Thursday's News-Gazette: (forgive me, I'm catching up...)
University of Illinois Chancellor Richard Herman is calling for the city council to re-evaluate its alcohol policies, including possibly raising the bar entry age from 19 to 21 and increasing penalties for bars that serve alcohol to underage youths.
And:
Schweighart said he's talked with council members and that five of them are opposed to raising the bar entry age. He identified those members as Michael La Due, Tom Bruno, Ken Pirok, Deborah Frank Feinen and Marci Dodds.
"I have heard from the council people, and they are not changing their minds," he said.
Not that I agree with the Chancellor, but at least this time they're not waiting until a week before Unofficial St. Patrick's Day to do something. Maybe planning for the 2009 version of the event will be slightly less hysterical than they were this year.
I am actually surprised that Herman would want the bar entry age lowered. If 19 year olds can't go to the bars, won't they be more likely to drink in campus dorms and apartments?
You mean that he wants it raised, of course.
yes, my bad.
I asked Sgt Friedlein how many of this years arrests were in bars (something the NG has woefully NOT reported) and it was less than %10 I believe. Although in the past it has been significanly higher.
I wonder if we could have some discussion on the argument that if 19 year olds can't go into bars to illegally drink, they will illegally drink in apartments and dorms. Not picking on redstate, I hear that argument a lot. If I'm not mistaken, that's the argument that Bruno et. al. have made. How can that be a valid argument? We all know 15 year old kids drink illegally all the time. So, why not lower the age to 15? It seems to me that if kids too young to legally drink would be kept out of the campus bars entirely, then at least enforcement of the drinking laws in the bars would be easier. If there is then an increased problem in the dorms, deal with that problem when and if it arises. What am I missing?
It seems to me that if kids too young to legally drink would be kept out of the campus bars entirely, then at least enforcement of the drinking laws in the bars would be easier. If there is then an increased problem in the dorms, deal with that problem when and if it arises. What am I missing?
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I was just looking at it from Herman's perspective. What happens in the dorms is directly his problem, while what happens at the bars isn't. Just strictly from a CYA view, the status quo is much better for him.
The city of Champaign, however, could look at things exactly the same way, and by raising the bar age could push the biggest part of the problem back at the U of I.
I am not arguing one way or the other really.
I'm always amazed that one of the biggest reason for hand wringing in our community is underage drinking, but we still allow 19 and 20 year olds legal access to the bars. I was reading in the Gazzette that 40 tickets were issued just last weekend in the bar sweeps. The argument that if you don't allow them into the bars, they will drink at home. Funny, I would think the entire community would be safer if they would be drinking at home. This is an oppurtunity for the private sector to fill a void. If the approximately 15-17 thousand 19 and 20 year olds were not allowed to enter the bars (as is the case in virtually every community in IL), perhaps the private sector would fill the void with dance clubs, music, ect. Oh, and maybe some of those 21 year olds might enjoy some of that entertainment rather than drinking themselves.
I've always seen the philosophy of the Champaign City council as being it is better to have underage kids drinking in an environment with access to unlimited amounts of alcohol rather than have them drinking at home, where their access is much more limited. makes perfect sense to me!
jay
Here is some interesting food for thought on again using the governmental club to accomplish nothing.
Spain had no legal drinking age whatsoever....nada.....
Kids of any age could have a drink of wine and not be breaking any laws, except one law.....
That law was it was socially unacceptable to drink so much that you were drunk and acted drunk. That would bring shame to you and your family and was avoided at all costs.......
There was no underage drinking abuse or problems and it worked fine.
Then Government entered into the picture and again started to legislate morality and said we cannot allow kids to have a drink of wine so lets set the drinking age at 16. Immediately 12, 13, 14 and 15 year old kids started developing a drinking problem because the 16 year olds were buying them wine and they were getting drunk..... Power drinking.
Yep, Government tried to legislate morality and it worked.....badly..... but it worked in the eyes of the Government.
I have posted until my fingers were calloused here:
Mayor Can Shut Bars Serving Drunks
http://illinipundit.com/2008/02/29/mayor-can-shut-bars-serving-drunks#new
About how changing laws to allow hard liquor on campus was a bad, bad, bad, bad, did I say bad idea. Read those posts.
But here it is in a nut shell......
Government greed had a lot to do with the problems that are presently occurring and Government should look at itself in the mirror first. They are the adults......
College students have been drinking underage for decades if not centuries and no amount of laws is going to change that. If Government tries to stop it with law after law after law, then Government is more stupid than even I believe they could be. Prohibition did not work for a very good reason, and the same applies here.
