Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18?

[miami_fan]

Poll forthcoming

College presidents: Cut drinking age - 08/18/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

ALCOHOL ABUSE
College presidents: Cut drinking age

University presidents from a wide range of U.S. colleges are calling for a debate over drinking laws, arguing that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18.

BY JUSTIN POPE
Associated Press

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.''

Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

''It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses,'' said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependence. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the United States could be helpful.

''There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18,'' she said.

McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks ''an informed and dispassionate debate'' over the issue.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a ''culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking,'' and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they ''are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.'' Furthermore, ``by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.''

''I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue,'' said William Trout, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., who has signed the statement.

But some other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.

''I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress,'' Shalala said.

McCardell claims that his experiences as a president and a parent, as well as a historian studying Prohibition, have persuaded him the drinking age isn't working.

But critics say McCardell has badly misrepresented the research by suggesting that the decision to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 may not have saved lives.

MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control also reached the same conclusion.

Associated Press Writer Barbara Rodriguez contributed to this report from Durham, N.C.

[MikeVic]

I live where the age is 18 so I'll say yes to this.

[VPI97]

My parents never had a problem with me drinking when I was 18, 19 or 20. In fact, Dad sent me off to college with a pat on the back and a case of beer in the trunk. Their reasoning was that a) the drinking age was 18 when they were kids and b) if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to drink. Can't say I can argue with that rationale.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'd have to say "Yes" - at least partially because thats how it stands in England which is what I'm used to.

I also think that responsible drinking from an early age (ie. a glass of wine with a meal) at home helps curb teen drinking problems personally.

[claphamsa]

I think our society needs to be changed more than the drinking age! we still have tons of nutjobs who think prohibition is a good idea, the simple idea of a drinking age is rediculous! look at countries where peopel drink responsibly..... no drinking ages. its a cultural thing!

[Fidatelo]

Anything higher than 18 seems crazy to me. If you are old enough to vote you should be old enough to drink (to say nothing about going to war). I also agree that making it 21 just adds to the problem with college kids; the party atmosphere in college seems to be way more pronounced in the US than it does up here where the age is 18 or 19.

[larrymcg421]

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

[molson]

I voted yes, but you're not going to change the culture overnight by lowering the drinking age.

There would definitely be a HUGE increase in drunk driving and death in college towns, as students are out and about with their boozing, instead of containing it to their dorm rooms, etc. There wouldn't be much support for the "let's wait it out for the culture to change" idea.

Maybe it would make sense to lower it to 20, then 19 after a few years, then 18.

[Young Drachma]

Pretty simple. If you can vote and die, you can drink.

[molson]

What does voting or going to war have to do with drinking, specifically, other than the "if you're old enough to do this than you're old enough to do that". I never found that compelling. You can go to war and drive a tank and still not rent a car from most places until you're 25. But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

I think our society needs to be changed more than the drinking age! we still have tons of nutjobs who think prohibition is a good idea, the simple idea of a drinking age is rediculous! look at countries where peopel drink responsibly..... no drinking ages. its a cultural thing!

Remember, the US was founded by a bunch of folks who were kicked out of England for being too uptight. It's our legacy.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

What does voting or going to war have to do with drinking, specifically, other than the "if you're old enough to do this than you're old enough to do that". I never found that compelling. You can go to war and drive a tank and still not rent a car from most places until you're 25. But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.

Renting a car isn't a legal right bestowed upon you by the law, but is decided by a private company renting you the car.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

I agree 100% with that comment.

I don't understand how lowering the drinking age will decrease 'binge drinking'. I knew/know just as many 21+ people that binge.

[RendeR]

You can vote for the leadership of this country at age 18.

You are legally an adult at age 18.

You can serve and die for this country at age 18.

There is no excuse in the universe for forcing someone with THOSE rights to not consume alcohol for 3 years longer. It does not increase the maturity level enough to matter and leads to creating alcoholism by forcing kids to hide what they do and binge drink when they get the opportunity.

If the leaders in this nation wish to change the situation they have 2 choices:

Lower the drinking age to match those rights

or

Raise the age of those rights to match the drinking age. basically creating a dead pool of 18-20 yr olds who have no say in how their lives are governed and who can't be entered into the military (killing of a good 40-60% of the active duty military)

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by molson

But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.

So are 16-18 year olds. haha

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Remember, the US was founded by a bunch of folks who were kicked out of England for being too uptight. It's our legacy.

i know! thats the problem not the drinking age. as long as drinking is viewed as bad by a large portion of our society....... who cares what the drinkign age is. and honeslty who ever had problems buyign beer when they were teenagers? We just rode our bikes down to east cleveland and bought 40s at bP!

