Not only do such uncompromising approaches do little to make our roads safer, they often make them worse. The data don't lie. High school kids drink, particularly during prom season. We might not be comfortable with that, but it's going to happen. It always has. The question, then, is do we want them drinking in their cars, in parking lots, in vacant lots and in rented motel rooms? Or do we want them drinking at parties with adult supervision, where they're denied access to the roads once they enter?
Oddly enough, this is one of the arguments also used to justify enabling teenage rutting. I think a better argument for supervised drinking must describe the merits of drinking itself. Rather than focus on avoiding all the illnesses and deaths that can accompany overconsumption of spirited beverages, focus on conviviality and building concord among the generations. Typical of late Liberalism, we are only allowed to appeal to the relatively minor public goods of health and safety rather than the good life. And I'd bet "joys of drinking" lectures beat "safe sex" ones anyday.
As for drunk driving concerns, nobody seems conscious that such problems are exacerbated by the strictures of zoning regulations. In much of suburbia, there is no such thing as a neighborhood bar or, better, a pub. To be manipulative, how many people must die before we can walk home drunk?
No comments:
Post a Comment