Recently, Capt. Jon Barnwell of Campus Police announced that underage drinking by N.C. State students was on the rise, although failing to qualify the reason for this rise further.
Barnwell claimed that the increase in citations was “startling compared to the previous four years,” yet he contends that the increase has nothing to do with a change in campus alcohol policy. Of course, this claim conveniently overlooks a major change toward stricter alcohol policies implemented by the university last December. He said new policies include granting campus police authority to cite underage students for possession of alcohol for a positive breath test — even if no actual alcohol is found. Naturally, a sharp spike in alcohol-related citations would have absolutely nothing to do with dramatic changes in campus alcohol policy. The two events remain a complete coincidence.
All of this begs the question — what harm does underage drinking pose that require such drastic measures? Apparently, the remarkable amount of resources devoted to prosecuting adults would indicate that local law enforcement has managed to completely contain all other serious crime for them to focus their attention upon the scourge of 18, 19 and 20-year-olds getting a buzz.
While Barnwell cites six DWI arrests of students this year as evidence of a problem, this simply confuses the issue. Driving while impaired certainly poses a threat to others and should be a top priority for law enforcement. Yet trying to pin this to underage possession is dishonest — the fact remains that the “crime” of violating an arbitrary age restriction an entirely separate offense, one which harms no one: the definition of a victimless crime.
While supporters of the current drinking age regime are more than happy to crow about statistics of alcohol “abuse” among underage adults, “abuse” being defined as any underage use, they come up painfully short on actual facts. To wit, the United States has the most severe drinking age in the civilized world and yet still encounters far more problems with alcohol abuse than its other first world counterparts, particularly Europe.
As sociologist David Hanson points out, studies pointing to “lives saved” through a higher drinking age due to traffic fatalities fail to produce any actual causal relationship. At best, they show a demographic shift in alcohol-related traffic fatalities to an older, legal age group, thus shifting the timeframe of irresponsible behavior from one age to another. Such studies also regularly fail to attribute important factors such as key safety improvements and stricter DWI laws — both of which have had a far broader impact on lowering traffic fatalities.
Despite arguments to the contrary, such a policy hardly deters serious problems of actual abuse — the 21-year-old defacto national drinking age through the black mail of federal highway funds. (The federal government withholds federal highway funds if a state’s legal drinking age is under 21.)
While the University leadership has taken commendable steps toward combating the more serious problems of abuse through alcohol education and initiatives, such as the Responsible Behavior Initiative, the fact remains that the current drinking age is a failed social policy which invites far more irresponsible behavior than it prevents.
Clearly, the University is in no place to unilaterally dictate law — it remains for citizens to elect better representatives — but neither does that excuse lousy enforcement priorities: something entirely within their control.
What are your thoughts on the University’s alcohol enforcement? Send your thoughts to viewpoint@technicianonline.com.