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

I agree with this. It is obvious that the drinking age laws are not a deterrent to underage drinking. Of course, I am assuming that the laws are there to address the drunk driving problem (this being the US, moral issues could be a reason for the laws).

However, making the BAC thresholds and penalties for hitting those thresholds/causing accidents draconian would be more of a deterrent--much as it is in Northern Europe.

I suspect that this will never happen in the US. There will be an uproar from the Restaurant and Bar industry. Unlike Europe, where public transportation is accepted and readily available, the US is too car dependent for this to fly.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

and honeslty who ever had problems buyign beer when they were teenagers? We just rode our bikes down to east cleveland and bought 40s at bP!

I had an easier time buying weed than I did liquor. Course, I didn't really drink till I was 21.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Renting a car isn't a legal right bestowed upon you by the law, but is decided by a private company renting you the car.

My point is that I'm sure there's similar statistical justification for having the drinking age of 21 (lower drunk driving deaths, etc). And problem drinking is more damaging to society and innocent victims than voting or serving in a war (political jokes aside).

I've never seen any real support for lowering the drinking age except, "If you can do this, you can do that". That's not an argument, just a conclusion.

Just a pet peeve, I could care less. Kids would be better off with a little wine here and there.

[samifan24]

Yes, lower the drinking age. Hopefully doing so will ease the social burden on kids who drink now, for the first time, at college. Trust me, as an RA and RD in college, drinking related incidents accounted for 95% of all incidents I dealt with over the years.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

What does voting or going to war have to do with drinking, specifically, other than the "if you're old enough to do this than you're old enough to do that". I never found that compelling. You can go to war and drive a tank and still not rent a car from most places until you're 25. But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.

Maybe this will make it make more sense then:

The government is legislating away your right to drink alcohol until you turn 21.

however, you are a legal and free citizen with all the rights and protections afforded you in the constitution at age 18.

I would propose then that the drinking age is an unconstitutional restriction of your rights as an adult citizen in this country to live your life as you see fit.

[Warhammer]

I think reducing the drinking age will do two things:
1) Make it less of a forbidden fruit.
2) Make it easier for the kids to get so they don't binge when they do get it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Maybe this will make it make more sense then:

The government is legislating away your right to drink alcohol until you turn 21.

however, you are a legal and free citizen with all the rights and protections afforded you in the constitution at age 18.

I would propose then that the drinking age is an unconstitutional restriction of your rights as an adult citizen in this country to live your life as you see fit.

The state government is allowed to place age-related restrictions on you as long as there's a rational basis, which there is here. That isn't contradicted by anything in the Constitution about adulthood. Even children maintain most Constitutional rights.

[Mustang]

Unfortunately, the damage is done in this society. We've turned drinking into some big rite of passage and benchmark in a person's life. We should have never had prohibition and not have turned drinking into something taboo and that is not something that is going to be undone overnight. I believe you need to ratchet back, but not 21 to 18, but rather 21 to 19 and allow college age students to drink.

And for the people that are using the 'Old enough to do X.. ', I hope you are arguing that an 18 year old should also be able to be president or in congress because as they can vote for those offices, but not hold those offices.

[molson]

I think there's also other sensible ways to acknowledge that culture and ease into it, rather than lower the drinking age just because "one can go to war at 18".

Maybe the drinking age could be 19 to purchase at a liquor store, but 21 to purchase at a bar or restarauant, etc.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think reducing the drinking age will do two things:

2) Make it easier for the kids to get so they don't binge when they do get it.

Making it easier to get introduces just as many bad practices. Chronic drinking is more dangerous than binging.

As I said before, I know many people above age who binge. It's not a habit just for minors. Saying that 'kids' won't binge shows that these people aren't responsible enough to moderate themselves.

I don't smoke weed or anything anymore but when I did, I didn't binge. It wasn't legal and most people i did things with didn't blow though their stash all at once.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think reducing the drinking age will do two things:
2) Make it easier for the kids to get so they don't binge when they do get it.

What makes you think an 18 year old is more mentally equipped to avoid binge drinking than a 21 year old?

What stops binge drinking is experience...and that is sad to say. No matter how many people (parents, older siblings, teachers, friends, etc...) tell you not to do it you still do it and don't stop until you are sick of dealing with the consequences. Heck, I've known guys who have died from alcohol poisoning but that never stopped me from trying to drink a case of beer in a couple of hours. What finally stopped me from that crap was the shitty day or two following one of those nights and the empty wallet for the following week(s).

As a parent, I'm not looking forward to those days when I have to watch my teenagers leave in a cab with their friends headed to the bar full well knowing how the night/morning is going to end up. I just might start binge drinking again on that night.

