Radley Balko has a piece in the WaPo about the insanity of approach to underage drinking laws, and how MADD is encouraging underhanded and offensive police behavior.
And, if you don’t understand what kind of ‘liberties’ the police are taking to fight underage drinking, read this piece. (via Radley Balko):
Saginaw Valley State University honors student Katie Platte was 19 last year when Thomas Township Police in Saginaw County asked her and some friends to take the test, which gives an indication of a person’s blood-alcohol level. She faced a $100 fine if she refused.
“I don’t think it’s fair for young people to have to choose between a $100 fine and an invasion of privacy,” said Platte, who wasn’t drinking. “With this, you’re guilty until proven innocent.”
Another plaintiff in the suit, Ashley Berden, was forced to take a Breathalyzer when Thomas Township Police showed up at her family’s home at 4 a.m. because she had left her purse at a high school graduation party that was later busted by police, the ACLU said. The test showed the 18-year-old hadn’t been drinking.
The ACLU says Michigan is the only state in the country where pedestrians under age 21 can’t refuse an alcohol test if police don’t have a search warrant.
Matt
Unsurprising, as MADD is, at its core, a prohibitionist group.
Doctor Gonzo
I think the solution is to lower the age at which you can drink to something more realistic, not to condone what is still illegal behaviour. The same rationale can be used to provide marijuana or other drugs to kids: “At least I know where they are and what they are doing.”
Lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the driving age to 18 so kids get their binge drinking done before they can drive.
alex
If you’re really interested in the topic of this country’s anti-youth behavior, I’d recommend Mike Males’ “Scapegoat Generation”.
It is dry and pedantic in places, but he has solid sociologic data to back up his assertion: American adults would far rather punish their children than correct their own behavior.
Maureen Hay
Virginia used to have the right approach. You could buy beer at 18, if it was served to you and in an open container. You could buy take-away beer at 19, and everything at 21.
At 16, 21 seems a lifetime away, so there is little point in waiting until you are legal. It also takes away the “There is a time and place for everything, and that place is college” argument. So kids start drinking.
I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but my sister belonged to an equivilent group of friends (who had to wait until 21) and there was much more of a drinking scene than when I attended the same high school.
jg
I guess this is one of those times when the ACLU isn’t bad?
John G. Spragge
The government has a legitimate mandate to engage in harm reduction and harm prevention. They have no business engaging in virtue promotion, particularly when promoting virtue gets in the way of the legitimate function of preventing harm.
Steve
I am licensed in Michigan and I never heard of this law. How ridiculous. And, if I remember my precedents correctly, probably unconstitutional.