Summer CE Week #5: “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.”
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.
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, 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 in a telephone interview. “To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all.”
It’s really difficult to even imagine the United States with a legal drinking age of 18. It seems as though since this issue has so many different sides of debate and areas to argue that nothing would happen in the immediate future involving lowering the drinking age. The effort to lower does seem to make sense from a college type view. With the legal age at 21, that means when most freshman in college begin they are 18 and have nearly 3 more years in college until they become legal. That’s simply asking for abuse of the 21-and-over law. If you put younger students in a setting where many of their older peers are drinking and drinking is always the favorite pastime than it’s just inevitable that many of those students will choose to drink and abuse the law, and possibly in a more dangerous way such as binge drinking. The drunk driving issue though does also make sense. I wouldn’t want to imagine legally releasing millions of more “legal” drinkers, but not necessarily responsible drinkers out on to the roads where they primarily only put innocent lives on the line. But I guess it’s always just going to be a controversial issue. Kids are 13 and thinking they can drink, so maybe 18 should just be considered a blessing if they wait that long. But they have a point, if 18 is the age in which one is mature enough to vote and enlist, than alcohol should seem appropriate also. The truth of it is, no matter what the law is, it’s going to be abused. So 18 versus 21 might only make a difference in that the government can say technically say less people are “abusing” it, which really doesn’t solve any problem concerning the dangers of drinking.
I have two sides to this article. I believe that lowering the drinking age will reduce the tendencies of kids to rebel, but also I believe that it may lead to alcohol abuse. As Shalala stated, “I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we’ve made some progress.” So maybe if we do lower the age, high school will be even more infested with alcohol. I do not understand why the government would even be considering lowering the age because the country is doing all right with the drinking age being twenty one. However, there are those rebellious kids who just want to do bad things because it makes them feel cool so they go and drink and take it too far. That is the problem with the drinking age being twenty one. On the other hand, there are the very responsible people who make a commitment to wait until they are twenty one or older to even have their first drink. It is amazing how an alcoholic beverage can have so much impact on a person’s life.
No matter what the legal drinking age is, people will still break the law and do what they want as long as they do not get caught. Some just have the mentality of “if I don’t get caught I’m not doing anything wrong.” Regardless of the drinking law, people will still find some way to get around it and get what they want.
This article was very surprising to me. When I first saw, “College presidents seek debate on drinking age,” I figured they wanted to bump it up a couple years, not drop it down to 18. So, for the most part, I disagree with the ideas behind the Amethyst Initiative. I do not believe that our country’s underage drinking problem is due to the fact that teenagers just want to break the law. I doubt the only reason teenagers drink is because they want to be rebellious law-breakers. There are many other obvious ways to break the law that do not involve drinking before age 21.
If this initiative were to pass, colleges would not have to deal with 21st birthday binge drinking. However, dropping the drinking age to 18 just moves our country’s most dangerous birthday to senior year of high school, a classic “pass the buck” by the collegiate presidents. It is likely that the presidents just hope that by the time these kids get to college, some may be tired of drinking, therefore reducing the alcohol abuse on and off campus.
In conclusion, there will always be underage drinking; this initiative will only make it legal.
The legal drinking age should definitely be lowered from 21 to 18. Let’s face it, college students are going to drink no matter what the law says. Making alcohol a forbidden fruit only makes drinking that much more tempting. Allowing students ages 18 to 21 to drink openly on campus could lower the risk of teens secretly drinking and encourage students to seek help if a friend drinks too much. Lowering the legal drinking age would also discourage students from going to dangerous lengths and getting involved with the wrong people in order to gain fake IDs or easily obtain alcohol. Making drinking legal for all 18 and older would actually encourage safer drinking practices in young adults. Also, I must agree that it is absolutely ridiculous that, at 18, young adults are considered old enough to vote, live on their own, and be drafted but still aren’t old enough to have a beer. Where is the logic there? By the time someone is adult enough to risk his life defending our country, I think he is old enough to decide whether or not he wants to drink. I know that many people will continue to fight this law tooth and nail to ensure that young adults cannot drink until they are mature enough, but frankly, I know a few 21-year-olds who aren’t any more mature today than they were three years ago. Drinking will always have the potential to be dangerous, but at some point, we just have to trust that people will either act responsibly or learn the hard way.
I think that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 is a terrible idea, and college presidents are trying to get out of a tough situation by instilling a bad policy. Colleges are stating that “It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory.” But how is not allowing college student to drink their brains out being discriminatory? The current law is not unfair because if the drinking age was lowered then there would be more drunk driving, binge drinking, and liver disease among college students.
Lowering the drinking age would also mean high school students would have more access to alcohol. High school seniors would be able to purchase alcohol once they turn eighteen, which would hurt their grades and opportunities to get into college. Another problem would be the amount of drunk driving among high school students and the amount of deaths from these accidents.
Lastly, many of these colleges say that parents will talk with their children about drinking and that lowering the drinking age will allow students to be more responsible. Lowering the age will only cause more problems and won’t solve the problem of college drinking.
One law can’t regulate how much drinking a student does! This law won’t solve anything, and colleges are trying to take the heat off of them and place the blame on the parents!
I totally have to disagree with Meagan Barnes about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. Just because the government says you are a legal adult doesn’t mean you are mature enough to decide when to drink. This will only increase the amount of drunk driving, binge drinking, and other problems associated with drinking alcohol. You also said “we just have to trust that people will either act responsibly or learn the hard way.” But most accidents and deaths caused by alcohol don’t affect the person responsible. Half the drunk driving deaths are from the people who were being innocent and hurt by the person who was drunk. Why should more innocent people have to die from drunk driving? Why do they deserve to have their life taken away by someone who was careless enough to drink and drive? This is another example of colleges trying to place the blame on parents rather than themselves for the death of students. Parents can’t control what their students do when they’re away at college! Colleges need to step up and take responsibility for what their students are doing!
Hmm…When I first read this article, I immediately thought what in the world are these presidents thinking when they want to lower the drinking age? However, thinking more deeply I’m convinced that they provide a good argument for a younger drinking age. No matter what laws have been passed, there always will be under age drinkers. To have law enforcers at each party or in each dorm is plain ludicrous. There is no way to possibly enforce a 21 age drinking law. Furthermore, isn’t 18 the magical number when they are no longer under the care of their parents and are presumed to be “adults”? So why say here’s your freedom to vote, to live on your own, to make your own decisions…but wait you can’t drink. We’re handing our children the capability to vote for the next leader of our country but don’t trust them with a wine glass? Unfortunately, not all 18 year olds, and pretty much all mortals, are immune to temptation and lack of judgement. So to presume that once they reach 21 they will magically turn into saints is also unheard of. I think lowering the drinking age, will allow these students to partake of something that they would do anyways but not commit another offense by breaking the law. However, I do believe that students should not be allowed to drink and then drive until they’re 21. With only 2 years of experience of driving under their belts, these students don’t have all the training and wisdom that driving entails, especially if alcohol is involved. That way Amethyst Initiative and Mothers Against Drunk Driving would be appeased. So let the 18 year olds drink but not drink and drive.
If kids are going to drink, they are going to drink. They aren’t going to solve anything by doing this, only put a poisonous substance in the hands of minors. However, its not like it would make the situation worse. In my opinion the only thing lowering the drinking age would do is clear out some room in jails. There will be less people attained with a minor in possession charge. The teenage mindset is built around the idea that laws are made to be broken. MADD has an excellent point, lowering the drinking age would only cause for more young drinking accidents. Think about it this way, if we were to lower the drinking age, the kids that are in college will have way more access to alcohol. They wouldn’t have to worry about finding someone to buy it for them; it’s just a free pass to drink all they want. Why not raise the drinking age? Why are we giving teenagers the responsibility of drinking when they are just becoming adults? Its an earlier start to alcoholism and a life of dependency. But like I said, people are going to do what they are going to do. Laws aren’t going to change that.
It makes perfect sense to lower the drinking age to 18. For one reason because rebellion against the law seems to draw more and more peer groups together. When people know that drinking is illegal and smoking is illegal it seems more appealing. I don’t know why. Maybe because of the risk or because of different peer pressures but mainly i think because it’s breaking the law and rebellious. Lowering the drinking age to 18 would still hold the same effects on high school students but college kids who are legal to drink would feel less likely to drink because they actually are told by the law that they can. With this law in place it would mean that we would have three less years of illegal drinkers and i believe less drinkers period, because it’s not as appealing when Washington allows you too. Also, with kids drinking at 18 they can actually go to bars instead of sneaking their own alcohol. This is a plus because bartenders can legally stop serving someone when they have had too much. They have to. So with this kids would be saved from extreme excess drinking. I understand that kids could still go to the liquor store and buy all the alcohol they want but in the end i think more kids would go to the bars if they could.
If anything the drinking age should be moved back even further. Maybe even to 23 or 24, that way, the majority of people that age are out of college. This would work especially well in small town campuses, such as Pullman, where the majority of residents are college students. The campus police would have an even easier time policing because if they found any alcohol in dorms, most would be illegal because the occupants would not be of age.
I would have to say that the colleges are partly to blame in allowing drinking on campus. Greek Row is a great example of the colleges’ lack of control on drinking. What do many people associate with Greek Row? Parties, drinking, and money, right? The fact that many initiations into sororities and fraternities include alcohol just goes to show the hypocrisy of it all. Parties often include drinking and loud music and the sisters and brothers are required to attend these. I have a relative that was part of a Greek House for one semester. They were the designated driver because they did not drink any alcohol. This person has told me stories of people her age getting drunk and the campus police doing nothing about it. How can we expect students to respect the laws if there is no enforcement of these laws? If colleges would crack down on illegal drinking they would not even have to consider “lowering the drinking age,” which is an absurd idea by the way.
In response to Megan:
If the drinking age were to be lowered, which I don’t think it should be, it should only be done on college campuses. I understand what Megan is saying about 18 year olds being allowed to live on their own and yet not allowed to drink. I don’t advocate alcohol of any kind but I know it is not going to go away. I think even if the age is not lowered they should structure drinking amounts like they do a driver’s license. When a 16 year old first gets their license, it is sideways and they have restrictions. When they have proven themselves to be safe enough drivers, after five years, and they have no bad reports in their file, they are allowed to upgrade to a “better license”, so to speak. Alcohol should be the same way. When first turning “of age”, people should be limited to one drink only for atleast six months. As they get more responsible, this can increase. Alcohol is a huge issue that needs to be dealt with.
The idea of lowering the drinking age to 18 is not a new one. This idea has already come around and been thrown out again. It was around when my father was at school. Apparently, the federal government said they would take away states’ highway funding if they continued to allow under-aged drinking. Dorms would sponsor alcohol ased parties for 18 year olds. These parties would more often than not end in injuries and other bad results. You see… they have tried this scheme before and it failed.
Lowering the drinking age is a horrible idea! And yes, there are kids, including me who have evaded the law that you must me 21 years of age to drink, and trust me, its not difficult to get away with it. I know that makes me sound pretty bad, but for me, those days are over. If the drinking age was 18, think about how much easier it would be for high school and even middle school kids to obtain it. The stupid freshman could ask their few senior friends for a case of beer, and the middle school kids could ask the freshman for the same beer that the senior kid bought for the freshman. How many high school kids have friends that are 21? Trust me, its less than the nuber who know 18 year olds. Enough teenagers get in alcohol related car accidents when its hard to obtain alcohol, so why would those numbers drop when they can legally obtain it? It just doesnt make sense to me. I know that there are going to be those “cool” kids who respond to this article saying that they drink responsibly and that their not out of control when they do drink. First of all, your bodies are still developing, and that is just another reason that the drinking age is 21 because drinking alcohol could damage your growth. And I really dont think that at our age, we are responsible enough to drink alcohol, especially when unsupervised.
I disagree with you Ashley. You say that “This law won’t solve anything.” But earlier you also say that “Lowering the drinking age would also mean high school students would have more access to alcohol.” I don’t see how these both can be true. Of course it will mean high school students can get alcohol more easy. But, however bad it this fact is, kids will drink no matter what. I think that lowering the drinking age would reduce kids desire to drink. Mainly because it’s not illegal. Doing things that are risky are just plain more fun. Maybe I’m an idealist but that’s what i think.
The issue is not drinking itself, the problem is that people have a tendency to overdue things when responding to too many stimuli. In this case for underage people drinking is an attractive activity, and it is attractive enough that they will break the law, they are also responding to peer pressure, which often in itself will lead to too much alcohol being consumed. (I saw my aunt who is about five foot six 100 pounds try to out drink my uncle who is about five foot nine 300 pounds. Let’s just leave it at she was not feeling well after awhile while he was still going strong.) Now as many people who have ever broken a law or done something “against the rules” it will often lead to an adrenaline rush and a giddy feeling. (I admit it I have broken a few rules in my time.) So with so many stimuli influencing their decision to drink they may go overboard. We also have to take into consideration that the underage do not have a ready supply of alcohol, those with fake I.D.s could supply themselves and their friends and simply the purchase of alcohol could become addictive for the teen. With that in mind the underage will probably consume more alcohol at parties than those that are of age, since they can only drink at the parties.
So in short, the law is not the problem, the people are the problem, so instead of changing the people which would take a huge change in culture to do, they are proposing to change the law to create the same result. So in this issue it depends on perspective, the ends justify the means on this one.
I think is a smart idea to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. I think that at age 18, we are considered adults. We are allowed to vote, own a gun and fight and die for our country. I also think the whole concept here of drinking is wrong. I think the law punishing drunk drivers needs to be changed.
In Germany, the legal age to buy beer is 16. The legal age to buy hard alcohol is 18. When children are exposed to alcohol at a young age they are not going to want to rebel as much. Of course since America is a very large country it’s hard to get home when intoxicated. That is why people need to be smart and do this ahead of time. An example of how it is in Germany. When kids get drunk they don’t drive home but they sleep in the grass or at a friends. If you are caught drinking and driving in Germany your license is taken away forever. You are never allowed to drive a car again. This is very strict but it keeps drunks off the road. Plus the whole college party drinking thing is just ridiculous. It’s a big joke.
If kids are exposed to alcohol at young ages they can slowly get used to it. Whether over doing it your first time. I think 21 is just too old. Plus I agree with the people above when they say kids are going to break the law anyway. I also think the strictness of alcohol here is a bad thing. Alcohol is looked upon as an adult thing. Kids drink to often experience the feeling of being intoxicated or to rebel against our laws or for whatever reason. If anything needs to be stricter, it needs to be about catching drunk drivers and the punishment they receive. That is what MADD needs to focus on. It is the most unnecessary way to accidentally kill someone.