Confine underage drinking to the Campus area and with non hard liquor beverages.
Students are only legal for the last year and a half of their college career, that means the other 2-1/2 years worth of students maybe 20,000 or more are going to drink illegally, or more illegally, or more and more and more illegally, depending on the number of laws Government wants to pass. If you chase them out of the bars, they will drink illegally elsewhere and with less supervision.
Take a look at what worked in the 50's, 60's and 70's and be creative. Apply some of those philosophies, and get back to the right way to do things, that does not involve hard liquor, or government clubs.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
When I was an undergraduate at Wisconsin, beer was served in the Union. The drinking age was 18. We had beer on tap in the house 24/7. It was always interesting the first month of the semester to watch the 'newbies' on campus who had no drinking experience. Out-of-state students just had to show their UW ID's which contained DOB and they were served. I would have no problem with the elimination of the drinking age laws. It would probably lessen the burden on the UI also.
We're really not working with prohibition here. We're working with a way to conform to the rest of the country's standrds in an attempt to cut back on the appeal of permissive drinking laws. It's not exactly the best reputation to cultivate, and it's certainly not what we want future students to look forward to.
I see both sides of this issue... I tend to side with the"old enough to die for your country, old enough to drink" argument. But from the University's standpoint, I think the added burden of responsibility for dorm room rowdiness would be worth losing the distinction of Party School of choice.
Kem
We're really not working with prohibition here. We're working with a way to conform to the rest of the country's standrds in an attempt to cut back on the appeal of permissive drinking laws. It's not exactly the best reputation to cultivate, and it's certainly not what we want future students to look forward to.
The "rest of the country's standards" vis-a-vis legal drinking age were established at the point of a gun by the federal government, which threatened to withhold highway funding from states that didn't conform.
While there are valid arguments in favor of consistent laws between states (to avoid people driving to a locale where they can legally drink), one can not say that Illinois or any other state was freely able to determine what age worked best for its residents.
This country is big on trying to legislate morality and private behavior, rather than taking a more pragmatic, common sense point of view and proscribing only behavior that is harmful to others.
JRR
Last paragraph
Yep, and considering the morality of those who are making the laws, you wonder about their credentials
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I don't understand why enforcement action is not AGAINST THE BARS. People underage drinking at COD's? Fine COD's, not the kids.
"This country is big on trying to legislate morality and private behavior, rather than taking a more pragmatic, common sense point of view and proscribing only behavior that is harmful to others."
While this statement is completely true, I am sure there are readers/posters who have attached the label of "leftist", "liberal" or "anti-christian" to dismiss it.
Anonymous 9:08 PM posted: I don't understand why enforcement action is not AGAINST THE BARS. People underage drinking at COD's? Fine COD's, not the kids.
Excuse me, but there are charges filed against the bars where underage drinkers are found.
Perhaps the real answer is tossing a few out of school - say, a few of the more "high profile" students like a football player or a basketball player who illegally participate in the activity .
Drying Ink - Making it Readworthy
It's pretty rare to find a scholarship athelete in bars drinking... That's pretty risky for them..
As far as letting the "kids off" and just fining the bars, well as JRR said... Theh bars are fined... and before you get all "bleeding heart" about the poor kiddies... Remember.. those "kids" are legally adults.. and they KNOW beyond all doubt exactly how old they are... When they buy alcohol under 21, THEY ARE COMMITTING A CRIME AND A FRAUD... willfully and with malice of forethought....
Remember.. those "kids" are legally adults.. and they KNOW beyond all doubt exactly how old they are... When they buy alcohol under 21, THEY ARE COMMITTING A CRIME AND A FRAUD... willfully and with malice of forethought....
I always found it odd that underage drinkers were charged as adults - it seems like if someone can be tried as an adult, they should also be able to vote/drink/etc.
totally abolish the drinking age laws and the people will modify their behaviour and the problem will go away.
Richard Herman, you used to be such a fine man. Now it seems that you are such a stupid hack.
It's pretty rare to find a scholarship athelete in bars drinking... That's pretty risky for them..
Oh please, I have bought drinks for everyone from Deon Thomas at Cochranes, to Richard Keene at Kams, to Warren Carter at Joes. I can tell you first hand that at least the basketball players see no risk what so ever involved.
So what you're saying is that 18 year olds are fully moral actors and are competent enough to make decisions based on the consequences of their actions, but it will take 3 more years until they are competent enough to make decisions based on the consequences of thier actions?