Impede Immature Imbibing
In 1984, the law declaring the legal drinking age as
21 was passed. This important step in our
nation’s history is just the catalyst for actions intended to prevent underage people
from drinking. Due to the deluge of adolescent
drinkers, law enforcement officers, parents, and members of communities are
taking precautions to discourage young people from imbibing alcohol. Internal
possession (IP) laws, parental and community involvement, and the utilization
of the attachment theory are just a few deterrents from underaged drinking that
are in use today. Parents and outside
influences such as a school environment, or a child’s social group could influence
an adolescent to decide whether or not to imbibe alcohol while being under the
legal age. Underage drinking is a risky
action, but there are preventive actions that people can take to discourage
youths from drinking.
The supposed father of attachment theory and maternal
deprivation, psychoanalyst John Bowlby, describes the theory as people having
an inherent and universal desire to be accepted by others (Eusebio et al, 1). The attachment that an adolescent should feel to
their parents is proven to be a preventive method for underage drinking and
other rebellious activities. The American
Psychological Association’s Andrew Lac et al. cites human connection activities
such
as “engaging in familial activities that cultivate trust, encouraging bidirectional
parent– child communication, and adopting disciplinary practices that reject
delinquent behaviors” (Lac et al, 9) as being
activities that discourage underage drinking and promote Bowlby’s attachment
theory. Three
crucial concepts of attachment theory are trust, communication, and non-alienation. Lack of these three concepts could cause youths to
engage in risky behaviors due to the instability of an emotional bond with
another person. Parental attachment however is
proven to be more beneficial than peer attachment. According to Lac, “Peer attachment security was positively related to
perceived behavioral ability to access alcohol, but maternal attachment
security was negatively related to perceived behavioral ability to access
alcohol” (Lac et al, 8). This proves that peer attachment is advantageous
emotionally for youths, although it could also lead to unhealthy behaviors. Teens are more likely to drink with their friends
than their parents which puts the teens at risk for other dangerous acts such
as drunk driving, unprotected sex, and acts of violence. This is why helpful
parental involvement is crucial to discourage underage drinking and other
dangerous activities.
Parental involvement can prevent underage drinking, however
law enforcement agencies are enforcing laws and policies to further discourage this
epidemic.
Internal possession (IP) laws prohibit
minors from having alcohol in their system. Studies
show that IP laws reduce high school drinking by 10% on average. Although there
is no known cause for this, the impact of IP laws is stronger in males than
females. The benefit of IP laws involving binge drinking is also proven to be
more effective in males than females. (Disney et al, 6). IP laws ban generally all underaged drinking
activities, but there are specific laws that prohibit situational drinking. Minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws including
purchasing laws, zero tolerance laws, and use- and- lose laws which allows the
suspension of driving privileges for minor guilty of alcohol violations are
proven to cause a decrease in the ratio of underage drinking drivers to
nondrinking drivers in fatal crashes (Disney et al, 1). Although The American Journal for Public Health states
that the breadth and enforcement of MLDA laws vary widely from state to state, MLDA laws are enforced in most states.
For example, underage drinking is entirely prohibited in 35 states (Disney et
al, 1). These IP laws and the like are
proven to be effective in diminishing the tragic phenomenon of teen drinking.
Another concept that tries to prevent underage
drinking is preemptive interventions. Preemptive
interventions are basically just interventions that are given before the
problem exists to prevent the negative behavior. Family interventions are proven to be the most effective; actions such
as child monitoring, parent child bonding, effective discipline, and parental
involvement lessen the chance of underage alcohol use (Spoth et al, 2). Provided that the parents are nurturing and the
child forms an attachment, children often have the intrinsic value to try to
please their parents and if they are taught at a young age to not drink whilst
underage, they will honor their parent’s teachings. If a teen understands that they have the love and
care of a parent, the teen would be less likely to fill the void with alcohol
and hazardous activities.
In order for parents and inspiring figures to try to
prevent youths from imbibing alcohol, they need to understand the risks and
predictive factors affiliated with underage drinking. Six risk/predictive factors are commonly recognized for
underage drinking: community, school, peer risk, family risk, family
protection, and individual antisocial behavior.
Although
family and parental involvement to prevent underage drinking is crucial, community protection was the strongest
protective factor, and peers and antisocial attitudes were the strongest risk
factors that could lead to rebellious and dangerous activities (Cooper et al, 6). One would easily believe that parents are
the most beneficial challengers of underage drinking. However, parental
involvement concerning drinking is not always advantageous. Laws, community
organizations, and a healthy local peer environment are almost always an
effectual method for preventing underage drinking. Community members are aware
of the commonality of teen drinking and conduct programs such as Mothers
Against Destructive Decisions (MADD) to prevent underage drinking and risky
behaviors from occurring. Programs
such as MADD and laws implemented to avoid teen drinking are much more
constructive to avoiding this issue than parental involvement. Although parents
can provide emotional stability and support, there is also the possibility of
negative parental involvement.
