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).
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
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.
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).
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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 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.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
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).
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).
Sunday, October 5, 2008
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.
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.
.jpg)
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
