Maine Voices: A dad's thoughts on alcohol, hypocrisy and teaching kids life skills
The approach to drinking is to punish under-21s for doing something most adults can't resist.
YARMOUTH - The drinking age is now 21. When I was in high school it was 18. Now, as then, kids try beer, wine, whiskey and other alcoholic drinks during their adolescence -- illegally -- in large percentages.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael Waxman is a trial lawyer with offices in Portland, and a Yarmouth resident with four adolescent children.
And after they can drink legally, the overwhelming majority will -- for the rest of their lives. Recent studies put the percentage of adult drinkers at about 64 percent, holding steady, even amid the recession.
Remember that Prohibition idea? I was not around then, but I seem to recall reading that it did not pan out very well.
So, we know that banning drinking in adults does not work, that the urge to have a glass of wine or beer now and then is too strong to prohibit.
We also know that alcohol was involved in fatal auto accidents 37 percent to 60 percent of the time from 1982 to 2008. Accordingly, making good decisions about drinking is a life and death matter for the vast majority of us, every day that we are alive.
Yet, the approach to drinking in this country is to forbid it by those under the age of 21, and to punish those who seem unable to do precisely what adults have convincingly shown they cannot do -- choose not to drink.
More fundamentally ridiculous and dangerous is that we cannot legally teach our children how to manage their drinking responsibly. We cannot legally teach them life skills that will not only save their own lives, but the lives of many others on the roadway.
Some of the arguments used by school administrators and others to support the "just say no" position to underage alcohol use are that binge drinking by those whose brains are developing may have a negative impact on brain functioning, and may be related to alcohol dependence later in life.
Even assuming there may be some truth in those hypotheses, common sense tells us that binge drinking has more to do with peer pressure than anything else.
Moreover, even conceding that there may be some relationship between underage drinking and problems that develop later in life, I for one would much rather have a child with fewer brain cells caused by some underage drinking than a cemetery plot to visit and a hole in my heart big enough to swallow my world.
I shall never agree to do anything that will harm my children, no matter what the law says about it. So, if my child tells me that he or she will be drinking alcohol on any given night, my response will be to make sure that plans are in place so that my child and others come home safely.
If I simply tell my child, "No, you will not drink" and presume that I have discharged my parenting function, then: 1) what I did is completely within the law and 2) my child may not come home some night when he and his friends have a couple beers.
If we can't do better by our kids than to put our heads in the sand and forget about and deny our own adolescent experiences when it comes to alcohol, then we are dropping the ball in a big way and accepting avoidable and tragic alcohol related deaths of our loved ones.
We can model good drinking habits, we can stress moderation in everything, and we can give our kids the message that we are there for them, to help them make good choices.
We can tell them that if they do drink, if they are in a car with someone who is impaired, that they should call us and we'll pick them up, no matter the time, no matter the place, no questions asked.
Their intellectual performance and their mental health are important factors to consider, as well as what the law tells us, but all of that is irrelevant if our child ends up dead because he decided to drink and we failed to teach him how to make good decisions regarding alcohol use.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
22 COMMENTS
Dunski said...
An excellent and honest piece. There are many factors parents have to weigh. I agree that I'd rather my children found out about the effects of alcohol at home with me over dinner than out there somewhere under peer pressure. Thank you. Dunski
July 19, 2010 at 7:29 AM Report abuse
RobertAT said...
There is absolutely no reason to think that drinking alcohol is an expected part of teen life. That comes from YOUR attitude about drinking. The brain impairment caused by drinking in those years is significant and not to be discounted as a secondary risk. It matters much more than you think. What needs to change is our adult attitude towards drinking. That will change the attitudes of our children.
July 19, 2010 at 10:21 AM Report abuse
CanAmSteve said...
The USA is the odd one out in the western world with its unrealistic drinking age. Most civilized counties set the age at 18 and have fewer drinking problems among youths than the USA. (The Spring Break phenomena does not see to exist outside the USA). Then again, the DRIVING age in other places tends to be higher, too. I guess some idiots are concerned that a child can legally be given the controls of a 3000 lb. 200 hp hunk of steel in Manhattan. Change comes slowly to the USA, though. Our unshakable belief that everything American is the best (drummed into us at schools and by our media like Pravda did in the former USSR) prevents us from even considering that anyone else does anything better than us. Different is wrong! Seems incredible to most people (in the real world) that a US citizen can be a decorated war veteran with two kids and still not legally be able to buy a six-pack of beer.
July 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM Report abuse
mjwaxy said...
@ RobertAT: "There is absolutely no reason to think that drinking alcohol is an expected part of teen life." Really? What about history? What about Prohibition? What about teenagers doing precisely what you tell them not to much of the time? You really think if you tell your kids "no" that's the end of it? Really???
July 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM Report abuse
SnVzdFN0b3BJdA%3D%3D said...
This author hits the nail on the head. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
July 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM Report abuse
QWpheDE1MQ%3D%3D said...
"There is absolutely no reason to think that drinking alcohol is an expected part of teen life. That comes from YOUR attitude about drinking" So you didn't drink a drop until 21? Funny, about 90% of the population will drink before then; it's about as common as fornication. "The brain impairment caused by drinking in those years is significant and not to be discounted as a secondary risk." What years are you talking about exactly? 18-20? There is no hard evidence that drinking at 18 is significantly worse than drinking at 21. Perhaps before 18 it is more hazardous, especially before 15, but any brain development that occurs after 18 is really just the last finishing touches. The brain development argument is really just an after-the-fact rationalization for the 21 drinking age. "What needs to change is our adult attitude towards drinking. That will change the attitudes of our children." I agree. So stop scapegoating young people for adult problems.
