Youth at Risk America8217s Alcohol Problem, Social


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Social Issues

Youth at Risk America8217s Alcohol Problem

Youth at Risk America8217s Alcohol Problem Youth at Risk: America’s Alcohol Problem The underage consumption of alcohol is a major obstacle in America. Current statistics show 35 percent of all wine coolers and 1.1 billion cans of beer are consumed each year by underage, illegal drinkers (Novello 455). Possibly the hardest fact to stomach is that children “believe drinking is the thing to do” (Benenson 38). Parents, educators, legislators, and lawmakers previously thought that peer pressure was to blame, however, that is no longer the issue. Underage drinking in America is primarily the cause of children trying to fit in (also known as social drinking), advertising that is aimed at underage drinkers, and inherited traits/genetics. We must understand that alcohol abuse is no longer ‘just another little problem.’ One source went as far to say, “From fourth grade on, alcohol is the number one drug” (Olinger 1D). Social drinking is one of the major reasons for the downfall of today’s youth. Growing up is hard. Children have to deal with the emotional and physical changes that come with puberty, as well as constant pressures from the media, school, and their parents. Unfortunately, in trying to fit in, many of these children resort to using alcohol. Some view alcohol “as a rite of passage” (Benenson 35). Children feel that if they drink, their peers will accept them. “Students believe drinking is the thing to do”; they desire to follow the example of adults and drink to be social (Benenson 38). Geoff, a recovering alcoholic, stated that he “started drinking when he was a high-school junior.” He was “lonely and desperate to be accepted” (qtd. in Benenson 41). Tracy Barry, a straight-A student, shared her philosophy on drinking: “The more you can drink, it’s almost a status kind of thing. ‘I can drink you under the table. I can shotgun five beers.’ You’re very macho and very cool and very tough if you can drink a lot” (qtd. in Olinger 1D). But how many children are drinking? A survey of 13,800 elementary students found that many children tried alcohol before they finished fourth grade, three in four middle school students reported alcohol was easy to get and, one in four high school students admitted to drinking (qtd. in Olinger 1D). Nationally, 50 percent of twelfth-graders admitted drinking alcohol over a thirty-day period (qtd. in Sowell 19A). And, [a]t least 90 percent of college students drink [alcohol] (qtd. in Benenson 35). Those opposed to these views argue that developmental studies generally pinpoint peer pressure to pre and early adolescents, thus older children are not subject to this pressure, and this is not a cause of underage drinking. However, peer pressure is not the issue. These children are not forced into drinking by their peers. They simply correlate drinking with acceptance, thus they drink to be accepted. Many experts view drinking as a natural occurrence for children, they state, “They [children] are simply testing their limits” (Benenson 36). If this is how our children view alcohol, they are viewing it in all the wrong ways. We must help them understand that alcohol will not help them ‘fit in,’ it will only hurt them much sooner than later. Trying to fit in is not the only problem that causes underage alcohol consumption; advertising aimed at underage drinkers also contributes to the predicament. When children see products associated with fun images, cartoons, or animals, they pay attention. Manufactures and advertising companies play, and pay, on this marketing fact. Multimillion-dollar licensing deals between filmmakers and manufactures promote products, including cigarettes and alcohol, to kids (Selling 518). Unfortunately, when cigarette and alcohol manufactures plug their products in films, children stand to lose more than just money. The movie Back to the Future II, which was marketed primarily towards an adolescent audience, included ads for Miller beer (“Selling” 518). Wes Craven’s horror mega-hit, Scream, whose target audiences were teens and young adults, contained scenes of high school-aged children drinking to the point of intoxication at a house party. Other films like the current hit Antz and the retro-hit Can’t Buy Me Love both contained scenes of drinking to relieve life stresses such as death and lost relationships. Movie industry officials say that their ads “are not aimed at children, and do not cause them to drink.” These officials also argue that their ads are “protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech” (Kong 41). Nonetheless, research shows that alcohol ads, intentionally or not, may be having a wide influence on youngsters because of the images they use (Kong 41). Jean Kilbourne, an advertising critic, states, “If you want to know what appeals to children, look at ads that are aimed deliberately at children. What do they use? They use cartoon characters. They use animals.” (Kong 41). To further strengthen this argument just look at the statistics; the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety conducted a recent survey of five-hundred eleven and twelve-year-olds. Eighty-eight percent correctly identified “Spuds Mackenzie” –dubbed the “original party animal” in ads for Bud Light beer (Kong 41). We must understand that the media is not just influencing our children, but providing them with false images of what alcohol actually does to their bodies. Former Surgeon General, Antonia C. Novello, shares her view on the industry’s ads: “alcohol beverage ads say: ‘Drink me and you will be carefree. Drink me and you will be cool. Drink me and you will have fun! Drink me, and there will be no consequences.’ (455). These types of ads are a major part of the problem with the underage consumption of alcohol. Despite what the industry claims, these ads are directed towards children, especially when they are showing up in the advertising for children’s movies and television shows. However, social drinking and unethical advertising are not the only speculated causes of underage drinking. Some sources feel that genetics and heredity play a major role in the issue. It is quite plausible that our children are also susceptible to such disorders as alcoholism due to genetics. Some people have a genetic or biological tendency towards alcoholism (“Causes”). Current research studies have shown that people from alcoholic parents are four times more likely to become alcoholics (“Causes”). Cynthia Steele and Judy Williams, counselors of adolescents and recovering alcoholics at Ridgeview Institute in Atlanta, see how alcoholism runs in families and how just living around it can lead youngsters down the same path (“Research”). But to cement this scientific theory into scientific fact, we need hard-core proof. Researchers have identified two genes in laboratory animals, one for males, and one for females, which may link alcoholism to genetics (“Research”). Dr. David Goldman of the National Institute of Health, states, “the genetic link to alcoholism is apparent in humans also” (“Research”). Many experts agree with Dr. Goldman. They feel that genetics does play some part in alcoholism, however, environmental upbringing, stress, and hardships also add to the cause. Kenneth Blum, Ph.D., of the University of Texas, and Earnest Noble, M.D., of the University of California, conducted another study looking for such an “alcoholism gene” in 1990 (Peele 50). Their study found an allele of the dopamine receptor gene in 70 percent of a group of alcoholics , but in only 20 percent of a non-alcoholic group (Peele 50). Unfortunately, after publishing their study in the Journal of the American Medical Association another doctor, Joel Gelernter, M.D., of Yale, examined this allele and discounted Blum and Noble’s research. The combined results were that 18 percent of non-alcoholics, 18 percent of problem drinkers, and 18 percent of severe alcoholics ALL had the allele (Peele 50). This proves that there is no link between this gene and alcoholism. However, this does not disprove Blum and Noble’s theory that genes, or a specific set of genes, could trigger alcoholism. Many researchers believe that it is more plausible to think that genes may affect how people “experience alcohol” (Peele 50). Genetics may make it harder for others to resist the temptation of alcohol (“Research”). Jerome Kagen, Ph.D., a Harvard developmental psychologist, suggests that alcohol is not only more rewarding for some people, but perhaps some people’s neurotransmitters are more activated by alcohol than others (Peele 50). Research is constantly being conducted in order to find what the genetic link to alcoholism may be. The current evidence and research is sketchy; however, almost all experts feel that there is some genetic link, we just haven’t found it yet. Many sources feel that one’s environment also plays a large role in the development of alcoholism (“Research”). However, as scientific researchers continue to work on the Human Genome Project , a better understanding of genetics and genetically linked traits will also emerge. In conclusion, I find that the underage consumption of alcohol is a significant obstacle in American society. This obstacle spans through several generations and is patterned after social acceptance, through unethical marketing, and through the alleged causes behind genetics and heredity. Although these are not all of the suspected causes of underage drinking, they are the most prominent and accepted among scholars. What we all--parents, educators, lawmakers, and legislators alike--must realize is that America’s youth is at risk, there is an alcohol problem, and there is a solution. If we all work together, we will find it, we will make a better future, and we will help America’s youth persevere. Drinking is an age-old problem. In the United States in the 1820’s, author Nathaniel Hawthorne recalled his classmates at Bowdoin College drinking fluid from their alcohol lamps to skirt campus prohibitions. Decades later, anti-saloon activists helped to pass Prohibition in 1919 by circulating pictures of children sneaking alcohol out of taverns (Clark 224). The