2007
Week 20
May 19, 2007

Hi

Resolution of education issues for Omaha did not come, so I will delay a more complete background until next week. The sticking point is called “governance” -- how can we be sure the 11 districts will work together and really produce a changed educational setting for low income neighborhoods? Some say to trust them. Some say they have done more fighting than cooperating the last two years, so set up a control council, which cannot direct what they do but must approve of the plans they produce. We will see.

Public behavior is largely determined by law and public attitude. Each has different power. If they are together on an issue we have a powerful force in creating and maintaining a healthy community.

For example, when law and the public agree we should all stop for a stop sign we have order. If a law places a 30 m.p.h. limit on a four-lane road, we have chaos and an erratic flow of traffic. The death penalty is not effective because some of the public sees it as a deterrent and others see it as publicly-endorsed killing. We are developing public horror at child abuse, which allows the law to effectively tighten the sanctions.

On balance, public attitude has more weight than law. We are more likely to mow our lawn and improve the looks of our house because of the neighbors than because of law. We can change the feel of a neighborhood by getting two or three owners to fix up. Others will follow.

This week I groaned as I witnessed waffling by lawmakers on a serious issue of public policy. For decades we have had a strict prohibition against minors drinking alcohol. There are no “if's” in the statute: “No person shall sell, give away, dispose of, exchange, or deliver, or permit the sale, gift or procuring of any alcoholic liquors, to or for any minor or to any person who is mentally incompetent.” (Section 53-180)

The focus of my bill is on kegger parties, conducted by adults for teens. They are blatant criminal acts which violate that law, cause serious damage to the health of our youth and create a huge financial cost in our society. The adult act is intentional, not accidental. My bill seeks to support the principle set forth in law with four small ways to plug gaps in enforcement.

In the floor debate on LB 573 we had a series of “Well, yes, teens ought not to drink, except..... ” It is dispiriting to see leaders offer teens excuses for not following the law. Teens can think of enough excuses on their own. It is a given that leaders are called to set a positive example for any attitude we consider to be for the common good.

Sadly, we heard: “Except if they are in the army. If you are old enough to fight you are old enough to drink.” “Except if they are ranch hands in the field, working hard. They deserve a beer when they get to the bunkhouse.” “Except in the home, where a parent has a right to teach a child how to use and respect alcohol.” “Except at Thanksgiving, where certain cultures use beer or wine to teach gratitude.”

Do understand, those are scattered voices, not the consensus of the legislature. I expect us to come together to declare that minors are not to drink alcohol. I certainly will be testing the exceptions next week, straight on. But also understand that this waffling sends messages. Add to it the advertising of alcohol which targets kids more than adults. Kids see ten times more alcohol ads than do adults, which adds to our waffling.

Statutes are inconsistent, of course. Adults cannot buy for a minor. That includes every parent. Present law says teens shall not drink, except at home or church. Hello? Who brought the alcohol to the home so the teen can drink it? By law, teens can get drunk at home. Some parents think it is the best place, not knowing or ignoring that steady use of alcohol causes permanent brain damage.

The crunch will come when we vote to remove home and church as an exempt place for teens to drink. We must ignore communion and the seder meal, which caused the earlier flap. We all know serving a few drops of wine in communion is quite different from giving drinks to teens. We have always recognized we cannot control a parent giving a child a glass of wine -- unless it is several glasses, which is abuse.

I am not discouraged. We are gaining. There would have been no way to pass this law six years ago. We have been waiting for public attitude. Thankfully more adults are talking with each other, saying this harmful activity is not necessary. We can protect our children's brains and our own pocketbooks.

However, one does wonder why other countries are so far ahead of us in recognizing the dangers inherent in a popular drug.

Hang in there.

Lowen