In an attempt to curtail the state’s love affair with binge drinking, Wisconsin lawmakers are working on a bill that would ban minors from drinking alcohol while under the supervision of their parents.
Under current law, minors under 18 — not merely legal adults under 21 — can consume alcohol in bars or restaurants as long as they are with a parent, guardian or spouse of legal drinking age. Theoretically, my 9-year-old cousin could enjoy a vodka gimlet with her chicken fingers as long as my uncle has one too.
I always find it interesting when politicians tout a bill or legal change as a solution to a far larger problem. Supporters of the bill are insisting it would go a long way in reducing what they call the state’s “tolerance for binge drinking,” according to Channel3000.com. While adjustments to an ostensibly problematic law are never a bad thing, I doubt reformatting the law, as supporters claim, would radically change Wisconsin’s views on alcohol.
Study after study has shown that binge drinking in adolescence produces more tolerance for it later in life. Yet this could be said for anything: racism, financial irresponsibility, even a love for fried foods. While the logical conclusion would be to reduce such unhealthy behaviors early in life to prevent them later in life, lawmakers are putting too much emphasis on specific legal conundrums and not enough on the overall social trend.
The proposed bill is actually somewhat reasonable, garnering even the unexpected support of the Tavern League of Wisconsin. I doubt throngs of outraged parents would gather, pitchforks and torches ready, if their pimple-faced teens were suddenly unable to knock back a few at their local Applebee’s. Moreover, the law would still allow supervised minors to drink at home or at family functions.
The problem, however, is that this bill is another example of an outdated and ineffective way of promoting responsible alcohol consumption: using negativity and prohibition instead of education and acceptance. A gradual and open-minded introduction to alcohol is much more successful for young adults than the anticipation-fueled, one-way ticket to 21 most Americans get. The sudden lack of restriction a freshly minted 21-year-old experiences after years of strict “We ID” policies is the equivalent of turning a bull loose in a china shop. Guaranteed disaster.
One need only glance at the painful number of students admitted to detox clinics every year as an example of the loaded gun that is the blitzkrieg introduction to alcohol we employ in America — and more specifically, Wisconsin. The 2008 Annual UW-Madison Campus Police Report shows the average age of detox patients hovering between 18 and 20, and their BAC a dangerous 0.2.
One example in the detox report involving the case of a 21-year-old female, says, “Stepped in front of traffic then fell into snow bank. Became violent at Detox and placed in restraints.” Another, about a 19-year-old female, says, “Found lying on sidewalk […] unaware of the day, time, or where she was.” No parent wants this for their child, yet a lack of education on how to drink responsibly is exactly where this can lead. Parents can preach and prohibit all they want, but providing real-life examples and giving young adults the opportunity to consume responsibly is the best way to establish a healthy relationship with liquor.
Instead of placing another restriction on drinking, we should be promoting a healthier, more moderate example for introducing alcohol to a young adult’s life. The proposed bill, which will likely pass, is not a solution to the problem. It will still be promoting the culture of “What I Can’t Have,” with alcohol as the dangerous temptress. More importantly, it would be preventing parents from teaching their children in a real-world environment how to drink responsibly.
Laura Brennan can be reached at [email protected].
