The Oregon Liquor Control Commission will be meeting Dec. 13 and 14 to decide whether to change a law that currently prohibits individuals under the age of 21 from attending art and entertainment venues that serve alcohol on the premises. The original law was enacted over a decade ago, with the aims of keeping minors out of areas where alcohol is being provided.
Now there is a growing recognition that these locations are changing – that a bar is in many cases no longer just a bar, but a multi-purpose entertainment venue. Concerts and impromptu shows are commonplace. And many owners of these establishments are eager to open these events to the un-tapped market of sub-21-year-olds.
College students’ late teenage years can be described as a sort of purgatory. Eighteen-to-20-year-olds, many of whom are just getting used to the idea of living on their own, face the burden of having to adjust to a more independent sort of lifestyle. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the activities that comprise these individuals’ party and nightlife activities. Much is made of the stereotypical college student’s inclination toward drunken antics. But for every student who drinks too much and makes a scene, there are a multitude of other, more responsible young men and women who just want to have a good time after a hard day’s work.
Often times, these people find themselves caught frustratingly between adolescence and adulthood. Currently, locations such as the McDonald Theatre showcase music performances for people of all ages. They provide alcohol at these shows, but prohibit minors from entering the areas where it is being served. Other venues are less forgiving.
The alternatives for people who can’t get into these events are house parties. These havens for binge drinking are just as dangerous for a young adult, if not more so, than a bar. Kegs, drinking games, and a disturbing combination of 17-20 and 23-26-year-olds are all commonplace at these residential gatherings. Better judgment often is nowhere to be found.
All of this gives the OLCC plenty to think about, before a decision is made whether to relax the law regulating minors’ accessibility to shows and concerts. The issue is completely separate from any discussion about the legal drinking age. No one is arguing that minors should be allowed to drink legally. But shouldn’t responsible individuals be able to attend the events they choose? The proposal is about giving them, and the owners of such establishments, the power to make that decision on their own.
The system is not perfect. Distributors of alcohol would have to decide how to prevent accidentally serving to minors – whether through wristbands or extra staff, or some combination of both. But the potential for abuse of this law is outweighed by its positive implications. If anything, the decision would act as a deterring influence on young adults’ drinking habits. If someone can have a good time at a music or art show, they’ll be less likely to try and have a good time by drinking themselves into oblivion.
It won’t be an easy choice – for the OLCC or for the owners of local establishments. But amending this law would send an effective message to young people throughout the state. That teens and young adults will find ways to drink is, for better or worse, an accepted fact. It’s high time the state realizes this fact doesn’t instantly render them incapable of making responsible decisions.