“The current law isn’t working” – This statement is almost amusing to me. It isn’t that the law isn’t working; it is that we are not enforcing it well enough. Lowering the drinking age to 18 would be a horrible mistake. It isn’t going to fix the problem. If the drinking age was lowered, more and more college students would drink. The signers of the statement say it is unfair the drinking age is 21 especially when a person can vote and enlist in the military at 18. Well guess what if a person is responsible enough to serve his country and vote for the next president of the United States, he or she should have enough brains to realize the legal drinking age of 21 is in place fro a reason. Voting won’t get you killed, but drinking can. MADD makes a very valid point, lowering the drinking age would just lead to more fatal car crashes and deaths among young people. What needs to happen is the drinking age needs to be enforced better everywhere, on college campuses and in bars where kids have fake driver’s licenses. There also needs to be a harsher punishment for those caught so they will realize that their actions are reckless and can hurt themselves and those around them.
This topic is a double-edged sword. One the one side if the legal drinking age is dropped to 18 like talked about in the article you have the parents who don’t like this idea and are trying at all costs to shut it down. Then on the other side of things you keep things the same and there is still the controversy over how often administration and such that look the other direction when there are parties thrown.
Students at colleges are going to drink regardless of what the law says. And all these people seem a little hipocritical because I’m sure they all went to college and all went to the parties and drank legal or not. Its just a part of college life. And actually some greek systems (if you are a part of it) will make you sign a waiver saying that if you are underage you are not allowed to leave the property of the house. So they really try to keep it contained and getting to the level of Animal House and Van Wilder parties.
Another point that was made in the article is that at 18 you can do anything legal except drink. At the age of 18 you can smoke and its been proven multiple times that smoking kills more people a year than alcohol. If they are worried about safety and health of the students why not move up the smoking age? If the age was lowered by the time they reach the age of 21 they wont think its as “cool” and it wont be a big deal to them.
I would like to point out first, that the majority of the countries of the world, have drinking ages lower than ours (usually around 16-18.) If the rest of the world can drink at 18, don’t you think that we could make that move as well? It would take a little bit of change and we would have to re-teach our population on how to deal with alcohol. I’m aware that if we did change, the first couple years would be somewhat disastrous because there would be many 18-20 year olds going crazy over being able to legally drink. My theory is that of the college professors though; that by lowering the drinking age, kids will get away from binge drinking in college. Most of us will turn 18 while we’re still living at home, which forces us to drinking a little more responsibly because we still have to face our parents at home, and I’m sure that most of our parents wouldn’t appreciate us drinking until we got alcohol poisoning or coming home at 4 am every night wasted. Also, as Vanessa pointed out, at college, kids are mingling with older students who can drink. Older students throw parties; invite a few freshmen who drink more to impress older students.
I think that the best way to go about changing our laws is to follow the lead of some other countries, and have a “double drinking laws,” I suppose you could call it. Allow the consumption/sale of beer and wine at 18, but make hard liqueur illegal until 21 years of age. (Which is the way Egypt has it’s laws. http://www.icap.org/PolicyIssues/YoungPeoplesDrinking/AgeLawsTable/tabid/219/Default.aspx)
There is no need to change the age to 18; teens don’t drink because they like the thrill of breaking the law. They do it because they are stupid. The only way our problem can be fixed is if the “good” people step in to help out. That means telling your friend when they have had enough, perhaps driving them around as they are drunk so they can’t kill anybody via their car. I don’t understand what is the thrill of getting drunk, it can easily ruin your life be it death or humiliation.
On the other hand, if our country’s population were not so foolish in their drinking habits, then the 18 drinking age would be fine, you could smoke, drink, and gamble all at once, rather than having to divide them out in your life.
Aside from this, the reason these college presidents want the age to be lowered is because they don’t want themselves to look bad when their students break the law. If alcohol consumption was legal at 18 the presidents could just sit back and relax because they don’t have to worry about underagees.
Lowering the drinking age would not change much, other than allowing more people to legally drink. It would help with the underage drinking problem because less people would be underage, but that only treats a symptom, not the cause. People drink all the time, not matter what the drinking age is. I personally don’t strongly agree or disagree on this issue either way. Some United States institutions actually allow drinking at 18, like some factions of the Armed Forces. Colleges, particularly party schools like Washington State, have underage drinking because of the easy access to alcohol that putting underage and overage people together. Raising the age limit makes sense because it would effectively cut back on college drinking by making most of the student underage and unable to acquire alcohol. However, lowering the drinking age could have a reverse psychology effect. Most underage drinkers like drinking because it’s illegal and the thrill of breaking the law draws them. Lower the age might lower that thrill. Also, the United States is one of the strictest countries in regards to the drinking age. In Germany, and most of Europe, the age is 16 for beer and 18 for harder liquors. Because of the lowered drinking age, most don’t seriously abuse it because there is not that factor of breaking the law. But the age limit and where it is set does not treat the cause of underage drinking and binge drinking, but merely a symptom. But the fact the colleges are asking for a discussion about the issue shows promise.
I think that the topic of lowering the drinking age has its pros and cons.
On the good side, the twenty-one year old age limit is supposed to stop accidents and problems from occurring, but without the support from the colleges and the people themselves, that is unable to happen.
On the bad side of things, if the age limit were lowered, that would mean that more deaths and accidents would happen and it would give people the thought that since they can drink, why not.
The more someone can’t have something, the more they want it. But once they have it, it doesn’t really matter. Everyone wants what they can’t have. Like cell phones, a new one comes out all the time, and because they are new and they look cool, everyone wants one. But once they get what they couldn’t have before, they try it out, deal with it for awhile and then don’t care for it anymore. That’s just how people work.
I personally think that it would be wrong to lower the drinking age because once you lower it once, people are going to want to keep lowering it. Nothing is ever enough nowadays. Kids should not be drinking anyway, it kills brain cells and it tends to ruin lives. What’s so fun about getting drunk all the time, passing out, getting hangovers and not being able to remember what you did the night before? What’s the thrill in getting into accidents, almost dying and ACTUALLY dying?
None of those things seem appealing so i don’t understand why people want to do it so badly.
I think there are definitely two sides to the story. I think that 18 is a year to young because when you think about it a lot of people are still in high school when they turn 18, and I know some of my friends that get alcohol make really stupid choices like driving after drinking. I think maybe 19 would be a better compromise because by then students have generally been at college for at least a while, and nothing matures you more than being away from home for an extended period of time. I definitely agree with MADD because many people are stupid enough to make the choice to drive drunk, I mean its not hard to find them, just be driving on a major rode around midnight and I guarantee you will spot someone who is clearly intoxicated while driving. 3 years does add a lot of maturity, and drunk driving is a serious problem. In any case I think 18 is just too young. Like U of Miami president Dona Shalala said “I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we’ve made some progress.” If you look at statistics, fewer lives are lost annually since the age has gone up are less than when the age was 18.
In response to Claudia:
I agree that it does seem unfair that other countries do have an 18 year old drinking age, but those are different cultures. Those countries also have gas that is so expensive that even when the kids are drunk, they are still smart enough to know that they can’t afford to drive a car, so they don’t. Our youth isn’t responsible enough, and as i stated in my response, Our bodies aren’t ready to accept alcohol, and I think that the chance of addiction would be higher, I would know. You are right that the law does need to be more strongly enforced, but we just aren’t responsible enough to handle a lower drinking age.
In response to Rachel:
I completely disagree with you. Raising the drinking age will only aggravate those who have used and not abused the drinking rights received at age 21 which is a stupid idea. And your take on Greek Row is very one sided. At a large percentage of colleges Greek houses are required to be dry. This doesn’t mean that students in the Greek program aren’t drinking anymore; it just means that the parties have moved out of the Greek houses, so I think that your pinning all of the blame on Greek Row is way off. Trying to only lower the drinking age to 18 in college towns would be a total failure. That would do nothing to aid the issue. If it did anything at all it would merely increase the population of 18 to 20 year olds in these college towns, even if they aren’t attending the school. People drink, it’s not going to change. Alcohol based corporations employ such a vast amount of the population that if it were to be banned it may lead to a huge economic problem.
In my opinion the drinking age should be lowered. I don’t think that it should be lowered to 18, however. I agree with Sam that 19 would be the better age. At the age of 18 many are still in high school which will only cause our high schools to become saturated with underage drinkers, along with those doing it legally. This is a problem that our high schools do not need. At 19 most people are adjusted to their lifestyle away from home at college and can better handle the drinking and party scene.
Most, if not all, European countries have drinking ages ranging from 16 to 18. In a lot of countries you are allowed to buy beer and wine at 16 but cannot buy hard alcohol until 18. One would think this plan would be good to kind of ease one into the effects of alcohol, but it’s sort of like communism, sounds great in theory but it doesn’t work when put into effect. It would work better if it were enforced at all. I spent the last month in France and know this first hand; I had the ability to buy anything I wanted. While I didn’t take advantage of this as much as some others in the group it was definitely tempting, mainly because at home we can’t do it.
The drinking age should be lowered but during the period after the change is made the police forces will need to step up their game to ensure that people are not abusing their new privilege because there will be so many people getting the privilege at once that the shenanigans occurring on 21st birthdays will be occurring in mass quantities on the day that the change goes into effect.
The drinking age, I believe, should be lowered – but there are both pros and cons to this argument. If a person is deemed mature enough to enlist in the military and vote in a major election, shouldn’t this person also be mature enough to drink at 18? It’s like telling a person, “Yeah, you’re and adult now! You can vote, live on your own, join the service… but wait, you can’t drink!!!” It just isn’t fair. Not only this, but in many places in Europe, the drinking age is 16. These people are exposed to alcohol at a young age. Of course, one would expect this to have a bad effect, but this isn’t the case; because drinking alcohol isn’t considered “taboo” or bad, there are many more responsible drinkers. Perhaps the reason there are so many cases of alcohol abuse in the U.S. is because underage drinking is considered bad, making the thrill of breaking the law and rebelling against parents much more appealing.
There are cons to this argument, nonetheless. If the drinking age WERE to be lowered, underage drinking would still occur, but maybe in a younger crowd. It would be a lot easier for younger teens to purchase alcohol. But there are some matters the need to be taken into consideration: Underage drinking is never going to stop, no matter what the drinking age – it is always going to be a problem. Maybe if the drinking age were lowered, it would solve SOME of these problems. Nonetheless, I do think it should be lowered, which would only be fair to those who can vote and who are in the military. I guess another option would be to raise the voting and enlistment age… but I honestly think that would cause more problems than it would solve.
In response to Rachel Damiano:
Increase the drinking age? I think that this would cause even more problems. Not even including alcohol abuse, but pure anger and resentment. It would cause a nationwide upset! Imagine, for a minute… college students and young adults protesting, signing petitions, maybe even being involved in riots. No, if people are said to be mature enough to vote, these people should be allowed to drink. I highly doubt that the drinking age WILL be lowered, which in this case, the laws should be enforced with increased vigor. Let’s face it – underage drinking is always going to be a problem, there are always going to be idiots who get drunk, and people will always abuse laws one way or another. Increasing the drinking age won’t solve this.
Wow… this issue has brought many opinions to the table, which I can understand since we are all almost 18 or already are. I am very neutral on whether the drinking age should be lowered or kept at 21, so I will share my thoughts of what will happen if it is lowered.
My dad was born in England and came to the United States when he was in his later twenties. He shared with me that since the drinking age was 18 over there that when he went to college pubs were on campus. In the U.S. that obviously is not the case since a lot of the students are not yet 21. So why is the drinking age higher here in the U.S.? Well, as most of you already know drinking alcohol deforms your brain. This is just a thought, but how much more would it affect how we were learning if drinking was allowed at 18. I think other countries can just handle alcohol better, since they are smarter and start drinking at an earlier age.
Overall, people will do what they want unless the government enforces harsher punishments. If they don’t, I believe the age will end up being lowered.
I really can’t decide on this issue. No matter what the drinking age is set at kids are going to push the limits. Both sides make valid points. It is true that kids drink alcohol in excess to feel like they are rebelling, acting cool and older than they really are. If the drinking age is lowered, then I can see how there would be less problems occurring at the college level, however, I feel that it would create an even bigger problem at the high school age. Many high school students turn 18 early in their Senior year, and this would be a recipe for disaster. Maybe a better solution to this problem would be to meet in the middle. Nineteen or twenty years of age might be a better legal age because it would keep the high school kids from doing it as freely, yet allow the college kids who are mostly drinking anyway to do it more responsibly. Kids are going to drink in college whether it’s legal or not. They are away from their parents, often living in apartments and around older students that can drink legally. There is no way to enforce the law because of the isolated living conditions.
Dang it Sam. I knew I should have posted two days ago… Now I’m going to sound like a total copycat.
Well I’m glad that I’m not the only person who sees that there IS a middle-ground solution to issues. This issue is something that I’ve been arguing about also for a very long time. I agree that the drinking age should be lowered, but to a certain extent. I think that lowering the age to 18 is overkill, but 21 is also just asking young Americans to find risky paths to a forbidden fruit. Why can’t there be some middle-ground? I strongly believe that 19 should be the new drinking age.
18 years old? Really? So you don’t want to tempt the underclassmen to break drinking age laws, so you lower it… From senior in college to senior in high school? What does that accomplish? Come on presidents. This is irony at its finest. By lowering the drinking age to 18 you allow the alcoholic temptation influence even YOUNGER minors! The underclassmen would see these seniors drinking and partying and would sequentially fall to their temptations and jealousies.
Solution: While 18 is the age where a teenager does become an adult, the risk of tainting other high school youth with alcohol is too daunting. In addition to this risk, the 18 year old is still too young and inexperienced as an adult to make these types of decisions, such as the choice to drink. Giving the new young adults a year to test out their newly acquired responsibilities and privileges would be the exact practice they could use before they begin drinking. 19 should be the new age because it won’t be a repeat all over again of the college issues in the high school.
18 years old brings many freedoms. You can vote, live on your own, etc. You can even join in the armed forces. But the difference about these freedoms is that if you screw up, you won’t end up killing a mother and her baby parked at a stoplight.
Alcohol has been a big problem for many years, they even tried to ban it with the passing of the 18th amendment on prohibition. After passing this, it became quite apparent that people were going to drink even if it was against the law. This is the same with underage college students; they are going to drink whether they are legally aloud to or not. This article presents a situation where college presidents from numerous colleges across the world, whom are fighting to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. I honestly, do not believe this is a good idea. I agree that when we turn 18 we are becoming adults and should make our ownn choices in life, but with so many new freedoms, I don’t think these new adults are ready to be responsible with the choice of alcohol.
However, I do agree that teenagers tend to drink a lot more or do bad things when they are told not to do it. It is the instinct to be “bad” and have a little fun. This is one part of me that agrees with the proposition. It is true that many other countries have substantial lower drinking ages then us, and it tends to not be such a big deal for them as it is for us. It is also true though that many places in Europe drive less than we do by a tremendous amount and so are twice as unlikely to have drinking and driving accidents.
This article presents two sides for me because i recently traveled to Europe where the drinking ages ranged from 16-18 and I didn’t see any problems with that. The point is, is that teenagers and “young adults” are going to drink anyways whether they are leagally aloud to or not.
In response to Claudia Burton:
In your comment you discuss a lot about Germany and their legal age to drink. I agree with you on a lot of points, because I myself have recently traveled through Europe and I also think that when kids are exposed younger to alcohol then they are less likely to go get hammered when they are 21 or partake in underage drinking to rebel. However, you point out that in Germany teens who go get drunk just walk home or sleep in parks. Do you really think with our crowded cities and sick people out there that that is such a safe idea. Our culture is very different than those who live on the other side of the world. You can’t just party in a club then sleep on the streets of New York. With that said, I agree that the drinking and driving punishment should be more harsh because a stupid mistake could really end up taking a life.
My brothers and sisters, what ever happened to the 18th amendment?
Forget lowering the drinking age. Lets talk about raising it. And by raising the drinking age I mean not let people drink at all.
People talk about prohibition as if it were a dismal failure. In my eyes, it was a utopia. There was law in the streets. Less dead beat dads, no out of control parties, and a society which survived in sober bliss.
And for those down days, there were hip flasks and speakeasies to give you the buzz you so eagerly sought.
Teenagers don’t need alcohol, and the rest of society doesn’t need alcohol. What has it gained us? Hootin’, hollerin’ and general lawlessness.
People say that they like alcoholic beverages because it loosens them up and lets them have a good time. But people drown themselves in liquor because they can’t face the real world.
Family members and friends are lost to the swirling torrents of alcoholism, and people find themselves unable to control themselves when in the throes of inebriation.
To lower the drinking age would show toleration for alcohol in this country. Keeping the drinking age at 21 would be better than lowering it, but reinstating prohibition would be the ideal course of action.
In response to Haley: you argue that because people can enlist in the military and vote doesn’t mean they should be able to drink. You make the comment that because someone is mature, they should realize that the drinking age is 21 for a reason. On the contrary, because they are mature they should be able to learn how to drink responsibly. Now, I know that doesn’t sound realistic, but I truly believe that if people are exposed to alcohol at a young age it won’t be such a big deal, a taboo. If you enlist in the military, you should be able to go to the pub and have a couple beers with your friends as a stress reliever. I really think it could work as long as (as Claudia said) we put stricter rules on driving drunk.
Hey Hilaree- Actually, the prohibition you would see as a “Utopia” was actually an utter failure. It sparked a new thirst that only CRIME had the guts to fulfill. This gave them new funding and power, and crime actually rose an extreme margin. It became organized into what we call the MOB. They corrupted the best of public officials. The court and prison systems were stretched beyond breaking points. The government had to increase spending just to keep up with the severe decline in tax revenue. Many drinkers switched to opium, marijuana, cocaine, and over the counter drug abuse. These are the dangerous alternate routes to finding your “fix” that the article speaks of.
And that is one horrible utopia. Reinstating the prohibition would be one of the worst choices we could make.
I believe that the drinking age should be lowered. Practically the rest of the world has lower drinking ages. Usually it’s 18, but in some cases it’s 16. I really do believe that it would lower the abuse rate of alcohol in our country. Young people always like to push the envelope and see how far they can get without getting in trouble. If the legal age was lowered, then alcohol would lose its appeal to many people. It would also greatly lessen the amount of teens going just past the border into Mexico just so that they can drink. That is a much more dangerous situation, because they are in a different country, and possible completely wasted. That combination could lead to disaster. I think that the people at MADD are taking things a little too far by saying that parents shouldn’t let their kids go to the schools that are part of the Amethyst Initiative group. You’d be hard pressed to find a college that doesn’t have any drinking at all. College and drinking basically go hand and hand. I can see though the other side of the argument, and a lot of it does make sense. We would see a huge influx of wasted people roaming around on the streets. There would also most likely be as greater number of drunk drivers. We would need to re-teach to dangers of alcohol abuse, and the dangers of driving under the influence. Also, I think that we would need to make the punishment more severe for a DUI. All in all though, I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. And this isn’t just for me or anything, because if this ever does happen, it won’t be for many, many years to come.
“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.” This one sentence stood out among the rest. 157 being an enormous number caused my mind to cultivate an opinion that was quite against the thinkers of lowering the drinking age. This is because if 157 college students between the ages of 18 to 23 are drinking illegally resulting in death, shouldn’t we be doing something to subordinate this rate? A decrease in the allowance of drinking only encourages. It suffocates the minds of the young causing them to feel as though they have won, they beat the system. The drinking age has been 21 ever since I can remember. Instead of changing this regulation because it has been violated why not just enforce it? Enforce it. Enforce it! Violators of this law generally start around the age of 16. They still have 5 years until they are legally allowed to drink. If the drinking age was lowered to 18, don’t you think that this would cause the breaking of rules to start at a younger age? No matter what this law will forever struggle to be regulated.
In response to Ashley Rowe:
First of all, I want to say that my intention was not to advocate alcohol in any way. I have seen firsthand the life shattering effects that alcohol can have on innocent victims. To be honest, I would be perfectly happy if no one ever made the decision to drink. However, we are not arguing whether or not someone is making the right choice when they pick up a beer. We are arguing at what age people should be considered old enough to make that decision. In my opinion, by the time someone is old enough to make the life choices that 18-year-olds are expected to make on a daily basis, they are also old enough to decide whether or not to use alcohol.
In response to your comments on drunk driving, people who drive drunk are already breaking the law. If a 19-year-old is going to make the decision to illegally drive while intoxicated, I doubt that age restrictions would have stopped them from getting drunk in the first place. Alcohol has the potential to be dangerous, but by the time someone is an adult, they should be ready to deal with those risks and to make their own judgments. Lowering the drinking age would make drinking less tempting and allow for young adults to drink without having to put themselves in a dangerous environment.
The colleges that have signed on seem to have a pretty good argument: a dispassionate debate over drinking age. They want people to think and decide. They want people to be informed. They seem smart. Their opponents to not come off as well thought out: MADD, a good cause, to be sure, already has a mud-slinging comment. The president, Ms. Dean-Mooney, stated that people should fear the universities which support the Amethyst Initiative, because “It’s very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced on those campuses.” Yes, that is so true. Those college campuses will support law breaking students; the colleges have no respect for such laws and will therefore dismiss them. That makes a great deal of sense. And why would lowering the drinking age cause more drunk driving? If college students, or anyone over 18, are not drinking surreptitiously, then they might pick a designated driver. If it’s legal, they might feel bound by responsibility. They won’t be breaking a law, so they might have better judgment in the first place. The article makes another good point when they say it is unfair that 18-year-olds are mature enough to vote and serve in the military, but they are not mature enough to drink alcohol. That’s true. 18-year-olds cannot consume a beer legally, but they may effect change in our country when they vote and they may die for our country in the military. That’s not right. Not that I think the drinking age should be lower, I don’t care one way or the other. I just think that when MADD wants to butt heads with the Amethyst Initiative, they should have stronger arguments.
In response to Claire Loomer:
I agree with you that MADD is taking things too far by saying parents shouldn’t let their kids go to colleges that are part of the Amethyst Initiative. Even if a certain college agrees with the initiative, their will still be alcohol problems. It’s nearly impossible to find a college where alcohol and drinking issues are nonexistent.
However, I still don’t think lowering the drinking age to 18 is the smartest choice. If this initiative were to pass, alcohol would be more accessible to younger ages. “Underage drinking” wouldn’t cease to exist; it would just be lowered to the ages of 15, 16, and 17.
This article is complicated. Yes, at the age of 18 anyone would think they are fully grown. You can vote, drive, smoke, and kill people in the defense of our great nation, but you still cannot grab a cold one after a long days work. Hmmm… what to do about this issue? I think that changing the legal drinking age will do very little to lessen the number of people abusing alcohol. I will be 18 this December, and still in high school, a place where alcohol is not allowed, but neither are tobacco products, but at 18 those are legal off school campuses. I think that allowing high school students to party legally will only succeed in getting more of them drunk and in trouble, not dissuade binge drinking on college campuses. Its college, legal or not they are going to drink themselves silly no matter what, keeping the legal age up at 21 will discourage those with a conscious, hopefully.
Now I need forty more words. Yikes, okay, well I think the drinking age limit should remain at 21 because hopefully the sophomores and juniors in college who have worked so hard all their lives to attain an education will turn 21, and realize that they don’t really want that hammered feeling that you get after consuming too many buds. Letting high school seniors drink at 18 will only fuel the fire that is already blazing every Friday night.
In response to Claire Loomer:
You can’t be serious when you say “If the legal age was lowered, then alcohol would lose its appeal to many people”. I bet 99% of the people drink, not cause its illegal, but because its fun, its exciting and its grown up and most importantly, its cool!!! Lowering the drinking age to 18 would only encourage drunkenness amongst kids, not 18 year old men and women, but 13 year old children who are still at middle school.
And another thing, since when was any country, I mean any country at all, better in any way shape or form than our country? Germany lets you drink at 14, they must be better. Please, we rule the world economically, and militarily. And that’s not cause our great leaders sat around after a high school class when they were eighteen saying to each other “beer me”.
In response to Savannah Hunka about her response to me: Yes, America is very different and when a 16 year old is completely drunk and decides to take a stroll downtown New York at night, it is not exactly a bright idea. But, even in Germany at parties when kids drink, there is almost ALWAYS a buddy or a friend who will drive who is completely sober. The thing is to be a responsible drinker one always needs to have a plan. The people there always have someone who doesn’t drink. Of course it is not always the same person, they switch each time. I know both worlds and both are extremely different but it is not neccessary to drive home drunk. In any case, they call their parents. I’m pretty sure the parents would rather see their kids drunk than in a coma. I’m pretty sure kids here would rather see a toilet bowl than a wooden coffin. You have to be smart and think of your own life.
In response to Bryce Follet: I think our American youth is ready to accept such a responsibility. I also think the conservative parents do not want to see their children this way. The whole mindset of drinking has to be changed before a law like this can change. In respnse to the MADD ladies, kids are going to drink no matter what. Change the law for catching drunk drivers. Take their liscense away. That would have a huge impact.
No matter what the drinking age is there will always be some group of students/kids who will drink illegally. If underage students/kids have an adult that will supply them with alcoholic beverages; it seems the younger that students start drink they drink more heavier than those who are of age and can drink legally. I’m speaking from experience, I work will people who are not of legal drinking age yet they drink more heavier than those who can legally. By lowering the age to 18 I believe that those students will not drink as heavily but I also believe that there should be some sort of limitation, like must have some one age 21 or older with them and must have a designated driver. Many College students who do drink binge drink and can/will drink themselves to death. “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.” I’m sure that most of these students who do drink themselves to death are under the legal drinking age and try to make it look like they can handle more than they actually can and ultimately cause themselves some sort of damage to their bodies. Students who can drink legally do not drink as much but the ones who can’t drink far more. I recently went to a work I was told there would be drinking but not everyone would be and that those who would be drinking were of age and a small group. Upon my arrival everyone was drinking except for me. Most of the people were 18-19. I made sure those who were drinking were not driving and I continued to say repeatedly no to every request that I take a drink. I soon left and walked out completely sober not having taken a drink, my co-workers were actually some what proud but more envious of me for my ability to just say no. After then experience I believe that those who aren’t legal and want to drink will drink more heavily than those who can legally and want to.
Well, I have to say I agree with Sam and Cody (go figure on that one).Don’t get me wrong, I have strongly mixed emotions about drinking in general. I’ve never seen it benefit anyone person or society as a whole. If anything, it’s had a negative impact. It would not be possible to eliminate drinking in our society, as they tried to during the Prohibition. Therefore we are forced to deal with it instead. Why does it have to be 21 or 18? There should be middle ground. 18 is way too young. You could drink during your high school career. I hope we can all agree on the obvious reasons why that shouldn’t work. But then again, 21? Why so old? That means often-times you would already be a junior in college. I think the age of 21 just aggrivates people more than anything. I think that if the age were to be moved, it should be moved to the age of 19. You get a year to cool down from the excitement of being 18. You wouldn’t legally be able to drink during High School (unless, that is you are a super-senior). At the same time you could still feel like a “grown-up” with all your fellow collegiates. This seems like it would just make it easier on everyone. 21 just seems a little too old. And 18 just seems a little too young.
Underage drinking, no matter what anyone does, will always occur. People break laws, and drinking underage is a favorite one. Aside from the social “status” that gives kids the motivation to drink, a lot of their desire comes from rebellion. They want to rebel and to break the law makes them feel powerful.
When I was in Germany last year, in which the drinking age is 16, kids don’t have that same rebellion. Sure the teenagers drink, and even abuse, alcohol. But there isn’t the added rage or intensity that it brings about. I’m not trying to say that kids don’t drink casually, but for the most part teenagers drink at a party to get drunk. That’s the fact. Also, a higher drinking age merely adds to the number of drunk drivers on the road. If one of your friends parents lets you drink, you drive over there, drink, and come back that night half drunk. Not good. If the drinking age were lowered, you could just drink at your own house! No more sneaking out and binge drinking and driving (in college anyway).It is going to be interesting to see if this proposal actually gets through. We will see.
In response to Hillary’s “utopian” comment…. Did you know that during those “Utopian times” the drinking and crime were at their highest? Moonshine was everywhere. Yet is was “hidden.” People made moonshine for themselves (as well as for hidden taverns that were also everywhere) which actually caused many deaths because of it’s potency. It was a heck of a lot more than hip flasks on “down days.” This was one of the darkest times in our nations history. I think Mr. Schultz would be very disappointed in you becuase you obviously didn’t listen to this part of his class…. Yes, having another Prohibition is ideal. Then again, so is communism. If only we could all just figure it out.
There are two sides to this story, and both can be argued with many good points.
On one hand, lowering the drinking age from eighteen to twenty one will most likely drastically reduce the amount of college drinking because (theoretically) all of the students’ curiosity with drinking will be used up by the time they get to college. This will allow for better results in college because half of the class will not be hung over. This may be a dramatization, but i think that it could (theoretically) make a difference.
On the other hand, they would be doing all this drinking in highschool. I predict that there would be less students that are eligible to make it to college, should this happen. But, on the other side of that, the people who are not really that serious about life will be rooted out… however harsh that may sound…
Overall, i think that this proposed drinking law could go either way… which is why it is in such a debate, i suppose. I think the real question here is: should drinking be done in highschool or college? I have no answer to this question because the pros and cons are almost the same. Although, i really dont expect this idea to go much farther…
In response to Cody Thompson,
We must have had the same brain waves in writing this article. You posted your blog ten minutes after I did. I totally agree that eighteen is too young, but nineteen or twenty is that perfect age. There is a storm of things that happen when you turn eighteen with becoming an adult, being able to vote, and being able to join the military. But I don’t feel that kids at this age are responsible enough to handle the critical decisions associated with drinking. One other important point is that I feel that if states do decide to change their drinking age, it would be important to have some consistency across the country. If adjacent states have different drinking ages then kids most likely will be compelled to drive across state borders to drink, thus causing an increase in drunk drivers.
I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I agree with a large deal of people that if we can’t change the counrty by voting or die because we can join the military why can’t we consume alcohol. Maybe just make it legal for us to drink wine and beer at age 18 and hard liquor keep at age 21 or maybe even 20. I recently went to France where you can have beer and wine at age 16 and hard liquor at 18. I had never gotten drunk before and we went there and I got drunk. Not crazy or anything but we went out and had a good safe time. In France and many other countries the culture is just way different. They just kind of don’t care if you’re not 18 they let you drink hard liquor anyway. If we did lower the drinking age I definitely think that we’d have to be stricter than other countries about enforcing the actual law. I see the other side of the controversy adn they make good points. But younger kids ages anywhere form 13-16 can and some do get alcohol and they drink it I don’t think us lowering the legal age would change that. If they can get it when our drinking age is 21 then they can get it regardeless of how old you have to be to legally consume it. Another thing is that if we lowered our drinking age it would be less appealing to people to go to other countries just because they have lower drinking ages. I mean if I were a parent I would prefer my son or daughter to drink at home so I could know who they’re with or where they’re at, or atleast have the ability to call me if they needed to than have them go to Canada or Mexico where they may not know the language and could easily get hurt because they don’t know their surroundings. All in all I think it’d be a good idea to lower the drinking age.
In response to Codie,
hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Duh, obviously prohibition didn’t work out the first time. I was feeling radical while lacking an opinion…so I constructed that hideously ridiculous blog… mainly to give myself a good laugh. Pathetic? Completely.
Truthfully, my opinion on the issue falls into the majority of our class: the entirely cliché teenage attitude of “lets lower the drinking age.” Psychologically, the reformed drinking age would release temptation and ultimately decrease abuse. Logically, 18 marks the age of adulthood, adulthood marks fundamental responsibility, and responsibility marks realization and acceptance of consequence. Thus, adults should be allowed the right to consume alcohol.
Forgive me, but I really can’t refrain from laughing… I really didn’t think anyone would take me seriously. I did however enjoy your passionate discussion about the mob and corruption of power. Thank you for that codie.
While I’m personally not intending to drink alcohol, I support a lowered drinking age. By and by large, it’s incredibly easy for college students to get ahold of alcohol. They can have others legally buy it for them via proxy, or they can bring out fake I.D.’s as well. The article has a good point when most of the college upperclassmen are going to be drinking at parties and the like, so it would be very easy for such a freshman to illegally get their fill there. And the kicker is, people who have alcohol illegally are more likely to binge drink, just to get rid of it all in one go. Trying to prevent evidence, as it were. I don’t feel that lowering the drinking age will allow for more drunk drivers, I think it might reduce them potentially. With less teenagers sneaking off in their cars to get drunk and driving themselves home to avoid being caught drunk by calling in responsible adults, instances could drop. For people who drink illegally and drunk drive, it doesn’t much matter how many years they’re under the limit, they’re doing it for the thrill. In the same vein, some people are just going to binge anyway and not be responsible. But I think we could see some decrease in binging deaths if this were implemented.
I really love this article especially the beginning and the end. I read the first paragraph and had to laugh and I actually yelled, “ARE YOU CRAZY” at my computer. Then at the end with, “To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all.” I was like yes this lady knows her stuff. I have an older brother who goes to Washington State University, yes a party school, and I hear a lot of stories from him about his buddies drinking because he is always the designated drive. Yes he is 21 and no he does not drink. He knows people that where 18, freshmen, and had to drop out of college because they spent more money on alcohol then they did on books and classes. Yes I agree with the president of the colleges that are in this article that the 18 year olds who drink probably do it more dangerously, but I don’t agree with lowering the drinking age. I have just one major issue with the lowering of the drinking age. High School. Yes I know that the majority of other countries have their drinking age at 18 and some even as low as 16 like Belgium, Austria, and Germany. These countries have always been this way. The United States hasn’t. Can you imagine high schoolers drinking. Ya I am sure that some already do, but if it is legal for them to drink then they are going to try to get alcohol into dances and event because they can drink it. I just really don’t like the idea of high schoolers drinking. I really don’t think that it will help any problems.
I am also having a hard time making a decision on this article. Drinking is not really an issue in our family, and never has been for any of the Roman Catholics in our family. We live off of VERY old traditions where grabbing an alcoholic drink is not so much of a problem as long as their is supervision or a great deal of personal responsibility. Drinking for us has been permitted since our first communion (4th grade). And usually because these standards are set so early, and because children don’t really understand the concepts of alcohol, none of us have ever gone out of our way to get any type of alcohol and we don’t desire to drink it as often. I can see where the college presidents are coming from on this side of the argument because young people have become so obsessed with finding ways to obtain alcohol. They abuse it and go to extreme, dangerous measures to obtain it.
On the other hand, I am more lenient towards the law being age 21 for drinking. I agree with Matt Littrel that the idea of high schoolers drinking is not such a good idea. If the new age became 18, then even younger high schoolers would have connections through their senior friends to obtain beer, some as young as 13. I believe it is all about personal responsibility and limitations. For me, drinking is not something I do frequently. I drink a glass of wine on major holidays with my family, and that is only for cultural reasons (It’s a HUGE insult not to eat or drink your family/hosts food and meals). If People can handle these responsibilities and drink responsibly, then I am not going to criticize them at all, but unfortunately most of our youth is not responsible in these aspect and usually takes advantage of binging in every chance they can get…usually leading to disaster.
This is in response to Kathrine.
I agree that lowering the legal drinking age to 18 has two sides. It will make drinking a bigger problem in high schools, but it will also help college aged kids like it is supposed to. In my opinion this issue is easy to fix. We should just do what Canada did. Make the drinkning age 19. That way kids in High school can’t buy beer, although they will know more kids that can buy alcohol because they will have been the kids that had graduated the previous year, but it would solve alot of the problems at colleges and keep alot of it out of the high schools, whereas if it was 18 it would cause lots of problems for high schools.
