Posted on 08/21/2008 5:18:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Life is full of surprises, and some 100 college presidents think they have stumbled on one. They think there is too much problem drinking on campus -- no surprise there -- and suggest we might solve the problem by changing the drinking age. They don't propose to raise it to 25. They want to lower it to 18.
The group behind the petition they signed, Choose Responsibility, says the current drinking age is a failure. It has "not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students," the statement says, and in fact has spawned "a culture of dangerous, clandestine 'binge-drinking' -- often conducted off-campus."
It's true that in the old days, there was no college culture of clandestine, off-campus binge drinking. It was out in the open, right on the quad. Another difference back then: There was more of it.
At the risk of stating the obvious, that's at least partly because in most states, the drinking age was under 21. Youngsters could buy booze legally, so they did what you would expect. They drank more and got drunk more.
It's bizarre to blame the higher age for today's staggering undergraduates. According to Monitoring the Future, an ongoing research project at the University of Michigan, binge drinking has not risen since 1988, when 21 became the minimum drinking age throughout the country. Among college students and other college-age Americans, the rate is lower today than it was then, and the decline has been even bigger among high-school students.
It's true the progress stalled around 1996. But how can that be blamed on the higher drinking age? By then, it had been the national norm for nearly a decade.
In spite of the law, plenty of 18-to-20-year-olds somehow manage to get wasted on a regular basis. But a law can be helpful without being airtight. This one has curbed not only the use of alcohol among young people, but its dangerous abuse.
Since 1988, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drunk-driving deaths have dropped in all age groups. That's due in part to stricter enforcement and changing public attitudes about drinking and driving. But they dropped most among those younger than 21. In that group, the number of alcohol-related fatalities has been cut nearly in half -- even as the number of non-alcohol-related traffic deaths has been stable.
This is not a coincidence. When states lowered their drinking age in the 1970s, they got more drunk-driving deaths among teenagers than similar states that stayed at 21. A 1983 study in the Journal of Legal Studies concluded that any state that "raises its drinking age can expect the nighttime fatal crashes of drivers of the affected age groups to drop by about 28 percent."
There are other arguments for lowering the age. Maybe the most popular is that if you're old enough to join the Army and die for your country, you're old enough to buy a beer. But there is a good reason to avoid such blind consistency. Among the qualities that make 18-year-olds such good soldiers are their fearlessness and sense of immortality -- traits that do not mix well with alcohol.
Besides, we don't have a single age threshold for adulthood. We give driver's licenses to 16-year-olds, but a 20-year-old Marine returning from Iraq will find he may not buy a handgun or gamble in a casino.
Why permit 18-year-olds to vote but not drink? Because they have not shown a disproportionate tendency to abuse the franchise, to the peril of innocent bystanders.
Another reason is that extending the vote to 18-year-olds doesn't let even younger people gain illicit access to the polls. But if high-school seniors could legally patronize a liquor store, sophomores would find it much easier to get party fuel. Raising the drinking age to 21 reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities not only among 18-year-olds, who lost the right to drink, but 16-year-olds, who never had it.
It's not hard to make a logical case for allowing 18-year-olds to buy alcohol, but only if you disregard the practical effects of letting them do something that many of them are not mature enough to handle. In this debate, the ultimate wisdom comes from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who reminded us that sometimes, a page of history is worth a volume of logic.
You can thank Liddy Dole for forcing it up to 21. Bad move. The feds have zero business even discussing the issue.
The Feds have a huge say in the issue, courtesy of Federal Highway Funds.
How much bribe money have these college presidents received from Big Alcohol? The logic of their position is total crap. They are clearly being bought off.
No, it's accurate.
I think the first college that solves the problem of underage drinking is going to have a mass of parents (who pay the bills, after all) beating a path to their door.
It sucks to shell out $50K a year for college and then have Junior spend it in an alcoholic haze...
I know dropping the drinking age would cause trouble overnight. However, I wish we could, in this case, emulate Europe more with a very low drinking age where it does not become some ‘right of passage’ when you turn 21.
We are still too obsessed with drinking even though prohibition is nearly 100 years in the past.
I liken our nation’s views on alcohol like those on firearms:
Rather than focusing on holding irresponsible users accountable, we instead treat everyone as being equally deficient.
I agree with that. However, the article does make a number of good points.
They have their noses in everything. And in most cases it needs to be slapped out, including on this issue.
Big Alcohol? Uh-oh, do we have a prohibitionist in our midst?!
I don’t recall such a thing ever happening.
I know when I turned 18 ,I took full advantage of the legal drinking age being the same.With some not so good results. Totally my fault. At the UofI they let 19 year olds into the bars on campus and wonder why there are underage drinkers in those same bars.Duh,just raise the entry age to the legal drinking age and be done with it.
If we just send them to a war overseas somewhere, that’ll keep ‘em out of the bars.
drunk driving dropped due to education.
The “drink responsibly” commercial is far more effective than any nanny state BS law.
MADD and other groups are just fund raising vehicles to keep their own execs in a job.
