The Causative Utility of Restrictions on Youth Alcohol Consumption: An Analysis of MLDA with Recent Empirical - Research Paper Example

YOUR HERE The Causative Utility of Restrictions on Youth Alcohol Consumption An Analysis of MLDA With Recent Empirical Research Here 11/1/2008 When addressing uses of youth and alcohol, the question is not when but how youth should be using substances of this nature. The analysis of MLDA here finds that the question of when is nearly irrelevant, and is outside the realm of any control; however, the possibility of maintaining control over how youth use alcohol is open, and public policies should reflect this reality. Empirical research shows that the public is skeptical about enforcing MLDA policies, but that it will support almost any policy to help cut down on the effects of irresponsible underage drinking. Contents Contents 2 I.The Relevance 4 A. Public Opinion 6 B. A Psychological Perspective 8 II. Findings 10 A. Conclusions 11 B. Public Policy Recommendations 12 Works Cited 14 Societies form concepts from experience; what defines a chair in one culture could very well differ from the definition of a chair in another. In certain cultures, what is perceived as an adult human being often too differs from culture to culture. There is no easy, clear-cut biological answer to the question of how one is to differentiate between the pre-adult and adult stages of human development; if there were, many ethical and political dilemmas which face contemporary societies would be answered without difficulty. Nevertheless, modern Western civilization has a clear ambivalence towards the subject of what it considers to be an adequate level of maturity in a human being to make him or her an adult human being. One concern which is intimately connected with and ultimately contingent upon the dividing line between these two stages of human life is the age at which young people are allowed to consume alcohol without restrictions. Most states in the United States have set the MLDA1 at 21 years; thus, the age which the government respects individuals as having the proper level of maturity stands at 21 years (Montgomer, Foley and Wolfson). Youth drinking beneath this MLDA represents a serious public safety risk, both to the offenders themselves and those around them. This includes large social costs which come from irresponsible behavior. Public policies in the United States either aim to reduce alcohol supply to or alcohol demand from youth. Certain factors stand in the way of state public policies being properly enforced or having their intended effect: neighboring states may have differing policies, alcohol companies may lobby against strict enforcement, and the ubiquity of alcohol in contemporary society makes the acquisition of the substance almost too easy for underage drinkers. Whether or not such policies are, or can be, enforced according to law is a question to be addressed in turn. For much time, the solution to the rising occurrences of tragedies regarding alcohol-related deaths in younger adults has been to raise the MLDA to decrease both supply and demand to those most susceptible to alcohol’s deadly effects. However, as will be contended here, this is the wrong approach to take in trying to solve this grave problem. The solution lies not in changing actions, but in changing thoughts. Conceptually, all actions are the physical result of some mental process; actions are merely the effects where mental processes are the causes. By changing the mental processes which correspond to the physical actions, we can stop the problem at its roots. And, unlike enforcing an artificially high standard of maturity in the form of an MLDA, changing perceptions and attitudes is something which can be controlled with time. In what follows, it shall be seen that the MLDA is not too high or too low, but is irrelevant to the present considerations. What must be changed is how youth treat alcohol, see its effects, and use it in a social setting. I. The Relevance Instrumental to this thesis is the social relevance which considerations of both questions and the concept of an MLDA. This will be addressed in two respects: how effective is enforcement of the MLDA in the United States (which includes considerations of the economic costs of such enforcement), and the totality of the effects of alcohol use on younger people under the current paradigm of alcohol abuse prevention. With regards to the prevalence of underage drinking in the United States, it is reported that almost 11% of all alcohol consumed is done so by youth, and a vast majority of these drinks are consumed in a “binge” fashion (Drinking in America: Myths, Realities, and Prevention Policy). Annually, this results in almost 150,000 emergency room visits by youths related to injuries and health problems related to alcohol use (Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2005: National Estimates of Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits). A 2007 survey found such figures as 45% of youth drank “some amount of alcohol”, almost 26% drank in a “binge” fashion, 11% drove after drinking, combined with an additional 29% who reported riding in a car whose driver had been drinking alcohol (Eaton and Kinchen). In another 2007 survey found that almost 39% of youths aged 12 to 13 had tried alcohol, and 16% of these individuals had drank alcohol within the past month (D., M. and Bachman J. G.). With the relevance of this issue, and its impact on youth in America, established, consider now the ineffectiveness of enforcement in maintaining laws related to MLDA’s. Alexander C. Wagenaar and Mark Wolfson recently