In his Aug. 9 op-ed piece, "Zero Tolerance Makes Zero Sense," Radley Balko did not draw the obvious parallel between teenage sex and teenage drinking. These two behaviors raise remarkably sim-
ilar issues, yet they are addressed by radically different public policies. In both cases most knowledgeable adults agree that teenagers are "going to do it anyway." The debate boils down to a question of "abstinence" vs. "harm reduction."
In sex education the push seems to strongly favor an approach aimed at harm reduction. Hence, sex education classes in public high schools, condom distribution, abortion without parental consent, etc. If teenage drinking were treated in a similar fashion, we would have mixology classes in public schools, shot glass distribution and detox without parental consent.
I don't know what this disparity says about our society, beyond noticing that we seem to have a lot of ambivalence about life's frivolous -- or is it perilous? -- pleasures.
MICHAEL SWEENEY
Phoenix
·
Finally, a note of reason amidst the zero-tolerance attitude of too many lawmakers and parents. To be sure, too many teenagers drink too much and cause horrific accidents as a result. However, if young people learn to drink responsibly at home, they will be less prone to drink just to get drunk.
After my high school prom, in the good old days of 1967, my parents invited my friends over for a midnight breakfast with champagne and orange juice. Each guest had one mimosa. No one got drunk, and it was considered quite a treat.
I spent my early childhood in France, where children were given a glass of wine mixed with water at dinner.