I could not say if these Pres’s have been bribed or not. However, having raised three children, all of which were allowed to drink at home and under my wife's and my supervising have turned out to be responsible and moderate drinkers. We believe that by taking our approach we demystified drinking and when they went off to college they did not participate in this activity.
Besides, the age of majority in virtually every state is 18; meaning ability to vote, join the military (fight and get perhaps killed), sign contracts, get married, get divorced, etc, etc. So, if 18 is old enough to legally do all these things, why shouldn't the right to drink be included?
When did Townhall become a socialist nanny-state cess pool?
“It’s bizarre to blame the higher age for today’s staggering undergraduates. According to Monitoring the Future, an ongoing research project at the University of Michigan, binge drinking has not risen since 1988, when 21 became the minimum drinking age throughout the country. Among college students and other college-age Americans, the rate is lower today than it was then, and the decline has been even bigger among high-school students.”
How can they even possible know this? How do you accurately measure these numbers? Is it like the poll taking that showed Kerry winning the 2004 election?
And the numbers of people arrested with a fake ID and drinking underage went up when the age was raised.
Duh-huh. Some numbers go up, some go down.
Either you are a full adult at 18, or you are not. No questions. No wishy-washy crap. I can enter a contract, get credit, buy a house, own a car, get married and have kids, but I’m too young, at 18, to have a drink. That’s some major duty crap, there.
Sounds familiar- like the pro-drug crowd regarding legalization. We can’t stop it, so let’s legitimize it.
Because that doesn't happen now, right?
I personally think this is an idea long overdue. Eighteen-year olds can drive, vote, and be killed in service of their country. To say they're not "ready" to drink is modern-day Puritanism that brought about Prohibition. There is no shortage of far older, more "seasoned" individuals who should be banned from any and all alcohol, but they're still able to do so simply because they're over 21. I've never understood the U.S.'s insistence on making alcohol such a taboo. It's not like they're doing heroin or cocaine for cryin' out loud.
So if you're 18 and want to drink, go join the Army.
Exactly! If you are past the age of adulthood, act like an adult or face the consequences.
When my grandfather was 12 years old, he was delivering U.S. Mail and subcontracting delivering jugs of whiskey on his route (All legal in 1902). Teens would drink, but they were also expected to get up before dawn and work a 12-16 hour day. Shiftless drunks were infrequent because most folks wanted a little money in their pocket and food to eat. Heroin and cocaine could be purchased in any town pharmacy, but dependency did not occur for most folks because they were too busy working to abuse. Most of our substance abuse problems came with our increased leisure time and discretionary dollars.
Some are, most aren't.
If you're in the Army at 18, you're probably a full adult.
If you're living in your mom's basement you're probably still infantile.
The test for adulthood and responsibility isn't your age, it's your situation.
I'm all for letting 18 year-old soldiers drink, and all for prohibiting 18 year-old "students" from drinking.
Either your an adult or not. Having the drinking age higher than the voting and joining the military age is patently absurd.
The problem is, all the schools are winking at the problem, instead of tackling it. The underclassmen, by and large, are underage. If a school took an agressive policy of requiring underage students not to drink, and then backed it up with strong monitoring and disciplinary action, the parents would stand up and cheer!
It's all about competing for that tuition dollar. The school that can demonstrate that it is The Sober School (but not BYU) is going to have a great advantage in the marketplace. It's not for everybody, but it doesn't have to be for everybody. It only has to be for 10,000 to 20,000 somebodies. If I had a kid in high school who was drinking, and I had a choice of sending him to Party U or Sober U, I know who would get my money! If Junior wants to drink all day, he can do it on his own dime!
Most of these schools they represent are places you send your kids to spend money and learn bad habits. They gave up trying to have a solid moral atmosphere in the late 60’s.
As a result we have domestic terrorist on staff, degrees with no solid requirements and graduates that know little about the real world and no knowledge of the old.
If we want to be fair..leave the drinking age at 21 except for those on Active Duty with an active duty ID. Nation wide. Then tell the U’s no Fed funding without a ban on drinking on campus and frat houses..period.
You must be a liberal. They're always asking such questions assuming their enemies are on the take as they themselves are.
It would be hard for student to consume any more alcohol than they are already consuming. All your wonderful drinking laws do is teach kids disrespect for the law. If there were no minimums, most kids would try the stuff at ten and hate it. The whenever they were ready for it they would gradually ease into alcohol use. Show off drinking in college would most probably be a think of the past. (Maybe some European FReepers could talk about binge drinking at universities in Europe?)
ML/NJ
Proposed Big Government solution: issue a drinking license to each individual at the age of majority (18, 21, whatever). You must have it to legally obtain/consume alcohol. Misbehavior involving alcohol gets it suspended or revoked.
Libertarian solution: if you're tall enough to reach the bar stool and have the money, you can buy a drink.
Sensible solution: Punish the resulting behavior, not the activity.
8^)
After having been in the military, I can tell you many young enlistees are just as stupid when it comes to drinking as their civilian counterparts. The only difference is the name of the fraternity.
Many of them get into trouble in the same way. Underage binge drinking in out-of-the-way locations that pretty much guarantees problems. If you reduced the drinking age, allowed for places for these folks to gather so they had more folks to look out for them (campus spot or NCO club), they'd be a lot better off than if they were sneaking out somewhere to get it.
Actually, an interesting idea would be to raise the admissions age of the entire school to 21. That would be kind of nice...
You could have an entire school composed of people who graduated high school and went out and worked or served in the military for a couple of years. By the time they arrived as Freshmen, they would be relelively experienced and serious, and a lot of the silly nonsense that happens at colleges could be avoided.
This would be another good way for a school to differentiate itself in the crowded college marketplace.
I agree! Let's raise the voting age to 21.
That’s a very good suggestion.
I agree. However, I'm guessing one of the arguments against alcohol consumption in general is feeding the habits of alcoholics, and alcoholism is not against the law. Not saying I agree with it, but there it is.
My point is that no 18-year olds can drink EXCEPT those that are in the service.
yep, imo you are either an 'adult' [with all rights/responsibilities] or a 'child' and incapable of making choices...
going to 'bigboy' jail for underaged drinking is political insanity...
And my point is, if I am legally an adult at 18, there should be no law against it. One age, period. No splitting hairs. Pay for the consequences of your actions, but be afforded the same freedoms and responsibilities.
So it is ok for two 13 year olds to be having sex but someone who serves in the military is too irresponsible to have a beer.
Yup. Being punished by the law in many states for allowing adults to consume alcohol in your residence is also stupid.
When I was in Germany in 1986 (as a high-school exchange student), I could consume beer and wine at 16 legally(I was 17). It was novel, but it was also no big deal. I wasn't looking over my shoulder and I wasn't binge drinking because I knew it was perfectly legal to walk right up and order another and didn't have to be worried about being busted while having a good time (in my 17 year old mind). IIRC, you had to be 18 to consume hard liquor.
Plus, their laws against drunk-driving were stiff, plus it was insanely difficult and very expensive to get a driver's license there. The German kids we were with were more responsible than some 30+ year olds I know.
The woman who founded MADD saw that organization as being a neoprohibitionist group by the mid-1980s and in the 1990s was lobbying on behalf of “Big Alcohol” to fight their ever increasing move to .03BAC DUI.
I guess she’s “buying people off”? < /s >
There is discussion of requiring EVERY car to have a breathalyzer ignition system regardless of any prior driving infractions.
http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-coming/
JimRed's quote, common sense, I fully agree...
FSE's reply...
I agree. However, I'm guessing one of the arguments against alcohol consumption in general is feeding the habits of alcoholics, and alcoholism is not against the law. Not saying I agree with it, but there it is.
ok, I re-read this statement numerous times and cant decide what youre saying...
Are you 'agreeing' that personal responsibilty requires 'adult' penalties for an offense deemed to be done by a 'minor'???
All because a percentage of the general population will have a problem with it???
if so, you should really run for office, that kinda reverse double logic is very rare indeed...
The problem is, all the schools are winking at the problem, instead of tackling it. The underclassmen (in high school and some entering freshmen), by and large, are underage. If a school took an agressive policy of requiring underage/unmarried students not to drinkscr*w, and then backed it up with strong monitoring and disciplinary action, the parents would stand up and cheer!
It's all about competing for that tuition dollar. The school that can demonstrate that it is The Sober Moral/non-Aborting School (but not BYU) is going to have a great advantage in the marketplace. It's not for everybody, but it doesn't have to be for everybody. It only has to be for 10,000 to 20,000 somebodies. If I had a kid in high school who was drinking bonking, and I had a choice of sending him to Party U or Sober U, I know who would get my money! If Junior wants to drink party all day, he can do it on his own dime!
It all depends on what issue you take a stand.
the 'legal' age just ramps up the mystery and entices that many more people to overindulge in the short term, while generating some 'enforcement dollars' and flexing muscle over the citizenry...
As was stated earlier, in the 1900's we had wide open access to all things in this country and there werent the 'problems' per capita that we see today...
I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but I still reject it as a federal policy issue.
The Universities can certainly establish their own rules and codes of conduct. The states can establish laws for the manner in which alcohol can be served. The federal government has no business dictating to states how to do this. If the state laws are too draconian or silly, the locals can, by voting out their legislators or through referendum, change their laws. As much as possible, government regulations should be local.
My stance: A person is an adult at age 18 in every state in the union. Every state should expect the 18-20 year olds to act like adults or pay adult consequences. I refuse to believe that the same human speices that not long ago often began working, marrying and raising children in their teens is now incapable of responsible behavior from age 18-20.
Wow. I agree with you on something. Thats a first.
Don’t recall any specific disagreements, but welcome to the right side of things.
Thanks, but I have no intention of ever running for office. I’m not quite dumb enough. No, I was just examining a potential issue those against the 18-yo drinking age would throw around. I’m sure there are those who think it should be 35 years old or maybe 50, and I have no doubt there are still many Prohibitionists in our midst. I’ve found the mindset of Prohibitionists to be (while annoying and childish) fascinating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.