Beer! Whisky! Vodka! Wine!, Drinking Age Options

[jesusisthebestth...]

i think it should be 18 because at 18 to "eligible" to do other things that are far more important that drinking (in my opinion) like vote, pay taxes and fight in wars

[Comptine]

BUMP

Thought I'll add updates in this particular issue. From CNN.com:

College chiefs urge new 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."

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 U.S. could be helpful.

"There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18," she said. "If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus."

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 and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

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 Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee., 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 in a telephone interview. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

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.

In fact, 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 of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others reached the same conclusion.

McCardell cites the work of Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist and expert on how changes in the drinking age affect safety. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate.

The college presidents "see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it," Wagenaar said in a telephone interview. "It's really unfortunate, but the science is very clear."

Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative.

"I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them," said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health.

But, "I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence," he said.

Duke faced accusations of ignoring the heavy drinking that formed the backdrop of 2006 rape allegations against three lacrosse players. The rape allegations proved to be a hoax, but the alcohol-fueled party was never disputed.

Duke senior Wey Ruepten said university officials should accept the reality that students are going to drink and give them the responsibility that comes with alcohol.

"If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," he said.

Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative's Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."

Hurley, of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.

"They're waving the white flag," he said.

[*paperplane*]

But there's no solid evidence that an 18 year old cannot handle alcohol. There are studies that have shown that young adults can deal with alcohol better than those who are older (for lack of better citing, see time.com).

MADD's logic is frankly ridiculous. I am, of course, 100% against driving drunk, but banning legal adults from drinking is not going to solve a thing. Prohibition didn't work, so perhaps preemptively outlawing things won't solve all of societies problems. By preventing ~3/4 of college students from drinking legally, all that's being accomplished is an exaggerated crime rate and the imposition of a horribly inconsistent set of standards for those of legal adulthood age. Anyway, if there were not so many laws made against those providing the underage alcohol, it would be a damn lot easier for people not to have to drive after they drink. Rather than having to keep their parents oblivious, teenagers could be much better supervised if the parents did not have to fear jail time for helping their children drink responsibly (since they're going to drink anyway).

With my school's reputation for being a party school, underage drinking has been under attack for a while. Recently they've decided to go for the source, having cops arrest bar employees for serving the underage. These doormen, bartenders, or bar owners no more deserve to go to jail for serving my peers than my peers do for drinking. We are adults, treat us as such. There is no need to enforce a law simply because the law exists. If a particular law is being broken at such an extraordinary rate, perhaps that law is not just to begin with. Being more restrictive than the rest of the world is regressive, and we should not allow that. Also, irony of ironies, as we're being told that they're further cracking down on underage drinking, one of the few places that was open late for all ages has been shut down and turned into yet another bar. For the love of god, cops should be keeping us safe; there's no reason that should mean arresting people who aren't hurting anything.

Oh, and I'm really glad to see that article. I was glad to see it in the AJC, too.

[coconutter]

They should either lower the drinking age, or heighten the age in which teens become adults. Which I believe is perfectly fine at 18. We need to have a coming of age in the USA, and if we're not allowed to drink as an adult, then how are we adults? Reasoning for such things is ridiculous. We probably have more alcohol-related accidents than countries with an 18 drinking age.

The government really sucks balls.

[*paperplane*]

We can't raise the age of adulthood; how would we maintain the military?

[coconutter]

Not only that but college students living off campus would be doing so illegally without their parent's consent. It just doesn't make sense. Someone of higher power really needs to help start a petition to lower the drinking age. No one will though because they're too scared of the nonsensical MADD people that think all alcohol is bad.

[Tomates]

I think it should stay 21
if we lowered it all hell would break loose.
Even now people dont really pay attention to the age now.

Europe has a reason for no age limit because they can actually control their drinking.
No offence but not a lot of americans can and we abuse that fact.

Im only saying this because ive seen people my age abusing alchohol.

[Comptine]

They can't lower the drinking age and keep the driving age the same. You have to try to eliminate the chances of a young person from doing both at once. But not being able to drive would be a problem for some states.

[Blyat]

there are a lot of different thoughts to this

is you notice in other countries that have no drinking limit, you dont see AS much of a problem of tenns hammering themselves with alchohol at night

alot of amaerican teens do it i think because they want to be rebels and do something they are not allowed.
mabey if there was no age, people would be less attracted to alchohol

or it could turn out the opposite where no drinking age could make everything worse

[*paperplane*]

^No one's talking about no drinking age, just a lowered one. I can't think of a country without a drinking age either, though some are much more lenient then others because of the cultural differences.

They can't lower the drinking age and keep the driving age the same. You have to try to eliminate the chances of a young person from doing both at once. But not being able to drive would be a problem for some states.

I don't get what you're saying. Here, you (typically) learn to drive before you're 18...which is also before you're 21. So there's no reason to assume that by narrowing the difference, people would be doing both at once. However, in England both the drinking and driving age is 18, and that seems much less logical. I don't see why the driving age would need to be changed at all.

[Comptine]

Because I believe if the drinking age gets lowered to 18 right now, the teens will go crazy and bask in the glory of finally being able to obtain alcohol. Some of them might go overboard and still drive. There has to be a period where they can get use to drinking and learning their limits without them having access to a deadly 2 ton car.

[coconutter]

Because I believe if the drinking age gets lowered to 18 right now, the teens will go crazy and bask in the glory of finally being able to obtain alcohol. Some of them might go overboard and still drive. There has to be a period where they can get use to drinking and learning their limits without them having access to a deadly 2 ton car.

Just because the drinking age is going to be lowered doesn't mean drinking and driving will be condoned. There is no such period where they will can USED to drinking and learning limits because no age should be drinking and driving. Sure, there might be some parties and rejoicing if the drinking age was lowered, but I'm sure these parties will be heavily monitored and if the people at the parties are smart, they will have a designated driver.

It wasn't a crazy riot when they heightened the drinking age when my mother was in college. I think all will be well if they lower the drinking age. We won't really see a change in alcohol related accidents. Perhaps the rate of alcohol related accidents will go down because teens will not want to risk losing the privilege of driving and a lowered drinking age.

[only-tuesdays]

I don't see there being a huge celebration and rise of binge drinking if the age was lowered. I don't think it will really encourage 18-20 year olds to drink, because if they really want to drink they'd be doing it right now anyway.

I think our drinking age should be lowered. Right now we are the only country in the world to have a 21 year old drinking age. If we lower it and all of a sudden people are dying of alcohol poisoning/drunk driving then those are the people who shouldn't be drinking in the first place. If you aren't mature and intelligent enough to know your limits, then that is your own fault.

I'm 20, I'll be 21 in about six months. I'm not going to lie, I've been drinking for awhile now. It is kind of silly to believe people aren't going to drink when they move out on their own at 18.

[*paperplane*]

Because I believe if the drinking age gets lowered to 18 right now, the teens will go crazy and bask in the glory of finally being able to obtain alcohol. Some of them might go overboard and still drive. There has to be a period where they can get use to drinking and learning their limits without them having access to a deadly 2 ton car.

Here, you (typically) learn to drive before you're 18...which is also before you're 21. So there's no reason to assume that by narrowing the difference, people would be doing both at once. However, in England both the drinking and driving age is 18, and that seems much less logical.

Other countries have the drinking and driving age the same. If you can drive before you can drink, that's still leaving a period in which people can learn to drive.

[DoubleJ]

I agree with only tuesdays. As somebody who prides themselves on their drinking abilities, I can tell you, that I have been going hard since 16. It is honestly up to the individual as to whether or not they are responsible or not. I am all for them lowering the age limit.

[31miracles]

paperplane reminded me my post was stupid...

[*paperplane*]

Someone's already posted it on this page...