Here’s a good question: Should the legal drinking age be reduced from 21 to 18? It’s a question many university presidents want the public to discuss, according to an Associated Press story on the front page of today’s Herald-Leader.
You can vote, join the military and fight and die in Iraq at 18, but you can’t legally buy a beer. Does that make sense?
Anti-alcohol activists say it does. They think lowering the drinking age would lead to more alcohol use and abuse by younger people. They say the university presidents are just wanting to reduce their institutions’ liability for alchol-related problems.
But lowering the legal drinking age would put more of the responsibility for alcohol education onto parents and families. If people were taught to drink responsibly when they were at home, might the lesson stick better? Does making something illegal just make it more attractive to abuse?
All good questions. What do you think? Leave a comment below.
August 19, 2008 at 11:22 am |
Have a resercher at the Herald-Leader look up some data on European countries with lower legal drinking ages. I tend to think if the age was lowered, there would be less abuse. Maybe this data could shed some light…
August 19, 2008 at 11:25 am |
If doing something illegal just contributes to more abuse, why not abolish speed limits? Or abolish drunk driving laws, that way people wouldn’t do it. That’s a lousy argument.
August 19, 2008 at 11:34 am |
I believe that lowering the age to 18 is not an unreasonable idea. Most of the Western World has drinking ages that are significantly lower. Most European countries set a techincal age at 14 or 16, but generally leave the decisions about alcohol to the families. Alcohol abuse is no more prevalent there than it is here.
I was an exchange student when I was 17, living in Germany. Beer was served at every meal, and plum brandy served after dinner as a digestif. I drank with the family, but never to drunkeness. It wasn’t an issue–alcohol was simply an accepted part of the culture. Drinking responsibly was enforced by the family–much the way young people are taught to look both ways before crossing and not to talk to strangers. Young people there are included in the culture from an early age, and alcohol consumption there was a non-issue. Like so many other things in life, taking responsibility was the key to making it work.
I think that lowering the age, and letting families establish a foundation of good sense when it comes to alcohol makes far more sense than spring break, bars, and tailgating being the teachers of alcohol practices. Pushing the limits and “getting away with it” seem to be much of the motivation for binge drinking and out of control partying. Pull back the shroud of mystery and remove the “getting away with it” motivation. Let alcohol consumption be more of a responsible social and cultural activity, and less of a release of youthful angst and thrillseeking.
August 19, 2008 at 11:51 am |
Why Not 21?
The Renewed Debate Over Underage Drinking
By Stephen G. Wallace, M.S. Ed.
Renewed public discourse about the advisability of lowering the legal drinking age, largely fueled by former Middlebury College President John M. McCardell, Jr., has opened a different front in the war on substance use and abuse among young people. While some have tired of the now decades-old debate, a fresh round of honest discussion by informed public policy- makers and pundits can only inure to the benefit of those with the most at stake.
Among McCardell’s many arguments for issuing drinking “licenses” to 18- to 20-year-olds are suggestions that the current legal age of 21 breeds disrespect for the law, deprives parents of opportunities to teach children to drink responsibly, and drives problem drinking further underground and out of sight of those who might be inclined to help.
But addressing this epidemic by enabling it would be akin to suggesting that we can solve the problem of speeding by doing away with speed limits, pointed out Dr. Robert DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior and Health and former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). As for the parents, SADD’s Teens Today research reveals that those who allow their children to learn to drink at home actually incite significantly more drinking elsewhere. And arguing that moving the legal drinking age to 18 will magically transport alcohol use out of the shadows and into the light overlooks the fact that young people use alcohol today much differently than they did even a decade ago. High-risk, or “binge,” drinking, something McCardell cites as a relatively new phenomenon, has become more of a means to an end (getting drunk) for many youth rather than part of a larger social strategy. And that is unlikely to change with a lower drinking age.
In truth, there are many reasons that young people are drinking alcohol and drinking it in large quantities, including genetics, social environments, and such mental health triggers as stress, anxiety, and depression. Simplifying complicated etiology bypasses important issues related to healthy human development.
While some dismiss McCardell as nothing more than an annoying “gadfly,” many in the medical and prevention communities are responding to his proposals by rallying behind a re-statement of the relevant facts, now branded Why 21?
On the why21.org website, MADD sets up and promptly rebuts five myths about underage drinking and drinking laws, addressing, for example, the “forbidden fruit” issue, the “If I am old enough to go to war I am old enough to drink” argument, and the worn (and false) “Europe doesn’t have these problems” analogy.
In contrast, the testimony on the other side sometimes seems aimed more at assuaging the inconvenienced than at best serving America’s youth. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that, during his tenure as a college president, McCardell came to “resent” the law because it forces administrators to “choose between policing their students [and] looking the other way.” Similarly, J. Lee Peters, vice president for student affairs at the University of Hartford, told The Chronicle that the law “undermines” his relationships with students.
But perhaps the undermining actually occurs when those charged with educating young people downplay a public health crisis that threatens the safety of those with whom they are trying to forge meaningful relationships in the first place.
Even some of the statistics used to bolster the argument for lowering the drinking age appear to reinforce the imperative that alcohol be restricted among less physiologically and socially mature populations. These include one cited by Indiana University Professor Ruth Eng that says 22 percent of all students under 21 years of age, compared to 18 percent of students over 21, are heavy drinkers.
