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.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Pros to our policy change
Our overarching goal is to change the drinking age from 19 to 18; however, this goal is based on youth and what they feel, say and represent in society. Our group is taking a participatory approach and including youth in the decision making on policies that effect them. By decreasing the drinking age and including them young persons are given more autonomy, self efficacy and self-determination. We are giving young persons the right to be an adult when they reach the age of majority.
Society is saying they are adult enough for everything else so lets include drinking. They are old enough to vote and that in itself is a big responsibility. We are empowering young persons, by letting them know they are responsible adults and that society trusts them. If they are adults they should not need a special law.
Also, this takes away from the fact that youth are the sole cause for alcohol related incidents, as statistics show that adults 30-39 years drink 85.2% during a 12 month span, where adults 18-29 years drink 87.2% (Smart & Ogborne, 1996). So, its just not young persons that represent national drinking rates.
Higher drinking ages don’t stop young persons from drinking, they just find other ways to do it. If the drinking age was lowered there would be a decrease in binge drinking and allow young persons to drink in supervised environments. Instead of moving them to drink underground in unsafe environments they would be able to drink in supervised areas with licenses. With higher alcohol age limits young people find it harder to get alcohol so when they do, they drink excessively. This creates a harmful attitude towards alcohol.
Society is saying they are adult enough for everything else so lets include drinking. They are old enough to vote and that in itself is a big responsibility. We are empowering young persons, by letting them know they are responsible adults and that society trusts them. If they are adults they should not need a special law.
Also, this takes away from the fact that youth are the sole cause for alcohol related incidents, as statistics show that adults 30-39 years drink 85.2% during a 12 month span, where adults 18-29 years drink 87.2% (Smart & Ogborne, 1996). So, its just not young persons that represent national drinking rates.
Higher drinking ages don’t stop young persons from drinking, they just find other ways to do it. If the drinking age was lowered there would be a decrease in binge drinking and allow young persons to drink in supervised environments. Instead of moving them to drink underground in unsafe environments they would be able to drink in supervised areas with licenses. With higher alcohol age limits young people find it harder to get alcohol so when they do, they drink excessively. This creates a harmful attitude towards alcohol.
Pro of Reducing the LDA to 18
It allows for a more cohesive national law that is clearer and falls in line with society’s interpretation of what lawfully constitutes an adult in various Canadian provinces.
The discrepancy between the Canadian Age of Majority in Ontario and Legal Drinking Age (LDA) is somewhat obscure.
One is an adult in Ontario if he/she has reached 18 years of age. At 18 one could legally marry in Ontario, buy a house, and vote. However, they are not legally permitted to purchase alcohol. This fact leaves many with the unanswered question of why is one permitted to purchase and consume alcohol at 19 and not 18 in Ontario, when 18 years is the age at which one is constituted as adult?
Reducing the LDA to 18 years is logical because the age of majority in Ontario is 18. That is, if one is legally an adult at 18, then one should have the right and freedom of choice afforded to adults.
Youth might view a LDA of 18 as legitimate if it were across the board, as opposed to an unfair maneuver by adults in power to control them and curb their freedom. This perception of legitimacy might aid youth regain the belief in society’s confidence in them as individuals who are reliable and capable of maturity, and who can be trusted to make responsible choices.
The discrepancy between the Canadian Age of Majority in Ontario and Legal Drinking Age (LDA) is somewhat obscure.
One is an adult in Ontario if he/she has reached 18 years of age. At 18 one could legally marry in Ontario, buy a house, and vote. However, they are not legally permitted to purchase alcohol. This fact leaves many with the unanswered question of why is one permitted to purchase and consume alcohol at 19 and not 18 in Ontario, when 18 years is the age at which one is constituted as adult?
Reducing the LDA to 18 years is logical because the age of majority in Ontario is 18. That is, if one is legally an adult at 18, then one should have the right and freedom of choice afforded to adults.
Youth might view a LDA of 18 as legitimate if it were across the board, as opposed to an unfair maneuver by adults in power to control them and curb their freedom. This perception of legitimacy might aid youth regain the belief in society’s confidence in them as individuals who are reliable and capable of maturity, and who can be trusted to make responsible choices.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Program Logic Evaluation
A key aspect of evaluating our programs will be the extent to which our outcomes are measurable. Much of what we are measuring is the perceptions of the participant which means we must be cautious when generalizing the findings of our samples. In addition, we must use caution when examining changes in public and representations of youth in these communities. This information cannot be used as a direct account of how perceptions of youth have or have not changed. They must instead be used as a secondary source of information to further the understandings of the primary information gathered from the first-hand accounts of participants.
We will use these results to generalize our findings to the community from which our sample. This mixed-methods approach provides multiple sources of information from which we can generate an understanding of how our programs have influenced these communities. However, we will interpret our results with caution in that our information will not be gathered over an extended period of time. Therefore, our results must be considered in the ever-changing climate in which they were produced in and be interpreted accordingly to the place and time in which they were gathered.
Furthermore, because communities are very diverse across the province of Ontario, we will not generalize our results on a larger scale. Instead, we will see our programs as a mean of informing various institutions including government, education, and the public about our findings. Our results will be treated as community case studies to demonstrate the ability or inability to endorse accurate perceptions about alcohol and youth which is the essence of our approach. This reflects our realistic goal of creating a social climate that will allow us to work towards reconsidering the current legal drinking age.
In addition, we will explore what drives our evaluations. Because youth and alcohol are very ideologically bound topics, it is important that we are realistic about the results of our programs. We must not expect immediate change and continue to modify those aspects which are not helping this process. We also must maintain that our objectives aim to transform the social climate around youth and alcohol. It may be easy to become preoccupied with our greater goal of changing the legal drinking age to 18. Therefore, we will need to closely monitor our outcomes evaluation methods to ensure the outcome of focus lies in changing the social climate.
We will use these results to generalize our findings to the community from which our sample. This mixed-methods approach provides multiple sources of information from which we can generate an understanding of how our programs have influenced these communities. However, we will interpret our results with caution in that our information will not be gathered over an extended period of time. Therefore, our results must be considered in the ever-changing climate in which they were produced in and be interpreted accordingly to the place and time in which they were gathered.
Furthermore, because communities are very diverse across the province of Ontario, we will not generalize our results on a larger scale. Instead, we will see our programs as a mean of informing various institutions including government, education, and the public about our findings. Our results will be treated as community case studies to demonstrate the ability or inability to endorse accurate perceptions about alcohol and youth which is the essence of our approach. This reflects our realistic goal of creating a social climate that will allow us to work towards reconsidering the current legal drinking age.
In addition, we will explore what drives our evaluations. Because youth and alcohol are very ideologically bound topics, it is important that we are realistic about the results of our programs. We must not expect immediate change and continue to modify those aspects which are not helping this process. We also must maintain that our objectives aim to transform the social climate around youth and alcohol. It may be easy to become preoccupied with our greater goal of changing the legal drinking age to 18. Therefore, we will need to closely monitor our outcomes evaluation methods to ensure the outcome of focus lies in changing the social climate.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
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.
Monday, November 10, 2008
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.
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
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.
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
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
Sunday, November 9, 2008
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)
Friday, November 7, 2008
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.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 3, 2008
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).
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).
Saturday, November 1, 2008
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
