Denial, Prohibitionism, and Other Things Alcoholic

Constitutional prohibition failed miserably once, on a grand scale to be sure. But we keep on trying. Like Pil(grim) colonists, not the ones with the hats and turkey of myth, but the ones that expelled Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, Thomas Hooker, our puritanism far outweighs our god-given common sense, and senses. We trickle from our holy celebrations of Christmas and Hanukkah and Kwaanza to the Bacchanal of a dizzy new year's beginning.

The myth that an age limit of 18 or 21 will stop teenage drinking is pervasive. The federal government has pushed the states to enact the 21 age limit by threatening to withhold highway funds. Yet, car crashes remain the number 1 killer of 15-20 year olds with alcohol involved in more than a third of those accidents.

An informal survey of many of my students demonstrates that easily half of the students in the class readily admit to using, if not abusing, alcohol. It's easy to get to. Liquor stores often sell to underage customers. If not, big brother or a friend will often get it for them. Or, easier still, it is in great supply at home or in a friend's home. Some parents are willing to tolerate their kids drinking, or simply ignore it. And if it isn't available at home, attending a party is the quickest way to find the flow. It is still the most socially acceptable lawbreaking activity after speeding.

The gap between the legal puritanism and the reality that we deny is so large that it is difficult to believe that we can persist in the denial. Teenagers see it. But, for those that choose to drink, or see it as a forbidden pleasure, the denial serves a purpose. They certainly aren't anxious to point the hypocrisy out. The problem is that the legal puritanism is standing in the way of other possible ways of confronting the issue. It has always seemed ironic, or perhaps strangely predictive that the Prohibition amendments were the 18th and 21st. But the debate over those numbers, 18 and 21 as ages appropriate for alcohol obscures the fundamental problem of addiction and treatment. If we are happy with our moral stance in law and practical failure with students then we will blissfully stride forward with denial. If not, we better start talking and listening to students. We are all implicated.

I'm certainly not advocating anything. Just the facts, ma'am.