The article (“Idiotic U.S. laws turn casual drinks into forbidden fruit,” ODE, Feb. 5) presents some very interesting arguments about what Americans consider “under-age drinking,” but I feel that it misses some key points. The first is the statement referring to the American military, “You can go off to war and kill at age 18, but you can’t have a drink.” This statement is, in fact, untrue. The drinking age on American military bases is 18, and if you hold a military ID, many bars will serve you despite your age.
Second is the statement that “many minors aren’t looking to get drunk.” I don’t know about the rest of the you, but from what I’ve seen, there aren’t very many people under the age of 21 who just want a sip of wine. It seems that the “fun” thing to do on a weekend is get totally sloshed and then compare how big your hangover is. While this stereotype is just that, a stereotype, I have seen that it credibly fits a great deal of college students.
Finally is the discussion about minors in other countries learning to drink with their parents. Well, for those of you who don’t know this, it is a legal practice to do that here as well. If your parents are the ones who supply the beverage and you are under their supervision, then you (as a minor) are legally permitted to drink. Unfortunately this does not hold for restaurants and such, but if you’re at home and you want wine with dinner, it’s legal if the parents provide it.
When you look at it, our alcohol laws are not all that restrictive. These laws were actually made for people’s protection. If you want to experiment with alcohol, you have your parents (presumably responsible) teach you how to drink with moderation … rather than go to a beer bong party the Saturday after finals.
And rituals? Please. I don’t drink, and while quite a few of my friends do, there’s no one pressuring me to risk alcohol poisoning just to fulfill some idiotic tradition.