In Conclusion

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Process Evaluation

It is imperative that monitor our program to ensure that the participants are invested in our efforts. Challenging dominant discourses is a difficult task in that as persons, we are very much embedded in our own value systems. If we are unable to encourage our participants to consider new ways of thinking about constructions of youth, then our programs will not be effective. Therefore, we will ask participants to complete a feedback questionnaire after every public presentation to measure their degree of engagement and commitment to the information and idea we will provide. This will allow us to continuously modify our program to ensure that our objectives are being met.

We will also ask participants to report their demographics including age, gender, and role in community (ie. parent, teacher, community supporter). This will be included as part of the information provided to us on the feedback surveys after our public presentations. We will also provide our website address within the printed media we will produce and at the end of the student school media presentations that will air on local television. We will ask that individuals visit our website and to fill out a small survey to report their demographics and perceptions of these programs as well their perceptions of our website. This will tell us who is accessing our programs and the degree to which they are engaged in the information so that we can make any necessary modifications. If we are finding that we are not accessing a diverse sample of individuals, we will need to modify our means to ensure we are reaching various groups within the community.

As the final aspect of our process evaluation, we will survey the youth who are participating in the school media project during its implementation. We will investigate the degree to which they feel their participation is voluntary and that they are able to make their own choices about the project they create. The purpose of this project is to foster self-determination and empower the voice of youth which means that voluntary participation is necessary for all participants. In addition, we must ensure that youth participants are empowered in their sense of agency and decision-making skills. We will engage the participants in weekly group discussion groups in which the youth can report these perceptions to a representative from our team that will then be used to continuously modify our approach.

We would also like to note that during our process evaluation, the opinions of youth will continue to hold the most significance. Not only will our program’s components be modified according to the information and perceptions youth provide, so too will our goals and objectives. If the youth involved in our program appear to support a goal other than lowering the legal drinking age to 18, we will use their voices to create a goal and corresponding objectives that reflect the needs of youth as a whole. Our goals and objectives will maintain this reflexivity to the voices of throughout the process of these programs.

Evaluation and Monitoring: Overview and Outcome Evaluation

Evaluating our multi-step program will be completed using a humanist approach. Our objectives involve the perceptions and opinions of various members of the community. Therefore, our main focus will be to record the experiences of these participants in our various programs. Approaching this task means that we must attempt to generate an understanding of how participation in this program has affected the perceptions of youth by parents, community members, and you themselves.

In order to evaluate the outcomes, we will use a multi-method, quasi-experimental design to measure outcomes for youth involved in our programs. We will measure the youths’ perceived feelings of self-determination and perceived sense of societal value before their participation in our public awareness presentations and school media project. After the programs are completed, we will measure these factors again to determine if there was a significant impact as a result of their participation.

In addition, we will ask the youth participants to reconvene with us 6 months after the programs are completed. Participants will engage in group discussions in which we will record their perceived agency and ability to affect social change after completing our program. This is imperative for us to understand in that the results of our programs must translate into these perceptions in order for us to work towards our greater goal. If our participants do not feel a greater sense of agency in their own lives outside of our programs, then we must reconsider if our programs are worth the cost we are putting in.

We will also ask parents and other community members to report their perceptions of youth in terms of their societal value, involvement in their own political agenda, and associations with alcohol-related harm before and after participation in our public awareness presentations. In addition, we will perform a social impact assessment by investigating changes in youth anti-alcohol campaigns, anti-drinking and driving campaigns, and alcohol advertising within these communities. This will allow us to understand the extent to which our implemented programs have affected collective change on a community level.

Implementation: Partnerships

In moving forward with implementing a new policy, it is important to form partnerships with individuals, groups, and organizations that have already established public respect or are known within the society that we are working in. Established bodies have influence and are seen as legitimate, and are therefore heard by an abounding number of people.

Celebrities have fame and many instances are held in high esteem by individuals in society. For many years celebrities have taken on causes that they believe in.
Muhammad Ali, Heavy Weight Champion of the World, is an advocate against drinking and smoking. He is quoted in the following:
“I don’t drink or smoke. I never have, which is why I’m so pretty and still the champ. If you want to be the greatest, leave alcohol alone.” (Teenage Drinking, P.76) Hearing a famous person, whom many admire and aspire to emulate, say that drinking is not favourable has an impact on how people then choose to act.

Partnerships with organizations such as the United Way, which have already implemented and endorsed youth-focused social actions that are inclusive in their campaigns, are beneficial in that they provide information and support. Part of the United Way, Youthunited is a for-youth-by-youth initiative so as philanthropists, teens give time, talent and or money to youth-focused programs at United Way member agencies. In return, teens are offered an opportunity to be heard and many venues for developing and honing leadership skills, gaining practical life and job experiences, and accumulating community service hours (http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/campaign/youthunited/main.php). Such an endeavor shows the value of youth participation in social reform, and helps minimize stereotypes of youth as inadequate members of society.

Partnerships usually help establish credibility which is necessary in advancing a cause and bringing issues to light. Community groups and organizations, schools, local government representatives, celebrities are all possible allies and supports that could help in connecting with various members of society whom ultimately have the power to bring about change.

Implementation: Utilizing the Media and Internet

In the process of making visible our goal of inclusiveness in policy generation, we examined the different methods by which we can bring awareness to certain thoughts and recommendations.

In our society television, radio and the internet have become the predominant modes of information delivery and exchange. Canadians are increasingly choosing homegrown news and public affairs shows over other programming on Canadian television, according to latest data on television viewing. (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050331/d050331b.htm) Just over 15 million individuals aged 18 or older were estimated to have accessed the Internet from home for personal non-business reasons, this is about 90% of all Internet users. (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060815/d060815b.htm) It falls to reason then that utilizing all three main sources of information is a reasonable step in the attempt of generating awareness about an issue.

