TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Letters To The Editor

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 6, 2008

Encourage Responsibility

Regarding "Lowering The Drinking Age Won't Solve Binging Problem" (Our Opinion, Aug. 31):

The Tribune again misses the point regarding its prescription to prevent binge drinking. The editorial conveniently overlooks the fact that 18 to 21 year olds are legal adults in all aspects save one. These adults are free to marry, procreate, defend the country and select the leader of the free world. The Trib deems them unworthy, however, of a beer after seizing Baghdad or a sip of champagne at their wedding.

Making alcohol illicit drives it out of public domain and into the underground; denying families and schools the opportunity to teach moderation, responsibility and "making good choices."

Does the Trib really prefer that these adults, some of whom drink, drink alone, often in volume, before driving to an evening's activities?

Samantha Spady's death is beyond tragic. Such a death makes this paper's demand that society redouble their efforts at encouraging and promoting binge drinking shocking and obscene.

JACK COUGHLIN

Tampa

Law Makes No Sense

The Tribune strives to pull our heartstrings in its attempt to justify current minimum drinking-age legislation of 21; it succeeded there, but failed in two other areas: intellectually and constitutionally. It avoided them because its argument would fail in comparison.

Let's suppose that a young person, aged 20, is a married homeowner with a mortgage, owns his or her own car (acquired by a bank loan), and is returning from serving in Iraq just in time to vote and to get back into the business he or she started. To celebrate, the family goes out and adult beverages are ordered for everyone except the young person.

Intellectually, does it make any sense to tell an 18-, 19- or 20-year-old they are mature enough to marry, vote, sign contracts, own property, own their own business, risk life and limb serving their country, sue and be sued, but aren't mature enough to have a beer?

As a constitutional matter, this is blatant age discrimination. No cause, no matter how noble (and this one is), can be supported by discriminatory legislation. Discrimination, in any form and for any purpose, is unconstitutional. Furthermore, any "the state is my mommy" legislation has some dubious constitutional implications. The Founding Fathers saw American citizens as being responsible free thinkers who didn't need the state to hand-hold them through life; when are we going to start acting that way?

Those who have been hurt by the terrible accidents caused by underage drinkers deserve our prayers, sympathy and support. We shouldn't allow politicians and special-interest groups, no matter how noble their motives, to do it for us.

STEFFAN F. CRESS

Tampa

No Need For Lower Age

The editorial about lowering the drinking age is commendable. Samantha Spady is one of many victims of alcohol related-deaths - lowering the drinking age will create more.

Addiction would also skyrocket. Studies have shown that early onset age of drinking is a strong predictor of subsequent alcohol dependence. Research has also shown that a person's brain is still developing well into their mid-20s and alcohol can damage the growth process. Science trumps the opinion of a cluster of disillusioned college presidents.

A Washington University School of Medicine study found that one in three individuals who reported having started drinking when under 18 also reported having been alcohol (currently or previously) dependent. For people who reported that they started drinking at age 21 or older, that number dropped dramatically to one in 10.
Binge drinking ruins lives and relationships and kills. A lower drinking age will not cure any of this!

CALVINA L. FAY

St. Petersburg

Sober Judgment Needed

It's really hard to fathom how anyone could be on board for lowering the legal drinking age. The argument is that you can vote at 18, you can join the military, you can apply for a loan, you can get married and so on. The one thing purposely left out of this equation is that all of these decisions require sober judgment, not the consumption of alcohol.

The largest voice in this request is the college students who claim that lowering the drinking age will curtail "binge drinking" on college campuses. Who is in control of these underage drinkers in our colleges today? Where are the administrators? Don't the parents of these students bear any responsibility for their child's actions?

Does anyone honestly think that enabling teens and 20-year-olds to purchase all the booze they want is going to curtail anything? If anything, it will cause it to explode out of control.

I find it ironic how so many people, the government included, have launched their attacks against tobacco, saturated fats, obesity and anything else that they can find to stick their noses into, while all the while they don't make a peep about alcohol, a drug that kills countless people and destroys the lives of those affected by its addiction and consumption. I have seen firsthand the devastating consequences on families and individuals.

I personally don't agree with allowing 18-year-olds into atmospheres that incorporate alcohol consumption. We need to be focused on what's good for our society as a whole, not "the dollar signs," or "what's cool."

We absolutely do not need millions more drunk drivers behind the wheel and teenagers acting irresponsibly. We have more than enough of that as it is!

GARY KEELER

Plant City

The writer is executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT