son in the car with him.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly hit and injure a police bicycle officer with his van.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a police cruiser and try to drive away.
An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into and kill two people who were riding a motorcycle--but both of the victims were under 21, and thus never got a chance to drink legally.
And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. Funny how what people over 21 do is their own business, but whatever an 18-20 year old does is used to justify abridging the civil rights of all 12 million 18-20 year olds. Honestly, does that really make any sense?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
"Liquorlining" is a Bad Idea
New research from the UK (where the drinking age is 18) shows that, as the number of off-premise alcohol outlets in an area increases, the number of people under 18 who end up in the hospital for alcohol-related reasons also increases. This study adds to the substantial body of research in several countries (including the USA) that high outlet density increases alcohol-related problems (and crime) for all ages. And there is really nothing at all surprising about this fact, as teen drinking behaviors closely track those of the adults in their families and communities more than anything else.
There is no sound reason to have liquor stores on every corner, and you would think that reducing outlet density (even marginally) would be a top priority at least for the more holier-than-thou members of the pro-21 crowd. But apparently it is not, and again we are not surprised, as money is the roach of all evil and the hypocrisy of the pro-21 crowd is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
We do not have a "teen drinking problem", we have an American drinking problem which affects all ages. And it demands real solutions based on real science, not cowardly age discrimination and scapegoating based on junk science.
There is no sound reason to have liquor stores on every corner, and you would think that reducing outlet density (even marginally) would be a top priority at least for the more holier-than-thou members of the pro-21 crowd. But apparently it is not, and again we are not surprised, as money is the roach of all evil and the hypocrisy of the pro-21 crowd is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
We do not have a "teen drinking problem", we have an American drinking problem which affects all ages. And it demands real solutions based on real science, not cowardly age discrimination and scapegoating based on junk science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
