Megan Roush  Roush is a third-year
American literature and culture and French student who loves to
hear from readers. E-mail her at [email protected].
Click
Here for more articles by Megan Roush Â
It’s zero week, and worrying about getting caught with
alcohol if you’re underage is a waste of time. I know it
won’t prevent me or my friends, among whom there are very few
“legal” drinkers, from going to parties where alcohol
is served. We don’t take the law seriously because it’s
difficult for the police to enforce it, and it’s difficult to
get caught unless you’re carelessly walking around Westwood
with an open container, brandishing your underage driver’s
license.
I think the nail in the coffin for me was when a friend of mine
was slapped with a minor-in-possession, and went to court only to
discover that the UCPD cop who busted him still hadn’t filed
the charge with Los Angeles County even though the incident was
three months past. Since the cop didn’t even show up to
court, my friend was basically off the hook. I’m left to
believe that alcohol policy enforcement is a joke at our
school.
Certainly the law that prohibits people under the age of 21 from
consuming alcohol will not be a major drinking deterrent to
students during zero week. In fact, it seems to be the
opposite.
The current law makes the act of drinking a “forbidden
fruit” for some people. According to many studies, such a
“forbidden fruit” mentality is what makes freshmen the
most likely people to binge drink during the first weeks of school.
They get their first taste (no pun intended) of freedom and
independence from their parents.
Instead of teaching children how to drink responsibly, the law
(and many parents) reinforce a stigma that alcohol is an inherently
bad thing, thus making it even more of an attractive, rebellious
activity to young people. With only the words “don’t do
it” ringing in their ears, some incoming college students
face tough social and physiological challenges in their first days
as students.
 ERICO PINTO/Daily Bruin Last year, a freshman came to one
of my friend’s dorm parties during zero week. Having never
had a drink before, she tossed back innumerable shots of vodka and
ended up puking her way into the emergency room with alcohol
poisoning. Luckily she was fine, but classes hadn’t even
started.
Some proponents of the law might point to this incident as an
example of how people under 21 can’t handle alcohol and its
behavioral responsibilities. I would turn around and blame parents
or junior high and high school programs for not preparing students
for the decisions they will have to make about alcohol as they
leave home for college.
Unfortunately, the Department of Education specifically forbids
instruction in “responsible” drug and alcohol use
education in public universities by the Drug-Free Schools and
Community Act Amendments of 1989. This act states, that
“universities must have an official no-use alcohol policy for
students under 21 or risk losing federal funds, including student
financial aid.”
Thus, the stance of the Department of Education is equally
prohibitory. This might explain why the program is called DARE
(Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and not Don’t Drink So Much
In College Or You’ll Make A Fool Of Yourself And Potentially
Have Life-Long Health Problems Education.
But leaving students to figure out how to drink on their own, in
an “underground” setting, is asinine. Universities have
to be kidding themselves if they say they have a “dry
campus.” Drinking and college will be associated with one
another as long as they continue to show Budweiser commercials
during college football games and the Greek system is an integral
part of university culture, i.e. forever.
A prohibitionist stand on alcohol at universities isn’t
working.
Being only 20, I have my personal issues with the law. I agree
with the stance of a student group called Realistic Alcohol
Legislation for Legal Youth, which feels our alcohol laws
discriminate against young legal adults. RALLY argues that our
current law associates maturity with drinking rather than maturity
with responsible drinking. The way our government restricts teenage
alcohol use is completely unrealistic, and it seems like the
restrictions are backfiring on us.
RALLY uses one particular study, “Preventing Alcohol
Abuse,” written by sociologist David Hanson of the State
University of New York, to demonstrate some of the problems with
our current legislation. The study compared the treatment and use
of alcohol in different cultures.
Hanson concluded that among cultures in which alcohol is
introduced to people at a later age, or where alcohol consumption
is not associated with food, religion or family events, alcoholism
and other kinds of alcohol abuse are more prevalent
(www.rallyusa.org/Journal1/tack_on_alcohol.html).
One of the focus groups used in the study were the Irish, who
typically drink outside of the home and without food, and
subsequently have high rates of alcoholism. American parents who
forbid their children from consuming alcohol, and a law that
reinforces prohibition for young people seem to create a culture of
alcoholics and young binge drinkers.
Thus, I believe total teenage alcohol consumption prohibition is
counterproductive. I attribute my responsible drinking habits to my
parents’ approach to alcohol throughout my childhood and
adolescence. For me, the laws don’t make alcohol a
“forbidden fruit.” Instead it’s just a slight
inconvenience that necessitates the formation of a mental list of
my “legal” friends who can “hook me up.” My
parents never explicitly told me that I couldn’t drink when I
lived with them, and I never had any interest in drinking. I would
try my parents’ drinks on occasion, and I thought they tasted
terrible. When I left for college, I cautiously began to test my
tolerance and understand how my body reacts to alcohol rather than
binge drinking several nights a week.
So what’s up with the magical number 21, anyway?
Responsible drinking cannot be attributed to a birthday. According
to a RALLY publication, the last state to pass a “21”
law was Louisiana in 1985, but “only after the federal
government threatened to cut transportation money to the
state” (David Salina, Louisiana Supreme Court Rules 18 Legal,
1996). Prior to this date, Louisiana’s legal drinking age was
18, and the amount of alcohol consumed in the state was actually
lower per capita than in some states with a legal drinking age of
21. Go figure.
The law against underage drinking is unsuccessful and, as
I’ve shown, an inappropriate method for curbing teenage
alcohol use. Trying to keep alcohol out of underage hands seems
like a lot of work, and since I’ve never had any problems
scoring a drink at a party, whatever tactics are being used
don’t seem to be working.
Like prohibition, this law fosters underground crime such as the
fake ID rings you’ll find anywhere near a college campus.
This leads to more work for the police and more liability risks for
alcohol vendors. And, like prohibition in the 1920s, this law just
ain’t working.
I’d like to add that I’m not advocating that
everyone between the ages of 18 and 20 start drinking. I think
it’s also important to mention that these laws and similar
alcohol legislation have helped reduce drunk driving accidents and
fatalities among young people. I just think it’s time we
start being honest about the failure of an unfair and inappropriate
law, and specifically how this law has failed in its application to
the university environment.
It’d be great to hear more from UCLA than just,
“When you’ve done four, you’re done for.”
Unfortunately, since UCLA’s a public institution, it
can’t publicly advocate responsible underage drinking.
Here’s to zero week. Cheers!