| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
College presidents from some of the best-known U.S. universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Colgate, want lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. They claim the current law isn't working and actually encourages binge drinking on campus. What do you think? Would lowering the drinking age end clandestine binge-drinking?
If your old enough to go to war and die for this contry then u should be able to drink. Period
#1 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:55 PM EDTDrinking is not a right. Drinking is a privilege. It is a passing into adulthood. It shows that one can handle the pressures presented in life. The only thing that is accomplished from lowering the legal drinking age, is having more drunks out on the roads. If you want to change the law for the better, try raising the legal age for being an adult. Say 21...
I agree at 18 you are old enough to sign contracts, get married, buy a car and go to war... the people who are against this are the same puritanical people who brought us prohibition... can you believe that there are still counties in the South that do not serve alcoholic beverages because it is illegal??
I completely agree. It is very saddening that Troops can die but not have a beer before they leave, ect. As a marine' sister I will tell you that some of those guys (not all) are more responsible them my fellow college class mates who are old enough to drink. Lets just be honest here, people are going to drink and drive, binge drink ect. no matter what the drinking age is. So does this become a case of punish the many because of the few?
I have also been overseas had have seen what the lowered drinking age is like. True they have the same problems but I do have to admit that it is always nice that my whole group can just sit with a few beers and not worry about age.
Maybe a drinking problem is not a case of age but so much as one of responsibility, parenting, and/or example
I do agree with lowering the drinking age. We can not be blinded and think that this isn't happening. I actually think that lowering the drinking age would reduce a number of alcohol related issues. The 18 year olds are getting alcohol anyway. How many 18 year olds have been prosecuted for alcohol related offenses? These offenses adversely affect them for the rest of their lives. Why? Never mind the military issue. I am in the military and I have young Soldiers who are not of age to drink, but will be able to fight and potentially make the ultimate sacrifice.
I agree, at age eighteen we are legally responsible for signed contracts, we are considered mature enough to both make a decision about joining the military and voting for the leaders of this country, but we can't be trusted with alcohol?
The fact is the drinking age in this country is a joke. High school kids drink every weekend and get made into criminals for it. The ones that don't drink are usually the ones who go off to college and over do it. They don't know how much they can handle. Instead of spending the billions the government spends on making criminals out of kids that drink, why not spend half that educating kids on the dangers of alcohol.
The people at MADD are fools. Having a drinking age law actually encourages drunk driving. People under the age of 21 don't want to get in trouble, so instead of calling a cab or their parents for a ride they drive themselves. I work in an occupation that deals with drunk drivers quite a bit. That's the first thing they say when you ask why they were driving. They didn't want to get in trouble. Does that excuse it? NO! But MADD is suppose to want to stop drunk driving. Maybe they should try to educate the youth instead of persecute them.
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't lower the drinking age, get rid of it all together. Let the parents deal with it, and when someone turns 18 and is LEGALLY an adult let them make their own decision.
Let all remember that prohibition never worked it merely drove the act of drinking underground, which could be an accurate description of what is happening now. I have never understood why there are different ages for everything from driving to drinking we all have done it even the people choosing to keep it at 21. To say the least this barrier does nothing but cause us to drink alot at one party or binge to keep from getting caught. Plus I noticed that when you turn an age that allows for a privilege that you have already been doing it takes some of the adrenaline rush of doing something wrong out of it and you lose interest, kinda like losing the bragging rights to going to a huge party or sneeking some alcohol. Plus why is it that at the age of 16 you can drive a car that could in comparison take a life, 18 smoke, choose who runs this country or your local government, or be told to take a life for your country and then 21 for alcohol and gambling, and from 12 years old you can be tried and killed for a crime or considered an adult. Limits don't work for many its just another way to break the rules and not just get drunk but get the adrenaline rush of breaking a law. So just set it all at the age that people say your an official adult 18.
I'm over 40 now, but I've been saying this since I was 18. The more you make drinking some giant taboo, the more you drive it underground. The more you drive it underground, the MORE problem drinking you get.
Look, if you have to drink 10 shots in 30 minutes before you go out for the night, that's a lot worse than having 10 beers over 5 hours.
It's counter-intuitive. It's also true. Lower the drinking age, and continue to SEVERELY punish drunk driving.
I will say it again since someone cannot handle the truth!
Soldiers can by booze in the countries the are fighting in if the country does not have ban on Alcohol. Example Saudi Arabia! Nobody is allowed to drink. I was overseas for 6 out the 8 years I was in the military and know that buying alcohol is the least of a soldiers worries!
If it was my military I personally wouldn't want my soldiers to drink or smoke. The last time I checked alcohol doesn't help your body or your mind. I am also sick of people using this war to get their point across. People will drink when the want to just as people make mistakes when they want to. I just hope their mistake doesn't involve alcohol and the loss of their life or someone else's life. WAKE UP IT'S A DRUG!
I agree with Chris54 the probability that if I leave the house right now and go for a drive the chances of getting hit by a drunk driver is remote, but for our men and women overseas the chances of dying is high, right now the death tole in this war is at 4,141 compare that to the 157 college students who drank themselves to death (purely their irrespondsibility) and i'd say the chances are one sided. If they are not mature enough to drink then whats makes politicians think that they are mature enough to kill.
You know if I am giving my life for you at leats I should be able to have a drink. and yes I am a Veteran and I support this not only for the military but if you can vote and do everything else as an adult why not drink? I am glad it is not your military. By the way this was not brought up about war, it was college deans. so i guess you never had anything to drink? It is people thinking like you that is messing up the USA.
