Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Puritan Morality (legal drinking age) Message-ID: <454@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 18:46:13 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.454 Posted: Wed Jul 24 18:46:13 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 03:36:05 EDT References: <508@ttidcc.UUCP> <52700001@hpcnof.UUCP> <> <524@gargoyle.UUCP> Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 81 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."