The issue of youth and alcohol involves ideologies of youths as inferior to adults and irresponsible. As a result, the legal drinking age in Ontario remains at 19 years of age, one year more than the age of majority. Our research has found that despite the many efforts to control youth alcohol consumption, the legal drinking age does not provide significant control over the ability of youth to obtain alcohol.
It is commonly believed that by having a drinking age of 19 years, multiple forms of alcohol-related harm will be reduced in this province. However, our research has also shown that youth are over-emphasized in discussions of alcohol-related harm thus reinforcing the oppressive views of youth in this society. We believe that the current drinking age is a “band-aid” method of controlling alcohol-related behaviours.
Our focus for this social policy turned to a discussion of alternatives approaches to the legal drinking age of 19. We proposed that the legal drinking age be lowered to 18 years of age in Ontario. The purpose of this is not to allow more alcohol access to youth. Rather, it is to provide youth with the opportunity to stand up against the oppressive ideologies that discriminate against them and keep them marginalized from adult culture. Also, we will use feedback to determine if 18 is reported by youth as the desired legal drinking age and make adjustments to our efforts based on their voices.
To accomplish such policy alterations, we will begin by addressing the views and opinions that maintain these oppressive ideologies of youth. Our immediate aim is not to change the legislation but to provide a means to dispel the inaccurate and discriminate constructions of youth while also allowing for participatory action of youth themselves. Through public information sessions, a youth-driven media project, and use of the local media and internet, we will attempt to provide a social space in which new, accurate constructions of youth can be developed. This will guide us toward our future goal of creating a legal drinking age that is driven by youth themselves thus empowering them as agents in their own individual, social, and political lives.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
CONS: Drunk Driving and Fake ID Opportunities
A stated advantage of lowering the legal drinking age is the increase of young people who will start drinking at bars instead of at home unsupervised. However, with bar drinking comes driving. Unfortunately, many people drive to the bar, which means they must drive home afterwards. In most cases, when drinking at home or in the dorm, there is nowhere to drive afterwards.
One of the most anticipated problems with lowering the legal drinking age will be the availability of fake IDs. Individuals who are below the legal drinking age will be able to get a hold of fake IDs more readily. Because the age on the ID will be younger, a younger underage individual may get away with buying alcohol illegally more easily. Moreover, the fake ID business will have the opportunity to expand, since the change of the LDA will affect first year university students. The more opportunity to drink in Universities can predict a drinking epidemic among students.
Furthermore, research was conducted from 1982 to 1987 when the legal drinking age was 18. The results were compared to the increase of the legal drinking age after 1987. In University settings, the results show the statistics of students being sick from alcohol (vomiting) went from 46% to 50%, skipping class 9% of the time to 12%, and grades lowered from drinking went from 5% to 7% (http://www.howard-winn.k12.ia.us/projects/ind_stdy06/ac/drink/page2.html#).
CONS: The backlash
The promotion of lowering the legal drinking age from 19 to 18 will bring a considerable amount of backlash from parents, the public, health experts, transportation officials, government leaders, opponents of drunk driving (MADD), and the state surgeon general. These groups of people are very passionate about maintaining the legal drinking age (LDA) as high as possible because of the statistics of drunk driving in North America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003626_pf.html).
To exemplify the response that will be anticipated by the public awareness campaign, partnerships, school media project, and media outreach plans, it is important to look at the response to Universities which are advocating for lowering the LDA in the U.S.
Clark University and Dickenson College, in the United States, are part of the lowering the LDA movement called the “Amethyst Initiative”. When these Universities went public with their campaign to lower the drinking age, one college president stated “I've received 600 e-mails in the last 24 hours…most of which chastised me for supporting a national push to rethink the legal drinking age (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-183768831.html).
Moreover, parents are livid over this idea because they are to trust the College presidents of the Universities where their children attend, who are potentially putting them in danger. MADD is also very disappointed because they claim College presidents are not doing their homework on this issue and are supposed to be playing leadership roles on campuses. Other critics are stating that this initiative leaves other educators prior to University with a huge responsibility to educate about alcohol (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003626_pf.html).
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Pro for Including Youth in policy Making
Traditionally, younger individuals, particularly those not deemed adults, are excluded from sharing their ideas and perspectives on issues that not only affect adults, but youth as well. Not only is it of great value to engage younger individuals when creating policies that concern society as a whole, but it is critical to provide youth with the opportunity to voice their opinions in matters that concern them specifically.
Younger people have the potential of bringing in different outlooks on different matters, thus enriching the formation process. An inclusive policy making process is more likely to mirror the entire community’s needs, and therefore inspire people’s confidence in the result and effectiveness of the policy.
Excluding youth from contributing to the betterment of society is confounding, because by excluding any opinion or thought, policy-makers are limiting their resources. Youth have tremendous abilities and insight, yet they are generally undervalued, while their ideas remain underutilized.
By engaging in social advancement endeavors with youth, policy makers can bring about a sense of mutuality and respect, and help reduce, and eventually eliminate, stereotypes that perpetuate segregation of youth in our society.
Younger people have the potential of bringing in different outlooks on different matters, thus enriching the formation process. An inclusive policy making process is more likely to mirror the entire community’s needs, and therefore inspire people’s confidence in the result and effectiveness of the policy.
Excluding youth from contributing to the betterment of society is confounding, because by excluding any opinion or thought, policy-makers are limiting their resources. Youth have tremendous abilities and insight, yet they are generally undervalued, while their ideas remain underutilized.
By engaging in social advancement endeavors with youth, policy makers can bring about a sense of mutuality and respect, and help reduce, and eventually eliminate, stereotypes that perpetuate segregation of youth in our society.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Pros to our policy change
Our overarching goal is to change the drinking age from 19 to 18; however, this goal is based on youth and what they feel, say and represent in society. Our group is taking a participatory approach and including youth in the decision making on policies that effect them. By decreasing the drinking age and including them young persons are given more autonomy, self efficacy and self-determination. We are giving young persons the right to be an adult when they reach the age of majority.
Society is saying they are adult enough for everything else so lets include drinking. They are old enough to vote and that in itself is a big responsibility. We are empowering young persons, by letting them know they are responsible adults and that society trusts them. If they are adults they should not need a special law.
Also, this takes away from the fact that youth are the sole cause for alcohol related incidents, as statistics show that adults 30-39 years drink 85.2% during a 12 month span, where adults 18-29 years drink 87.2% (Smart & Ogborne, 1996). So, its just not young persons that represent national drinking rates.
Higher drinking ages don’t stop young persons from drinking, they just find other ways to do it. If the drinking age was lowered there would be a decrease in binge drinking and allow young persons to drink in supervised environments. Instead of moving them to drink underground in unsafe environments they would be able to drink in supervised areas with licenses. With higher alcohol age limits young people find it harder to get alcohol so when they do, they drink excessively. This creates a harmful attitude towards alcohol.
Society is saying they are adult enough for everything else so lets include drinking. They are old enough to vote and that in itself is a big responsibility. We are empowering young persons, by letting them know they are responsible adults and that society trusts them. If they are adults they should not need a special law.
Also, this takes away from the fact that youth are the sole cause for alcohol related incidents, as statistics show that adults 30-39 years drink 85.2% during a 12 month span, where adults 18-29 years drink 87.2% (Smart & Ogborne, 1996). So, its just not young persons that represent national drinking rates.
Higher drinking ages don’t stop young persons from drinking, they just find other ways to do it. If the drinking age was lowered there would be a decrease in binge drinking and allow young persons to drink in supervised environments. Instead of moving them to drink underground in unsafe environments they would be able to drink in supervised areas with licenses. With higher alcohol age limits young people find it harder to get alcohol so when they do, they drink excessively. This creates a harmful attitude towards alcohol.
Pro of Reducing the LDA to 18
It allows for a more cohesive national law that is clearer and falls in line with society’s interpretation of what lawfully constitutes an adult in various Canadian provinces.
The discrepancy between the Canadian Age of Majority in Ontario and Legal Drinking Age (LDA) is somewhat obscure.
One is an adult in Ontario if he/she has reached 18 years of age. At 18 one could legally marry in Ontario, buy a house, and vote. However, they are not legally permitted to purchase alcohol. This fact leaves many with the unanswered question of why is one permitted to purchase and consume alcohol at 19 and not 18 in Ontario, when 18 years is the age at which one is constituted as adult?
Reducing the LDA to 18 years is logical because the age of majority in Ontario is 18. That is, if one is legally an adult at 18, then one should have the right and freedom of choice afforded to adults.
Youth might view a LDA of 18 as legitimate if it were across the board, as opposed to an unfair maneuver by adults in power to control them and curb their freedom. This perception of legitimacy might aid youth regain the belief in society’s confidence in them as individuals who are reliable and capable of maturity, and who can be trusted to make responsible choices.
The discrepancy between the Canadian Age of Majority in Ontario and Legal Drinking Age (LDA) is somewhat obscure.
One is an adult in Ontario if he/she has reached 18 years of age. At 18 one could legally marry in Ontario, buy a house, and vote. However, they are not legally permitted to purchase alcohol. This fact leaves many with the unanswered question of why is one permitted to purchase and consume alcohol at 19 and not 18 in Ontario, when 18 years is the age at which one is constituted as adult?
Reducing the LDA to 18 years is logical because the age of majority in Ontario is 18. That is, if one is legally an adult at 18, then one should have the right and freedom of choice afforded to adults.
Youth might view a LDA of 18 as legitimate if it were across the board, as opposed to an unfair maneuver by adults in power to control them and curb their freedom. This perception of legitimacy might aid youth regain the belief in society’s confidence in them as individuals who are reliable and capable of maturity, and who can be trusted to make responsible choices.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Program Logic Evaluation
A key aspect of evaluating our programs will be the extent to which our outcomes are measurable. Much of what we are measuring is the perceptions of the participant which means we must be cautious when generalizing the findings of our samples. In addition, we must use caution when examining changes in public and representations of youth in these communities. This information cannot be used as a direct account of how perceptions of youth have or have not changed. They must instead be used as a secondary source of information to further the understandings of the primary information gathered from the first-hand accounts of participants.
We will use these results to generalize our findings to the community from which our sample. This mixed-methods approach provides multiple sources of information from which we can generate an understanding of how our programs have influenced these communities. However, we will interpret our results with caution in that our information will not be gathered over an extended period of time. Therefore, our results must be considered in the ever-changing climate in which they were produced in and be interpreted accordingly to the place and time in which they were gathered.
Furthermore, because communities are very diverse across the province of Ontario, we will not generalize our results on a larger scale. Instead, we will see our programs as a mean of informing various institutions including government, education, and the public about our findings. Our results will be treated as community case studies to demonstrate the ability or inability to endorse accurate perceptions about alcohol and youth which is the essence of our approach. This reflects our realistic goal of creating a social climate that will allow us to work towards reconsidering the current legal drinking age.
In addition, we will explore what drives our evaluations. Because youth and alcohol are very ideologically bound topics, it is important that we are realistic about the results of our programs. We must not expect immediate change and continue to modify those aspects which are not helping this process. We also must maintain that our objectives aim to transform the social climate around youth and alcohol. It may be easy to become preoccupied with our greater goal of changing the legal drinking age to 18. Therefore, we will need to closely monitor our outcomes evaluation methods to ensure the outcome of focus lies in changing the social climate.
We will use these results to generalize our findings to the community from which our sample. This mixed-methods approach provides multiple sources of information from which we can generate an understanding of how our programs have influenced these communities. However, we will interpret our results with caution in that our information will not be gathered over an extended period of time. Therefore, our results must be considered in the ever-changing climate in which they were produced in and be interpreted accordingly to the place and time in which they were gathered.
Furthermore, because communities are very diverse across the province of Ontario, we will not generalize our results on a larger scale. Instead, we will see our programs as a mean of informing various institutions including government, education, and the public about our findings. Our results will be treated as community case studies to demonstrate the ability or inability to endorse accurate perceptions about alcohol and youth which is the essence of our approach. This reflects our realistic goal of creating a social climate that will allow us to work towards reconsidering the current legal drinking age.
In addition, we will explore what drives our evaluations. Because youth and alcohol are very ideologically bound topics, it is important that we are realistic about the results of our programs. We must not expect immediate change and continue to modify those aspects which are not helping this process. We also must maintain that our objectives aim to transform the social climate around youth and alcohol. It may be easy to become preoccupied with our greater goal of changing the legal drinking age to 18. Therefore, we will need to closely monitor our outcomes evaluation methods to ensure the outcome of focus lies in changing the social climate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
