Reactionary measures

A few things regarding teenagers have me quite annoyed. The first is a report on news about the possibility of high schools requireing breathalizer tests of its students to enforce the drinking age. The second is a proposal to up the driving age from 16 1/2 to 17 1/2 because of two recent fatal car accidents involving teenagers.

These measures are purely reactionary, aren't very sensical in my opinion, and repressive to a population that is already one of the most repressed in our society. They punish everyone for the mistakes of a few and as such condemn a population for what might just as easily be caused by 1. irresponsible parents, or poor parenting, and 2. the very system that society has imposed on teenagers and children.

The Drinking Age
First of all, I think the drinking age needs to be abolished outright. We want teenagers to be responsible and we punish them for being irresponsible, but the drinking age itself is legally imposed irresponsibility. It says that no matter what, until the ripe old age of 21, a person is not responsible enough to drink alcohol. So what exactly does everyone expect? Not to mention that rules themselves instigate rebellion. I believe teens could and would be responsible enough if we let them.

Every now and then you hear of a parent getting in legal trouble for hosting alcoholic parties. That's smart parenting: allow the kids to drink at home so 1. they're not doing it in some strange place where anything might happen, 2. don't have to drive anywhere and risk accidents, knowing that they'd do it anyway, and 3. the parents can monitor what's going on and prevent things like life-threatening over drinking, drugs and other truly damaging things, and maybe even prevent drunken sex.

Abolishing the drinking age means children could be exposed to alcohol in a gradual, natural way under parental supervision and guidance throughout their childhoods. They'd learn how to respect alcohol which would probably decrease drunkeness (I sound like a puritan minister) and the dangers associated with drinking. But above all else, I think, it would keep alcohol an every day thing, like soda or milk, that is so common that drinking it is not seen as anything rebellious or cool--it just is. The alternative is what I think is rather ridiculous: utterly bar any drop of alcohol until 21, and then let 'em at it without any prior experience with the substance, no idea of how much they can take, and a pent-up desire to drown themselves in the stuff (after years of telling them how evil the stuff is).

My thoughts are similar with the voting age, for that matter. The government has a huge impact on children, and properly informed, a believe children are capable of casting votes on matters that concern them. But that's another blog.

Breathalizer tests in high schools is an offensive idea to me. I never drank (still don't really care for alcohol) in high school (that makes me an exception), and you can bet I would have made a fuss if someone forced me to take a breathalizer. Again, trying to teach responsibility by assuming irresponsibility, to an insulting, Machiavellian extreme. Drug tests or urin tests on the way into work (where drugs are usually against the rules) would receive a massive amount of protest among adults, and yet we casually consider such repressive practices against teens. The real solutions are always better education, better parenting, and a rational system (all of which seem to be in short supply).

The Driving Age
I do believe there should be a driving age. Driving is a very complicated thing that immediately puts the driver's and many others' safety and lives at risk and requires a certain amoung of mental development. And steering wheels are yae-high. But leave well enough alone. Two, even five, accidents involving teens does not mean that suddenly teenagers on the whole are no longer capable of getting their licenses at 16.5 yrs. All it does is prevent good drivers from getting an extra-years' practice, or any driver that's not going to cause a fatal accident (98% I'd wager) an extra years' practice.

The smarter solutions are thus: increase the amount of time required in training with driving instructors. Perhaps even start driving instruction earlier (15 1/2) and require 12-months of training, part-time with both an instructor and parents (or a familiar adult, say, 25 or older). The point in my mind is to make better, smarter, more experienced drivers, and you can't do that by forcing teens to wait even longer to start. Allow them to train earlier and they have more experience by the time they're 16 or 17. Make the training more rigorous and they'll have a better understanding of the rules. Here's a real humdinger: how bout making the driving tests just a smidgeon harder. get rid of questions like "Q. When the light is green, it means: A. GO" (the questions are that stupid, it's true).

We wonder why teens might be worse drivers? It's in big part because of the system. They don't have enough experience by the time they're on the road on their own, the training is too short and not rigorous enough, and a chimpanzee could pass the tests. It's not the kids' fault, and the entire teenage population should not be penalized for other people's accidents, as tragic as they might be. I don't mean to sound glib, but accidents happen. Even in the adult world. You never hear anyone demanding more restrictions against adult drivers when adults get into accidents. Most adults, and most teens, do not get into fatal accidents.


I hate reactionary measures. They're 100% based in hysteria and nowhere based on rational thinking. They're just stupid.