released data and figures on “both criminal and administrative enforcement actions related to underage drinking” (39). They found at the mean of underage drinking-related arrests, there are 196 per 100,000 across the country. To analyze these statistics more, consider that an “estimated 90 drinking occasions per month occur for every 100 persons age 16 to 20” (Wagenaar and Wolfson 41). This equates to just over a million drinking occasions per year for a one hundred thousand person population. If the median youth arrest rate stands at almost 2,300 per one hundred thousand—and the median rate of actions against alcohol outlets for sales to minors is 53 percent per a one hundred thousand person population aged 15 to 20 per year. Combined, these statistics indicate that “only two of every thousand occasions of youth drinking result in an arrest, and only five of every one hundred thousand youth drinking occasions result in… action against an alcohol outlet” (Wagenaar and Wolfson 41). Considering these figures, enforcement against underage drinking is clearly ineffective for achieving its ends. A. Public Opinion Surveying briefly public opinion regarding underage drinking policies may also be instructive in tailoring a novel response to the question of how we address this issue of practical concern. Linda Richter, Roger D. Vaughan, and Susan E. Foster recently published a report regarding this topic, aimed at finding out the extent to which the public supports an alcohol control policy, and the degree to which this support may depend on the specific details of the policy. The study concluded that an overwhelming majority of respondents favored all proposed alcohol control policies (as is represented in the figure on page 7). Almost three-quarters of respondents favored banning alcohol sponsorship of youth-oriented events, ads in youth-oriented media, and advertising on billboards in areas of likely youth exposure. No policy proposed to respondents was not favored by more than half respondents; the lowest response was to a proposal to “limit the hours or days of sale” of alcohol to all people. Overall, their findings indicate strong public support for almost any policy which can negatively affect underage drinking. These statistics are aimed at informing policymakers on what types of actions the public favors for future reference. All in all, the study indicates strong public support for almost any reasonably practical policy aimed at countering youth access to alcohol, and this certainly includes age limits on legal consumption of alcohol. However, what kind of emphasis can we place upon MLDA from these findings? Three questions pertaining to “limit youth access to alcohol establishments” have a relatively low positive response ratio. Two responses in particular, (1) “limit the number of establishments in a neighborhood” (59.8%) and (2) “limit the hours or days of sale” (at 51.2%) are not as popular options as the others, which receive overwhelming support, but both of these are the most relevant to considerations of the MLDA. The argument here is that, yes, the public favors any reasonably practical public policy which aims to counter underage drinking. However, the limited support for policies regarding MLDA indicates public skepticism regarding just how “practical” such policies really are. The contention in this paper that enforcement of minimum legal drinking ages is not enforceable, and thus, is not a primary strategy in resolving the issue, but is, at best, should be considered a secondary concern. B. A Psychological Perspective In the Introduction, I began by noting the vast differences between the norms and standards of various world cultures in establishing certain limits upon its youth and granting individuals certain rights as they age and mature. Although such a concept of “underage drinking” is predicated on the existence of an objectively verifiable age set which can responsibly handle alcohol, there is no absolute watermark in reality to back these claims. Drinking is extremely common in many cultures across the globe, despite of the widespread political limitations on alcohol consumption. Thus, what countries which adopt relatively high MLDA standards, such as Belarus and the United States at 21, are not helping fight irresponsible drinking habits, but may in fact generate them. Plant and Plant write, “[For adolescents] Drink is then used not merely for pleasure, not even to create an occasion for conviviality. It confers an adult status that is at once recognizable…” (Plant and Plant 28). In such countries, “shielding” of the young adult is taken to be justified by the undeniably risky effects of alcohol use to both society and individuals. But as Araoz notes, “Such [an] attitude would be incomprehensible in societies where alcohol consumption is seen as an important element in the traditional life and children experience their first exposure from an early age within family or community—as in France, China, Cameroon, and Italy, to name a few” (Araoz). Strict MLDA standards create too a double-standard, which has primarily caused some policymakers to rethink such laws. They reason that at 18, an individual can die for his country overseas serving in the military, or at 16, an individual can acquire a driver’s license and share the road with every other member of society. Why cannot they acquire and consume a substance which is not harmful in itself, when used responsibly? Nevertheless, this is bad reasoning. This type of reasoning has been proven wrong time and time again, in various places in the Western world. In July 1971, in Ontario, Canada, policymakers made the