Parents who drink to the point of
intoxication in front of their young children are most likely going to raise
adolescents that experiment with underage drinking because alcohol is familiar
to them.
According to Bandura’s
social learning theory, “individuals learn behavior through observing and interacting
with those who they are closest to.” Although children with parents who drink
often have negative associations with alcohol due to the anxiety that the
parents cause for the children because of violent, threatening, or immoral
behavior, the exposure of drinking to children could lead to undesired alcohol
consumption for youths simply because “they are closest to” their parents. (Raitasalo
et al, 2). Parents are aware that it is ethically wrong to drink to the point
of intoxication in front of their children. However, studies show that “almost
40% of respondents considered it acceptable to drink to intoxication in the
child’s company if someone else is looking after the child” (Raitasalo et al, 1).
Application of the social learning theory implies that this lax attitude about
alcohol that the parent displays could transfer to their child. An article
provided by the National Institute of Health and Welfare states “drinking
problems in adolescence and later in life could be prevented by paying
attention to this attitude (referring to parent’s lax attitude about drinking
around their children) and to parent’s drinking in families with small
children” (Raitasalo et al,
2). This scenario might insert the thought
in the teen that because the parents are slack about alcohol use that the
adolescents can imbibe too. On
the opposite end of the spectrum, parents who never drink and are relentless
about lecturing their children to avoid underage drinking could produce
offspring that do not feel the support and attachment that most children should
feel to their guardians. This lack of attachment could lead to a rebellious
teen that experiments with hazardous acts such as underage drinking. Both of
the extremes of alcohol consumption are proven to be undesirable for the
child’s well being. Parents and guardians should simply show support and care
for their youths to discourage underage drinking.
Teens can use socializing as an excuse to
drink and perhaps cope with social ineptitude. As drinking decreases inhibitions, the
teen is less likely to feel unaccepted and socially self-conscious. However, the lack of inhibitions can lead
to unwanted consequences.
Not only is underage drinking dangerous- it is damaging to one’s mental,
physical, and behavioral health. According
to Cooper et al, “each year underage drinking results in 5,000 deaths of those
younger than 21 years” (Cooper et al, 1). This is the greatest mortality risk
associated with underage drinking. According to the National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), “underage drinking is associated with
mental health problems, such as depression and suicidality” (Spoth et al, 2).
The effect of alcohol is inconsistent- some people react to drunkenness with a
sense of elation whereas some people become a slovenly, dejected mess when
intoxicated. A state of drunkenness can make one’s existence seem to be full of
misery and pointlessness. Ipso facto, a state of inebriation could possibly promote
suicidal or depressed behaviors. The main side effect of imbibing alcohol is a
lack of inhibitions and awareness. This state can cause people to participate
in actions they normally would not. According to Spoth, “adolescents who drink
are at increased risk for behavioral problems, including delinquency, violence,
and poor academic performance” (Spoth et al, 2). People of respectable moral, academic, and
behavioral standing can completely lose their couth when drinking and become
contentious, lethargic, and depraved. The lack of inhibitions that alcohol
entails often leads to negative results and this is why youths need guidance
from some source of stability to discourage underage drinking.
Supportive family and community members are proven to
be the most beneficial advocates against underage drinking whereas peer
interaction increases the chance of adolescents drinking and can be a catalyst
for teens to desire alcohol. These
aforementioned roles as well as law enforcement agencies are doing their best
to discourage underage drinking and are trying to prevent any more tragedies
that ensue when youths drink.
Works Cited
Brittany
Rhoades Cooper, et al. "A Multidomain Approach To Understanding Risk For
Underage Drinking: Converging Evidence From 5 Data Sets." American Journal Of Public Health 102.11
(2012): 2080-2087. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Disney, Lynn
D.LaVallee, Robin A.Hsiao-ye Yi. "The Effect Of Internal Possession Laws
On Underage Drinking Among High School Students: A 12-State Analysis." American Journal Of Public Health 103.6
(2013): 1090. MasterFILE Complete.
Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Eusebio M.
Alvaro, et al. "Attachment Theory And Theory Of Planned Behavior: An
Integrative Model Predicting Underage Drinking." Developmental Psychology 49.8 (2013): 1579-1590. PsycINFO. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Raitasalo,
Kirsimarja, Marja Holmila, and Pia Mäkel. "Drinking In The Presence Of
Underage Children: Attitudes And Behaviour." Addiction Research & Theory 19.5 (2011): 394-401. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct.
2013.
Spoth,
Richard, Mark Greenberg, and Robert Turrisi. "Overview Of Preventive
Interventions Addressing Underage Drinking."
Alcohol Research & Health 32.1 (2009): 53-66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment