The drive to lower the drinking age to 18: I’m for it, are you?
By William Brand
Friday, August 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am in General.
Here’s a rouser to send you on your way to your (hopefully) excellent weekend…Should America lower the drinking age to 18? The news is that a group of university presidents have started a petition urging lowering the drinking age. This Associated Press story ran on the front page of our newspaers and many, many others:
College presidents seek debate on drinking age
College presidents from about 100 of the nation’s best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.
The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.
“This is a law that is routinely evaded,” said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. “It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory.” READ THE REST OF THE STORY…
Here are a couple of arguments posted on the Amethyst Initiative site:
Twenty-one is not working
- A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.
- Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.
- Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.
- By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.
- How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?
We call upon our elected officials:
To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.
To consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.
To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.
We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold.
First, this note. When Prohibition ended in 1933, power to regulate alcohol sales was relegated to the state. Drinking age was state-by-state decision, until 1984. Here’s the way the law is now (from the U.S. Department of Transportation.)
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act.
So lowering the drinking age would require an act of Congress and a president to sign the bill into law. That’s a tough order in this era of post-Christian weirdness.
My opinion: Lowering the drinking edge, which I favor, is a tricky business. Drinking properly requires education in the family about alcohol.
I came from a family where no one drank beer. My parents, who were children of Prohibition and the Great Depression, drank bourbon, in great moderation. Drinking, I learned from them, was no big deal. The important thing was to drink for enjoyment and to drink moderately.
I have lots of friends whose parents drank wine at home and they got the same message. It’s mostly that way in Europe as well. That’s how we’ve raised our kids and with all of them now 21 or over. They learned from our example: moderate drinking, never to excess. But to ask our entire, diverse society to do the same? That’s a tall order.
But for me, bottom line: How can we ask young men and women to fight our wars at age 18 and tell them they’re not old enough to drink. Hypocrisy and hogwash. What do you think?
Note: Photo is a screen grab from the initiative site.
[Both comments and pings are currently closed.]
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I read this a few days ago and just kind of moved on. You’ve inspired me to broadcast my opinion.
http://brewedforthought.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/amethyst-initiative-it%E2%80%99s-time-to-rethink-the-drinking-age/
In short, I agree.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
I agree with lowering it for all the reasons listed, i.e. old enough to vote, sign contracts and go to war just to list a few. Drinking and driving will still be illegal so what;s the problem?
For the record I’m 46 years old.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
I am on the fence on this one. The people are in favor of lowering, make valid and logical points.
My first thought is this. As the legal age to purchase gets lower, the easier it will be for the age groups below to get beer. I turned 18 in high school. It would have been very easy for peer pressure to get me to buy quantities of beer and whiskey and distribute to my fellow high school students.
I understand high school kids today get alcohol any way. But lower the legal age to 18, and more high school kids are going to get more alcohol and high schoolers will be doing the binge drinking instead.
I do not know if we are would fix a problem or just move it to a lower demographic.
Signed,
Brewnot AKA Mr. Onthefence
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
You’re right Brewnot, in America it’s a sticky issue. Until most American families are open and sophisticated about alcohol and almost universally teach their children about booze and moderation, the situation’s probably hopeless.
One thing, with 18 the drinking age, you wouldn’t see the kind of wild boozing that now occurs on college campuses, because under-18-year-olds are mostly still at home and supervised, somewhat at least.
The way it is now, many, many kids go away to college and are free of parental and community oversight for the first time. They tend to go absolutely wild. My youngest daughter went to college in Portland her Freshman year and lived in a dorm. She was shocked at the outrageous, excessive drinking and thought it was stupid.
But she grew up in our house and has a more European view of alcohol. It was always around in our house and it was OK to drink but she was taught to drink well and drink moderately.
Oregon kids thought a case of PBR was the ultimate. She preferred a good, authentic Lambic. She didn’t last in Portland.
