Though the bill’s intent is to enhance the educational experience of these students and better prepare them for their careers, it has the potential to indirectly promote responsibility by removing the mystique surrounding alcohol for under age drinkers.

When we’re planning events that are educational in venue, or a learning experience, alcohol doesn’t bring anything to the table. We shouldn’t be planning events where the focus is alcohol so, where we are today, there really isn’t a need to have alcohol at our student events.

Kubatze’s argument seems to be based on one school of thought about alcohol. However, he does not comment on other–or better–avenues to imbue his students with a sense of responsibility. Though college, we would argue, is about acquiring knowledge, it is also about acquiring life skills.

 Why is it appropriate for the State to deny parents the ability to show their adult kids how to responsibly consume adult beverages in a public setting? Those same kids are often turned completely loose to attend college hundreds of miles from home and completely unsupervised. Those same kids will be able to consume adult beverages completely unfettered on their 21st birthday. (ignoring the fact that they will have nearly unfettered access between the time they leave your home and that 21st birthday) Why on earth would you want to deny responsible parents the chance to expose their own kids to the effects of this product while with their parents?

Senator Brophy has taken a bold step towards empowering parents to teach their children to drink alcohol responsibly BEFORE they are “taught” to drink by their peers. Watch Barrett Seaman respond on HuffPost Live today by clicking here.

Read the full article here.

A recent Forbes article by David Skorton (Cornell University President) and Glenn Altschuler (Cornell University Dean) paints a vivid picture of high-risk college drinking and comments on the consequences of students teaching each other to drink. In questioning whether students arrive at college as heavy drinkers or become heavy drinkers once they matriculate, the authors concede,

…college life may cause individual students to dial up the amount and frequency with which they drink. “A Call to Action: Changing the culture of drinking at U.S. colleges,” a report by the NIAAA-supported Task Force on College Drinking, presents evidence of higher alcohol use among undergraduates than peers who do not attend college and attributes it to a perception of alcohol as central to college life. Arriving on campus anxious to establish their place in a new setting, first-year students learn from upperclass men and women “that alcohol is a necessary ingredient for social success. These beliefs and the expectations they engender exert a powerful influence over students’ behavior toward alcohol.

Unwiling to conclude without a call to action, Skorten and Altschuler concede ask parents to have a candid conversation with their children about their drinking, their children’s drinking, and their children’s peers. Many parents are unaware of the way college drinking has changed since their own undergraduate years, and they might be surprised by what their students have to say.

Since the report’s release, individual branches of the service have begun making efforts to modernize their approach. According to NBC, “The Marines, starting next year, will give random breathalyzer tests to Corps members; the Air Force and Army curbed some overnight liquor sales for U.S. military personnel in Germany; and American service members in Japan were barredfrom leaving their residences after consuming more than one adult beverage.” According to the report, 47% of active duty service members binge drank in 2008.

Brain scans of 663 14-year old boys found that those with variations in the RASGRAF-2 gene have more activity in an area of the brain closely linked to the release of dopamine. In order to confirm the findings, the same teens were analyzed at age 16 and those with the gene variation drank more often than those without it. This insight into teens has the potential for greater risk analysis and mitigation of alcohol abuse. However, if parents and educators are aware of a teenager’s susceptibility but not legally able to facilitate a conversation surrounding its risks, they are at a loss for helping him or her overcome the genetic predisposition.

Though Buchanan asked the judge to sentence him to an alcohol education course instead of loosing his drivers license, he left court with a fine of $96.50. Furthermore, if he does not have any further legal problems in the next 30 days, the charges will be dropped.

It is only with more significant institutional commitments to alcohol education that we will promote more responsible drinking in the United States. Readers, what do you think of this Tennessee judge’s decision for Mr. Buchanan?

Read the entire article here.

Click here for more information.