July 19, 2010 at 10:53 AM Report abuse
jockmom123 said...
Well written! You would not believe the number of kids that go off to college who binge drink because they have never had the opportunity to "test the waters" beforehand. Teaching RESPONSIBILITY is definitely the key!!
July 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM Report abuse
said...
I was one of those teens binge drinking and driving back when the drinking age was 18... I am positive my "activities" adversely affected some brain cells but the risks I took were in hindsight, far worse than any damage done to my brain. Experimentation with alcohol is something the majority of teenagers do. According to my Mom and Dad (who admitted such stuff only when I was older), they did it... I did it... The next generations in my family did it... And I expect my family is not much different than most other families. I am not saying it is ok to drink at a young age but I do believe the risks of saying no and passing on the responsibility to others is worse than a lack of parental guidance, openness, and supervision.
July 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM Report abuse
weatherfreak said...
Everyone at or over the age of 50 could legally drink at 18. Plenty of other countries have a young, or no drinking age at all. Are europeans and everyone over the age 50 somehow impaired because of this? No.
July 19, 2010 at 12:33 PM Report abuse
said...
Well said to the author. "Forbidding" behavior & actions begets rebellion. We do better by our children when we teach them responsible behavior rather than drawing a line in the sand and challenging them to cross it.
July 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM Report abuse
John said...
An emotional piece with no supporting data. Since MLDA-21 alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalites have dropped 70% among 16-20 year olds - twice the rate of other age groups. Data also suggest that teaching "responsible drinking" only really teaches drinking.
July 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM Report abuse
John said...
If the teenage brain is too immature to handle alcohol then it is too immature to handle the decision to enter combat for the military. If you are old enough to fight and die to protect the nation, you are old enough to have a beer. End of story.
July 19, 2010 at 3:45 PM Report abuse
said...
Waxman, please. Many adults have proven they cannot handle marriage, too, given the divorce statistics. Yet adults continue to marry in large numbers throughout their adult life. Perhaps we should permit children and teens to marry?
July 20, 2010 at 9:18 AM Report abuse
Michael Waxman said...
@ Anonymous: I am trying to understand your post, but failing. Your analogy is inapt. Marriage does not frequently kill people. Alcohol does. All I care about, from a completely selfish perspective, is for my children NOT to predecease me. This is about managing risks versus ignoring them, my friend.
July 20, 2010 at 9:30 AM Report abuse
ThulsaDoom said...
The Author did not hit the nail on the head he has a nail stuck in his head in the reasoning section of the brain.
July 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM Report abuse
Michael Waxman said...
@ ThulsaDoom: How is my reasoning defective? Would you mind clarifying/augmenting your pithy post? We can have a discussion, or you can just post insults. Your choice.
July 20, 2010 at 11:00 AM Report abuse
shredder said...
Put a Breathalyzer in every car. Drunk driving fatalities from 60% to 0. Prevention right? I always thought it was stupid that a kid can fight and die for their country but not legally drink @ 18.
July 20, 2010 at 11:59 PM Report abuse
John S said...
Mr. Waxman you taking about managing risks without data. Since we've already done the experiment and found that MLDA-18 results in greater fatalities and injuries for this age group, why would you want to try this again? Thee are NO data that support the idea that lowering the MLDA would result in less drinking and less dangerous drinking among this age group. In fact, just the opposite is true
July 21, 2010 at 1:50 PM Report abuse
Michael Waxman said...
@ John S: The part you are missing (perhaps you are not a parent) is that MY child is not just a statistic to ME. The risks of drinking and driving are so monumental, so grave (literally), so permanent, that as a parent when I weigh risks here, although I don't like the idea of my child drinking and negatively impacting his brain, that risk pales in comparison to death. Choose your battles. I choose life.
July 22, 2010 at 9:27 AM Report abuse
John S said...
I am a parent AND a scientist. When I look at the scientific literature, there are many, many studies supporting MLDA-21 for reducing alcohol-related fatalities, injuries, and alcohol disorders. On the other hand, there are NO scientific studies that conclude that lowering the MLDA would lower consumption and binge drinking rates (in fact the opposite is true). The latest study, as I mentioned before, clearly demonstrated that the attempt to teach "responsible drinking" in fact only teaches drinking - and this study was conducted in Europe! You can have an emotional arguement, but at some point you have to look at the science which doesn't support your position.
July 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM Report abuse
Michael Waxman said...
@ John S.: What does science and what do statistics tell you about fatal auto accidents? That alcohol is involved in a very large pecentage of the cases. People obviously are not learning to make good decisions about alcohol use and driving. Just when and how do you propose people obtain these tools? At college? How about at home, at the end of high school, before they have the opportunity to get out into the world and kill themselves and others? Alcohol is a legal and potentially lethal substance. We owe it to ourselves and our children, and society, to teach our children how to use it responsibly. We mandate formal training before kids drive cars, use guns in the military or fly planes. But any fool with some money can buy alcohol and use it legally at 21. Ridunculous.
July 22, 2010 at 2:08 PM Report abuse
Anthony Rhodes said...
Very well written. The anti-21 movement salutes you for your courage.
July 22, 2010 at 11:29 PM Report abuse