How many times have you said it?

How many times have you heard others say it?

“They’re just teenagers.”  Or, “Kids will be kids, it’s all part of growing up.”

What am I talking about?  Parents and other adults who view underage/teen drinking as little more than a right of passage that little can or really should be done to curtail.

Unfortunately, still far too often, some of these parents end up being “innocent” bystanders as their children fall victim to an incident (and often are seriously injured or even killed) in which alcohol was a major factor.

I live in CT and for the past couple of years have watched a debate unfold in the State Legislature that, this year, finally culminated with enactment of the so-called House Party law that provides for fines and penalties for children caught possessing alcohol on private property and for the parents/adults who condone it.

The amazing thing was that it took so long for this rather simple effort at deterrence to become law.  Years of debate about privacy rights, the ability of an adult to allow otherwise illegal activity … so long as it was within the confines of their private property. Fears of overzealous law enforcement officials who would immediately overstep their bounds if given this new tool to fight underage drinking … and the list of so-called arguments went on … and on … and on.

If an adult kills a child (or anyone for that matter) in a drunk driving accident we – rightfully – call for the most severe penalties to be imposed.

When a child is killed two weeks before graduating from High School because of an accident involving alcohol we call it (again, rightfully) an avoidable tragedy.

When children drink alcohol we immediately blame those who manufacturer and sell it, calling them reckless and irresponsible.

But when we say we want to penalize adults who knowingly and willfully allow underage drinking in their homes we have to wring our hands and debate “privacy rights.”

There are still far too many states out there that have not even taken this limited action to give local law enforcement officials a much-needed tool to fight underage drinking.

Were it not for the fact that so many parents still harbor the view that “it’s okay, as long as they do it in my house” we might not need these laws in the first place … but we do, and we need them now.

While most of the stories grabbing today’s headlines are about the economy (… stupid!) or the war in Iraq there’s other (some might even say more “weighty”) issues being decided as Americans go to the polls today to exercise their “God-given, constitutionally-affirmed” right to vote.

Across the USA, localities and states are asking voters to consider initiatives intended to advance or restrict the sale of alcohol (some, of course, being slightly more progressive than others).  For example, in McLouth, Kansas, voters are being asked to decide on the following question:

“No retailer’s license shall be issued for premises within the city of McLouth, Kansas, for the sale of retail alcoholic liquor in the original package.”

I read it twice and still said, “Huh!?”

I’ve since learned that for the last 70 years McLouth was “dry” thanks to a local ordinance prohibiting alcohol sales within 1000 feet of a church, school or post office.  “Since McLouth is about 1,000 feet across, it’s tantamount to excluding a package retail store anywhere within the city,” said Tuck Duncan, a local attorney.

In a radical move, Kansans enacted a new state law last year allowing stores to open as long as they were not within 200 feet of such establishments.  Many in McLouth feel that’s taking things a little bit too far, all little bit too fast.

But, a local package store owner, who opened up after last year’s state law change, has undertaken his own political campaign replete with yard signs, banners, and mass mailings (McLouth’s population is about 870 brave souls) to encourage voters to vote “no” on the question.  Why?  A “yes” vote means he’d have to close the store that he opened just a year ago.

If voters turn down liquor stores in McLouth, the retailer will have 90 days to close his business.

Only in America!!!!!

Interesting stuff, but it’s not the only thing being decided today. Others include:

• In Massachusetts, voters are deciding to allow the sale of wine in grocery stores.
• In Anderson County, Tennessee, voters will determine whether or not to allow the sale of “liquor by the drink” or at package stores.
• In Oklahoma, voters are being asked to change the law that prohibits the sale of alcohol while people are voting. As it is now, liquor stores close on Election Day, but some reopen when the polls close - and often have a line of customers waiting for them …

… there are similar measures being consider elsewhere, as well.

Regardless of who you support or what your views are be sure to exercise your right to vote.  It’s really important to let your views be known and voice be heard!!  It’s what makes this country great.