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Forget lowering it to 18, it should be abolished altogether. Half the fun of under-age drinking is that you’re not allowed to do it. Take that away and there’s little incentive to drink as a kid. In Europe, most countries have no drinking age and when you go to pubs, there aren’t any kids in them, in my experience. Drinking just isn’t “cool” to kids in Europe as it is in America. I think that’s because of the drinking age, not in spite of it.
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Yes Troy, well said. If we teach kids about alcohol at home, if there’s no real age limit, the thrill is gone. That’s what we need to do — take the thrill out of the “drinking age.”
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I think another issue many are failing to consider are illegal drugs. Many of these kids are just out to get wasted. Before I was 21, smoking pot and drinking were the only real options. Today, a lot of high school (and younger) kids see meth on the same level.
Drugs dealers don’t check for ID. I’m not condoning the pursuit of a chemical high, but I’d much rather have my kids wanting to go to a party where some kid spent $45 on a keg of PBR than a party where they spent the same cash on meth.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
When I was in college, the legal age for beer and wine was 18. You could be drafted and die in a war at 18, why not buy a beer? I believe Reagan changed it by tying federal highway funds to failure to move your state drinking age for all beverages to 21. When I was in college I learned what it meant to worship the porcelain god, but I didn’t have to drive anywhere. it probably saved my life (or somebody else’s). I lived long enough to drink good beer (it took 20 years).
August 25th, 2008 at 8:22 am
My initial reaction is to support the movement to lower the drinking age for the same reason that ol’ william stated: If you can go to war and die, you should be able to drink alcohol.
But I was intrigued by the reference in the article that “nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths.” That sounds like an important statistic to me. Now I dont know what I think.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Brian H. Drunk driving deaths were lower, but how about incidents? Is it a 21 year drinking age that are saving the lives of these drunk drivers, or is it air bags, crumple zones and solid steel frames?
I still think it goes back to being an adult. Electing our leaders, judging our peers and fight/dying for our country require far more maturity than picking up an alcoholic beverage.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Mario is right. It may be a statistical aberration. DUI laws are much tougher; enforcement here in California, a state I know, has gotten fierce. Also, there’s lots of designated driver advertising and publlicity. Bartenders have been made aware that their establishment could be legally liable if they send someone who is intoxicated off in a vehicle, Don’t know if there have been successful prosecutions, but it’s a gray area and pub owners are worried.
And none of this has anything to do with drinking at 18,.
Again, the best argument to me is — if you can go to Iraq and get your head shot off, you oughta be able to order a beer at a pub.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:36 am
But often, though not always, statistical aberrations are considered in scientific studies. In good, peer reviewed studies, alternative are considered and often included in the study. Without seeing the studies themselves, I dont think we can discard the scientific research.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Good point. I’m going to look into it, see if I can find the studies. Anyone with access , please post a link.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Found this in the MADD stats book, find it interesting:
In 2002, 2.3% of Americans 18 and older surveyed reported alcohol-impaired driving,
compared with only 2.1% in 1997.
In 2002, 2.3% of Americans 18 and older surveyed reported alcohol-impaired driving,
including 3% of 18-20 year olds and 4.1% of 21-34 year olds.
In 2002, surveys estimates that Americans took over 159 million alcohol-impaired
driving trips, compared with only 116 million in 1997.
Of the over 159 million alcohol-impaired driving trips estimated that Americans took in
2002, over ten percent (18 million trips) were made by 18-20 year olds.
What do stats mean? Pretty much whatever you want them to mean. Fact is, 18-20 year olds are drinking, legally or not, and then they are driving, which would still remain illegal, regardless.
Here’s the link to the stat book: http://www.madd.org/getfile/15dbbb2b-3f94-4258-b3ec-03aea1124712/2008-Q1-Summary-of-Statistics.aspx
August 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am
More stats!
http://www.alcoholstats.com/mm/docs/6213.pdf
Looks like 1990 was the year things really improved. Again, not sure what any of this means, you can argue any point you like.
I still say lower the age.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
i think the driving age should be at 15 because some parents are already letting there kids drive. and were responsible enough to not drink and drive.