CONCORD AND HOPKINTON NEED TO TAKE ON UNDER-AGE DRINKING.

This fall school officials in Concord and Hopkinton wrestled with the
problem of under-age drinking - and lost, badly, pinned flat to the mat.
What seemed to be brawny anti-alcohol policies proved scrawny instead. To
add insult to injury, it turned out that parents weren't all pulling for the
same outcome.

Now both communities need a rematch, but on different terms.

A winning approach must begin with this recognition: Under-age drinking is
not just a school problem. It's a community problem, calling for a broad
response formulated by the community as a whole.

What does that mean exactly? That a school board is too small a group of
problem-solvers, and that contracts for student-athletes are too small a
solution.

It's time for more leaders in both communities to step forward, too.
Together they need to call on experts and engage interested residents, young
and old, in an open and extensive discussion about how best to knock this
problem down. For all its size and complexity, there are numerous examples
out there of approaches that work.

You might be wondering if under-age drinking is serious enough to demand
such a response. Consider this information compiled by New Futures, a group
that addresses alcohol, tobacco and other drug problems in New Hampshire:

Alcohol is the drug of choice among kids, far more so than marijuana, say,
and even more so than tobacco. In one survey of New Hampshire high school
students, a third said they had consumed five or more drinks on one occasion
at least once in the previous month. Though the drinking age is 21,
two-thirds of these teenagers said it was easy to obtain alcohol.

Between 1989 and 1997, 55 youths died in alcohol-related crashes in New
Hampshire. Alcohol is also a factor in fights, sexual violence, suicides,
vandalism and poor performance in school and on the job.

Those who begin drinking before 15 are four times more likely to become
alcoholics than those who begin drinking at age 21. Yet, among New Hampshire
teens who drink at least once a month, three-quarters believe they would not
get in trouble if their parents knew.

So yes, we have some work to do.

Certainly this work shouldn't stop at the Concord or Hopkinton border,
because under-age drinking is a problem throughout New Hampshire. But given
the recent experiences in both communities, they have a more obvious
incentive than most to start in.

In Concord, school administrators frustrated by the ineffectiveness of their
anti-alcohol contract got into trouble for revising it on the fly. Though
they overstepped their authority, they at least brought the issue squarely
before the public. So did a police sting intended to see if Concord store
clerks would sell alcohol to a minor; almost half did.

In Hopkinton, a party held to celebrate the completion of the fall sports
season featured a keg of beer allegedly purchased for the kids by their
adult hosts, two of them teachers. The adults were charged - yes, it's a
misdemeanor - but the kids weren't. Neither were they suspended from a
portion of the next season, though the contracts they had signed called for
that.

Both cases revealed the limits of get-tough policies focused on athletes
only, as well as a lack of consensus among adults regarding the problem in
general. Here's one more thing they showed: a desire to deal with the issue
quietly, out of the public eye.

That instinct is all wrong. A better approach is to broaden the discussion.
Consider, for example, the potential contributors to such an effort who live
in Hopkinton alone: Donald Shumway, the director of state Health and Human
Services; David Jensen, the CEO of the former Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
New Hampshire; and Michael Sullivan, a district court judge in Concord.

That's not an exhaustive list; it's not even a slate of nominees. It's a
nudge in what is surely a productive direction.

What's happened so far in Concord and Hopkinton hasn't been very positive.
What happens next could be much more so.