decision to lower the MLDA to 18 from 21 in a move justified by opinion polls and the reasoning outlined above. However, the immediate effects were obvious: admissions to alcoholism facilities and detoxification centers for those under 21 increased from almost none to as high as 4.4%; high school students would drink during lunch and be drunk by the end of the day. Opinions shifted and in 1979, the act was repealed, moving the MLDA to 19. Similar cases have been observed throughout the United States in the past quarter of a century (Single 245). What does this suggest? This suggests that MLDA standards are irrelevant to any policy which strives to lessen the impact of irresponsible underage drinking. Although MLDA standards can (when enforced) limit the number of underage drinkers, it cannot lessen irresponsible underage drinking. The law can only punish action. And although it is action which is the harmful outcome of drinking, the law cannot provide adequate deterrence for irresponsible drinking. What are needed are other primary solutions to the problem: solutions which address the psychological aspect of the problem. The psychological aspect of the problem revolves around the “forbidden fruit” mentality of youths when it comes to alcohol in nations with his MLDA standards. This phenomenon is also plainly observable when it comes to sex in nations with more restrictive laws on the act: countries like the United States have high percentages of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases in youth demographics, and high rates of failures to educate young adults properly in practicing safe sex (Plant and Plant). The situation is definitely similar in the area of alcohol: high percentages of alcohol related injuries and health conditions and high rates of illegal substance use. The answer, as I have said, does not lie in changing the MLDA; thinking this is so is equivalent to setting a “minimum legal sex age” and expecting it to cut down on the negative effects of “underage” sex. II. Findings There are many conclusions to be drawn from the research cited here and the research on the statistics which is relevant to this discussion not mentioned explicitly. The facts show that the age at which youths begin drinking is important, but they also show that the law has almost no power to positively affect this. Citizens look to the government at the state or even federal level to help curb these trends; however, the focus upon the minimum legal drinking age is misguided. However, additional empirical research shows that underage drinking affects all nations of the world where it is available to youths—readily or not. It is a fallacy to assume that a higher drinking age will somehow keep youths from acquiring the substance through whatever means possible. Although the findings to be presented here are by no means all-inclusive, or the complete mechanism to fight irresponsible underage drinking, these do not rest on the fallacies which afflict current policies. Those who like to support lower drinking ages often cite Europe erroneously to support their argument. However, such countries with lax MLDA’s face similar problems as America and those with more restrictive laws (Bonnie and OConnell). A. Conclusions The recurring theme through this discussion has been the irrelevancy of MLDA policies in affecting youth drinking. Nevertheless, it may be plausibly helpful, or perhaps necessary, to lower the MLDA to an age of 18 or 19. But this change in the law is not meant to be ubiquitous. This allowance is restricted to certain controlled environments, including restaurants, pubs, taverns, and even school and university gatherings. Remembering that the real solution to the problem consists of affecting attitudes and perspectives of youths, allowing drinking in these sorts of environments allows the development of positive role models in the place of elders who use alcohol responsibly. In these environments, the moderate and social use of alcohol is an expectation: otherwise, they will not be allowed to participate. Although this conclusion may seem a bit weak, one must consider the alternative: the binge drinking which is characteristic of wild parties and the dangerous drinking games which youths play in small groups. The fact is, as has been demonstrated, that even though 21 is the MLDA in many places in the United States, large amounts of individuals under this age consume alcohol irresponsibly. And, as many examples show, merely lowering the MLDA to 18 will not curb such irresponsibility, but will in fact encourage it. What must happen is the encouragement of responsible consumption, and not merely the encouragement of consumption regardless of the manner in which it is consumed. Irresponsible drinking, psychologically, is a function of the “forbidden fruit” quality of alcohol to youths, and a kind of symbolism for radicalism or rebellion against social mores. The conclusion presented here (making alcohol available to youths under a certain age, but restricted to certain environments) is a compromise between two alternatives which, being so far down the spectrum, are actually worse than doing nothing. Pure prohibition laws cannot and have not worked at any time in history. The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was met with mockery and ended in failure. What needs to happen is a change in the psychology of our culture. Examining the ancient cultures of Greece, Rome, and Judaea, we see examples set where alcohol is seen neither as a miracle drug nor a toxin, where irresponsible behavior is not socially acceptable, youths learn by example how to use alcohol responsibly, youths