According to The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking, alcohol use by young people is a leading contributor to death from injuries, plays a significant role in risky sexual behavior, increases the risk of assault, and is associated with academic failure and illicit drug use. Specifically, this important report highlights that:
An estimated 1,700 college students die each year from alcohol-related injuries;
Approximately 600,000 students are injured while under the influence of alcohol;
Some 700,000 students are assaulted by other students who have been drinking; and
About 100,000 students are victims of alcohol-related sexual assaults or date rapes.
Just as significant, the report points to emerging facts about the permanent damage alcohol can inflict upon the structure and function of still- developing adolescent and young adult brains.
Undoing the current minimum-age drinking laws would likely do little, if anything, to reduce problematic drinking behaviors on college campuses and most assuredly would contribute to the downward age-trending of initiation into alcohol use by legally moving it into the high school community. It is pertinent to note that, according to Teens Today, students in grades 6-12 ranked the drinking age as the number-one reason why they choose not to use alcohol.
No matter how inconvenienced they may be, conflicted adults are a huge part of the problem rather than even a small part of the solution. By turning a blind eye, they perpetuate the fallacy that drinking by youth is really no big deal. By contrast, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt, in introducing the Surgeon General’s report, stated with much-needed clarity, “Underage alcohol consumption is a major societal problem with enormous health and safety consequences.”
Given that, might we be better off asking, “Why not 21?”
——————————————————————————–
Stephen Wallace, national chairman and chief executive officer of SADD, Inc. (Students Against Destructive Decisions), has broad experience as a school psychologist and adolescent counselor. For more information about SADD, visit sadd.org. For more information about Stephen, visit stephengraywallace.com.
August 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm |
I lived in Michigan when the drinking age was 18. Binge drinking was rampant but legal. Drunk driving accidents skyrocketed. It was a disastrous experiment. I was 18 at the time and we all took full advantage of the lowered drinking age. It just made it a lot easier. Deaths from drunk driving accidents increased by something like 400%. After a few years Michigan went back to the 21 drinking age. I think it is a stupid idea to lower the drinking age.
August 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
I can see that we will all differ on this subject, so how about a compromise? Let’s raise the military service and marriage ages to 21, too.
August 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
The argument that you can die fighting in the military but you can’t buy a beer looks a little different when you focus on what fighting in the military means. The thought of 18 year olds entrusted with machine guns and grenades patrolling civilian areas and searching peoples houses makes me cringe. That’s a lot of responsibility for an 18 year old! Maybe we should be talking about raising the age for military service to 21!
The argument that German kids grow up drinking at an earlier age and are taught to do so responsibly is an interesting one. I think there is a lot to this. However, the culture of Kentucky is nothing like that of Germany and culture doesn’t change overnight. Kentucky’s Southern Baptist heritage has given us a lot of hang-ups about alcohol, where in other parts of the country/world drinking is just not seen as a big issue. Our culture would prevent a drinking age of 18 from working well for Kentucky.
August 19, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
This whole “military” argument could be solved very easily. If you’re enlisted in the military, you can buy alcohol if you’re under 21. If you’re not enlisted, then you can’t.
August 19, 2008 at 8:52 pm |
I’ve long thought that if we can drive at 16 and vote and go to war for our country at 18, then we should be allowed to drink at 18.
August 20, 2008 at 10:33 am |
First of all, We are Americans and we do excess better than anyone on the planet. Do you honestly think that our Jerry Springer lifestyles and mentality would reverse with further access to destructive chemicals. Seriously…it would just be another reason to post a YouTRube video for all the idiots out there. Also, I beleive it would be taken a s condoning drinking something which should atotally be discouraged. Responsible drinking is not somethin most people are capable of…
Second…I agree… it’s ridiculous to die for your country without being of legal age to drink alcohol.
Third, I support the raise in age but practically speaking it won’t pass unless Americans reverse our current political process and make our country about a government…of the people…for the people and by the people.
It’s obvious that absolute power corrupts absolutely…and our system is now run by corporations and politicians and other entities that have absolute power and are absolutely corrupt!
August 20, 2008 at 11:40 am |
Making it legal for people age 18-20 will not make these people drink more responsibly. That is really the issue here. Responsible drinking. This behavior will not be changed through laws. 18-20 yr-olds are already binge drinking while its illegal. Legalizing it will only make it easier to get.
Alcohol doesn’t have a “forbidden fruit” taboo in our culture. Turn on a TV. It’s everywhere and totally accepted. That’s why so many kids drink underage. It’s a cultural problem, not a legal one. The problem is the culture of drinking at all ages. Few are the responsible drinkers. Many are the drunkards, alcoholics, and binge drinkers.
Laws do not control behavior. Incentives control behavior. People don’t obey speed limits because they are law. They obey them because of the incentives (to not get a ticket, or when driving fast feels unsafe such as a blind curve or winding, tree-lined road). When the speed limit on the interstate says 70, people regularly drive 85 because the road is usually so damn flat and straight, it feels safe at that speed. Unless you see a cop (incentive alert!) you don’t drive the legal limit, you drive the safety-incentive limit.
So… how do we go about creating the incentives for young people to stop binge drinking? By legalizing it? By keeping it illegal? This is not the avenue to address the problem.
August 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm |
We must establish ONE age where an individual is responsible for every aspect of his/her life. To say that an 18 year old has all the rights and responsibilities of every other citizen, with the exception of not being able to consume alcohol, is wrong.
The legal drinking age of 21 is arbitrary. It would make just as much sense to make it 25. Just as much as in “none at all.”