College Presidents Want Lower Drinking Age

[dgriffin]

Gear, I agree with much of what you said. Maybe all of it. I did chuckle at, "For thousands of years humanity has been able to muddle by without a drinking age...." That's true of drivers' licenses, too. And I'm worried less about the dumbing down and infantilization of 20 year olds, than I'm worried about the dumbing down and infantilization of 21 through 79 year olds.

Anyway ... someone a lot smarter than me said that laws don't solve problems, they just make things illegal. I hope that Dr. McCardell and his Choose Responsibility group continue the search for solutions to the underage drinking problem. I think it's important to note that we are not discussing the merits of the original implementation of the 21 y.o. drinking law, but instead the removal of that quarter century old restriction. And also McCardell's recommendation of a new law that would license drinking below 21 years of age and remove that privilege if the government decided you had violated that law. So we will be creating a new class of binge drinkers ... unlicensed binge drinkers. It's been said that colleges are doing a lot to educate young students on the dangers of too much alcohol. Do we expect them to do more and will it be any more successful?

So, I have not yet warmed to the Amethyst Initiative and I still suspect that other motivators may be involved on the part of the colleges.

Here's a interesting "group" interview of McCardell on the Internet. Among other things, you'll learn that, "Only 4 countries in the world have a drinking age as high as 21: Indonesia, Mongolia, Palau, and the United States." Mongolia doesn't surprise me, but I didn't realize Palau was that party poopish.

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:
chronicle.com/live/2007/04/mccardell/

[gearofzanzibar]

Aug 20, 2008 16:21:54 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Well said Gear. I still would have to challenge anyone to tell me of a good thing that happened to them because they were drinking. Anything that has given us pleasure, could have done so without alcohol. Simple fact.

I think it's important to emphasis the difference between drinking and drunkeness. Drinking is harmless and, yes, I think it's fun. Drunkeness, on the other hand, is a terrible thing. The difference between the two, something that historically has been emphasized in *every* alcohol consuming culture, is like the difference between being in love and being a stalker.

I love to drink, but I can count the number of times I've actually been drunk on both hands and still have fingers left over. It's an unusual day that I don't have at least one serving of beer, wine, or those damnably sweet liquors I'm so fond off, but it's an equally unusual day when I have more than two servings of same.

[clarencebunsen]

There are two arguments that come up every time this is debated leave me unconvinced.

1. Most other countries allow drinking at a younger age than the US.
2. If they're old enough to fight, they're old enough to drink.

1. In most other countries for legal, cultural or economic reasons, tean agers do not have the easy access to driving that they do in the US. If ox carts had the same ability to go airborne and hit trees killing driver and passengers, there might be other rules.

If the debate was to increase access to alcohol while restricting access to cars, it would make more sense to me. Otherwise, it seems like advocating a rather cruel form of population control.

2. My own military service did little to convince me that teenagers are old enough to fight. It's easy to find examples of individual heroics by young men, however wars are not won by individual heroics.

To use a sports analogy (always risky): Who does more good for his team? The young quarterback who tears up his knee gaining an extra 1/2 yard in a pre-season game (missing the season and limiting his effectiveness for the rest of his career) or the center who shows up for work every game, snapping the ball to the replacement quarterback and then blocking his assigned defender?

A possible proposal I could support: Restrict both drinking and driving to people who have demonstrated a level of maturity by completing a term of service to country, either military or civilian.

[Swimmy]

This is just an idea I had this morning. I'm just floating it out there to see what you think. I have not done any research into it or whether it could be feasible or practical.

But, what about reducing the drinking age to 14, and increasing the driving age to 18. All 18 year olds would qualify for a provisional license that would last their until they turned 20, when it become a full license. Restrict it so that 14-18 year olds can't consume alcohol unless in the presence of their parents (or have them start out that way and as they demonstrate responsible drinking habits, such as not too much, etc. allow a few liberties). Make both the parents and the children attend a program that emphasizes to parents the importance of reinforcing the dangers associated with alcohol consumption and provide simulations to the kids so that they see the negative effects of alcohol, e.g. in a car simulator of a drunk driver. Be fully open, show them the gory aftermath of a dwi car wreck, or how your decreased inhibitions and reduced judgment can impact your decisions and lead to serious criminal penalties. It will be uncomfortable to them, but it would show them the harsh realities they will face in some situations.

If parents don't want to do that, then their kids cannot consume alcohol until 21 and make the parents equally responsible for their children's wrong doings while under the influence. Also, their kids will only have a provisional license at 18 and an absolute zero tolerance policy.

[dgriffin]

CB:

1. In most other countries for legal, cultural or economic reasons, tean agers do not have the easy access to driving that they do in the US.

Not only that, but public transportation is more available. Also, many countries have rather draconian drunk driving laws and most citizens take them seriously.

2. My own military service did little to convince me that teenagers are old enough to fight.

Yes, the military age argument doesn’t do it for me. Age 18 is too young to die, whether in a auto accident or in combat.


Swimmy:

what about reducing the drinking age to 14, and increasing the driving age to 18.

Never happen. Every parent of teenagers in America would rise up in protest and ask you who the hell is going to transport their kids when they can’t drive themselves. Detroit (or Tokyo) will put you on their hit list. Used car dealers will hang you in effigy. The New York State Bar Association, whose members derive lots of income from auto accidents, will review your competency.

Make both the parents and the children attend a program that emphasizes to parents the importance of reinforcing the dangers associated with alcohol consumption and provide simulations to the kids so that they see the negative effects of alcohol, e.g. in a car simulator of a drunk driver.

Holy Big Brother, Batman! Can we spell Privacy? See McCardell’s proposal at:

www.chooseresponsibility.org/

I'm encouraged by the new emphasis on the problem and I hope the debate continues.

Is anyone else sensing the vibration that this may be the beginning of the licensing of drinking?
And once that happens, we can license illicit drug ingestion. So, an illusory solution to the problems, as well as a wonderful source of revenue for our lawmakers. If I wanted to control a population, I'd tax 'em, control 'em with "permits" and make legal only what I so deigned to be "for the public good."
OK, that's it from here at Paranoia Central.

[concerned]

Maybe the age of 21 yrs old should be the legal age for everything. Getting a drivers license, entering into a legal contract, serving in the military and getting married.Look at the recent death of those two 17 years old Russian kids who killed themselves because they were to non responsible to follow the law.

[wilum47]

It's just plain and simple; It's the right thing to do. Put the law back to 18.

On the most part, this generation of Young men and women have an attitude toward responsibility that makes our generation's younger years a "Walk on the Wildside".

If we have no problem sending them in harm's way, first line of interior attack firefighting, vote, and much more, then they deserve a beer if they want to.

The elite are always bragging about Europe, but they will serve as long as they can see past the bar! (sarcasm, some have laws).

Besides if Obama wins, we're all gonna need a drink! ;D ;D ;D ;D

[dgriffin]

Aug 21, 2008 12:15:20 GMT -5 wilum47 said:

Besides if Obama wins, we're all gonna need a drink! ;D ;D ;D ;D

He won't. Dave's prediction, Number 4,198.
(Sorry, I don't keep track of whether I get them right or not.)

www.windsweptpress.com/shareweb/obama sam.jpg[/img]

[lucy]

I have always felt that the drinking age should be 18. Once I turned 21 the fun of drinking went away for me. I think that it would help elminate the binge drinking. Then again you never know it could make things worse, but also have always felt if these kids are joining the military then they should be able to have a beer.

[Swimmy]

Dave,

I am so glad that I prefaced my idea that there was no research behind it. I don't need anyone evaluating my competence.

[dgriffin]

Aug 21, 2008 13:31:42 GMT -5 lucy said:

.. but also have always felt if these kids are joining the military then they should be able to have a beer.

Lucy, that's interesting. I think that may have been the defacto standard at one time for states that had a 21 year rule. Or maybe it was for 17 year olds who enlisted early when the drinking age was 18. My memory is hazy, but I believe that service men and women drinking on army and air bases (cheaper by far!) were not subject to the drinking rules in force in state where the base was located. Maybe some old Enlisted Men's Club devotee could help me out here.

[dgriffin]

Swimmy,
If this post comes up twice, sorry, but I don't see what I posted here earlier.
Anyway, I'm sure you're very competent and you probably Aced the Bar exam! Also, your suggestion enjoys good company in that McCardell made a suggestion that was similar in spirit, if not in detail.

[dgriffin]

Lowering legal drinking age an absurd idea

By Jay Evensen
Deseret News
Published: Sunday, Aug. 24, 2008


" Any clear-eyed examination of alcohol and its effects will show how absurd it would be for government to approve something that would permanently harm young minds. A petition by college leaders earlier this month to get the NCAA to ban beer commercials from college sports was a much better approach."

deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700252709,00.html

[gearofzanzibar]

Any clear-eyed examination of electoral politics and it's effects will show how absurd it is for the government to allow young minds and their ill-informed opinions to permanently harm the nation.

Clearly, the minimum voting age must be raised to at least 21 to prevent the long-term effects of harmful political involvement.

Heh.

[dgriffin]

I agree. Who wants to be ruled by 18 year olds? The voting age always used to be 21.
It was American business that created the concept of children and especially teenagers. Previous to that modern event, the world was populated by adults and people who weren't yet adults, but would become legally such at age 21. Sure, much younger individuals married, bore children, started businesses and died in wars before the reached the age of 21. But reaching the age that allowed them to vote wasn't tied to any of those events. I always wondered if the phrase "reaching their majority, " i.e., age 21, related to more than half of an expected lifetime of 45 or so years having passed before a person was considered responsible enough to participate in the self governing of his fellows. If true, and we were to take an example from that, the modern voting age should be at least 30. Not just because the length of a typical life has increased, but more because we have tremendously lengthened the time of dependent childhood in America.