Alcohol laws teach good students to break the law

Princeton students are some of the most law-abiding in the world, but when they head out to Prospect Avenue to celebrate Dean's Date, the majority of them will be breaking the law.

In all my studies of democratic government, I have been taught that in most cases laws must have the support of the people they are affecting in order to be legitimate. The exception to this is when they further important state interests that the people will not (or cannot) fulfill themselves. The underage drinking laws in this country do not effectively further the interests of the state, and place an unnecessary burden on young Americans. They do not have the support of practically anyone they affect, nor do they most effectively prevent drunk-driving fatalities, their stated goal. Worse, the drinking prohibition is usually not enforced, and seems arbitrary when it is. What the prohibition on drinking does accomplish is foster an adversarial relationship between youth and law enforcement and teach students that some laws are not really meant to be followed. This is harmful to a well-functioning democracy, and should be replaced with more targeted measures to discourage those who drink and drive, no matter what their age.

The main problem with underage drinking laws is that they are woefully unspecific in who it makes a criminal. If the goal is actually to cut down on drunk driving, drunk drivers themselves should be targeted specifically. However, this has not been the case in many cities, in which judges have been unusually lax on those arrested for driving under the influence. Many people have half a dozen convictions before their licenses are finally revoked. However, a substantial number of underage drinkers (such as those at the Street) have little or no possibility of driving home, and yet they are targeted by the law just the same.

If it is argued that young people are more likely to drink and drive because of their age, it is simple to institute a "zero-tolerance" policy for drivers under twenty one. The current law is like punishing the entire class for the one clown who misbehaves. It also muddles the seriousness of the two offenses: Drinking a couple beers at the Street is completely safe, and driving after the same numbers is completely unsafe. However, both are crimes, so it is tempting to equate them.

Furthermore, if the goal is actually to get drunk drivers off the streets, why would there be different standards for young adults? If older people are indeed more responsible than those under 21, they should be subjected to stiffer penalties instead of being let off the hook. If this would be inappropriate, so is the opposite.

At least among my circle of friends, driving while drunk is out of the question. The campaigns by MADD and other advocacy groups have been largely successful, and people plan ahead when they know they will be intoxicated. However, drinking itself has never been a problem. Most seniors I know still buy their alcohol at the same places they did when they were underage, they simply swap in their real driver's licenses for their fake ones. Herein lies two more serious problems with underage drinking laws: they are very rarely enforced, and they provide an incentive to break much more serious laws.

We live in hypocrisy at Princeton, as everyone knows that massive amounts of underage drinking happens, but the University and police knowingly ignore it until students let it get out of hand. When a party becomes too rowdy and the townspeople complain, suddenly there is a huge crackdown. Soon people fall back into line and the salutatory neglect begins again. It is certainly legitimate to punish dangerous or disruptive student behavior, but underage drinking statutes give the police a means to punish those who are merely facilitating others responsibly having a good time. Suddenly breaking the law through underage drinking is a forgivable offense, but serving someone who is underage becomes a serious crime. Punish the people who are not responsible in their actions, not those who are.

We need more consistent enforcement of necessary laws, and a repeal of unnecessary ones. Since drinking under twenty one is winked at until people become irresponsible, society should punish their irresponsibility and not the "innocent" masses.

Most importantly, keeping the drinking age at 21 causes young people to have an unnecessarily adversarial relationship with the police, and teaches them that the law is only important to follow when you yourself deem it to be. There is no reason for most young people to distrust or dislike the police, yet I have heard this sentiment expressed more times than I can remember. The vast majority of the remarks were directly related to underage drinking.

Our society would be improved if people were given as much freedom to act as possible, but where destructive behavior is punished uniformly. The underage drinking laws are so far removed from their stated goal of decreasing drunk driving that they are completely ineffective and should be repealed.

The only thing that these laws accomplish is teaching young people that the law need not be followed, and that those who enforce it should be treated with contempt.

David Sillers is a politics major from Potomac, Md.