[Tekneek]

I don't find the argument about the US Constitution specifying particular ages to qualify for federal offices a compelling one in this discussion. You might note that there is nothing in it about drinking age, is there?

I don't honestly care whether there is a "drinking age" or not. There are people of any age that are not capable of responsible drinking. If that was not the case, we'd never have drunk driving accidents by people 21 and over. The whole issue around raising it to 21 was a misguided attempt to solve a problem without actually figuring out what the true problem was. In typical fashion, it was deemed much easier to just make it a crime than solve the real problem. Let's not deal with the problem when we can just make it go away with legislation (aka the easy way out).

[Super Ugly]

It's 18 here in the UK, and I'd actually like to see it raised to 21. I don't buy the idea that a lower drinking age would prevent binge drinking and its related social problems. If anything, I can see the problem getting worse. I say that as someone who's been on the receiving end of violence dealt out by drunk teenagers. It's a different culture in the US, but I honestly couldn't see a whole lot of good coming out of a lower drinking age. The continental countries don't have so many problems with teenage drinkers, but the US is way closer to the UK than it is to countries like France and Germany.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Super Ugly

The continental countries don't have so many problems with teenage drinkers, but the US is way closer to the UK than it is to countries like France and Germany.

Correct. However, don't you think the smart thing to do would be to find out why France and Germany don't have problems? Instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying Brits and Yanks are just reckless bastards who will never get it?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't find the argument about the US Constitution specifying particular ages to qualify for federal offices a compelling one in this discussion. You might note that there is nothing in it about drinking age, is there?

I don't honestly care whether there is a "drinking age" or not. There are people of any age that are not capable of responsible drinking. If that was not the case, we'd never have drunk driving accidents by people 21 and over. The whole issue around raising it to 21 was a misguided attempt to solve a problem without actually figuring out what the true problem was. In typical fashion, it was deemed much easier to just make it a crime than solve the real problem. Let's not deal with the problem when we can just make it go away with legislation (aka the easy way out).

Just because there's not a 100% correlation, that doesn't mean there's not an extremely relevant one.

Any time you try to draw a line somewhere, there's going to be elements on both sides of it that just don't fit. Some people can drive fine at 0.08. Others are a huge hazard at .06. Still, you need a workable number, so you set it at an acceptable standard. Even beyond numbers - a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal trial standard guarantees that you'll have some innocent people in prison. Still, we decided that's an acceptable place for the line.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

Just because there's not a 100% correlation, that doesn't mean there's not an extremely relevant one.

So, are you saying the drinking age should be 35 because you can't be President until then? Or 30 because you can't be a Senator until then? Perhaps just 25, like a member of the House of Representatives? I don't see the logic...still. If equating it to 18 because the Constitution says you can vote at 18 is not good, what relevance do the others have?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Correct. However, don't you think the smart thing to do would be to find out why France and Germany don't have problems? Instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying Brits and Yanks are just reckless bastards who will never get it?

It's not rocket science, France and Germany have had wine and beer as a big part of their culture for hundreds of years. We can get there too, if that's a goal, but it ain't gonna happen tomorrow even if you lower the drinking age.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So, are you saying the drinking age should be 35 because you can't be President until then? Or 30 because you can't be a Senator until then? Perhaps just 25, like a member of the House of Representatives? I don't see the logic...still. If equating it to 18 because the Constitution says you can vote at 18 is not good, what relevance do the others have?

I don't get your point - I was actually arguing the opposite, that various age limits have nothing to do with each other.

I'm just saying that 21 isn't a "bad" drinking age just because there's some 19 year-olds that can drink responsibility, just like a 35-year age limit for president isn't necessarily "bad" just because there's a 34-year old that would make a good president. Thus, the correlation isn't 100%, but in the case of the United States, there is huge statistical support for a higher drinking age - young males are an absolute disaster behind the wheel.

As for why those age limits for public office exist, I have no idea - I imagine that in terms of the president age limit, the framers of the Constitution wanted some track record of a candidate's loyalty to America, but that's just a guess.

[Racer]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I know this isn't exactly relevant, but personally I think we coddle drunk drivers in this country and would love for that policy to be changed regardless of the drinking age.

I agree with this. I don't see anything wrong with lowering the drinking age, but America really needs to address its problem with drunk drivers. Laws are far to lenient currently.

[JediKooter]

I think it should be lowered to 18.

The problem in America, drinking is treated like anything else in this country that is considered 'taboo'. If there wasn't such a big deal made about drinking from an early age, I don't think drinking would be such a big deal to younger people. Just like nudity and sex in this country, drinking is treated as a bad thing.

America has a long way to go to get over its Puritan ideals.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not rocket science, France and Germany have had wine and beer as a big part of their culture for hundreds of years. We can get there too, if that's a goal, but it ain't gonna happen tomorrow even if you lower the drinking age.

