carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/23/85)
>More of MIT: Massachusetts just raised the drink age to 21 and now only >about 23% of MIT students are legal. Despite the fact that the MIT >Campus Police have sole jurisdiction on campus, MIT has been going out >of it's way to enforce the drinking age. Nobody really knows why. This >seems to be vogue among colleges now -- following the drinking ages. Perhaps one reason is that injuries, deaths, and property damage have been known to occur at on-campus parties, with alcohol apparently being a contributing factor, and the colleges/universities do not wish to be found liable. Could any legal beagles tell us what the law says about this? In any case, deans do not relish phoning parents at 1 a.m. to tell them their daughter is dead, as happened here a year or two ago when a freshman who had been drinking at a dorm party fell out of a fourth-story window (which was missing a screen) and landed on her head. > "Tank '85" team speed drinking contest at MIT used > non-alcholic beer. Sad. Not so sad, and it has nothing to do with Puritanism (were the Puritans teetotalers, anyway?). One possible reason colleges are banning alcohol is that alcohol abuse is now a very widespread problem among students, and the colleges don't want to foster the problem in any way. To those of you who object to the 21 drinking age: If you can't enjoy your college years and the company of your friends without alcohol or other drugs, you are setting yourself up for serious problems later on. If you think it's tough being 20 and dry, wait till you're 40 and alcoholic. Richard Carnes
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (07/24/85)
In article <524@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >>More of MIT: Massachusetts just raised the drink age to 21 and now only >>about 23% of MIT students are legal. Despite the fact that the MIT >>Campus Police have sole jurisdiction on campus, MIT has been going out >>of it's way to enforce the drinking age. Nobody really knows why. This >>seems to be vogue among colleges now -- following the drinking ages. > >Perhaps one reason is that injuries, deaths, and property damage have >been known to occur at on-campus parties, with alcohol apparently >being a contributing factor, and the colleges/universities do not >wish to be found liable. Could any legal beagles tell us what the >law says about this? In any case, deans do not relish phoning >parents at 1 a.m. to tell them their daughter is dead, as happened >here a year or two ago when a freshman who had been drinking at a >dorm party fell out of a fourth-story window (which was missing a >screen) and landed on her head. > I'll give you an even better and much more American reason: MONEY The federal govt. has told the states that they WILL raise the drinking age to 21 or they will lose their highway funds. Yes, it's those marvelous golden handcuffs at work again!! Here in NC, the state legislature raised the drinking age to 21 with a provision written into the law that raised it saying in fairly plain English that the moment the feds dropped the restriction on highway funds the drinking age would revert back to 19 again. They know what is going on, don't like it, but can't do anything about it either. To relate this back to the original article: Just as with the 55 MPH speed limit, enforcement is required by the feds or they start getting angry and withholding the money they got from you in the first place. Several of the western states had $5 or $10 tickets for < 70 or 75 MPH for a long time after 55 MPH was enacted; until the govt. stepped in and threatened to deny highway funds if the law was not 'truly enforced'. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
dahlback@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA (07/25/85)
Frankly, speed drinking always seemed sickening (if not suicidal) to me, and I've done (more than) my share of drinking. True, one is chugging beer and not liquor (which would kill you by respiratory depression if the amount was as much as, say, a quart), but even so, the alcohol shock is likely to burn off the inner layer of your stomach and cause you to barf for hours. Not to mention having a stomach bulging with beer. Definitely more fun to watch than to do. I suppose everybody's got to find some way to impress whoever it is they have to impress.
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/25/85)
In article <524@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Perhaps one reason is that injuries, deaths, and property damage have >been known to occur at on-campus parties, with alcohol apparently >being a contributing factor, and the colleges/universities do not >wish to be found liable. This is a very good point but... in an open meeting with the students, the head of the MIT campus police said, defending the new policies, that alchohol at parties was a known trouble maker. He then told a horror story about a fraternity resident who went to the hospital with three broken ribs after he had been attacked by a drunken partier. Was this attacker an MIT student? No. What if we let ONLY MIT students (and their guests) into parties? Well... um... they never answered that one. >Could any legal beagles tell us what the law says about this? Actually, Massachusetts laws are very quick to place liability on the institution serving the alchohol. Somehow though, I don't think MIT's lawyers would have any trouble passing the buck to the person who signed the liquorm license. >In any case, deans do not relish phoning parents at 1 a.m. to >tell them their daughter is dead... If MIT could bring its suicide rate down even close to its accidental death rate... >> "Tank '85" team speed drinking contest at MIT used >> non-alcholic beer. Sad. > >Not so sad, and it has nothing to do with Puritanism (were the >Puritans teetotalers, anyway?). Yes, they were and it is sad. >One possible reason colleges are >banning alcohol is that alcohol abuse is now a very widespread >problem among students, and the colleges don't want to foster the >problem in any way. To those of you who object to the 21 drinking >age: If you can't enjoy your college years and the company of your >friends without alcohol or other drugs, you are setting yourself up >for serious problems later on. If you think it's tough being 20 and >dry, wait till you're 40 and alcoholic. > >Richard Carnes I've heard this before. In fact, I've see it in action. Still, MIT is a bunch of nerds. Honest. Even the jocks are nerds. We do, however have alcholics. What happens to them? They flunk out and go away for a while. A good friend of mine just finished his last year at MIT after spending three years drying out (I was told he used to drink HALF A CASE of tequilla a DAY). He was not allowed back until he could prove he would not drink. He even went to a bar with me and ordered a coke (the man has willpower!). About needing alchohol to have a good time, I agree. I never drank in highschool primarily because I was having so much fun just being care-free, that it didn't occur to me to get drunk like my friends would. Still, I like to sip a nice, cold Beck's Dark after a hard test. It's refreshing, relaxing and a pub is a nice place to go with friends (in my dorm, the lounges are not neato places to "hang out" -- too many people studying there.) The upshot of it is: we're old enough to die for our country we're old enough to work our asses off ...but we're too young to drink? Bull. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."