We cannot discount the impact of the media, not only on the general population, but on family life and, consequently, on teenagers. Television in particular has become a focal point of family activities and entertainment, and has grown so powerful that many of us simply no longer have to think for ourselves. With families strapped by very real pressures, television, the internet and radio stations catering to adolescents through music have assumed the new responsibility of determining what is important and what isn’t. (Teenage Drinking, P.17)

Sharing our impressions on the importance of including younger individuals or youth in policy making, in particular when the policy is in regards to youth, is paramount in the endeavor of attaining support in an implementation process.

Implementation Plan: School Media Project

Philosophy of Campaign:

The purpose of the school media campaign is to bring awareness to society’s false assumptions about youth by:
- Increasing the perceived value of the opinions and beliefs of young persons
- Increasing perceived feelings empowerment and self-determination in young persons

It is important to not generalize that all young people feel the same way about alcohol. Most young Canadians frown on heavy drinking. A study found that 95% of young people agreed that it was dangerous to drink and drive. In addition, the majority of youth agreed that alcohol effected reaction time, was harmful to an unborn fetus, made it hard to concentrate and is habit forming (Smart & Ogborne, 1996). In a national study it was found that youth do not believe that one should drink until the effects of the alcohol are felt in most situations such as parties, sporting events or even at home (Smart & Ogborne, 1996). To generalize that all youth will be involved in alcohol related risk behaviours creates false assumptions in society.

The Campaign:

a) An empowering project such as this would allow youth to bring awareness to alcohol stereotypes in their generation. The school media project would allow students to come together to create short movies, brochures, posters etc. about how they feel about alcohol and responsibility. They could shed some positive light on their peers from their point of view, to break away from the assumptions that all youth who drink display negative behaviours.
b) These forms of media could be advertised around their school or in the community. When students come together they can make a difference, therefore creating an empowering movement.

Implementation Plan: Public Awareness Campaign

Philosophy of Campaign:

The purpose of the public awareness campaign and presentation is to bring society’s false assumptions into consciousness:
- Youths are associated with negative alcohol-related behaviors
- Youths’ values, opinions and beliefs do not matter
- Youths are not responsible and competent in terms of alcohol consumption

Parents need to be educated that appropriate alcohol behaviors are modeled by using alcohol in an unemotional and controlled way. It is important to teach children that alcohol is normal, it is not a sign of adulthood, and its purpose is not to get intoxicated (Plaut, 1967; Wilkinson, 1970; Hanson; 1972).

The method currently used for alcohol education excludes young people and is counterproductive. The mistake of parents and educators is not preparing children for the realities of life. It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children how to approach dangerous situations and activities such as driving, swimming, drinking, and sex. However, with driving and swimming, parents are very thorough when teaching their children what’s right and wrong. With sex and alcohol, parents only use the term “don’t”, instead of teaching the right and wrong way to approach these activities. Parents are later faced with their children not following their instructions to abstain, and have alternatively learned inappropriate behaviors instead. Therefore, parents and educators must learn how to better socialize children to understand drinking in moderation and prevention of future alcohol problems (Cisin, 1978).


The Campaign:

a) An empowering and enlightening presentation should be given to parents, teachers, schools and school boards, community meetings, and alcohol related groups and associations to deliver our goals, objectives, over-arching messages, and supporting evidence.
b) Visual presentations and controversial posters should be distributed and posted to get the message heard and circulating.

Implementation Plan: Overview

Our plan to reach our goal of changing the legal drinking age to 18 years targets change on a community level. We will focus on fostering the participation of community members in bringing light to the issue at hand. More specifically, our focus will be to provide information and promote awareness regarding issues surrounding the legal drinking age in Ontario and its effects on constructions of youth. We will not be trying to convince adults that the legal drinking age should be lowered. Instead, our efforts will focus on re-constructing beliefs and stereotypes about the value of youth and the realities of their involvement with alcohol.

Our agenda for creating change also includes adult community members and parents. We wish to provide information and promote awareness regarding the significant impact of the current negative constructions of youth and the realities of youth drinking patterns. We also wish to create relationships with these individuals to continue to open more and more space that will allow for the possibility of changes on the political level.

Through a variety of means, we hope to engage youth as key contributors in this change. We are using an inclusive approach to validate young persons as active participants in this process. Our emphasis lies in assisting the voices of youth in promoting their positive contributions to their community. In addition, much emphasis will be placed on increasing the role of young persons in the creation and modification of their collective identity.

Our means for achieving our objectives are as follows:
-public awareness campaign
-partnerships with community members/parents
-school media project
-printed media and website

It is believed that these programs and resources will allow for these communities to consider more accurate ways of conceptualizing youth while involving youth as active members of this process.

An Alternate Policy: Objectives Continued and Recommendations

Our goal of changing the legal drinking age operates on a provincial level. However, we will begin working towards this goal on a fundamental level in order to ensure that our objectives are realistic. We believe that changing the legal drinking age is a long-term goal which will cannot be accomplished without much change to the social climate. We will begin working towards our goal with the following objectives:

1) To increase the ability of community members, stakeholders, and parents to see young persons as responsible and competent
2) To decrease the focus on youth as responsible for alcohol-related harm
3) To increase the perceived value of the opinions and beliefs of young persons
4) To increase perceived feelings empowerment and self-determination in young persons

Our recommendations for reaching these objectives function on a fundamental level of informing the individuals within communities. In order to achieve our goal of changing the legal drinkng age, first we must create a space for such policy changes to be considered. We must bring awareness to and create investment in the hidden ideologies and stereotypes that are embedded in constructions of youth. In addition, we must inform the general community as to the realities of drinking behaviours in youth. Therefore, we will begin by providing information and action that will allow this issue to have a place on Ontario’s political agenda in the future.

Recommendations:

1) Provide a means of youth voices to be heard in a public facility
2) Provide means for public/community members to challenge and reform common constructions of youth
3) Illustrate achievements and abilities of youth in a public facility
4) Provide accurate information regarding youth drinking behaviour and adult drinking behaviour

An Alternate Policy: Objectives

Currently, the legal drinking age in Ontario is 19. Our goal is to change the legal drinking age to 18. The purpose of this is not to increase the availability of alcohol to youth. Instead, our purpose is to place buying and consuming alcohol on the same plain as other actions such as voting. We see placing alcohol in a different category from these actions as problematic. It places much more emphasis on the significance of both accessing and consuming this substance. Therefore, we believe that lowering the legal drinking age will decrease its emphasis as a desirable yet forbidden to youth.

We understand that due to Ontario's history, changing the legal drinking age to 18 is not a simple task. Values from the prohibition era continue to exist today. Also, we have observed much harm caused to individuals due to the consumption of alcohol. However, we reiterate that statistics have shown that youth under the age of 19 continue to consume alcohol at rates that are not greatly different than their legally aged peers.

Efforts have been made in the past to lower the legal drinking age in the past but have not found any success. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/28/drinking-age.html?ref=rss) From our research of the current policies surrounding youth drinking, this is due to the social climate in Ontario. This climate is dense with youth anti-drinking efforts including alcohol sale, advertising, and legal repercussions.

In addition, constructions youth in our society portray youth as irresponsible and immature in comparison to adults. Therefore, our objectives involve transforming the social climate to provide accurate information about youth drinking behaviours as well as the ways in which youth are oppressed due to common ideologies that exist today.

An Alternate Policy: Goal

Goal: To change the legal drinking age in Ontario from the current age of 19 years to 18 years.

Ideologies of youth as irresponsible paired with a sense of collectivism maintain strict social control of alcohol consumption in Ontario. Our research of current policies and their implications have displayed an overall pattern of oppression and marginalization of youth as a result of these notions. Youth have been socially constructed as inferior and incapable of judgment making which maintains the current drinking limit at age 19.

These implications are the result of the strong focus on youth alcohol consumption in Ontario. However, our research has also shown that the legal drinking age of 19 does not significantly decrease alcohol consumption in underage youth. Research has also shown that a significant number of underage youth attempt to buy alcohol although they are not legally allowed.

It appears that there is common perception that the legal drinking age curbs the desire of youth to drink yet this perception is not supported by research. This has prompted us to consider an alternative to this policy that will address the oppressive nature of the legal drinking age in Ontario while promoting personal and social responsibility. Therefore, our goal is to affect policy change that indicates a legal drinking age of 18 in Ontario.

We believe that lowering the legal drinking age can reinforce positive images of youth. It may also decrease the emphasis on youth as responsible for all alcohol-related harm. Accomplishing these tasks will benefit both the collective and individual identities of youth in Ontario. In addition, it could assist in informing the public as to the dangers of alcohol consumption that occur across all age groups.

The following video comes from the USA but highlights the common debates regarding the legal drinking age:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBmwvqQyix0

Impact: Does Current Policy Have an Effect?

The prohibition of alcohol sale to under age individuals is clear, and the consequences for adults selling to you youth are apparent in Canadian law. Although there are legal repercussions for under age youth who drink without their parents’ supervision, those consequences do not seem to have an affect on the incessant phenomenon of under-age drinking. Therefore, the question arises, do the current policies instated by adults in regards to the behaviour of youth have the intended effect; that is, have the current laws been able to reduce the incidence of under-age drinking and the negative consequences that the phenomenon has on youth and society? According to statistics, the rate of “accidents” and harm that youth cause to themselves and others’ is still substantial (http://www.dontbethatguy.ca/alcohol_law.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=525)

Impact: The Legal Drinking Age

The underlying assumptions of the legal drinking age are to control sinful and dangerous alcohol consumption such as problem behavior, risk for addiction, and driving under the influence. Ultimately, the legal drinking age protects youths and anyone that can be affected by youths from alcohol and its effects (Sterne et al., 1967).

However, Sterne and her colleagues (1967) have found that legal drinking age objectives fall short and further produce adverse consequences:

1. By denying adults who are not yet legal to purchase alcohol because we fear they will drive drunk, we are suggesting that the behaviors of drinking and driving occurs as a combo when they are of legal age (Sterne et al., 1967).

2. The implementation of stringent youth-focused liquor laws is an inadequate way to introduce youths to adult responsibility (Sterne et al., 1967).

3. Prohibiting youths from buying and consuming alcohol, gives way for illegal opportunity (Sterne et al., 1967).

Overall, the rise of the minimum age drinking legislation has discovered very little impact upon behavior. Studies that measure the outcomes of this law have shown no decline in consumption rates, intoxication, drinking attitudes, or drinking problems. However, studies which show the effects of lowering the drinking age does not show increased alcohol related behaviors except for an increase in attendance at locations where alcohol was present (Perkins and Berkowitz, 1985).
Logically then, it is safer to reduce the legal drinking age as youths tend to flock to places where there are quantity controls, rather than staying home unsupervised and exposing one’s self to the dangers of overconsumption to alcohol.

