Lawson plea highlights need to challenge underage drinking laws

On Tuesday, UNC point guard Ty Lawson pleaded guilty to underage drinking and driving.  Lawson, who was 20 at the time of his arrest, blew a .03 on a roadside breath test – less than half the .08 limit for drivers aged 21 and over.  As part of his punishment, Lawson was forced to write a degrading essay reacting to "Smashed," an anti-underage drinking propaganda flick:

It made me think of how lucky I am that nothing bad happened that night to me or to anyone else. Drinking and driving do not mix. Nothing good ever happens when someone drinks and then gets behind the wheel and drives.

Like a defendant in some Stalin era show trial, Lawson goes on to denounce himself for the unbearable shame he's brought upon his family, team and university.  The self effacement is so gratuitous, you would think Lawson came within a hairsbreadth of killing someone.

The reality, however, is that Lawson's drinking never endangered anybody; had he been born just five months earlier, he would just be another adult enjoying alcohol responsibly. Instead, a promising young athlete's name is tarnished – perhaps irreparably.  Amongst those joining the pious carrying-on is the editorial board at The Daily Tar Heel, UNC's student newspaper, which is now calling for
Lawson to face public censure from the University's athletic department and basketball coach.

Thankfully, a powerful voice of reason has emerged amidst the hypocrisy and silliness that passes for serious discourse on underage drinking — and it comes from university administrators, no less. Presidents of more than 100 of the nation's most prestigious colleges and universities, including Duke's Richard Brodhead, recently signed a statement calling for "an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age."  Predictably, even this modest call for meaningful public dialogue on the legal drinking age has been met with self-righteous yammering and forecasts of doom backed by selective evidence.

The government's own statistics acknowledge that most full-time college students who are not yet 21 drink alcohol.  This means that, under present law, American college campuses are literally teeming with criminals.

As the university presidents' statement suggests, there are serious problems with a law that effectively criminalizes youthfulness.  Perhaps the most compelling of these is that while those who are 21 or over can enjoy alcohol openly in regulated settings like bars or dorm rooms, adults who drink under age have to do so in relative secrecy. Fear of prosecution provides a strong disincentive for students to seek help if anyone's drinking gets out of hand, and it can force students to drive off campus to drink alcohol undetected.

Officials at other North Carolina colleges and universities should join Brodhead's call to reconsider the drinking age.  However, there is no need to wait for a change in federal legislation.  College and university officials can refuse to abet government efforts to enforce underage drinking laws, prosecutors can dismiss underage drinking cases liberally, and police can focus their priorities towards more pressing public safety issues.  Until there is more resistance to wrongheaded underage drinking policies, most college students who aren't yet 21 are Ty Lawsons who just haven't been caught yet.