THE STRUGGLES WITH ALCOHOL LEGISLATION

As state legislators this session have worked on a bill to crack down
on teen drinking parties, they also have supported barring insurance
companies from denying payment for the medical treatment of an
individual injured as a result of being under the influence of
alcohol. Especially taken together, these proposals help illustrate
the confusing nature of attitudes on drinking-related issues and why
it sometimes can be difficult to gain consensus on what to do about them.

The first proposal tackles so-called house parties where adults
knowingly allow those under age to drink alcohol. However, it would
not cover parties that take place when adults are not at home.

Those who say the legislation is an unsatisfactory half-measure have
justification. Tragic accidents and deaths involving underage
drinking at such parties are a familiar occurrence in our
communities. Yet debate over how to prevent them has gotten tangled
up in such issues as whether police would be given more power at the
expense of private property rights and whether parents should be held
responsible because they should have known about events involving
their children and homes, but did not.

While we agree with critics that the current bill is imperfect, it is
an encouraging start that should be the basis for stronger
legislation in subsequent sessions.

Then there are the physicians who asked the state Legislature to
prevent accident-insurance exclusions that are based on the injured
party's impairment because of drinking or use of unprescribed narcotic drugs.

Such exclusions were advanced nearly 60 years ago as a way to
discourage drinking, news reports said. One well might ask why
someone should not be required to pay his or her own expenses for
injuries resulting from intoxication.

But many doctors apparently believe it is unreasonable to leave
patients with huge medical bills in this manner. An official of the
Connecticut Medical Society quoted by The Associated Press recently
said that has led to a reluctance to test injured patients for
alcohol, which in turn rules out timely alcohol counseling that often
is successful.

Some concern among medical professionals and facilities about
patients' bills going unpaid may also be a factor.

Given the impression that the proposal would let irresponsible people
off the hook, there may be surprise in some quarters that state
legislation to bar such exclusions now only awaits the governor's
signature to become law.

These and similar issues can pose significant conundrums. On one
hand, "demon rum" can be viewed primarily as a corrupter of the young
and destroyer of lives, both figuratively and literally.

However, Prohibition was a spectacular failure: Alcoholic beverages
continue to be popular among both those who drink responsibly and
those who don't, and there is no sign such intoxicants are going to
be barred again. Thus, certain distinctions regarding use of alcohol
can be hard to draw and harder to enforce.

There's a legal drinking age, which has moved both down and up in
recent decades. But it continues to be widely ignored by those it's
supposed to protect, and even, it seems, by many parents and other adults.

There are drunken-driving, and even drunken-boating laws, which have
been used for crackdowns that authorities say have reduced such
conduct and resulting accidents. But most people likely would
acknowledge that those laws are far from completely effective.

The question becomes how far we are willing to go to enforce measures
to reduce harm that can result from drinking. At what point do
measures become unreasonably oppressive?

In our view, legislation that would hold parents more accountable
than the current bill would do would not be oppressive and remains a priority.

But in this and related matters, we need to honestly confront the
issue of competing interests so we can decide what must take
precedence in fighting underage drinking, drunken driving and alcohol
abuse in general.