are not pressured into using it irresponsibly by their peers, and standards exist on how to use alcohol appropriately (Sullum). Thus, while the MLDA could be instrumental in helping a society overcome these irrational societal conventions regarding alcohol, they themselves are ineffectual in bringing any real change to the situation and, in the long run, are equally immaterial once change has come from a shift in perspective. B. Public Policy Recommendations Thus, the practical question arises of how do policymakers make such a fundamental change in a given community’s perceptions and social mores regarding alcohol? The answer is difficult to give, as it involves so many variables, determined by the unique compositions of different cultures. In the United States, where laws have been restrictive, the best course of action would be to proceed as recommended in the previous section: lowering the MLDA—erasing the prohibition—and encouraging alcohol use in the presence of those who know how to do so in a responsible manner. The law’s lax standards can then redirect law enforcement to preventing alcohol use outside of these certain social contexts where alcohol use is allowed with youths. These cultures need to integrate the responsible use of alcohol into mainstream society as ancient cultures did thousands of years ago, by the steps outlined above. In the United States, perceptions of alcohol as a “necessary” part of any party need to change: individuals should not see the only reason for getting together as alcohol consumption. The government can change alcohol education which is becoming more and more common to reflect the ridiculousness and stupidity of social gatherings centered around alcohol, and make alcohol available to youths at social gatherings, and thereby driving them to these controlled environments to drink legally and have a good time without consuming immoderately. In these environments, as in ancient cultures, irresponsible youth behavior should be seen as socially unaccepted. This is an attribute of Germany, with widespread, more acceptable use of beer: drunkards in public are derided at insofar as it is a shameful act to do so (Thlusty). In America, perceptions of drunkards in public are more joyous and humorous than anything—encouraging the idea that it is somehow “socially acceptable” to do so. Policymakers can help bring change to this by increasing enforcement on public drunkenness and other irresponsible public behavior. One last consequence of the procedures outlined in this and the previous section is the removal of peer pressure from alcohol consumption. In controlled environments, it is not one youth giving another youth access to the substance; instead, it is always an adult giving the youth the substance. In such a fashion, the youth is much less likely to be served after drinking immoderately, and thus eliminating the great risks of “binge” drinking. The fact that the problem of “underage drinking” can be resolved by other means besides raising or lowering the MLDA shows at least that the MLDA is not the only method of attacking this problem. In fact, our discussion shows that it is largely irrelevant, and policymakers should recognize this and begin to look for other solutions. Other solutions most likely consist of changing societal values and norms at a fundamental level, and driving youths into controlled environments where they can learn to use alcohol responsibly at a young age. Works Cited Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2005: National Estimates of Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, 2005. Araoz, Gonzalo. "What Drives Underage Drinking: An International Study." International Center for Alcohol Policies (2004): 39-47. Bonnie, Richard J. and Mary Ellen OConnell. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. New York: National Academies Press, 2004. D., Johnston L., O’Malley P. M. and Schulenberg J. E. Bachman J. G. Overall, illicit drug use by American teens continues gradual decline in 2007. News. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan News Service, 2007. Eaton, D. K., Kann, L. and S. A. Kinchen. "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2007." CDC Morb Mort Surveil (2007): 1-131. Montgomer, J. M., K. L. Foley and M. Wolfson. "Enforcing the minimum drinking age: state, local and agency characteristics associated with compliance checks and Cops in Shops programs." Addiction. 101(2) (2006): 223-231. Plant, M. A. and M. Plant. Risk-takers: Alcohol, Drugs, Sex, and Youth. New York: Routledge, 1992. Prevention, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. Drinking in America: Myths, Realities, and Prevention Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2005. Richter, Linda, Roger D. Vaughan and Susan E. Foster. "Public Attitudes about Underage Drinking Policies: Results from a National Survey Public Attitudes about Underage Drinking Policies: Results from a National Survey." Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2004): 58-77 . Single, Eric. "International Perspectives on Alcohol as a Public Health Issue." Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1984): 238-256. Sullum, Jacob. Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use. Ann Arbor: J.P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2003. Thlusty, B. Ann. Bacchus and Civic Order: The Culture of Drink in Early Modern Germany. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001. Wagenaar, Alexander C. and Mark Wolfson. "Enforcement of the Legal Minimum Drinking Age in the United States." Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1994): 37-53. Read More