Haven't we been hearing that France and Germany are starting to have more and more alcohol-related issues recently? They may have been the gold standard in the past, but it seems like they are catching up to the rest of us in this area.

[molson]

It should also be noted that drunk driving fatalities have plummeted since all States went to a drinking age of 21. 21,113 in 1982, to 12,998 in 2007. (And that's before you adjust for the fact that Americans drive far more miles now than they did in 1982)

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think it should be lowered to 18.

Just like nudity and sex in this country, drinking is treated as a bad thing.

I would guess that alcoholism plays a big part of that public view.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

It should also be noted that drunk driving fatalities have plummeted since all States went to a drinking age of 21. 21,113 in 1982, to 12,998 in 2007. (And that's before you adjust for the fact that Americans drive far more miles now than they did in 1982)

Causation and correlation aren't the same thing. Other possible causes include significantly increased public awareness, societal/peer pressure and demographics.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

So if someone gets pulled over for a broken taillight, and the officer finds that the driver is completely trashed - you don't think that should be a crime as long as he was driving OK at the time the officer observed him?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

Just because there's not a 100% correlation, that doesn't mean there's not an extremely relevant one.

Any time you try to draw a line somewhere, there's going to be elements on both sides of it that just don't fit. Some people can drive fine at 0.08. Others are a huge hazard at .06. Still, you need a workable number, so you set it at an acceptable standard. Even beyond numbers - a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal trial standard guarantees that you'll have some innocent people in prison. Still, we decided that's an acceptable place for the line.

This is why the whole idea of having a line is stupid. Either you broke some other driving law or you didn't, and you should be punished accordingly.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

I voted yes, but you're not going to change the culture overnight by lowering the drinking age.

There would definitely be a HUGE increase in drunk driving and death in college towns, as students are out and about with their boozing, instead of containing it to their dorm rooms, etc. There wouldn't be much support for the "let's wait it out for the culture to change" idea.

I don't think we would see that at all. For one, most students don't drive in "college towns" as everything is walkable. And I went to a school that was more spread out than the typically large state school, and no one drove to bars. Plus, at most schools, you can't have a car on campus until you're a junior/senior when you're approaching or at 21 already.

It was also far easier to get alcohol outside of the dorm when I wasn't 21 (frat parties, house parties) than it was to have some 21 year old buy me booze which I'd then need to sneak into the dorm.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

So if someone gets pulled over for a broken taillight, and the officer finds that the driver is completely trashed - you don't think that should be a crime as long as he was driving OK at the time the officer observed him?

As you asked your question, yes, though I highly doubt that could actually happen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Causation and correlation aren't the same thing. Other possible causes include significantly increased public awareness, societal/peer pressure and demographics.

Of course, but it's still worth noting when this discussion came up. Supporters of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act claimed that drunk driving deaths would go down. They did, by a ton. And that Act in itself probably did a ton to increase awareness of drunk driving deaths. So what's the argument to bring it back down right away? I haven't heard anything more compelling than those stats.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

So if someone gets pulled over for a broken taillight, and the officer finds that the driver is completely trashed - you don't think that should be a crime as long as he was driving OK at the time the officer observed him?

We've been through this with Foo before (I believe re: Matt Jones and his blow). Save your effort.

[lungs]

I'd go 19 for everything. That way you can still have those wicked parties in college when you turn legal to drink. The ones where you wake up naked in some bushes in a pile of your own puke and/or piss but can justify it by saying it was the first night of legal drinking.

[Fighter of Foo]

Apologies for liking freedom Logan.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't get your point - I was actually arguing the opposite, that various age limits have nothing to do with each other.

Oh, well, that's good then.

I'm just saying that 21 isn't a "bad" drinking age just because there's some 19 year-olds that can drink responsibility, just like a 35-year age limit for president isn't necessarily "bad" just because there's a 34-year old that would make a good president. Thus, the correlation isn't 100%, but in the case of the United States, there is huge statistical support for a higher drinking age - young males are an absolute disaster behind the wheel.

I can't question why the writers of the Constitution felt like putting in those age requirements, but there has not been much noise made about it over the years, has there? I don't know of any myself. Why don't they just leave this to individual states to decide? The US government played games with "federal money" in order to have their way on this issue. So, they take taxpayer money and then say things like, "You must not let people under the age of 21 buy alcohol", and at one time they said, "You must not have a speed limit higher than 55 miles per hour", else we will not send you 'your share' of the taxpayer booty. If it is such a worthy cause, let's just take the federal government out of the game and let each state decide on their own what is best for them. I expect they would know better what their young adults can handle and what they cannot.