question at hand is what do we have to do? In the past twenty years there has be an entourage of alcohol deferment and resistance education, yet the problem still exists. Obviously this single-sided education is not working. What we need is a multi-facetted program that encompasses parents, children, and awareness groups, while toughening laws and initiating state crackdowns on the underage consumption of alcohol. Some may argue that such a program already exists; a program called D.A.R.E. . The D.A.R.E. program spans some twenty-five million students in 250,000 classrooms nationwide (Gordon 72). The principal idea behind D.A.R.E. is to educate children how to say “NO!” to drugs and alcohol. Unfortunately, studies conducted by the Justice Department, as well as independent researchers have shown that D.A.R.E. “has had no statistical effect on drug [or alcohol] use by youngsters” (Gordon 72). The D.A.R.E. program often begins in kindergarten and, in some school districts, runs through high school. However, the program’s core curriculum is crammed into a mere seventeen short hours of instruction per classroom year (Gordon 72; Sebelius 1D+). Some people find that the problem with this one-sided program, is not so much the coursework, but the instruction. D.A.R.E. is taught by police officers that have gone through so-called special social training sessions, and the D.A.R.E. program offers up these officers as social workers. Steve Wallace, an activist who is affiliated with the group Parents Against D.A.R.E., goes as far to say: “I am personally an advocate of effective prevention in the schools, but a police officer is the wrong messenger to accomplish that mission” (Sebelius 1D+). The “mission” Wallace is referring to is that officers of the D.A.R.E. program are now doing social work in the schools, this is clearly a conflict of interest of the police department, as they are not social workers. An unnamed source went as far to say “having the police teach your children about drugs is almost ironic as having the Pope teach them sex education” (qtd. in Sebelius 1D+). But if D.A.R.E. isn’t doing the job, what kind of program can? Could a program that didn’t use police officers do better? What would this kind of program cost? With the ineffective D.A.R.E. program drawing an estimated seven hundred fifty million dollars annually, obviously funding educational programs is going to be quite the problem (Gordon 72). However, with D.A.R.E.’s saturation approach it is easy to see where all the money is going. D.A.R.E. immerses children with an entourage of D.A.R.E. pencils, D.A.R.E. buttons, D.A.R.E. stickers, D.A.R.E. music videos, and D.A.R.E. T-shirts. It is apparent to see that the program spends more on advertising and promotion that on educational materials. D.A.R.E., which goes far beyond the labels of ineffective and overpriced, cannot be effectively reformed or restructured. Such a useless and costly program must be completely dismantled and replaced. If we had a program that was based in the classroom with teachers, who are trained in some form of social work, that worked directly with campus groups, community programs, and legislators, we could directly control the cost of such a program. Where would the money come from? The beauty is it’s already available, we just need some minor legislative changes to receive it. After lobbying battles between such groups as Mother Against Drunk Drivers and the National Restaurant Association, a compromise in the federal highway reauthorization bill set up a new twenty billion dollar grant program that rewards states that adopt alcohol and drug-impaired driving enforcement programs (Clark 229). To receive these federal funds, states must meet four out of five of the following requirements: Revoke drunken drivers’ licenses; set up sobriety checkpoints; set a 0.10 blood-alcohol content standard for drunken driving (reduced to 0.08 after three years); step up enforcement of the legal drinking age; and establish laws preventing drunken driving (Clark 229). Ultimately, the money is there for the taking and all we need to do is reform the laws we already have in existence. With this federal contribution, we will have more than enough money to implement a multi-level, multi-facetted program. Now that we can efficiently fund such a program, what curriculum should the program encompass? Former US Surgeon General Antonia C. Novello feels that “clearly, something must be done about this problem” and she states “two things are clear: first, we all have a role to play in solving this problem, second, by working together we all can solve it [teen drinking]” (Novello 21). The point is that we all need to work together. One-sided school-based programs like D.A.R.E. are not the answer. We need to institute programs that have a firm foundation in communal, scholastic, parental, and legislative hands. Unless all four of these branches work together toward one common goal, they will all adversely, and unintentionally, work against each other. Programs that address only one, two, or three of these branches do work quite well, but they don’t work well