The do-gooders are at it again. The likely result is yet another escalation in our punitive laws without making much of a dent.

This is, naturally, about the report from Salem Wednesday in which the AP's Brad Cain reported on the latest moves to crack down on teenage drinking.

State officials are worried about a survey suggesting that one-third of Oregon's eighth-graders had drunk alcohol during the previous month. Their information also showed that by the 11th grade, it was most of the students who had had a drink.

Everybody agrees it's a bad idea for teenagers to get drunk. So officials are asking for a batch of new laws to penalize young people for drinking.

Among other things, they would lift for three months the driving privileges of any teenager cited for being in possession. The second time the suspension would be for a year. (That's assuming those teens have driving privileges.)

The proponents of this and other measures want only what's good for kids. They never seem to make one connection, though. That's the connection between alcohol's status as a forbidden fruit and the attraction it holds for some young people.

Somebody ought to ask why eighth-graders drink at all, let alone why some of them and others in their age group go on the occasional binge. Certainly it's not to feel good, because getting drunk feels anything but that.

It's possible that if our laws were not as strict as they are on this subject, young people would not be nearly as likely to sneak a drink far before the legal age.

If that's the case, passing even stricter laws and imposing tougher penalties is not likely to make a big difference. Instead, we have to find a way to make alcohol less appealing, the way we've done with cigarettes. (hh)