Like many people, I tried alcohol for the first time when I was underage. I was about 14. I was at a large party, there was lots of alcohol, and everyone was drinking- so I joined in. For a lot of kids, an event like that is just their first step in a life that involves alcohol abuse. It wasn't the same for me. I never became an alcohol abuser. And I firmly believe that the main reason for that is the example that my parent's set for me.
Like other things in our lives, we tend to follow the lead of our parents. My parents were what you might call social drinkers. Certainly, neither one of them ever had any kind of a drinking problem. In fact, at about age 50, my father decided to give up alcohol altogether, and the side-effect that had was that my mother then decided to quit also.
This is the environment in which I was raised. My parents knew that eventually I would be exposed to drinking - and probably long before the legal age of 21. So my parents had open and honest discussions with me about the dangers of alcohol, and the temptation to try it when I was still underage. I think they knew I would be exposed to it in my teenage years. So, armed with knowledge about the dangers of alcohol consumption, and having two parents that were never alcohol abusers, I was never really tempted to abuse alcohol either.
I went to school in England for a year when I was 17. Their legal drinking age was 16. What difference does having a lower drinking age make?? None that I could see. They still have just as many people abusing alcohol. The lower drinking age in England doesn't appear to have made any strides towards removing that taboo about underage drinking. So, 16 or 21, what's the difference?? From my personal perspective, the most important thing in influencing young people, where underage drinking is concerned, is the example that parents set for their children. To change young kids views about drinking, we may first have to change their parent's views.
--Roy Hunt, Carefree