Drinking age ineffective in stopping alcohol problems

State Attorney General Mike Moore and Oxford Police recently charged several bars with serving alcohol to minors. In addition, they found Oxford bars served minors 100 percent of the time. Clearly, the current minimum age law is not working, and our society must act to solve this huge problem.

In the 80s when the federal government required states to raise the drinking age, proponents hoped that alcoholic consumption among teenagers would decrease along with DUI fatalities. Both have decreased, but the decline began a long time before the drinking age was raised. However, a law that opposes the moral consensus of the people will not work, and, in this case, obviously has not succeeded.

Although consumption has declined, Dr. Ruth Engs, professor of Applied Sciences at Indiana University, contends that alcohol abuse has increased with the increase in the drinking age. She claims the current problems of age-specific prohibition parallel those of the Prohibition of the twenties--teenagers can no longer drink legally and leisurely in moderation. They now create "speakeasies" out of dorm rooms and apartments of older siblings "where they, too, must gulp their alcohol in the absence of moderating social control."

In addition, widespread disrespect for this law results in the disrespect of legal authority. Teenagers demonize government authority for attempting to take away, without apparent good reason, what they believe is a legal right. In his inaugural address, Herbert Hoover stated, "The worst evil of disregard for some law is that it destroys respect for all law."

The United States, so-called "land of freedom," has the highest drinking age in the world. Other countries--where alcohol is seen as neutral, not as an evil drug that must be kept out of the hands of young adults--do not have near the abuse problem among teenagers and adults. We need to pass laws that encourage moderation and responsibility instead of abuse.

However, simply lowering the drinking age will not remedy the problem. For the alcohol problem to disappear, our society must change the way it thinks. It cannot view alcohol as anti-depressant, as a cure-all, or as a tool of rebellion. Nor can it no longer demonize it. It must teach, practice, and promote responsibility. Returning the drinking age to a reasonable level will only aid in positive social change, not result in it.

The only way for the Attorney General to keep Ole Miss students from obtaining alcohol at Oxford bars is to shut them down. Then students will just turn to other sources that only promote greater abuse. Perhaps Mr. Moore can do greater good by taking his officers out of bars and putting them on the road to protect us from DUI offenders of all ages. While an officer writes an MIP ticket for 18-year-old girl who rode with a non-drinking friend, there is, undoubtedly, a drunken middle-aged man barreling down the road with his legally purchased six-pack.

Todd Magro
Freshman

Gay rights are wrong because it's immoral behavior

I was almost beginning to miss the frequent gay/lesbian related articles by some of the DM's recently departed writers. Fortunately, you have been able to recruit other writers (e.g., Brandon Niemeyer) who are willing to learn.

Unfortunately, Niemeyer, like his predecessors, overlooks a key issue when promoting gay rights. While all of us should seek to serve others in love, whether they be gay, straight, or confused, one's choice to live out a gay lifestyle is not a morality-free choice. Nor is it a choice without moral, spiritual, emotional and physical consequences. To exclude in one's argument about gay and human rights the issue of right and wrong is to miss or, more importantly, avoid the critical point that divides individuals on this issue.

One would assume that all of us are in favor of protecting the rights of individuals in America, so long as those individuals abide by common moral principles and laws that form the basis for our legal system. In our society, restrictions on human rights are placed as boundaries and constraints on behavior that we find immoral and damaging to our society.

Therefore, we consider murder, abuse, stealing, slander, adultery and the like, as wrong. Similarly, the majority of Americans still believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Consequently, we place restrictions and constraints on those who choose to behave in this manner.

As Americans, we do not make it explicitly illegal for an individual to think about or have some predisposition toward violence, stealing, slandering, and adultery. In fact, Hollywood has made an industry out of promoting such dispositions to its viewers. In the same way, however, we do not disallow or restrain human rights due to one's sexual orientation.

But, we do draw the line when one chooses to act out those immoral behaviors, just as we do when one murders, steals, slanders or commits adultery (viz., divorce cases). The fact that some murderers and other offenders have come from dysfunctional families and other disadvantaged backgrounds does not alleviate the judgment that they are guilty of the offense.

The bottom line is that many of us firmly believe that homosexuality is wrong. Our legal opinions stem from this moral choice. If you want to make the case for human rights for homosexuals, then you must first state your firm belief that homosexuality is right.

Kirk L. Wakefield
Associate Professor/Marketing
Area Coordinator
Ole Miss School of Business