enough to snuff out the problem. Student-run organizations like BACCHUS and SADD both combat the problem of teenage drinking. Some go as far as petitioning and motioning for legislation concerning the regulation of alcohol. These programs seem to survive because they “don’t choose whether alcohol is good or bad, [they] look at how to change [the teenager’s] environment” says Drew Hunter, a BACCHUS representative (Clark 228). It seems that BACCHUS and SADD have seemed to survive because they incorporate ‘peers’ into the equation, underage drinkers are being informed by people in their own age group. “They no longer have to listen to the preaching of someone standing atop a soap box” says Hunter, “they [underage drinkers] are much more receptive to people within their own age group” (Clark 228). Hunter also feels that; “young people can play a uniquely effective role in encouraging their peers to reflect on, talk honestly about, and develop responsible habits and attitudes toward alcohol use and non-use (Clark 228). Rob Aptaker, a SADD National Representative, shares his view: “the best way to appeal to a broad range of students is to avoid the goody-two-shoes image” (Clark 229). SADD has been extremely effective, especially on the high school level; SADD helps organize alcohol-free proms and parties and publicized its message using buttons, posters, T-shirts, manuals, and tote bags (Clark 229). Some parent-run and community-based groups like MADD and RDI also wield a great amount of legislative power. MADD and RDI have both had numerous ‘alcohol-regulation’ related bills passed in Congress over the past decade. RDI has single-handedly passed legislation making 15 college campuses ‘dry ’; some of the fifteen include Texas Baptist, Texas Christian College, and Georgia Tech (Clark 228). These groups are a strong force in the fight for taking the alcohol out of the hands of youngsters. Individually these groups lack the power and means necessary to effectively wipe out the problem. If there was to be a single, all-powerful group, that unified all these smaller groups and organizations, it could encompass all the necessary communal, scholastic, parental, and legislative branches. If we could take small parts from each organization; MADD, SADD, RDI, and BACCHUS and made a single core group the result would be the ultimate multi-facetted sociological program. If we created a school-based educational program that was educator-governed, that had smaller on-campus groups of students, we would be greatly ahead of the game. Then if we tie in the core school-groups with community branches like local police departments, parents, community groups, and social service groups, we would effectively make a powerful body. If we could do this, which we can, we would then have the power to influence legislators to make stronger and stricter laws that would toughen the enforcement of drinking-age laws. A group like this would be unbeatable, unstoppable, and then and only then, would we have the power to truly make a difference. The ingredients of such a group are already here, all we have to do is to combine them, and we will have a great finished product. I strongly urge you to do your part in preserving the future for America’s youth. Dismantle the outdated and ineffective D.A.R.E. program, and implement a program that will, for a change, make a difference in our lives. Bibliography: Works Cited Antz. Writ. Paul Weitz and Chris Weitz. Dir. Eric Darnell. Perf. Woddy Allen, Sharon Stone, Sylverter Stallone, and Christopher Walken. Dreamworks, 1998. Back to the Future, Part II. Writ. Bob Gale. Dir. Robert Zemecks. Perf. Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Elijah Wood, and Flea. Universal, 1989. Benenson, Lisa. “Drinking 101.” Newsday 25 Mar.1990: 35-41. Can’t Buy Me Love. Writ. Micael Swerdlic. Dir. Steve Rush. Perf. Patrick Demsey, Courtney Gains and Seth Greens. Touchtone, 1987. “Causes of Alcoholism.” University of Michigan 26 Oct. 1998. (26 Oct. 1998). Clark, Charles S. “Underage Drinking”. Congressional Quarterly Researcher 2 (1992): 219-233. Gordon, Paul. “Cops in the Classroom: The Truth About D.A.R.E.” Buzz Sep. 1995: 72-78. Kong, Dolores. “Do Ads lure Youngsters to Drink, Smoke?” Boston Globe 27 Apr. 1992. Morning ed.: 41-44. Novello, Antonia C. “Alcohol and Kids: Time for Candor.” Christian Science Monitor. Jun. 1992: 19-21. - - -. Vital Speeches of The Day. New York: White Westinghouse, 1993. Olinger, David. “Children at the Crossroads.” St. Petersburg Times 25 Jun. 1989. Morning ed.: 1D+. Peele, Stanton and DeGrandpre, Richard. “My Genes Made Me Do It.” Psychology Today (1995): 50+. “Research Turns Up Genetic Clue to Alcoholism.” CNN World News 31 May 1996. (3 Nov. 1998). Scream. Writ. and Dir. Wes Craven. Perf. Drew Berrymore, Neve Campbell, and Courtney Cox. Dimension, 1996. Sebelius, Steve. “D.A.R.E.: Does It Work? Anti-Drug Program Faces Scrutiny.” Las Vegas Review-Journal and Sun 1 May 1994, late ed.: 1D+. “Selling to Children.” Consumer Reports Aug. 1990: 518-521. Sowell, Jody. “College Binge.” Dallas Morning News 19 Mar. 1996. Morning ed.: 18A-19A.

Word Count: 2976