Summary: Given the prevalence of youth trying alcohol during adolescence, the question of whether a harm minimization practice, such as parental supervision of alcohol, might be a viable option. This question stems from policy stances such as zero tolerance and harm reduction in regards to home alcohol consumption. Zero-tolerance is an abstinence stance that “prohibit[s] the purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol by youth” (p. 277). On the other hand, harm reduction recognizes the potential for youth to inevitably experiment with alcohol and focuses on minimizing harm as well as teaching about responsible drinking practices.

Yes View: Bellis et al. (2009) argues in favor of harm minimization practice in “Teenage Drinking, Alcohol …show more content…
(2011) examines both zero-tolerance and harm minimization policy. The authors found that prevalence of use increases between seventh and ninth grades in both the United States and Australia, the areas under study in their research. Using this as a basis, McMorris et al. (2011) connects this to research that suggests “higher levels of early alcohol use seem to set the stage for increased use during middle adolescence..the impact of frequency of ever using alcohol by seventh grade on adult supervision of alcohol use in eighth grade is 1.5 times larger in Victoria, [the area in Australia under study with policies reflecting harm minimization] contributing to increases in alcohol use and harms in ninth grade” (p. 290). Moreover, the researchers contend that because the policy is open, parents feel pressure to allow their children to drink under their supervision. Yet, any early age drinking trends towards more alcohol use. Therefore, harm minimization still leads to the likelihood of alcohol abuse regardless of its stance towards reduction. Essentially, the argument becomes null because harm minimization produces no more positive results than