As a 45 year old teacher, I attended two colleges in a state where the drinking age was 18. I also visited colleges during this time in states where the drinking age was 21. Personal recollection is that the states where the drinking age was 21 had more issues and problems with drinking that the two campuses and two universities in the state where I attended. I see no problem with lowering the age to 19. this would preclude the vast majority of high school students from being able to legally obtain liquor.
If your old enough to go to war and die for this contry then u should be able to drink. Period
I agree. I've been saying this (almost verbatim) for a little over 10 years now.
When you're 18 you can move out, smoke, pay your own bills and die for your country, yet you must wait another 3 years to legally drink alcohol? To me, that doesn't make any sense.
Will lowering the drinking age result in less college students binge drinking? Somehow, I doubt it will, but only time would tell. (Of course that assumes that they would be successful in actually lowering the drinking age to 18...)
I agree! Let's raise the minimum age for enlistment, or at least for duty in a combat zone to 21!
Being a 44 year old person, who successfully experienced college and all that it had to offer and subsequently joined the Army and was in the Gulf War, I honestly believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Drinking alcohol is not a privilege and I believe that those people who think so have bought in the MADD organization. In Europe, there does not seem to be the problem that the puritanical force of MADD wants you to think there is, save that of Britain, which has its own problems to deal. The country demands that men over the age of 16 sign up for voluntary draft. The country extends the right of voting to 18 year olds. You can own a car upon successfully completing and passing your drivers examine. You can own property at the age of 18. Yet despite this, for some inane reason, a couple of people hijack the national agenda and convince or rather "con" congress into believing that drinking should not be extended to 18 year olds. Yes I realize that there are a number of families destroyed because of drunk driving accidents, but surely there are just as many people over the age of 18 causing these accidents. I think its time that the US grow up and repeal this law, or alternatively state that it intends to impose another prohibition and thus driving the drinking to underground establishments and be prepared to pay the consequences of binge drinking as Britain is currently experiencing.
Lets have a mandatory draft and then everyone could earn the right. But when i was in the military (retired) i couldn t drink at 18.
We only send 18 year olds to war under close supervision and after weeks of training. Would you suggest the same level of preparation and supervision when it comes to drinking?
I love hearing the argument "I'm old enough to die for my country" from people who want to lower the drinking age. How about this - lower the drinking age for Soldiers to 18 and if you want to drink at the younger age then you can enlist!
Being a college student,
I agree whole-heartedly that the national drinking age of 21 is the leading cause of binge drinking on college campuses. The taboo this country puts on alcohol and its' consumption causes students who are never exposed to it to abuse it. I understand that organizations like MADD have their reasons for its' opposition but studies show countries with a lower drinking age encounter less of these alcohol related problems.
#2 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:59 PM EDTI totally agree with Kevin; I am a parent of a soon-to-be college sophomore. We also lived in London for several years while she was in middle school. Proper parenting in middle and high school will go a long way to giving teenagers a sense of responsibility toward drinking. In college, most of those same kids will drink, but more responsibly than others.
Were you sober when you wrote this? Are you sane? Are you trying to convince anyone, or just trying to scream your head off on this forum?
I'll defend to the death your right to say it, but your ideas about 18 year olds are just plain silly. It's time we had an adult discussion about alcohol for 18 year olds.
One I am way older than 21 and I have to say your whole comment sounded like you were 10! If you wanted to get your point across than my suggestion would do it as an adult as you kept implying that you were. But everything about your comment said little child. Tell you what come back when your really grown up cause all you did was just prove it doesn't matter what your age is, maturity comes in all different ages and babe you aren't there yet!
Hahaha. perfect.
And before you say anything, I'm 19, but I think the law should be changed.
Let's face it, today's MADD is borderline neo-prohibition. I'd venture to say they're a bit ridiculous. Also, I live in one of those Southern counties where it's illegal to drink.
(Pst. People still drink. There's a town 15 minutes away that only exists because people go there to get alcohol.)
When you suffer a loss from an alcohol related accident then maybe you will understand there is problem. Try following a social worker around for a weeks(namely the ones who remove children from homes) and see the effects of Drugs and Alcohol abuse in America.
Better yet move in with an abusive alcoholic and find out how smart you think you are!
I'm sorry that this is long, but I have a strong belief in changing the drinking age. I feel bad for someone that has had a loss. But how far are you going to go to control someone's life? Answer this why can someone 18 vote and go in to the military, protect you, make major chooses like that but not drink? Or get married, do anything else that a person of 30 can do but drink. So someone was killed by a drunk driver. In the late 80's, the law was changed to 21 why? Because of a group called MADD went to Washington and the people in DC didn't and don't have the guts to stand up and tell them to shut up. MADD is just like the guy that went to court to take God off of the money. It is some anal retentive person that wants to push their views on to everyone else. Do you have the numbers of how many were killed by someone older than 21 and also under 21? I don't know but from what I remember the number of over 21 was grater than under 21. I think it would be a great thing for this country to go back to having the drinking age at 18. You may say I am no better than MADD but I am not out trying to make someone feel sorry for me or use the death of someone to better my cause.
Also I did live with an alcoholic. I was in a house that was split w/ devoice and I turned out just fine. You said about following a social worker, well those people that are that bad off it won't matter if they are 18 or 21 they are going to do what they want. I have seen the effects. Again the drinking age won't matter to those who want it they will find it anywhere they can.
I was 19 and in college the last time they lowered the drinking age to 18 (1974?). I and my friends drank constantly. We didn't go on the binges like they do now, but drinking was a huge part of our college experience. I don't believe that a drinking age of 21 promotes binge drinking. If you're gonna drink, you're gonna drink, and if you're gonna drink irresponsibly, you're gonna drink irresponsibly. I think peer pressure is a much greater factor.
