While the Daily Nebraskan does not condone underage drinking or breaking the law, the recently proposed legislation to punish minors in possession of alcohol by suspending their driver's licenses seems like overkill.
Whether or not minors are operating a motor vehicle, their license can be suspended for simply consuming alcohol. In this case, the punishment does not seem to fit the crime.
There are a whole host of punishments for driving while impaired, but these rules make sense: if you operate a car irresponsibly, your license is taken away.
But taking away one's license for a crime related to alcohol would be like taking a person's ability to buy alcohol away for a traffic violation.
America's relationship with alcohol has always been a strange one, completely separate from that of other civilized countries. In this country, alcohol's relation to college students is something associated with sneaking around parents and police, not the bonding cultural norm of European countries. And, unlike these more civilized countries, we have far more alcohol abuse in this United States.
The cause of this abuse and the general sentiment around alcohol has stemmed from treating these beverages like a little club with very strict membership policies. It has been blown up and glorified on one end, and vilified and blamed by the other. There is no safe environment where those new to alcohol can safely understand what they are getting into.
This new legislation only adds to the stigma of alcohol in this country, and instead of learning how to drink responsibly, college students will now fear the harsh punishment for experimentation.
This goes into a bigger issue of the alienation of the 18-20 age demographic routinely cemented by government legislation. Instead of providing other options for this difficult age group – old enough to vote, yet not old enough to decide what goes into their body – this legislation is only building the resentment these young people have for the authority dictating their role in society.
Essentially, by taking away the privileges these people have for breaking a law relating to a privilege they'll inevitably attain with age simply makes these already disadvantaged few worse off.
Kids are going to drink. That's a social norm that transcends the laws surrounding the legality of the situation. And this norm has been insulated by the laws themselves.
But it should not be the underaged who are punished. It should be the adults who don't care to educate the young by irresponsibly procuring alcohol for them, or the stores that didn't check for valid identification.
If laws are going to prevent legal adults from drinking alcohol, let it be the enablers who are punished. Let's not take away what little freedom the under-21 crowd has to hold onto.
opinion@dailynebraska
is a member of the 
4 comments
"For almost 40 years, most states voluntarily set their minimum drinking age law at 21. But at the height of the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, 29 states began lowering their drinking age to more closely align with the newly reduced military enlistment and voting age. And of those 29 states, no uniformity in age limits—drinking ages varied from 18 to 20 and sometimes even varied based on the type of alcohol being consumed (e.g. 18 for beer, 20 for liquor). The results of this “natural experiment” were fairly immediate and hard to miss: The decrease in the drinking age brought about an increase in alcohol traffic fatalities and injuries. So much so that, by 1983, 16 states voluntarily raised their drinking age back to 21—a move that brought about an immediate decrease in drinking and driving traffic fatalities incidents."Even with the now-ubiquitous 21 drinking law, most 15-20 traffic accidents occur with drivers under the influence, and traffic fatalities account for 35% of deaths in this age group (data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).Having lived in Europe, I agree that the way that youth are introduced to alcohol in this country predisposes to abuse, and I agree with the first comment about how the law should not punish designated driver. But as for this potential law, let's face it, most kids who will be caught aren't caught at the dining room table, they are caught drinking to excess, which shows a lack of judgment that makes me doubt their driving abilities when they are sober.
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. Absolutely agree. Actions have consequences (or at least they are supposed to). Probably could be better said, actions have MEANINGFUL consequences. If the consequences have no meaning, as you rightly point out, they they are useless. The objective is to reduce underage drinking. We already have laws regarding the sale of alcohol (which could probably use a little more enforcement, but no one likes to pay for increased government... but that is a different rant). I have no problem at all with hitting the consumer (underaged drinker) with a consequence that has an important and direct meaning... driving privileges. After all, driving is not a right. The state grants authority to certain people to operate motor vehicles under certain circumstances. Circumstances not met yields no authority to operate. Seems simple to me.