Here’s a sad story:

A dozen teens buy some liquor, and hold a party at the home of one kid in the group. That kid’s dad finds out, confiscates the alcohol, and throws the kids out on the street, still drunk. Cops later spot the kids walking, fearing an underage drinking citation, the kids flee. The cops give chase. One kid jumps into a pond, and drowns.

In a society with a more tolerant attitude toward alcohol, consider the various stages at which the kid’s death could have been averted:

1) If we didn’t have a minimum drinking age, it’s unlikely he’d have felt the need to get drunk with his friends to begin with.

2) The father in whose home the party took place may not have thrown a dozen drunk teens into the street had he (a) had a more tolerant attitude himself, or, (b) didn’t fear the criminal or civil liability that may have come with allowing them to stay — even after confiscating the alcohol.

3) The teens wouldn’t have scattered had it not been a crime to be teenage and drunk, and…

4) The cops wouldn’t have chased them.

Instead, cops have charged the owner of the liquor store for supplying alcohol to a minor. He faces up to a year in prison.

Of course, the liquor store owner isn’t the reason the kid is dead.

You could make a pretty good case that zero tolerance is.

Thanks to T.J. Brown for the link.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 22nd, 2005 at 12:27 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Alcohol, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.