As for those who say that since you can vote/go to war/sign a contract at 18: do we really want to add alcohol to this equation? And if you're in a war zone (i.e. actually in combat, not at the local frat house) do you really believe it's all that difficult to get high? Those promoting this lame idea are NOT those who are going into combat, believe me!
Those I've talked to who binge drink do it to get drunk, not because they have to sneak alcohol when they can.
LETS FACE IT, AMERICANS ARE ALWAY GOING TO WANT THIS AND WANT THAT. WE TRY TO MAKE OUR OWN WAY OF DOING THING IN EVERYTHING WE DO. FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A EQUAL, BUT OPPOSITE, REACTION. NOT TO TRY AND BRING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS INTO THIS DEBATE, WHETHER WE LOWER IT, RAISE IT OR DO AWAY WITH IT PERIOD, THE NEGATIVE AFFECTS OF EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE WILL ALWAYS STICK OUT MORE THEN POSITIVE AFFECTS. SOME PEOPLE WANT TO DRINK, SOME DONT. SOME PEOPLE WANT TO DRIVE A CAR, SOME DONT. SOME PEOPLE WANT TO BE APART OF OUR MILITARY AND SOME DONT. THE MORE LAWS WE HAVE, THE MORE LAWS PEOPLE BREAK ... IF YOU DONT LIKE ALCOHOL, DONT DRINK ... IF YOUR SCARED OF DIEING VIA A DRUNK DRIVER, STAY OFF THE ROADS ... IF YOUR AFFRAID PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOSE CONTROL, TO LATE THEY ALREADY HAVE ... LET ALL INVEST OUR TIME AND ENERGY IN TRYING TO SAVE LIFE AS WE KNOW IT AND THIS BEAUTIFUL PLANET, IF WE DONT WE ARE ALL GOING TO WANT TO DRINK UNTIL WE DIE AND THAT INCLUDES YOU CRAZY RIGHT WINGERS~~!!!
Raise the drinking age to 25 and see if that works
#3 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:05 PM EDTJust like prohibition, take it away and say you can't have it only makes it more attractive. Let's see, at 18 you can vote for president but you can't legally get drunk when the guy you wanted wasn't elected? It's a long drunk 4 years until you can vote again. I say lower the drinking age to 17. But hold a drunk accountable for stupidity.
#4 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:05 PM EDTI think you're just being stupid. Drop the age to 17. Lowering the age is not so people can get drunk if the person they vote for lost. It is to help stop the binge drinking that goes on. To help loose the taboo aspect of drinking. It's not right that everyone conceders an adult to be at the age of 18 except for drinking. Yes hold a person responsible but you have to give them the chance to first.
i think making it less of a taboo is really going to help students get OVER the idea of drinking (esp binge drinking). once its no longer forbidden, people are going to accept it as just another thing out there to do. i mean you don't see all college kids buying cigarettes and porn...but they can do it right? drinking is just a phase everyone goes through during college and the sooner thats out of their system, the better.
#5 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:07 PM EDTI've taught substance abuse prevention in 7 countries and 30 states and I can tell you that many countries that have lowered drinking ages have similar problems with alcohol abuse. I think there is a constellation of factors that determine a community's attitudes and behaviors regarding alcohol use and abuse. The drinking age is just one.
I applaud these universities for taking a bold stand, since I do believe that in combination with other cultural changes, these communities can drastically impact their student's attitudes and behaviors regarding alcohol.
I would add to the lowered drinking age a ban on alcohol advertising on college campuses, combined with an aggressive Social Marketing plan that highlights the fact that most students do NOT binge drink.
What we've learned - and what all advertisers know - is that people - especially young people - overestimate how much others partake in risky behavior. If that misunderstanding is countered with real data about people's real behavior, people are less likely themselves to engage in risky behavior. Look up Social Marketing for more info.
#6 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:10 PM EDTFinally, a reasonably intelligent response, with legitimate resolution input.
Are there any statistics for how many recovering alcoholics/drug addicts waited until they were legal age to start drinking? How many repeat DUI offenders didn't touch alcohol until they were legally able to drink? Law-breakers are law-breakers. They will drink whether the legal age is 21, 18 or 10.
Since we now know that the human brain does not even completely develop until after age 22, and since we also know that alcohol is NOT GOOD for the human brain, why are we even considering making it more available to these immature brains? Why is it we are removing all other sorts of toxins from our environment (lead, pesticides) and lobbying for additional access to alcohol?
Proponents of this outrageous idea seem to cite other countries, primarily European countries, as justification for this. Why do we want to emulate their values, their economies, their social mores? The US is the most successful country the world has ever known. No other country is as wealthy, as generous, as well-educated. Why would we want to mimic a culture that has produced fewer ideas, fewer geniuses, less overall wealth, prosperity and growth?
I'm sorry, but have you been to Europe? I could write a thesis on how much smarter (most) European communities handle their business. For instance; better transportation, education, health care, etc. First of all, and this goes for places like Amsterdam in particular, the major drug and alcohol related problems stem from tourists not the people living in a community with lax laws on the right to put into your body what you choose.
Fewer geniuses? Did you forget about people like Einstein, Mozart, Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo...shall I go on?
Wealth? As far as I could tell, the poorest people I met there were not European. In fact, in London I was shocked that I didn't see any homeless people. That is because the government takes care of it's own.
Also, it is a painstaking process and VERY expensive to even get a drivers license in Britain which requires you to take driving classes.
That being said; do some research before you spout out ignorant ethnocentric mis-information. Sure, we are very lucky to have been born here, but get over your "America is #1!" mentality. That view is getting really old. There are other great places to live in the world
If we can trust an 18 year old to wield an automatic weapon and not kill any innocent people in a war torn country, then we should trust an 18 year to drink responsibly and not get into a car.
