My late father used to rail against "do gooders". By "do gooders", he meant those who were trying to improve society with government programs and mandates and he particularly had in mind welfare programs.

In my opinion, what this article represents is the presence of "do gooders" on the other side of the spectrum.

Reading the article I'll give you the link to in a moment, I'm reminded of something I wrote in my book. I remember watching an older episode of the TV show Dragnet. Sgt Joe Friday and his partner are staking out a candy store because candy stores have had a rash of robberies lately. The partner talks about how when candy stores hire a new employee, they tell the employee to eat all they want. The employees do. After a couple of days, the employee will eat very little, if any at all. They've had their fill and they don't want anymore.

I think alcohol consumption is very similar. As long as you make it forbidden fruit and limit its availability, it will be gorged upon. When you make it readily available, the mystery dissolves, along with the allure.

So long as you have kids drinking with other kids in activity they must hide from adults you will have a recipe for disaster.

Read the article. It's even handed, although obviously I disagree with those who promote Prohibition among people who are otherwise adults.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080819/ap_on_re_us/college_presidents_drinking_age