• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Megan Roush   Roush is a third-year American literature and culture and French student who loves to hear from readers. E-mail her at meegan@ucla.edu.

Click Here for more articles by Megan Roush  

It’s zero week, and worrying about getting caught with alcohol if you’re underage is a waste of time. I know it won’t prevent me or my friends, among whom there are very few “legal” drinkers, from going to parties where alcohol is served. We don’t take the law seriously because it’s difficult for the police to enforce it, and it’s difficult to get caught unless you’re carelessly walking around Westwood with an open container, brandishing your underage driver’s license.

I think the nail in the coffin for me was when a friend of mine was slapped with a minor-in-possession, and went to court only to discover that the UCPD cop who busted him still hadn’t filed the charge with Los Angeles County even though the incident was three months past. Since the cop didn’t even show up to court, my friend was basically off the hook. I’m left to believe that alcohol policy enforcement is a joke at our school.

Certainly the law that prohibits people under the age of 21 from consuming alcohol will not be a major drinking deterrent to students during zero week. In fact, it seems to be the opposite.

The current law makes the act of drinking a “forbidden fruit” for some people. According to many studies, such a “forbidden fruit” mentality is what makes freshmen the most likely people to binge drink during the first weeks of school. They get their first taste (no pun intended) of freedom and independence from their parents.

Instead of teaching children how to drink responsibly, the law (and many parents) reinforce a stigma that alcohol is an inherently bad thing, thus making it even more of an attractive, rebellious activity to young people. With only the words “don’t do it” ringing in their ears, some incoming college students face tough social and physiological challenges in their first days as students.

  ERICO PINTO/Daily Bruin Last year, a freshman came to one of my friend’s dorm parties during zero week. Having never had a drink before, she tossed back innumerable shots of vodka and ended up puking her way into the emergency room with alcohol poisoning. Luckily she was fine, but classes hadn’t even started.

Some proponents of the law might point to this incident as an example of how people under 21 can’t handle alcohol and its behavioral responsibilities. I would turn around and blame parents or junior high and high school programs for not preparing students for the decisions they will have to make about alcohol as they leave home for college.

Unfortunately, the Department of Education specifically forbids instruction in “responsible” drug and alcohol use education in public universities by the Drug-Free Schools and Community Act Amendments of 1989. This act states, that “universities must have an official no-use alcohol policy for students under 21 or risk losing federal funds, including student financial aid.”

Thus, the stance of the Department of Education is equally prohibitory. This might explain why the program is called DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and not Don’t Drink So Much In College Or You’ll Make A Fool Of Yourself And Potentially Have Life-Long Health Problems Education.

But leaving students to figure out how to drink on their own, in an “underground” setting, is asinine. Universities have to be kidding themselves if they say they have a “dry campus.” Drinking and college will be associated with one another as long as they continue to show Budweiser commercials during college football games and the Greek system is an integral part of university culture, i.e. forever.

A prohibitionist stand on alcohol at universities isn’t working.

Being only 20, I have my personal issues with the law. I agree with the stance of a student group called Realistic Alcohol Legislation for Legal Youth, which feels our alcohol laws discriminate against young legal adults. RALLY argues that our current law associates maturity with drinking rather than maturity with responsible drinking. The way our government restricts teenage alcohol use is completely unrealistic, and it seems like the restrictions are backfiring on us.

RALLY uses one particular study, “Preventing Alcohol Abuse,” written by sociologist David Hanson of the State University of New York, to demonstrate some of the problems with our current legislation. The study compared the treatment and use of alcohol in different cultures.

Hanson concluded that among cultures in which alcohol is introduced to people at a later age, or where alcohol consumption is not associated with food, religion or family events, alcoholism and other kinds of alcohol abuse are more prevalent (www.rallyusa.org/Journal1/tack_on_alcohol.html).

One of the focus groups used in the study were the Irish, who typically drink outside of the home and without food, and subsequently have high rates of alcoholism. American parents who forbid their children from consuming alcohol, and a law that reinforces prohibition for young people seem to create a culture of alcoholics and young binge drinkers.

Thus, I believe total teenage alcohol consumption prohibition is counterproductive. I attribute my responsible drinking habits to my parents’ approach to alcohol throughout my childhood and adolescence. For me, the laws don’t make alcohol a “forbidden fruit.” Instead it’s just a slight inconvenience that necessitates the formation of a mental list of my “legal” friends who can “hook me up.” My parents never explicitly told me that I couldn’t drink when I lived with them, and I never had any interest in drinking. I would try my parents’ drinks on occasion, and I thought they tasted terrible. When I left for college, I cautiously began to test my tolerance and understand how my body reacts to alcohol rather than binge drinking several nights a week.

So what’s up with the magical number 21, anyway? Responsible drinking cannot be attributed to a birthday. According to a RALLY publication, the last state to pass a “21” law was Louisiana in 1985, but “only after the federal government threatened to cut transportation money to the state” (David Salina, Louisiana Supreme Court Rules 18 Legal, 1996). Prior to this date, Louisiana’s legal drinking age was 18, and the amount of alcohol consumed in the state was actually lower per capita than in some states with a legal drinking age of 21. Go figure.

The law against underage drinking is unsuccessful and, as I’ve shown, an inappropriate method for curbing teenage alcohol use. Trying to keep alcohol out of underage hands seems like a lot of work, and since I’ve never had any problems scoring a drink at a party, whatever tactics are being used don’t seem to be working.

Like prohibition, this law fosters underground crime such as the fake ID rings you’ll find anywhere near a college campus. This leads to more work for the police and more liability risks for alcohol vendors. And, like prohibition in the 1920s, this law just ain’t working.

I’d like to add that I’m not advocating that everyone between the ages of 18 and 20 start drinking. I think it’s also important to mention that these laws and similar alcohol legislation have helped reduce drunk driving accidents and fatalities among young people. I just think it’s time we start being honest about the failure of an unfair and inappropriate law, and specifically how this law has failed in its application to the university environment.

It’d be great to hear more from UCLA than just, “When you’ve done four, you’re done for.” Unfortunately, since UCLA’s a public institution, it can’t publicly advocate responsible underage drinking.

Here’s to zero week. Cheers!

Comments

Post a comment