Thank you Melanie!
It has nothing to do with age. Binge drinking in the U.S. has everything to do with the mentality and nothing to do with the age. "I'm legal now so I'm going to get as plowed as I can." I've cleaned up too many messes my friends have made over the years because of immature and irrisponsible attitudes like these. "This is America. I'm free to do what I want." My response to that is - Then be willing to accept - and possibly suffer the consequences - like loosing a friend at a young age because of drinking - (which I have) because I'm not going to clean up your messes anymore. If people want to drink irrisponsibly, then be prepared to suffer and accept the consequences, including tighter laws on drinking. People need to remember that their actions don't only affect themselves, it affects everyone. You can't throw a rock in a pond without getting ripples that eventually spread out over the entire pond. So, if you want to act irrisponsibly, it will and does affect me - someone you don't even know.
#7 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:11 PM EDTAmen to the fact that it has everything to do with maturity and little to do with age. Unfortunately kids today are far more immature than kids were even 20 years ago, let alone 40. 40 years ago when you turned 18 that often meant moving out and supporting yourself - you were forced to be responsible and make good choices or you suffered serious consequences. Today you have 30 year olds still living at home, college grads thinking they should earn 6 figures because they got a degree in English Lit and Mommy bailing their kids out at every turn.
On the flip side you can't raise the drinking age to 30 although if it were based on maturity that's likely where the mean would fall. In the end it'll make no difference whether the legal age is 18 or 38, the root problem is a lack of maturity and personal responsibility with the Gen Me'ers and all the laws in the world won't change that.
I agree with what you have to say, the only problem is people in today's society are no longer made to be accountable for their actions.
P to the C - You may have a bit of a revisionist outlook on history. 40 years ago would be 1968, 20 years ago would be 1988. When was the last time you heard anyone say that the late 60's and the late 80's produced highly responsible individuals? The 60's were knows for an abundance of drug use, and the late 80's brought us grunge rock which was also characterized by drug use.
Each generation frets and moans over the impending catastrophic doom that their spawn is sure to cause with their loose morals and fast ways. I don't know what generation you come from, but it is safe to say it did its own little part in the destruction of polite society.
Take a step back. Reconsider real history and realize that what we have now may be different but the picture perfect 50's never existed outside of a TV show so it is not a comparison that can be made.
Kids today have to learn far more by the time they hit high school than the previous generation did before them. My little brother was learning HTML in elementary school.
I am all for personal responsibility, but maybe you should look at not moving out of a parents house as a sign of fiscal responsibility instead of immaturity. If you long so much for the distant history, wouldn't current day living with multiple generations in one household match better than the generations that left in their late teens?
P to the C
you're right, as greg says, it has nothing to do with age. However it has nothing to do with responsibility either. You say in an ideal world the drinking age would raised to 30. If you really cared about the lives of others and the consequences of drunk driving, you would want alcohol banned completely. Of course no one over 21 wants that. THEY all think they are mature enough to handle a drink, it is that unfortunate next generation that is immature.
You act like those who are against lowering the age are basing their decision on morals. In fact they are merely basing it on what is convenient for them. If drinking were banned altogether I don't doubt that you and all those against lowering the age would vehemently oppose it. Only a few would support it.
Although the political clout of MADD will make it unlikely any drop in the drinking age. I submit the powerful evidence from european countries that have much lower drinking ages with far fewer alcohol related problems. My own humble opinion is that if children grow up with alcohol as an accepted social behavior, they will understand what is appropriate and inappropriate drinking. In addition, bending and breaking the rules in the United States has become ingrained to the point that a significant number of teenagers will drink for the thrill of it. And there is the proof.
#8 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:11 PM EDTActually, drug and alcohol abuse is much higher in the European countries. Not sure where you got your info.
This is so true! I binge drinking doesn't stem from what the drinking age it is stems from the United States puritanistic views and lack on alcohol education. MADD needs to see that. Yes drinking and driving kills, so does inattentive, drowsy, aggressive driving!! Lower the drinking age and start educating our kids about drinking! I grew up in a household with a European background and my first taste of alcohol (most likely wine) was probably at the age of 2, I have no clue, but I do remember growing up and certain occasions having wine & 7UP and I didn't binge drink in H.S. or College. Did I get drunk, yes on occasion, but I was responsible about it, because I was educated about drinking!!
As a high school student myself, I feel that lowering the drinking age would be more effective, because the 21 age is ineffective. Never having consumed alcohol myself, I believe that the age being lowered to 18 would not make alcohol more used by a younger audience. People are going to drink alcohol and I believe that they are allowed to do so, however the current system is not working so change cannot hurt.
#9 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:12 PM EDT
chris54,
I agree 100 percent with your post.
If they don't drop the drinking age from 21 to 18,
I say we up to mandatory draft age (sign up) from 18 to 21.
Make voting age 21, and you are still considered a minor until your 21.
Its all or nothing, not what's convenient for our politicians.
#10 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:13 PM EDTOK... very smart indeed... Then we also increase the Driving age to 21,- right? Do you not understand that growing up is a process,- not an EVENT? There is a reason for a step by step increase of rights and responsibilities when growing up. There is a better chance of responsible behavior at 21 than at 18, and with the terrible effects of alcohol abuse this is a very meaningful and justified protection.
My reply is to udo.... I agree that growing up is a process. Things are going to happen no matter what we do or what age people are. You said " There is a better chance of responsible behavior at 21 than at 18" Well if that is the case then why in god's name would we send a 18yr old to fight a war in another country wielding some of the worlds most advanced weapons? Also why would we let an 18yr old help decide the fate of our country by allowing him to vote on who our next president might be. We also let 18yr olds buy tobacco products which we all know have the ability to kill you. FYI tobacco has nicotine which IS addictive but yet we let an 18yr old buy this stuff because we deem the the age of 18 to be an adult. Why then if 18 is the ADULT age do we let these teenagers do these things but tell them no to alcohol? This whole thing makes no sense. If these people are going to be stupid at 18 while drinking then chances are they are stupid at 21 as well. I am a professional bartender and trust me when I tell you. I see people in there 30's do dumber things then the younger people at our bar. If they can die for this country they should at least be able to drink in it. Why don't we just talk to our friends to the north. They seem to have a pretty good thing going up there....
I generally agree with Kevin above but offer the counterpoint of the UK as an example, where the legal drinking age is 18. That country has a significant problem amidst the 20-35 year old populous who binge drink generally more than three nights per week. In hot vacation spots such as Spain and Italy bars even go so far as to bar British citizens given how widespread the epidemic is. its more a cultural issue that starts earlier on with the family. Any type of regulation just masks the real issue.
#11 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:13 PM EDTComing from a European family background where wine on the dinner table was common and shared in moderation with family members under 18, this is a long time coming. Encouraging the 'responsible' drinking of alcohol and lowering the drinking age to 18 to match the rest of the world, will bring our statistics for alcohol abuse, accidents, etc to the low levels enjoyed by the rest of the world. To kill binge drinking the USA must kill making drinking under the age of 21 (which everyone has done anyway) a crime.
#12 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:13 PM EDT"Europe" is a very big place, Harry and very diverse. I suggest that in fact there is a wide diversity of drinking problems in Europe, depending on the country. The Northern European countries and Ireland and England are battling terrible problems currently with alcohol abuse among their young, while countries like Greece, have not been so affected. Again, I think there's a lot more to it than just the drinking age, which is fairly consistant across all of these countries. The other factors, like family ties, community expecations and other issues play into it as well. Let's not make huge generalizations about Europe. It's a big place! The other thing I would add is that some European countries may have very significant problems with alcohol that they are actually just not addressing .Does that make it less of a problem?
One thing to remember too, in any country is that the early someone starts *abusing* alcohol, the likelier they are to get addicted to it. I'm not going to cite every reserach article here, look it up if you're so inclined. How we go about preventing early abuse, what the best method is, I don't know. I think that each community needs to address it in ways that make sense for them. I don't think an accross the board mandate works for everyone.
The truth right now is that it's federal law to have the drinking age at 21 and states that lower it won't get federal funding for roads, so I don't see a change coming on that anytime soon.
#13 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:15 PM EDTTwo thoughts. First, contrary to popular thinking, prohibition did work. It significantly reduced the per capita drinking in the USA. However, the trade off was an increase in violence related to the illegal running and sale of alcoholic beverages. My second thought is that there is something wrong with holding people accountable as an adult, but denying them the priveledges of being an adult. From what I've seen, I would rather have the drinking age at 18 and deal instead with getting youth to drink more responsibly. There is always a trade off whenever we deal with social behavior. We could reduce binge drinking, but we will see an increase in traffic deaths. We can continue to ban drinking and deal with the ills of binge drinking. It's a choice that we as a society need to make.
#14 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:17 PM EDTI think this is a great idea. I am 43 and a Mom of a teenage boy. I think we should lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the driver's license age to 21..........this way they can get over all of the drinking binges and the partying and they would drive more responsibly by the time they are 21...................... How's that for controversial?
#15 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:18 PM EDTSo are you going to drive your kids around until they are 21?
I've had the opportunity to vote to lower the drinking age in my state to 18 and then, a few years later, vote to raise it to 21. The second vote was necessitated by the astronomical increase in drunk driving deaths in the 18-21 age group. They're too young to have those two adult privileges at the same time. Statistics at the time of the second vote showed that responsible drinking and driving was far more likely after the three additional year wait and those statistics were measures of traffic deaths caused.
Sorry, once again those leading our universities reveal that they can sometimes be too insulated to exercise good common sense.
I have to agree with you - lower the drinking age and raise the driving age. I studied abroad in Australia where this was the case. The students I was with could drink at 18 but not drive until 21. It made so much sense - by the time they could drive, they had already learned how to drink responsibly, their limits, etc. Of course, there was a great public transportation system in Melbourne, I don't know how it worked elsewhere.
It might be controversial - but it should appease MADD...
Of course lowering the age over night is going to increase deaths from drunk driving as all of the people previously prohibited from drinking get it out of their systems. I believe this is a 1 time hit, once the mad craze from the age change goes away and you get to an equilibrium everything will go back to normal. There must be a balance struck and the laws as they are today are unjust to the 18-20 year olds' because they feel as though they're being oppressed by the older generations and many drink illegally (or go to Canada) to circumvent the laws. Look around, 16 and 17 year olds rarely drink and only do so as a way to rebel against parents. 18-20 year olds drink because they feel they have a right to do so. They can die for their country, are legally liable for any contract they sign, can get married and enter into a lifelong commitment, yet they can't drink yeast pee. Seriously, this is yeast byproduct from eating sugar, you can make it with apple juice in the back of your fridge for a little too long. 18-20 year olds can smoke tobacco that's genetically engineered to be extra addictive, but can't drink yeast pee.
We could pass laws tomorrow illegalizing driving cars, accidents would drop to almost 0 and we'd save a lot of lives. Just because we could pass the law doesn't mean it's ethical to do so, regardless of how many lives are saved.