Impact: Alcohol Controls

The easiest response to control youth drinking behaviors and regulate drinking and driving is to enforce alcohol controls which prohibit youths from purchasing, obtaining, and drinking alcohol. Further, “to control” is also to apply severe consequences to the adults who allow it to happen.

However, raising the drinking age to reduce undesirable behaviors and drunk driving is found to be “an indirect and incomplete way to attack the problem” (Mosher, 1980, p.31). Raising the legal drinking age to 25, 30 or 50 may have a significant impact, but 19 is the government’s solution to unjustly point fingers. Youths are being chosen as a “symbolic gesture because of its political impotence and because…there are no major economic consequences..." (Mosher, 1980, p.31). A suitable approach might be to focus on intoxicated drivers in general apart from age and/or social status (http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook/chap10.html).

Moreover, the stringent alcohol controls implemented in the province has proven to produce unintended and undesirable results. The attempt to legislate undesirable alcohol behaviors consequentially provides illicit opportunities for attaining alcohol. Many of these unlawful behaviors are not necessarily performed by illegally purchasing liquor. The activities include brewing one’s own liquor, capitalizing on it, and use it for entertainment and other drug opportunities. The effortlessness of distribution gives rise to bootlegging and smuggling (http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook/chap10.html).

Mosher (1980) has further pointed out that drinking controls and youth-drinking behaviors are incongruent. When alcohol is prohibited in ways which restrict anyone from obtaining it, the use of it declines. Yet, increasing the age of allowing, buying and consuming alcohol has a positive correlation (the stricter the laws or the higher the age to legally buy alcohol, the increase of under-age drinking occurs). Therefore, the most active legislative control on age of purchase it, the more underage drinking is prevalent.

Impact: Does Our Monopolized System Actually Influence Youth Drinking?

The desired impact of crown corporations (ie.LCBO) in regards to youth drinking is employ strict control of youth access to alcohol. To what extent does a monopoly of alcohol distribution actually prevent alcohol consumption in youths? The following statistics display the amount of individuals who report consuming 5 or more alcoholic drinks at one time, 12 or more times per year. The percentages are divided according to age groups in years:

12-14: 4.2%
15-19: 31.1%
20-24: 44.5%
25-34: 26.6%

(Statistics Canada, 2007)

These statistics are difficult to analyze because the drinking age is included as a parameter within one of the age groups. Are 1/3 of 15 year olds consuming alcohol? Or does this percentage reflect the youth who are able to purchase alcohol (19 year olds)?

The frequency of drinking between individuals who are 15-19 and 20-24 are greater than those between 20-24 and 25-34. It appears that our highly controlled system of sales does prevent youth from accessing alcohol. However, the LCBO reports that in 2006/2007, 100 860 underage youth attempted to purchase alcohol at an LCBO. To truly understand the extent to which these crown corporations prevent alcohol sales we would need to compare these statistics to those within a totally privatized system to serve as a control group.

The un-intentioned impact of our monopolized system includes illegal means to acquire alcohol and the stigma that is placed on youth who attempt to purchase alcohol. The LCBO and its consumers are highly focused on preventing alcohol sales to youth much more than other alcohol-related issues. There is much effort and money put into these campaigns that maintain the image of youth who drink as irresponsible, deviant, and requiring adult protection. The greater the efforts to prevent sales to alcohol, the wider the gap grows between the perceived beliefs and behaviours of youth and those of adults.

Impact: Alternative advertising

In response to the alcohol industries new strategies for marketing to youth, there has been a movement or push towards alcohol industry funded “responsibility” messages. Using social marketing to advertise the consequences of youth drinking and drinking behaviours. These movements want to shed light on the truths of youth drinking especially on campuses (not everyone drinks on campus or drinking is not the way to be socially accepted among your peers). These advertisements are also intended to break the link between some of the social norms that were created such as drinking and sex appeal. These advertisements suggest that “bingeing isn’t sexy” breaking that link between alcohol and sex.

There has also been an increase on the focus of healthy living lifestyle advertisements, which includes messages of better nutrition, exercise and staying away from drugs and alcohol. Finding a different way to relate to youth on the topic of alcohol is key and a way in which Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) hopes to present the message to youth.

Even though there has been a movement, as with any movement there are always barriers in which stand in the way. Today, it is still seen that alcohol advertisements have not leveled off and are on the rise and are seen more than alcohol responsibility messages. Some research found in the U.S. noticed that in a specific year between 2006 and 2007, there were no alcohol “responsibility" messages about underage drinking on television, especially during times which teens were more likely to be watching television. The research reports that over the entire period of 2001 - 2007, youth ages 12 to 20 were 22 times more likely to see an alcohol product advertisement than an alcohol "responsibility" advertisement about consequences of drinking and driving, safety or underage drinking. (http://camy.org/press/release.php?ReleaseID=46)

Impact: Tougher advertising laws, but strategic marketing techniques....

Since the 1980s, there is evidence showing that there has been a curve in alcohol consumption and this is not because there are newer policy restrictions, but on other factors such as demographic changes, health concerns, and attitudes that society has on alcohol advertisement. This seems to be a positive step in the right direction that generally, consumption has decreased, however, this decrease in sales has caused changes to the alcohol industries marketing techniques (Pennock, 2007).

These marketing techniques focused on defying the consumption trends and appealing to knew markets and advertising new brands of alcohol. These markets included women, African American and youth. In the 1980s, the industry wanted to turn drinks from being looked at a “man’s” drink and appeal to women and youth, such as the wine cooler which is a marketing success story. They began to target minors and advertised in urban areas and college campuses. The marketing of beer to college students became particularly aggressive and focused on the sexual “spring break” adds and the promotion of contests that encouraged binge drinking (Pennock, 2007). At this point the industry wanted to also increase their visibility in the community and began to sponsor concerts and other events that were youth oriented. Industry continues to increase expenditures in their marketing and appeal to these new markets.

The current federal and provincial policies that have been put in place to moderate the advertisements of alcohol include tougher laws, public advertising campaigns to stop advertising alcohol and peer pressure to industry by restrictionalists (Pennock, 2007). The current debate is that there is no way to assess whether banding alcoholic advertisements have deceased the consumption of alcohol in the general public and more specifically in youth. Research has shown that alcohol advertising does influence young people. It accomplishes this by preprogramming youth to drink, attracts new drinkers when advertising different brands, invites drinkers to drink more and makes it hard for those who have problems to stop (McKenzie, 2000).

Impact: What Does a Monopolized System of Sales Mean for Ontario as a Whole?

According to the LCBO’s 2006/2007 annual report, consumers are most concerned with the sale of alcohol to underage youth (http://www.lcbo.com/aboutlcbo/annualreport2007.shtml). The International Centre for Alcohol Policies surveyed ministries of health, directors of health services, and key policy makers and found this same result on an international level. However, it is important to consider the voices we are listening to. In both of these surveys, one provincial and one international, adult LCBO customers and health and policy professionals are the ones deciding the importance of our current system. In addition, many health-oriented perspectives such as the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health advocate for the effectiveness to which our system decreases alcohol-related harms especially in preventing underage youth from accessing alcohol.

However, there have been efforts to change to a privatized system of sales to increase the financial benefits of alcohol sales. In 2005, the provincial government created a Beverage Alcohol System Review Panel to investigate the effects of our monopolized sales system. They found that there is much untapped economic value in privatization and that health/safety could continue to be ensured including the prevention sales to minors. However, the Minister of Finance strongly rejected this idea due to the amount of perceived social control that would be lost. However, the push for privatization continues on. In 2007, Bill 199 was created and had its first reading in attempt to amend the Liquor Control Act to allow the sale of domestic wine and beer in convenience stores. Supporters of this bill stated that these stores can operate under the LCBO’s watch and will add much income to small businesses. However, it has only passed its first reading.
(http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=1563&isCurrent=false&ParlSessionID=)

It appears that there is debate as to whether Ontario’s access to alcohol should be based on the social benefits of a crown corporation or the economic benefits of privatization. The impact of maintaining our current system appears to be that the values/beliefs of the consumers and policy makers are being met. Yet, there are unsettled opinions about the economic benefits that could be gained from a privatized system. Is it better to protect the perceived social well-being of our province by maintaining government control over the sales of alcohol? Or privatize to benefit the local business economy which also means depending on the local business owners to prevent the sale of alcohol to youth?

Analysis: When Youth Get Caught

The repercussions that currently follow the apprehension of under-age youth with alcohol constitute a slap-on-the-wrist. Although a teen can be charged with a provincial offense, the incidence of that occurring is low.
The current policies have been constructed with what seems to be an authoritative scope or lens, one that does not accommodate the views of different others’. Furthermore, the impact that the current laws have had on reducing the occurrence of under-age drinking, and the consequences of such behaviour such as drinking and driving, has been insignificant. This fact is reflected in the current numbers of teens who part-take in alcohol consumption and who suffer many negative consequences as a result of their continued behaviour (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/e08042480.pdf).

Analysis: Consequences for Alcohol Providers...Oppressive?

The originating idea of alcohol control was implementing laws to keep alcohol away from the powerless. Today, the function of control on sales and accessibility of alcohol are to protect youths from its harms. However, research shows that the “control model of prevention” is a misleading notion. Control does not inevitably stop youths from drinking but it does have major benefits for the government as alcohol taxes are a significant source of revenue (http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook/chap8.html).

One of the most stringent controls is to execute severe consequences to those who are caught selling alcohol to minors. As well as, being a parent of a youth who drinks alcohol and later drives or has any type of accident under the influence. For the most part, these consequences are harsh (as mentioned previously). In some cases, where youths use fake ID or have a house party behind his or her parent’s back, the penalty for the person claimed responsible may be unjust. In many cases, drinking alcohol is a cultural tradition, but if one witnesses giving a minor alcohol, they must report it. (http://www.dontletminorsdrink.com/parents/report.shtml).

If implementing the “control model of prevention” is only a small factor of what keeps youth safe from alcohol, why are the consequences so severe for the helpless controller?

It is important to recognize the difference between protecting minors and making a buck by applying these policies. In the case of culture, this policy can be unnecessarily oppressive. Also, in the case of an uninformed parent whose child has a house party, the consequences can be tragic. If the youth is persistent of attaining alcohol, but the provider or person in charge gets the blame, there is no incentive for a minor to stop trying. It seems that it is easier for the government to oppress and reap the benefits, then spend money educating youths.

Analysis: A Critical Look at the Sale of Alcohol

The lens through which alcohol distribution policies are created and maintained can be connected to collectivism. The sale of alcohol in Ontario is characterized by a monopolized system which means that all alcohol is sold by the LCBO, The Beer Store, or private wineries (see blog entry “Methods of Sale of Alcohol”). This system is thought to ensure greater social control by limiting how and when alcohol may be obtained. In turn, this will impact behaviours and reduce the possibility of alcohol-related harm (Health Canada).

In this sense, what is best for the individual is best for all. Unhealthy patterns of alcohol consumption are seen as a problem that can be solved through the creation of policy to limit these behaviour patterns. This in turn is protecting the health of the greater community and its individuals. Therefore, it appears that this policy is grounded in a framework of health promotion and prevention which hold collectivist values.