I believe the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18. If citizens are able to serve their country at 18 then the drinking age should match that to give them all the rights that they are fighting for. Lowering the age will not cause more problems; I think it might relieve some. Like stated in the article, people are going to drink anyway before they are 21. Lowering the drinking age to 18 will stop kids who are drinking now between the ages of 18-21 from running from the cops for example which decreases the risk of them getting hurt. Another example is the forbidden fruit concept. If you say you can’t have it they want it, if you say you can have it is not that big of a deal. Say it was lowered, we probably won’t have any more drunk drivers than we do today because those scared by the law and don’t drink before they are 21 are also going to abide the rules and not break the law by getting into a car drunk if they drank at 18. Do countries like Canada and Mexico have a huge problem with it? Also, having a lower drinking age may help colleges from various lawsuits regarding underage drinking. People who don’t break the law now will not be the problem, and the people who do already drink, so why not lower the drinking age and make things easier for everyone.
In response to Jordan Yaeger:
I agree with you, at age 18 we are consisted adults, we can smoke, we can gamble, we can get kicked out of our parents house and forced to live on our own. However, the law says that we are not mature enough to hand some alcohol or in some cases lot of alcohol. As you stated there are some places in college that are trying, like the Greek systems but nor all frat house are like that. You still have those who become like animal house. Universities just need to have security at the door checking all IDs for those entering to make sure that only those legal can get in. I’m sure if the guards do their jobs we can please almost everyone that is but those underage students trying to sneak in.
I completely disagree with Meagan Barnes and her response to this article. Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 only encourages those who “seceretly drink”. There is no logic in lowering the age, in getting rid of a rule just because it has been difficult to enforce. “Drinking will always have the potential to be dangerous, but at some point, we just have to trust that people will either act responsibly or learn the hard way.” Whoa. How can we trust people to act responsibly? Are you kidding me? According to drunk driving statistics from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an estimated 17,419 people died in the year 2002 in alcohol-related traffic crashes, an average of one every 30 minutes. Oh and on top of that….The highest intoxication rates in fatal crashes in 2001 were recorded for drivers 21-24 years old. THAT IS 33%! If anything, anything at all, the drinking age should be raised. Look at the numbers, quite high wouldnt you think? Learning the hard way only helps within a person. We all know that drunk driving is wrong and dangerous. We do it anyways. Our society is corrupt. So that one person could learn a lesson, 17,419 had to die. Dont you think thats a little unfair?
There is no question on whether the drinking age should be changed or not. It should remain twenty-one now and forevermore. Teenagers these days have no patience and can’t wait for anything. Rather then giving in to the wants of teenagers, there should be a stricter enforcement of the current drinking age. Once people can prove that they are worthy and responsible enough for a lowered drinking age, then we can start discussing on lowering it. Teenagers need to learn that it takes hard work to be rewarded.
Secondly, just because you are an “adult”, does not mean you are responsible. One drinking age will never be suitable for everyone. Alcohol is commonly abused; therefore, the current drinking age is satisfactory and should not be meddled with.
As I said enforcing the drinking age would be what is best for the people. It would make our roads safer and protect those drinking and not drinking. Prohibition is a little far off to enforce strictly because there are more people that would break it then enforce it. But to keep twenty-one the legal drinking age is enforceable and would ultimately keep our country the safest.
In response to Claire Loomer:
I think your comment on how if the drinking age was lowered to 18 that the abuse rate would go down is pretty dang wrong. That just gives a person a few extra years to use and abuse if they chose to do so. And since when was it popular to copy what other countries are doing just to get what we want. If we followed that line of debate than you could also argue for a higher age before you got your drivers license. You cannot use that argument for when it is in your favor.
I’m not sure what kind of position to take on this issue. I could see the president’s argument that people will drink less if it is not illegal, but I could also see that people would drink more because they have more access to it. MADD obviously would be against it because it’s in their name and they are mothers that are concerned about their little babies. This whole issue could be debated for years, but no one would know the results until it is passed. No one knows if people will drink more or less. The University of Miami President Donna Shalala said that it was bad when she went to high school, but times have changed. But the fact that such grade A colleges want the law changed, does seem to stick out. I am surprised that these high of colleges are speaking out so loud and getting attention. But press coverage and the more colleges joining the group seem to be giving them more and more momentum.
Other countries have way lower drinking ages than us. Like 12, 16, or like Ireland where it is basically if you can see over the bar. The press should do a report over there and find out facts about drinking problems over in other countries and find out if they have more of less problems than us.
I totally agree with you dude. If the law told newly aged adults that they can drink then they might think twice about downing as much as they can because they can do it when ever. That I think would improve statistics because people may drink more but they may drink less of the actual alcohol. I also like your stance on the bar scenarios. I agree with you that the bar tenders would help because more kids would go to bars instead of friend’s houses. Mainly I’d guess for the environment but also because it would be the “cool thing to do”.
In response to Michael Townshend.
I totally agree with you dude. If the law told newly aged adults that they can drink then they might think twice about downing as much as they can because they can do it when ever. That I think would improve statistics because people may drink more but they may drink less of the actual alcohol. I also like your stance on the bar scenarios. I agree with you that the bar tenders would help because more kids would go to bars instead of friend’s houses. Mainly I’d guess for the environment but also because it would be the “cool thing to do”.
In response to Roy Wilkes
When you say that people drink because it’s “grown up” is exactly my point. It won’t make you fell all grown up any more if the drinking age is lowered. If it’s legal for them to drink, then it won’t be nearly as cool for them to do so. The whole social aspect of it will change completely. Like in the movie Superbad, those guys were only cool at that time, because they said that they could get alcohol for the party. If the drinking age was lowered, then all the horrible things that happened to those two boys wouldn’t have happened. Also, it would greatly reduce the amount of those kinds of parties, because everyone wouldn’t be jumping at any chance to get alcohol, because they could just go out to a bar if they felt like it.
Sorry guys for posting so late, I have been gone for a week and a half without computer access. But anyways, I have to sides to this. I believe that by lowering the drinking age to 18, it will begin to cause problems with high schools. With seniors, who even with the drinking age being at 21 still drink, will begin to come to school drunk, get drunk on school nights, just because it is not illegal. I think that high school kids are not mature enough to have enough responsibility to not do stupid things when drunk. Now for my other opinion. I think that by lowering the drinking age to 18, college kids will not have the want to rebel and drink. Back when the 18th ammendment was in play, stating that alcohol was prohibitted, the amount of drinking when higher than before. People rebel when they aren’t allowed to have something. College kids are going to have so much going on around them that they aren’t going to have the guts to say, I am 19, I am not old enough to drink. Kids are already drinking at the age of 14, and even before that. Kids like to rebel, and with the law being 21 years old can drink, Kids are going to disobey that always. Either way there are going to be problems. By keeping the age where it is, you’re going to have college kids drinking more, and by lowering it to 18, you are going to have problems with high school kids abusing the privelage to drink.
Hilarie- What is this, the second time you’ve been countered? I’m not going to take someone’s opinion on the blog as a joke. So for you to have done this TWICE and then rush to the defense that you were merely kidding is ridiculous. Again: stick to the prompt and not your absurd “jokes”. It’s annoying and a waste of my time every time you post a false blog. There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion, but having a phony one is just ill-mannered.
Fool me once: strike one. Fool me twice: strike THREE.