Here's my proposal, remove the drinking age completely. Yes, DUI will increase for a few years and there will probably be a spike in alcoholism and alcohol related deaths. The end result though will be all of the children will safely get drunk at family weddings and get parties while supervised by their parents. They'll learn respect for alcohol and because it's not taboo it'll no longer have the allure it does to minors today. In the long term DUI and alcoholism will diminish because alcohol will make a very big impression from a very young age that will last throughout their lives. There will always be alcoholism because there will always be some people that are prone to substance abuse, those people will end up alcoholics either way regardless of the drinking age. How do we minimize the other class of people, the ones that are doing it because it's cool, against the law, or new to them so they make bad choices.
Hey Gary
What planet are you from? I dare you to go into one high school and find a 16-17 year old that doesn't drink on a consistent level. Just for laughs go into a middle school and do the same.
You are going to find out that alcohol is more prevalent than you thought. Contrary to popular thinking, alcohol use and alcoholism rates among teens in this country "USA" are skyrocketing. They are not far ahead of drug use.
Schools should ban alcohol. If you want to drink, go to a bar. Make sure your 21 first
Go to Utah, Nevada, California. You'll find lots of high school kids that don't drink, that have NEVER touched alcohol and don't intend to.
Just because you did something, doesn't mean everybody is doing it.
Um, Truly Republican, you're flat-out wrong. I come from a small "hick-town" in Wisconsin (a state with one of the highest drinking rates in the country) and am part of an Irish Catholic family (I dont think I really have to state the stereotype here) and I didnt TOUCH alcohol throughout high school. And no, I wasn't some sort of freak or social pariah--I can also count at least twenty of my friends who can say the same. It just so happens that not EVERY highschooler is a raging idiot, contrary to popular belief.
"Schools should ban alcohol"--what? Alcohol IS banned at schools. That policy works just about as well as the drinking age law does.
Truly Republican, you completely missed the point of what I was saying... I never said that there aren't 16 & 17 year olds that drink, of course you'll find some that do. Again, in general those children are ones rebelling against their parents and getting into mischief due to lack of parental supervision. The highschool kids that are drinking will be drinking regardless of the official drinking age, and the highschool kids that aren't drinking won't be drinking regardless of the official drinking age. I'm an optimist, i think most kids are good kids and with proper parental supervision they'll stay out of alcohol and drugs. That's really what this comes down to, the only way to enforce the drinking age is to have someone supervise, because alcohol is incredibly easy to get. For 16 & 17 year olds you can put the work on the parents to supervise their children. Yes, let me repeat that, PARENTS should be supervising minors in high school, they do have a legal responsibility to and the good ones are already doing it and will continue doing it regardless of the drinking age. Alcohol is easy to get, kids in high school that want to drink and don't have parental supervision are already drinking.
For 18-20 year olds their parents have no control so the laws are mostly ineffective and hypocritical.
Yes, definitely the age should be lowered. Fewer young people died when I was in college and had "keggers" at the student union and walked home instead of smuggling vodka in water bottles and then having deaths from alcohol intoxication. At least beer. It's hard to drink enough of that to actually have fatal blood alcohol levels because it fills you up. Also statistics show that car related deaths are down in EVERY age category but deaths in the 18 to 21 age group have actually gone up. MADD is completely wrong and uninformed on this topic. R. Demczuk age 56.
#16 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:22 PM EDT"It's hard to drink enough (beer) of that to actually have fatal blood alcohol levels because it fills you up"????!!!!
You scare me.
Thanks for letting me know that MADD is completely wrong and uniformed on this topic- underage drinking, drinking and driving, etc... Ya, I heard they were just bored and had a lot of money to blow. This also confirms my belief that the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse doesn't know what the hell they're doing either...
Thanks for the clarity.
Thanks for letting me know that MADD is completely wrong and uniformed on this topic
Well, they are. Sorry to tell you that, but be skeptical about any group with an agenda. If MADD had stuck to its original message of stopping drunk driving, I'd still support them. Now that they are the modern Temperance League, I file them away in my "religious crazies" drawer and refuse to donate a red cent.
Look at Europe: they have much lower drinking ages and fewer drunk driving deaths. Of course, they also have absolutely draconian punishments for driving while impaired and a working public transportation system to move people around without cars. What they don't have is the return of the fricking Puritans.
Whow... Another example of the continuing decline of a once great Country.... The same reason has been used for a long time on attempts to legalize drugs: If their usage is decriminalized, the interest/abuse would decline. WRONG! Look at the terrible effects this policy has had in the Netherlands! They have terrible problems with addiction and abuse after years of legalization.
Instead of lowering the drinking age I suggest that the honorable college presidents enforce their own policies in place and penalize under age students caught drinking. Don't get rid of responsibilities by getting rid of uncomfortable laws.
#17 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:23 PM EDTYou do realize that the drinking age in most states in this "once great country" was 18 until the mid 80s...
So unless you are referring to the Clinton years - I suggest you rethink your argument...
And if you WERE referring to the Clinton era as this "once great country" you have far greater problems to worry about than the drinking age...
Umm.. no?
In the Netherlands 9.7% of young boys consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),[15] but much higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.[3] Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category.
Before people start flipping because of using Wikipedia, I looked at all the sources of the policy results, and they all check out.
And, if you read that Wikipedia page, 0.3% become problem drug users. And, for those who do become problem drug users, the government is able to pick up 90% of them for rehabilitation.
Also, while the article does say that soft drug cases have gone up in the Netherlands, I believe this is due to foreign pressure (and people like you). (My opinion).
Oh, and by the way. It's not legal. Not pot, cocaine, heroin, nothing. Cannabis is mainly tolerated. But, it still is a misdemeanor.
