I think its valid to bring up. While groups like SADD and MADD have their place, they act like theirs is the only opinion that is germane to the discussion. Given we know the accidents, fights, domestic disturbances etc. that come from alcohol but also have it in the Constitution, says that some amount of "fallout" from it has been deemed ok by society--it ain't going to get banned again. I can't stand that some of these groups just shout over a question that is really valid to ask. These young adults are doing it anyway. These are the same young adults who can exercise other Constitutional rights, who can be locked away for life (and every other tired argument that exists.)
What I don't get is if they concede the law won't be enforced, then why don't they lower the law and make it enforced? Especially since these are technically state laws at play (although I am aware of how they REALLY get made). Will be interesting though, because these schools have a lot of clout at the state level.
And to be honest, the status quo has the twin problem of being unfair/unjust and pretty much ineffective once youth make it to college.
This is like several debates going on (sex ed comes to mind) that some people feel that exposure will definitely corrupt, so keeping it away is best, whereas others feel that exposure and education are the answer. I just think they should make the drunk driving laws really strict, or make it like the legal limit is 18, but until you are 21, there is zero tolerance if you are pulled over. Post 21, then the current rules apply. You don't have a right to drive, but I think given that the people in question are the age of majority, can vote and exercise other rights, its really stupid, considering we accept certain losses as a society as the tradeoff for having alcohol legalized. (Of course people forget the tradeoffs for having it ILLEGAL were worse).