I have a friend name Bobby Dewar.  He goes to R.I.T.  He drinks.

        Recently, the Rochester Institute of Technology instituted  "alcohol free" regulations for all dorms on campus.  Further, it regulated what alcohol could be in campus apartments as well.  Most of these new rules are not really new rules, but simply the college taking a new, stronger stance on underage drinking.  Most of the student body is under the age of 21, and so these rules are, for the most part, consistent with state laws.  Why was it necessary to institute new rules if the state laws already cover the issue?
        The response of most private universities to alcohol consumption is almost tongue-in-check.  Usually, alcohol consumption is allowed and even expected.  While universities usually have strict rules and regulations about underage drinking, more often then not, they are not enforced.  This was the way R.I.T. was as well.  However, this year there has been a lot of negative press surrounding underage drinking.  In order to keep parents concerns to a minimum, President Simone of R.I.T. announced emergency measures to stop the serious epidemic of underage drinking.  At least here in R.I.T.  He was applauded.  Parents of R.I.T. students had a more secure feeling and the press flocked to R.I.T. where it got national attention as being the "First Private Institution to ban alcohol from campus."  So now, R.I.T. students sit at home on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights and play board games, watch television, and go to movies.  Their Parents sleep well.  "President Simone," they think, "is taking care of our child."  However, something happened.  Alcohol consumption takes place.  It now takes place in new and more dangerous forms.  If you were to ask Bobby if the alcohol ban has affected him, he might laugh and have another sip of GennyLight.  No one could stop alcohol from coming.  It came.  It came just the same.
        So how exactly is alcohol kept off the campus?  Has anything really changed?  Are people drinking less then they were before?  Can you stop underage drinking by making a rule saying not to do it?  The answer is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.  Of course not.  If somone wants to do something bad enough, they will do it.  So the search is now on.  Who, what, where are people drinking?  Don't bother asking Bobby, he won't tell you.     
            I remember hearing about how some adults wanted to send kids to school all year.  I remember thinking, "Why do I have to go to school all year and miss out on the summer, when YOU had the benefit of having a summer to have fun and do what you please?"  Is this not the very definition of hypocrisy?  I see a parallel in the case of underage alcohol consumption.  Everyone knows that the drinking age was bumped up to twenty-one about fifteen years ago.  I do not know why this was, but was probably due to drunk driving or similar issues.  I am not saying that teenage drunk driving has not gone down, because it certainly has.  Where is the education?  I hate to compare the United States to Europe, but they are able to do it.  They educate their children about alcohol at a young age and by the time they reach the age of sixteen, they know how to drink responsibly.  How long does that take for the U.S. population to learn?  Do we even learn?  Instead of drinking in dorms, it is well known that student now go off campus and drink and then come back.  This is very dangerous and is not what anyone wants.  Also, now that drinking is really a bad thing here at R.I.T., more people are doing it and more of it.  It is like prohibition all over again.  If the parents believe that there son or daughter is more safe and secure now, they need to take a closer look.  Maybe the parents should be teaching there children about alcohol and not President Simone.  I am sure he has better things to do.
        Alcohol consumption is bad and should be regulated.  Right?  Someone who is twenty should not drink, but someone who is twenty-one should.  Someone who is eighteen is a citizen of this country and is able change the structure of the laws.  Why is it then that the rest of the citizens told one segment of the citizens what they can and cannot do?  Is that not a direct violation of our freedom?  If the population of eighteen to twenty-one year olds increased dramatically, is it not then possible to implement a law to have everyone over the age of forty told that they cannot eat steak because it will kill them?  It will kill them, you know.  It is just a matter of time before they will die.  People who do this just do not know any better and should be told what they should do for their own good.  I am paying for their medical bills!  Or at least I will be.  Why is it that I do not get a say in how they live their lives?  If I only had enough popular support.  I think it may be possible to get it eventually; maybe when medicare runs out.  It is going to suck to be over forty!
             As long as rule making bodies try to tell people how to act, the problems of society will continue. Do you really think students will stop drinking because they were told to?  They will always be searching for Bobby Dewar.  And you know what else?  They will never find him.