You know what’s most disturbing about this?  That’s it’s being proposed by a “limited government” Republican.

Supporters of a bill that would eliminate late-night drink specials say the legislation would help curb excessive drinking.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tony Grindberg, R-Fargo, would ban bars from offering discounts like two-for-ones after 11 p.m.

The first hearing on the bill is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Thursday in front of the Senate Political Subdivisions Committee.

Laura Oster-Aaland will testify in favor of the bill on behalf of the North Dakota Higher Education Consortium for Substance Abuse Prevention.

Research has shown that there’s a link between the price of alcohol and excessive drinking, particularly with college students, Oster-Aaland said.

Twenty-seven other states have similar laws that have drink discount restrictions.

“I think it is a step in the right direction in terms of reducing rapid and excessive consumption of alcohol, said Oster-Aaland, director of orientation and student success at North Dakota State University.

Given Oster-Aaland’s involvement with this legislation (and earlier reporting on the subject) it is clearly yet another effort to curb college-age drinking.

As I’ve said before, the way to solve the problem of college-age drinking (and it is, admittedly, a problem) is not to institute endless reams of meddling red-tape laws restricting the freedoms of responsible alcohol drinkers and drinking establishment owners but rather to address the reason why these kids are drinking so much in the first place.

I just don’t see this having any sort of impact on alcohol issues.  By making drinks more expensive in bars all you’re going to do is force people out of the bars and into the liquor stores, something that will have them getting drunk at house parties, camp grounds, etc. instead of in bars.  Is that a better situation?  I don’t think it’s any better or worse.

And if these people do switch from the bars to the liquor stores what’s the next step in the plan...ban cheap beer and wine?  Raise taxes on booze so that it’s less affordable?  How about we just ban booze altogether, since that worked so well the last time we tried it.

I sometimes think that’s exactly what these nanny-state, “you can’t take care of yourself” people (who I’ve heard called, fittingly, neo-prohibitionists) really want.  Another ban on booze.

Much like the gun control issue, though, the problem with alcohol abuse lies not so much with the availability of alcohol to the public but rather with a small portion of the publics’ inability to handle alcohol responsibly.  If you deny citizens access to guns some citizens will still be thieves and murderers.  If you deny citizens access to booze some citizens will still be substance abusers.  The key is to address root causes of a problem rather than simply treating symptoms of that problem.

So what is the root cause of binge drinking among college kids?  I’d say it’s because most college kids are immature, living on their own with a bunch of other people their own age and away from their parents for the first time in their lives and enjoying their first window of legal access to booze.  Those three factors combine to create a perfect storm of inebriation and stupid behavior.

So how do we fix it?  How about giving these kids access to booze at a younger age?  Such a suggestion will likely cause heads to explode among most neo-prohibitionists, but I think it makes sense.  Booze in college is a novelty.  If you remove its status as a novelty you’ll get less drinking just for the sake of drinking.  I say we let kids start drinking booze earlier in their lives, while they’re still living at home and under the control of their parents.  Then, once they’re grown up and living away from their parents, alcohol is going to seem like less of a treat.

Plus, the drinking age should be at 18 at least anyway.  If 18 - 20 year olds are old enough to vote and/or enlist in the military to die for this country then they’re old enough to have a beer.