Lower drinking age to 18

The Lantern (Ohio State U.) ^ | 11/27/02 | Joe Pirone

[NorCoGOP]

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The recent riots near the Ohio State University campus were, as all similar riots have been, an inexcusable abomination. Students arrested for their involvement should be expelled. Students and non-students who were involved should spend time in jail.

City officials in the future would be justified in instituting a curfew to keep people off the streets after football games to prevent similar occurrences. University officials should seriously consider suspending the Buckeyes' participation in postseason play as a result of fans' actions.

That being said, President Holbrook has asked what can be done about the nationwide problem of college student riots. One answer, paradoxically, is to lower the drinking age to 18.

The current law that sets the drinking age at 21 does not prevent a single college student from getting alcohol if one wants it. What the law does do is label something "illegal" that virtually every college student between the ages of 18 and 20 does at least occasionally. When this unreasonable law turns students into lawbreakers when they drink, it causes respect for the law to decline. (For another, well-known example of this phenomenon, recall the Prohibition Era in the 1920s United States.)

When one is already engaging in "illegal behavior" simply by drinking, a relevant line has already been crossed, and it becomes easier to engage in other forms of illegal behavior, particularly when one's judgment is impaired by alcohol. Obviously it doesn't work this way for everyone, but the student riots that our president has described as "national and ongoing" seem to provide ample evidence that it works this way for a significant number of people.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would allow larger numbers of college students to drink socially in more supervised settings such as bars, and even on campus. Not as many would turn to illicit off-campus parties where sexual assaults, exploitation and other forms of injury are all too common. I'm sure that Columbus law enforcement would agree riots would be much easier to control and prevent if the masses of students who currently fuel them were not present on the streets.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would also allow our university residence life and student affairs professionals to treat drinking realistically and constructively as an issue of student health and welfare, rather than as a discipline issue. For students with serious, life-impairing drinking problems, this would be a life-saving shift.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would allow younger students to socialize more with older students, allowing older students to model responsible, more mature social drinking behavior. Over time, this would help to change the culture surrounding drinking among our young people.

Many argue that lowering the drinking age would cause the number of drinking-and-driving-related injuries and deaths to skyrocket. However, if this is the problem about which we are concerned, then this is the issue our law should address. We should not discriminate against an entire age cohort of citizens because of the harmful actions of a minority, particularly when there are serious negative consequences to doing so. If we are serious about preventing drinking-and-driving, then we need to do the following things:

A first offense must be a felony, regardless of whether any injury or property damage resulted, and must result in both jail time and a multi-year drivers license suspension. A second offense must result in permanent license revocation, and a long jail term.

We must make a national effort to make driving after drinking absolutely unacceptable and to make alternative forms of transportation and accommodation readily available.

When 18-year-olds can vote, can marry, defend our country in the military, and are considered adults in our society in every other way, not allowing them to drink is an absurd legal and social incongruity. As the riots and the other negative consequences discussed above demonstrate, the effects of this law are not trivial.

While the law has reduced the numbers of young people who kill and are killed in drinking related car accidents, it has spawned and exacerbated a host of other social ills. There are other ways to keep people from drinking and driving if we are serious about it.

Young people should organize and demand the law be changed. Older people should support them, and our leaders should hear them and act in our collective best interest by reducing the drinking age to 18.

[DannyTN]

During Prohibition...
The economy soared, ie "The Roaring Twenties"
Admissions to mental hospitals were cut by 75%.
Admissions to emergency rooms were down 50%.
Church attendance as a percent of the population hit all time record highs.
Divorces were down.
I read a whole book on the positives during prohibition.
It was nothing like the total failure you have been led to believe.

[GRRRRR]

You are totally correct. As a Senior in HS back in '75...we were totally bummed that the drinking age went back up to 21 just as we were all getting to 18. Lots of my HS buds would go up to WISCONSIN and drink there and then get in accidents on the way home...It took me 20 years to realize alcohol is WAY more dangerous than nicotine..."don't drink and drive you may SPILL some..." used to be a favorite saying...

GRRRRRollin

[DannyTN]

Time to automate. Let the robots take over.

Then the drinking age won't matter as much, Car Insurance would be negligible, no one would get speeding tickets, there wouldn't be as many traffic jams meaning even though you may not speed as often you may get there faster, Government wouldn't need traffic cops, or as many court clerks or Judges, the demand for personal injury lawyers would be dramatically reduced. Auto insurance companies wouldn't need all those adjusters. Acreage taken up by autosavage shops would be reduced. All these people can go out and do something productive for a change.

The trade deficit would fall as we wouldn't be buying cars as often. Automated drivers would likely improve fuel efficiencies reducing our demand on foriegn sources. Their would even be a Federal Income Tax bump as the deduction for casualty/loss got used less.

The cost to the economy in terms of Health Care, Car Repair, and lost productivity due to auto accidents is outrageous. It's time to fix it.

The payback to the economy on automating driving would be tremendous.

Just don't roll it out in TN until you get the bugs out.

[GunRunner]

Gag me.

Do you happen to remember what this book was called or who wrote it?

What was the result of the Roaring 20's? Next thing we know you're going to quote some book praising Herbert Hoover's successful economic record.

[DannyTN]

The roaring 20's did end in the great depression. But it wasn't the economic success of the 20's that did that. It was the combination of sudden world wide trade barriers strongly exacerbated by Hoover raising taxes in the middle of an economic crisis.

I wish I could. I came across it at LSU's library some 20 years ago. If I remember right it was written by a doctor. But it definitely presented a different view of the prohibition era.

[FreedomCalls]

You are one of the rare ones to know about this. Americans to this day drink far less than we did before Prohibition. We were composed heavily of recent immigrants from countries such as Ireland and Germany, known for widespread alcohol use. In the cities, most industrial workers went to the bar after work, just like in the old country. In the West, the image of the saloon as a public gathering place was not a Hollywood invention. People drank a lot in 1900. We, as a country, don't drink nearly as much today. Compare per capita drinking in the U.S. today to Ireland or Germany or even Australia (a country with similar immigration patterns, but who did not go through Prohibition) and we are far lower than them.

[GunRunner]

OK. Why the 18th Amendment was overturned by the 21st Amendment 14 years later if it was such a success?

[GunRunner]

Yes, our drinking comsumption is far lower than Europe. But our drunk driving problem is considerably worse, especially with young people. This is due to many factors I would expect: the necessity to drive in America due to its size in respect to European countries, the lack of widespread public transit like in Europe, and our ridiculous drinking age. Alcohol is not the forbidden fruit there like it is here to 18-20 years olds, and for the most part they are more responsible with it.

[Sonny M]

Having MADD oppose you, is akin to having PETA oppose you. You'd take a beating in the press, no doubt about that, but you'd have college kids by the droves, voting for you in insane numbers, not to mention how many bars would esentially turn themselves into republican headquaters. Heck, I guarantee you, you'd have people who are diehard liberal leftwing communists, who would vote GOP just over that one issue. The biggest problem though might be the longterm damage, with the christian right, and the soccer moms.

[DannyTN]

It was repealed because it did become an enforcement issue and so that government could get tax revenues on the sales.

Prohibition was not strongly enforced. Allowing alcohol consumption to continue despite the law did funnel funds into the hands of outlaws and the less scrupulous members of society. That money trail did lead to a level of corruption in society.

During the great depression, municipalities were looking for new sources of tax revenue. Allowing alcohol sales was viewed as a big potential source of revenue.

I think it can be safely argued that a law that is not enforced well is worse than no law at all and in fact breeds disrepect for the law as well as funnels money to those willing to break the law.

[anncoulteriscool]

When I went to Ohio state the drinking age was 19 in ohio...and everything was great! (sarcasm) !

[tahiti]

This debate over 18 vs 21 years of age being the "legal" age to consume alcohol is not a political question but a constitutional question.

A question of the "presumption of liberty."

The Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE others retained by the people."

""It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before." (1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey)

The Ninth Amendment argues against a latitudinarian interpretation of a measure's necessity, both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments argue against a latitudinarian interpretation of whether a measure falls within the enumeration of powers and is proper.

By specifying powers, the Constitution reserved to the people the undifferentiated mass of liberty they did not grant to the federal government-- a general reservation of rights confirmed and preserved through the Ninth Amendment.

[anncoulteriscool]

I've heard that of the 50 people arrested only 10 were students...i think that alot of the time when this happens its non-students such as gang types (and ann coulter protesters lol) that do alot of this damage.

[anncoulteriscool]

In 1983 ohio did vote on to raise the drinking age to 21 and it was defeated....it was only when the federal govt was prepared to deny highway construction funding in '84 that the drinking age was raised to 21.

[TankerKC]

The states all raised 'em again.

Most of the states changed to 21 because of threats from the federal government.

[FreedomCalls]

OK. Why the 18th Amendment was overturned by the 21st Amendment 14 years later if it was such a success?

"Unintended Consequences." It did what it was supposed to do, that is, lower the consumption of alcohol. The experiment worked in that our alcohol consumption is to this day lower than it was prior.

The unintended consequences was that it united criminals into organized crime. Money was to be made. Criminals working together could make far larger amounts of money than if they worked alone. Crime spiraled out of control. You have to choose what you want: less alcohol consumption or less crime. We decided that we could live with the alcohol if it meant less crime. That's the situation we live in today.

Re-imposing prohibition would have the same effect as before.

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about the present prohibition of drugs, the prohibition on guns in some large cities, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other things for which there may be unintended consequences.

[DannyTN]

The successes were a lot less visible to the public than the problems.

There is no difference today. TN just voted to admend it's constitution to allow a lottery. Our forefathers knew a lottery was not a good thing. That's why they put it in the state's constitution. Those who have studied the effects on other states will tell you and funds contributed to education are more than offset by negatives in other areas of society including the damage done to families and the effects of bankruptcies on businesses and credit availability.

But could you hear that during the campaign. No, the people are envious of surrounding states that have lotteries and there is just no money in pointing out the evils associated with the lottery.

[calenel]

"Lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the driving age to 29."

That's a lot closer to the right answer. In Germany and most of Europe, drinking isn't a priviledge, so there isn't so much illicit drinking. Driving, on the other hand, is a priviledge and it is painful to get a license.

[beavus]

"Lower the drinking age to 18, raise the driving age to 21!"

Raise the birth age to 30 years (from 40 wks). Not only would that reduce teenage intoxication, but it would also deter teenage pregnancy.

[Darksheare]

Umm.. I don't get the 'logic' here.
Lower the drinking age to 18 because college students will get the booze anyway?
How about lowering the smoking age as well?
And the "she's legal" age?
After all, they're gonna do it and smoke it anyway.
That's almost like saying that just because people will do it, you make it legal/ easier to do it.