Don't get rid of responsibilities by getting rid of uncomfortable laws.
While it may be removing responsibility for bars, liquor stores, etc etc. It's adding responsibility to those who partake in the drinking.
Please look up the facts before you try to refute something.
omg omg OMG. sorry, just being stupid like that one "21" year old child up at the top. couldn't resist...
There's something about living in fear that doesn't sit right with me. Responsibility doesn't necessarily have to come through fear of the law. And I guess I'm just speaking for myself when I say, I've learned responsibility through acquiring experience and wisdom... not instant gratification, or in this case, appeasement of someone else's ideals... aka their instant gratification... Not to say that someone else's ideals can't be passed on as a matter of mentoring and exchange of knowledge. (Here comes my tag-line!) hmmm...
I'm not advocating anarchy and a disassembling of laws... I'm just saying enforcing laws should be a matter of imparting wisdom and experience, not fear of punishment. Corruption comes about because of total disrespect for the law... I could give a case in point, but I think it would detract from the point I'm trying to make.
But here's a thought... Our war on terror is to my understanding supposedly (and most ideally) a stand against living in fear for living a life that is in opposition to someone else's ideals. Or so they say. Of course, I can't say that I agree with most of the ideals we broadcast to the rest of the world.
Viva la wine and diapers! hmmm...
Another example of the continuing decline of a once great Country
Do you know how John Hancock made his fortune? Rum and wine dealer. Smuggler in fact, to avoid British customs duties. He was the drug dealer of his day. Sam Adams was involved in the production of alcohol as a maltster.
The decline of this country began when people decided that someone else's pursuit of happiness was unpleasant to their religious and moral sensibilities and had to be stopped. I am all for absolutely harsh penalties for any harm to persons or property done while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating drugs: that is the proper role of the government in this. The fact that you find it morally reprehensible to drink matters to me not one bit as you are still free not to indulge. Your rights end right there.
If drinking and driving by 18 to 21 year olds is incompatible with public safety than I'm for banning the drinking. Having kids free to drive to work, college and other useful occupations is a civic good. Drinking cannot be said to be a civic good.
Drinking cannot be said to be a civic good.
I can think of an awful lot of things that aren't "civic goods" that are perfectly legal. Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and just advocate for out and out prohibition?
Adeipic
My conviction is as I said, not as you would impose on me in your drug addled adversarialness. Your assumption that because I say "A," I must also mean "Z," is proof that you could have better spent your college time in a basic logic class rather than doing drugs and booze.
I'll will tell you of another of my convictions: I don't think advocating legalization of drug use by students is an appropriate activity for any university president. They are paid to fill two roles, administrator and pedagogue. Neither role is served by advocating making it easier for students to booze it up.
I think the relevant supervising authorities on for each of these school presidents should hold hearings on how serious the fool takes his responsibility to discourage underage alcohol consumption.
And I will ask you this: are 18 year olds adults? If so, then how can you justify limiting the rights of one group of adults while not limiting others based on a completely arbitrary age limit? Or if you are OK with that, how do you sleep at night knowing that you are perfectly willing to send children to die for you in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I think the relevant supervising authorities on for each of these school presidents
And I see that you appear to hold a general contempt for intellectual freedom when it dare question your precious morals. No one is making you take a drink, you know.
Wow! Do you see the vitriol and muddled-mindedness in your own makeup--I shouldn't be able to sleep at night, this has something to do with war, I'm anti-intellectual freedom, my "precious morals?
I can distinguish between groups of adults when there is a valid public purpose for doing so, in this case public safety.
My opinion on the drinking age has nothing to do with war policy, but if it did it wouldn't justify me supporting the elimination of the age limits for serving in Congress and the presidency either.
The drinking age has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual freedom. Can you propose a nexus between the two matters? What, are hungover students better students?
The drinking age is not a moral issue. It's resolution will and should come from a judicious consideration of the public welfare. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a moral bigot, though it would be convenient for you if they were then you dismissals of their points wouldn't be just aggressive name calling prejudice---but then it would only be by chance, wouldn't it.
Not every rejoinder is an engaged argument in response. Do you have a point that's relevant?
when there is a valid public purpose for doing so
But there is none here as we entrust people that age with responsibilities of far greater consequence. Just saying it is valid doesn't make it so, and that is all you have offered. Your logic is so utterly inconsistent here that I can draw no other conclusion than you don't like drinking and would like to see it cease.
Furthermore, you ignore the European experience and the fact that their drinking ages are often lower than 18 yet they lack the very societal ills you fear, usually through strict enforcement of strict drinking and driving laws. You then suggest censoring the people who speak up merely because they do not agree with you, showing a real contempt for academic freedom, again by repeating the mantra that there is a "valid reason" for doing so. Again, there isn't.
I started drinking as soon as I became 18. I told my parents that they got to drink at 18 so why should I be held to a different standard than they were. Regardless of the drinking age those who want to get alcohol are going to get it. At many campuses underage drinking tickets are a joke, paid off and then ignored. All in all, having the drinking age 21 instead of 18 really makes no difference. Those who are "afraid" of drinking before 21 probably would not binge drink anyways.
#18 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:24 PM EDTMaybe suspension or expulsion would render the criminality less of a joke? It makes a difference if you are on the road with a buzzed 18 year old running right at you.
Age has nothing to do with it.
I am for a mandatory 1 year suspension of license for the first offense of driving while intoxicated, a mandatory permanent license revocation on the second offense, and a minimum of five years for driving on a suspended or revoked license caused by driving under the influence, regardless of age. I am also for an 18 year old drinking age. Does this mean some young adults are going to screw their driving privileges fairly early on? Well boo-hoo, they are adults at that point.