According to Thomas of The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (2004), there are two ways to promote health and reduce social harms related to alcohol. First is a population health approach which targets overall drinking rates throughout the population. Second is a harm reduction approach which specifically targets individuals who show high-risk patterns of drinking. (http://www.nationalframeworkcadrenational.ca/detail_e.php?id_sub=6&id_top_sub=4)

The government’s monopolized sale of alcohol maximizes the effectiveness of these two methods. The LCBO website (www.lcbo.com) makes reference to its philosophies as “social strategies” illustrating the focus on addressing this issue from a social position. The 2006/2007 LCBO annual report also features a section called “Caring for the Community” which explains the programs and initiatives in place which illustrates a strong sense of protective collectivism (http://www.lcbo.com/aboutlcbo/annualreport2007.shtml). The impact of this policy and its respective values will soon be examined for its impact of the actual lives of individuals, the community, and other social policies.

Analysis: Looking at advertising alcohol to youth...

The word advertise depicts the lens in which we look at this policy. For advertisement we define it as, to describe and draw attention to a product, in a public channel to promote sales, for either organization, industry or government. The advertisement of alcohol markets the brand in which the corporation is trying to sell, and increases their profit. It’s a consumer approach with little to no consideration of the health and well being of the population in which it’s marketed too. These are big money making corporations that seem to make the rules in what can be advertised even with the policies made by government.

Alcohol beverage companies tend to advertise “lifestyle” advertisements to youth. These types of advertisements promote the positives of this product, and depict a youthful, healthy, fun, and attractive population drinking alcohol. It was found in the U.S. that youth ages 12-20 saw more television advertising for beer in 2001 than for fruit juices and fruit-flavored drinks; gum; skin care products; cookies and crackers; chips, nuts, popcorn and pretzels; sneakers; non-carbonated soft drinks; or sportswear jeans. (Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth Television: Alcohol's Vast Adland.) Even though these are American findings and Canada represents a much smaller market I find these statistics alarming, as Canada does not fall to far behind the U.S.’s footsteps.

In another report from the United Sates they found that from 2001 to 2007, there was an increase from 216 to 301, alcohol advertisements seen in a year by the average television-watching 12-to-20-year-old . In 2007, approximately one out of every five alcohol advertisements was placed on programming that youth ages 12 to 20 were more likely per capita to see than adults of the legal drinking age (Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth: Youth Exposure to Alcohol Advertising on Television, 2001 to 2007, 2008)

These industries are fueled by profit and spend big bucks to advertise their alcoholic product. It was estimated that in 2002 Canadian brewers and distillers spent more then $160 million to promote their beverages. There needs to be a shift in advertising to youth proposed by the government to increase in alcohol focused “responsibility” messages that market risks of drinking and driving, safety or underage drinking risks instead of alcohol product advertisements.

Methods of Alcohol Sale

After the temperance movement began to extinguish, many groups continued to advocate for strict regulation of the production and sale of alcohol. In response, the Ontario government created a monopolized system of sales. This means that a select number of retailers account for all of the sales of alcohol throughout the province and hold great power in the regulation of alcohol consumption (Marquis, 2004).

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) was created in 1927 to control the sale of alcohol to both individuals and restaurants/bars. The LCBO is a Crown corporation which means that it is a state-owned enterprise. The Retail Breweries Inc. (now known as The Beer Store) was also created in 1927 which is a privately-owned chain of retail stores which account for almost all beer sales in Ontario. These corporations currently operate under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act of 1996 (http://www.agco.on.ca/en/h.home.html).

According to Marquis (2004), this framework created over 80 years ago is still present in today’s alcohol sales system. While the actual stores have become much more customer friendly and have extended hours of operation, this system continues to have great control over the sale and consumption of alcohol. There has been a push to privatize the sale of alcohol in Ontario following the paths of other provinces. However, groups such as the Canadian Association for Mental Health stresses that our monopolized system is crucial in preventing alcohol-related harm (Canadian Association for Mental Health, 2004). It also generates significant government revenue.

This system relates directly to the sale of alcohol to youth. The LCBO stresses a strong sense of social responsibility and is very much involved in many public campaigns such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The official website (www.lcbo.com) lists their key values and objectives listed. The first four on the list all focus on preventing alcohol sales to youth and educating youth about alcohol-related health risks. It appears that the legal drinking age for youth is significantly influenced by this policy of monopolized alcohol sales and these strict regulations reflect the social and governmental attitudes towards youth alcohol consumption.

Penalties of Selling to Minors

In Ontario, many licensed establishments can serve or sell alcohol. However, they all must abide by the policies and rules set out by the government, also known as the Liquor License Act. The LLA states that a person who serves alcohol must be at least 18 years old and must not serve or sell to anyone below the legal drinking age (19 year old in Ontario). It is a provincial offence to disobey these policies.

Serving and selling alcohol is characterized by “taking drink orders, taking payment for alcoholic beverages, stocking the refrigerator or bar area, and bartending” (Smart Serve Ontario) at a licensed establishment or LCBO. The individual or his/her supervisor who serves to a minor may be subject to fines and prosecution. The fines begin at $100 to $500 for an individual and up to $500,000 for a corporation. Depending on the circumstances, the licensee may get its license revoked or a minimum 5 day suspension (Ontario Public Health Association).

Furthermore, it is illegal to buy alcohol for a minor. Under the LLA, anyone who supplies alcohol to a minor faces up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $200,000. A person who holds parties for minors where alcohol is present is liable for any crimes and injuries related to alcohol consumption. A liable individual may face criminal charges or may be sued.

One of the ways to ensure proper enforcement of these policies is the “year-round Check 25 program”. Customers who look under 25 are asked to show identification (LLA).

Consequences of Alcohol Possession by Youth

Providing youth with alcohol has clear consequences, which will be discussed in the appropriately titled entry above. However, what are the penalties for youth who acquire alcoholic beverages with the knowledge of the legality issues surrounding such behaviour?

The attitudes in regards to alcohol drinking are morphing in response to the consequences of excessive consumption. Consequences such as impaired driving and physically hurting oneself while under the influence. Alcohol alters one’s sense of reality and one’s inhibitions, and can lead to behaviours that one would not engage in while sober. The rates of hospitalizations for external causes related to alcohol are highest for younger Canadians (http://www.ccsa.ca/2004%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-004840-2004.pdf).

In Canada, you must be 19 to drink alcohol in all provinces and territories, except in Manitoba, Alberta, and Quebec where the LDA (legal drinking age) is 18 (http://www.drinkingfacts.ca/english/downloads/discussion_guide.pdf). The legal liability for under-age youth who acquire alcohol includes being charged with a provincial offense, a fine, and even jail time. Some universities, like the University of Waterloo, can sanction an individual under the university’s bylaws (http://www.dontbethatguy.ca/alcohol_law.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=525).

Advertising to Youth

Alcohol advertisements are monitored both federally and provincially. The federal government sets rules for broadcast advertising through the "CRTC Code for Broadcast Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages”. Some of the rules set out include, messages are not allowed to imply that drinking leads to social acceptance, personal success or success in business or sports or encourage non-drinkers to begin drinking, appeal to minors, connect drinking with high risk activities (McKenzie, 2000). They must also not portray the heavy consumption of an alcohol beverage or exaggerate the importance of any aspect of the product. In some cases federal restrictions apply only after the product is formally introduced in the commercial via a label, a musical signature, logo, brand name or other symbol that identifies the product or its manufacturer (McKenzie, 2000). Provincially, in Ontario specifically all ads must be reviewed and approved by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario before they air, which has their own set of regulations that need to be met (McKenzie, 2000).

There have been many regulations put in place to monitor alcoholic advertising to protect children and youth, however, there has been comment that the guide lines of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) have been breached, and there has been some loops holes created. This occurs when an alcoholic add would appear while children are watching T.V. such as during a hockey game, these adds also contain actors who are youthful looking, and some adds appear to be directed towards youth, by using youth themes or rock music, and in some cases youth roles models have been used to advertise these beverages (Smart & Ogborne, 1996). The ad pictured in this blog generated complaints, it is yet another ad that breaks the liquor advertising guideline. Alcohol advertising must not promote alcohol consumption.

When examining the advertisement policies, one needs to examine the culture that it was created in. Western culture is very accepting of social drinking, no wonder there have been breaches in policies. Watching a hockey game is not a hockey game, unless you have some beer. Society is just modelling to youth the social norm of western culture. Children’s parents and role models are important in these policies to help oversee along with what the government is already monitoring to keep children the safest from the affects of alcohol advertising. Is it okay to have an advertisement like this around college campus'? Especially, when many youth are under age in their 1st year of college or university.

Different Drinking Ages?!

Alcohol, although prohibited in some countries, is commonly consumed by individuals from many parts of the world. In North American culture, alcohol acts as a symbol of leisure (Warsh, Drinking in Canada). People mostly drink when socializing, but there are exceptions. Drinking could become a problem when an individual becomes dependent on alcohol.

The drinking age varies according to province. One could be in Canada, be 18 and legally allowed to drink in one province yet denied alcohol in another province. In fact, the drinking age varies drastically not only from province to province, but also from one country to the other.In the United States, the legal drinking age is 21, arguably the highest in the world; whereas, China has no age limit to consume alcoholic beverages(Legal Drinking Age). For a table of the world's drinking ages, visit http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/LegalDrinkingAge.html

One could wonder, how is an individual deemed fit to consume alcohol at one locale and not another? What indicates that one is ready to drink? What is the gauge being implemented when deciding on legal drinking age? Are levels of maturity and responsibility truly dictated by a one's age?These are questions that have peaked our interest, and that we will explore in the course of this project.

The Ideologies of Control and Sale of Alcohol

The control of alcohol sales has been a controversial issue for centuries. On one hand, alcohol consumption is considered a threat to health, safety (eg. impaired driving, family protection), public order, economic interests and productivity. These perceived threats were the driving force of prohibition in the 19th century. On the opposite end, the government could completely withdraw their interests in the alcohol market and allow it to go privatized (Room, 1990).

Both these options are unrealistic, as prohibition is unenforceable and a private market for alcohol will exacerbate its negative effects. Therefore, the government realized it is in their best interests to allow but fully control the alcohol market. Room (1990) describes that control is better than banning the alcohol industry by stating that the government may not be able to control illegal production, but it can fully control the industry if legalized.

The current dominant ideologies of alcohol control were created and maintained by the assumption that it provides many benefits to the government. First and foremost, it allows the state/province to collect all the profit as the market is monopolized and very profitable. Alcohol taxes are a significant source of revenue, which is appealing since income tax was the previous bread-winner (Room, 1990).

In terms of control on alcohol sales, the increase of the minimum drinking age was implemented in the 1980’s. This was the result of society’s worries about youths (Room, 1990). The minimum drinking age was a way to avoid banning alcohol, but control for alcohol induced crime. A study was conducted to locate what populations are the largest alcohol consumers. The findings show that youths (18-29) account for 45% of adult drinking. Therefore, these laws were put into practice to “reduce consumption by the heaviest drinkers” (Greenfield & Rogers, 1999).

The Ideologies of Youth and the Legal Drinking Age

Various ideologies impact the development of youth social policy. It is imperative to consider these ideologies that underlie youth social policy as they directly impact the lived experiences of individual youth. Very simply, the idea that youth require a unique set of policies reflects the belief that youth and adulthood are completely separate entities. This suggests that youth have so little in common with adults that they must be addressed in a separate manner.

White and Wyn (1998) describe this separation as a deterministic belief meaning that it is seen as a universal truth in societies such as Canada. It is built on the biological fact that youth have not yet reached the highest level of development and maturation. All behaviours are attributed to a lack of maturation which reduces youth to being primarily characterized by their biology (Gordon, 2007). This places youth in a place of inferiority in which there is a significant lack of agency and adults are considered to hold superior power and decision-making abilities. A direct result of this view is that adults are in charge of the creation of policies surrounding youth matters such as the age at which they may begin purchasing alcohol. This policy highlights this power-imbalance in that every youth is strictly suspended from purchasing a substance that is available to all adults.

Another principle at the root of this policy deals with social responsibility. The idea that adults have a duty to protect the young is also a belief that is very much embedded in Canadian society. Limiting the age at which alcohol can be obtained can be seen as a way in which adults are protecting youth from engaging in possibly harmful behaviours. This is further enforced by the punishment that is to an adult who sells alcohol to a youth who is under the legal age. Adults who sell alcohol to underage youth can be legally convicted which shows the seriousness to which this duty is taken (Chamberlain, 2001) and reinforces the view of youth as the responsibility of adults.

It is also imperative to acknowledge the cultural-specificity of this policy. Because the drinking age in Ontario is 19 (and close to this age in other provinces), this shows individuals are still considered youth at this age which is specific to this culture. In addition, there is certain set of beliefs concerning youth who do choose to drink although they are not yet the legal age. In Canada, these youth are considered deviant or troubled. These labels can be seen as a means of punishment for youth who do not follow this policy. Reflecting on the previously mentioned ideologies reveals that there are many beliefs that underlie the sale of alcohol to youth. Many of these ideologies appear to be deeply embedded in the dominant discourses of our society.

The Creation of a Minimum Drinking Age.

“As a society of individuals we support the consumption of alcoholic beverages” (Beverage Alcohol Consumption in Canada). Historically alcohol has been used for relaxation, social purposes, ceremony and religion, nutrition, and was one of the primeval medicine known to man. The discovery or invention of alcohol and its existence is no doubt pertains to the special characteristics that alcohol processes. These widespread occurrences of alcohol use demonstrate that the use of alcohol is essentially ingrained in human behavior (Smith 1973 as cited in Simpson et al., 1985).

The historical origins of minimum drinking age laws in North America did not originally occur until the Temperance movement in the 1820s, as before this time it was not an integral component of the North American legislation. Before the Temperance movement the belief of the colonizing Americans was “alcohol was an essential part of life.” Liquor served a range of purposes and was commonly referred to as “the Good Creature of God” (Simpson et al., 1985). At the time actual drinking norms were set by the upper and upper-middle classes, and alcohol consumption was accepted in a variety of setting such as courtrooms and the place of work. Children were not excluded from these traditions and were even encouraged to drink at very early ages. There was only concern with very young individuals but there was no outright prohibited liquor, and drinking was usually at the parents discretion (Simpson et al., 1985).

At the beginning of the 19th century drinking patterns began to change as the excessive drinking caused embarrassing public displays of drunkenness, and the upper class began to refrain from these practices as drinking became associated with the working class. Liquor was beginning to be viewed as the cause for many social concerns and health issues, such as crime, violence, poverty, broken families and orphaned children, liver disease, ulcers, and madness to name a few. In response to this situation government created restrictions and the social philosophy swung from “perfecting human nature by removing laws” to “improving human society by passing laws” (Simpson et al., 1985). With this new movement towards government regulations came the Temperance Movement. This movement became the largest enduring middle-class movement of the 19th century, which created significant reforms in alcohol-control policy (Simpson et al., 1985). Legal hours of sale, as well as availability restrictions were such legislation that passed. Increasing concern for child welfare was reflected in a minimum drinking age law. The minimum drinking age became 21 years as this was considered adulthood. These laws also appeared to be designed to satisfy the Temperance Unionists (Simpson et al., 1985).

In the 1970s there was a complete examination of the legal position of youth. Since youth had increased participation in the economy and society there began a trend in reducing the minimum legal drinking age. The idea was that if young people are able to vote, quit school, join the military as well as other privileges and responsibilities of adulthood, then why should they not have the right to buy and consume alcohol (Simpson et al., 1985). Currently, the minimum legal drinking age laws in Canada vary among the provinces the age is 19 except in Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec where it is 18.

Welcome Introduction

Welcome to our Blog!!
Just so you know, we are first year MSW students at Wilfrid Laurier University in Kitchener. A significant portion of our learning involves an analysis of social policy. We created this blog to discover the issues and or concerns around the sale of alcohol to youth. In this blog we hope to examine a brief history of the issue, ideologies that support these policies; penalties or punishment for sellers to underage youths; policies for adults in protecting youths from buying underage; the impact of sale policy for immigrants or people who are new to the policy; policies on sale in different communities, and polices on marketing to youths to name a few. We hope that others will join us in our discussions to create a rich, diverse analysis of the issues that surround this social policy.

We would like to note that we feel our approach to this issue is through an anti-oppressive lens. We are focusing on the ways in which means of oppression such as ageism and racism have contributed to the creation and maintenance of this policy. It is also important to note that we believe that we come from a post-modernist standpoint in that we choose to question and investigate the constructions that underlie the legal drinking age for youth.