Contrary to some posts here, most European countries actually have far worse problems with alcohol than the US dose.
#19 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:28 PM EDTIt is also mor difficult to get a drivers license in "most" European countries and they can't get one until they are 18, so perhaps we should raise the driving age....16 is after all TOO young for kids to be on the road!!
European drunk driving laws are also far stricter. I have friends in germany and there if you are caught driving under the influence you lose your license forever.
Which would be a damn good idea for us to adopt.
These college presidents are idiots!
#20 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:29 PM EDTAs we keep being told, minds/brains are not fully developed (still growing) until 22 or so. That is one of the reasons younger people make bad choices (such as binge drinking) that older people usually do not make.
Letting 18 year olds drink would do nothing to improve their decision making process (or suddenly cause them to lose the desire to party hardy). The last thing needed is to let 18 year olds drink
#21 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:29 PM EDTI'm 19, and I can understand that binge drinking is bad, thank you very much.
For once, people should stop relying on numbers and statics and put enough faith in their peers to think they'd be able to handle themselves.
Well, it depends on what you consider "binge drinking." At my school, we were taught that having 3 or more drinks in a night (4+ hours), for more than 2 days a week was binge drinking.
Let's reduce binge drinking in college by deflecting the problem to high school, as high school students can handle binge drinking due to their maturity.
What we need to do is remove the "forbidden fruit" aspect of the problem. Why is binge drinking a bigger problem in the US than in other developed countries
#22 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:29 PM EDTThe comments preceding mine are eloquent pointing out several reasons the drinking age should be lowered to 18. One additional thought, however, has not yet been brought up.
Young people see the hypocrisy of their elders. They know very well that illegal underage drinking has been going on in the U.S. for the last several generations. It is just one more reason for them to scoff at un-enforcable social laws. But where does that scoffing end? With the drinking age? With speeding? With sex? With stealing? With cheating? I think you get my drift.
We have many social problems in the U.S. today. Binge drinking is one that could be minimized by teaching our young people responsible alcohol consumption habits. The current, un-intended message seems to be that drinking is such an exotic activity which "makes you an adult." They are willing to engage in risky behavior, in excesses that can kill them, without really even knowning what they are risking their lives for. What a waste!
#23 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:31 PM EDTThere is absolutely no evidence cited in this article of how or why the age limit of 18 would reduce binge drinking. Or even evidence for the age limit of 21. Until a peer-reviewed study is brought forth with real, hard data, this discussion is pointless and anecdotal.
#24 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:32 PM EDTDrinking age is not really the issue where binge drinking is concerned. Although the younger a person begins to drink heavily the more likely they are to develop alcoholism, drinking moderately can be done safely at any age. No, the problem is our attitude toward drinking. Somewhere, somehow it became cool to get drunk. Somehow we now think that getting blackout drunk, losing control of our various bodily functions, saying and doing things that we wish we would (but never, ever) forget, waking up in our own vomit makes us great. I've got news for you folks that want to live that life; there's no glamor. If we put over-drinking in the same perspective as smoking, which is where it belongs, people might start to slow down. There will still be alcoholics, but if the attitude in this country toward over-drinking were to change from 'cool' to 'shame' we might have fewer amateur drinkers killing people in wreaks on Friday nights. After that, maybe we can tackle the idea that being smart is bad and being stupid is cool.
#25 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:33 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Recent Articles & Seeds 
I wonder how far the international community should go to deliver aid to Myanmar. Should force be used against the junta or just helicopter drops of food and supplies? It makes you wonder what the responsibility of the world is to intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster.
This website shows the latest news in the world with many information. This website changes the world with new methodologies.
==================================================
linasandy
[url=""]california dui[/url]
I am not Hillary support. I feel sad for the way the media mistreat her campaign and afraid to voice any negative opinions about Obama. May be I miss something here.
Hillary did NOT win more votes. Here in Iowa throngs of people turned out for Obama on caucus night. Hillary is not counting any of the caucus states.
I am delighted with him. I initially wanted Hillary but when she started the dirty campaigning and Bill started to be Bozo Bill instead of the guy we loved, I knew Obama was the only one who really stood for change.
Obama's public charisma --well I have not seen it in my life time. He may not know how Washington works--but this is a plus for an agent of change. He is smart, articulate and knows how to form an argument without making fun of the other person. (As McCain had to last night.)
Obama kept his campaign clean through good times and bad---he will win Iowa and other swing states. I hope Hillary and her bunch do not have to keep reframing the truth to make her look victimized. Every time I turned on CNN (which was daily) the discussion was "what does Hillary need to do to win?" How racist! Why was it not "what does Obama need to do to keep his lead."
Now nobody can insist Hillary admit she is out of the race because nobody wants to hurt her feelings?? Oh, come on. I have never heard of that, either. Sexist!
The American Public does not know how lucky they are to have Obama. Poor David Letterman. What is he going to feature in "Great presidential speeches" now that we have a guy who can not only speak well, he can think at the same time.
Obama carries a lot of negative baggage (Wright, Michelle's comments, etc.). BUT Obama is the Dems and media's darling and pushed him as their nominee.
If elected, his plans for the United States will make Jimmy Carter look like George Washington. I don't want to live in a socialized society and that's the road Obama will take us.
Congratulations to Obama! While both parties and their candidates are undoubtedly controlled by the "global elite", Obama represents at least a possibility for real change. Hillary and Bill had there chance for 8 years. They were horrible at forwarding the American ideals of real freedom for all mankind, Bush was even worse. Good luck Mr. Obama - here's to busting the ever tightening grip of the police state.
Log In | Register
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking