Pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, safety experts, and politicians has sobered up two college presidents who originally attached their names to a petition to lower the drinking age. In the meantime, 15 other presidents added their names.
Kendall Blanchard, the president of Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus, and Robert M. Franklin, the president of Morehouse College in Atlanta, removed their names from the list of 123 presidents in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18. Blanchard said, “It was clear to me that they didn’t see this as a dialogue; they saw this as some kind of effort on our part to turn our schools into party schools.”
Leaders from schools including Dartmouth, Duke, and Tufts argue that the legal age of 21 brews a binge-drinking culture and is disrespect of the law. Students feel the need to use fake IDs, and drink the forbidden appletini in secret. To see what the other side has to say, read more.
Those in favor of 21 point out that a higher drinking age has had positive results, including a reduction in alcohol-related traffic deaths among young drivers. Perhaps a new law could lower the drinking age, but keep a zero-tolerance policy for younger drivers: if they've had even one drink and then drive, they've broken the law.
While both sides of the age debate have compelling arguments, it would be a shame if a discussion got shut down before it started. Would college students be more responsible if we stop treating them like they're irresponsible?
Forzieri
Miss Cerise
Crocs
"Would college students be more responsible if we stop treating them like they're irresponsible?"
I think those who are going to be responsible will do so regardless of the law. However, stricter punishments and higher expectations might make some of the irresponsible people think twice.
1Anytime you give people more liberty, it is a dangerous thing that should be avoided. God knows that adults shouldn't be allowed to make primarily self-regarding decisions without express written consent from the federal government.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: We need to make sure this government is a parental figure to both children and adults alike. Should this law be changed, it would be a huge step back.
2ridiculous! i vote for re-prohibition and making marijuana legal to those over 21. whose with me???
3Re-prohibition?
4Lowering the age would take some burden off of schools - they wouldn't have to worry so much about policing for underage drinking, and their feet wouldn't be to the fire over the issue after every Homecoming frat party. So, I can see why so many college presidents are for the change. It's one less legality for them to worry about.
That said, I personally don't support lowering the drinking age, but if these kids want to drink and get stupid - well, they're going to drink and get stupid. Doesn't really matter what the drinking age is. The attitudes are what will have to change, and I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
(That comment about liberty being dangerous makes me cringe, by the way. Oy.)
5I support lowering the drinking age on the basis that it seems stupid to tell an eighteen year old they are old enough to fight for their country and put their life on the line, but not old enough to buy a beer.
However, I don't think lowering the drinking age would change much. The drinking age in England is eighteen, and the UK has a major binge drinking problem.
6I'm all for lowering the drinking age. I'd eliminate it entirely if it were up to me.
The teenage drinking problem is a cultural problem. Instead of teaching moderation, starting a young age, we teach teens that alcohol is BAD and drinking is BAD without telling them how to hit the happy medium that we all eventually learn to do with experience and age...and then we give them a mixed signal by showing them their parents and relatives (and media icons) safely indulging in this substance that they're told by schools and media is BAD and SHOULD NEVER BE USED. We don't explain to them that there is a safe level of indulgence; we just expect them to figure it out on their own. And then we wonder why they experiment and push the limits?
7Very well said, TsuKata.
8I think it should be lowered because the law does not stop those who are intent on drinking. We've also had decades of a shift in public knowledge and public service announcements that youth did not have when when this law was written, so it's not like teens are going to come scattering out like roaches in the dark to get their first drink.
Maybe I'm just weird but I was surrounded by pot smoking binge drinking jocks in High School and College who were my friends and I didn't start drinking until I was twenty-eight by my own choice and I've only puffed on the weed four or five times at best. Don't really like it.
9"Instead of teaching moderation, starting a young age, we teach teens that alcohol is BAD and drinking is BAD without telling them how to hit the happy medium that we all eventually learn to do with experience and age."
Well said.
10I totally agree TsuKata
11Agreed with TsuKata as well as frogandprince. It was kind of aggravating to be a 19-year-old intelligent enough to load and wire bombs onto jets, but not old enough to have a beer after shift. Not to say I didn't anyway. But there was always the intense fear of one of my not-so-fun Chiefs seeing me imbibing.
12Ditto on Michelin's comment, though I agree that there is sense behind lowering the drinking age to 18. If that happens, who bets the next big drinking age issue will be the 16 and 17 year olds who drink and might as well do it legally. On some points, it really would make sense just to abolish the drinking age since it hypes drinking as a coming of age activity.
13i think that we just need to look back at the historical information. when the drinking age was lower -there was more of a reason for it. we were in a war (ok, i know we're living in one now - sort of but it's not the same context) and there was a different quality of life. we see now that there's so much disregard for the age as is - that if we allow even younger kids to drink - then it's going to lead to so many worse things. at least now there are only 15-16 year olds who think that they can drink when the age is 21. but if we go to 18 - then we're opening the door to elementary school kids to feel like it's ok. i would be so afraid to go out my door knowing that you just can't guess who's drinking and who's not. i don't want to be able to go to a bar and know that really really young teens are drinking too.
14I don't think 15-16 year olds drinking do it because they think they're close enough to 21. I think they do it because they're 15-16 and they think its cool.
15honestly i don't see what the big deal is, I live in Manitoba and the legal age is 18, the legal age in the provinces next to us is 18 so we always have kids coming over to drink. American Spring Break is crazy in the bars here tho because all the underagers come up to cananda to drink. Nothing is more fun then your favorite bar being full of drunken 18-20 year old Americans. Kids are going to drink no matter what age you make the legal age.
16"I think it should be lowered because the law does not stop those who are intent on drinking"
So, let's make murder legal because the law won't stop those who are intent on killing someone.
Same concept. Doesn't make any sense either.
17Murder and underage drinking aren't comparable crimes.
18I'm with UnDave again. A drinking age of 21 is as central to a functioning society as murder being disallowed. Same concept. Very reasonable.
19No no..I went to the Bahamas for the summer one year and it was flooded with 18 year olds who were drinking and became SUCH a hot mess, that the hotel would only allow them to be outside their hotel on the pier during the night. They wouldn't let them in because they were such animals. I think 21 is a perfect age and people should be focusing more on cracking down on underage drinking.
20I agree completely with Tsukata. American culture needs to change along with lowering the drinking age. In Italy, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, wine is serve with a meal to people as young as 16. Alcohol is not regarded as a 'forbidden fruit'. Thus, binge drinking is rather unheard of, save for Munich's annual event, Oktoberfest.
21They are both crimes mich. If we can change one because the law won't stop people, then that reasoning can be used for any other law. Why not get rid of speed limits, because "no one" follows them anyway? It is a bad idea to change a law, just because it's inconvenient.
22I agree with user frogandprince about lowering the drinking age. If young people can registered to enroll in the military, then why shouldn't they be able to drink?
23The voting age was lowered to 18 in part to respond to the 'we can fight but we can't vote' argument. Voting and military service are more equal responsibilities.
24>"I think it should be lowered because the law does not stop those who are intent on drinking"
>So, let's make murder legal because the law won't stop those who are intent on killing someone.
Same concept. Doesn't make any sense either.
But we don't let people murder once they reach a certain age. We don't have a concept of "responsible murdering" or "murdering in moderation."
25Torg, that's a good point. Furthermore, drinking is a self-regarding decision. Murder is not. Doesn't the term "victimless crime" mean anything to you?
26No, but the law doesn't stop people from murdering, so why have it.
27Michelin - underage drinking has a victim, the person drinking.
Murder is against the law because the act interferes with another person's right to live. An adult drinking doesn't interfere with anybody's right to do anything. Therefore it is victimless.
Even if I agreed to your nonsensical definition of "victim", since when is it okay for the government to protect an adult from themselves?
If you don't think 18 year olds are old enough to be considered adult, then that's another issue. Perhaps we should take away 18 year olds rights to vote, join the military, sign a legal contract, etc. and give them back when you think they're also responsible enough to drink.
Perhaps 19 would be a good age? That way, there will be no legally drinking adults still in high school.
28UnDave is right. We can't have people victimizing themselves in a free country. Some use the term nannystate in a perjorative manner, but I don't think that's fair. I think that UnDave is correct in his belief that the federal government needs to parent adults a little too.
29I always thought the right to drink and the right to drive (not at the same time...) should come with a high school diploma or GED.
30Torg, that's a good point. However, what about people who don't get a GED or diploma? They still need to drive in order to get a job and survive in this world. Maybe you mean just the age?
In a related note, there are a lot of good arguments for raising the driving age. Of course, I think the requirements for driving need to be a lot stricter.
31I'm done here. You don't understand, and never will. 18, 19, and 20 yr olds aren't adult enough to make mature decisions. A look around ANY high school or college campus shows that. I understand that from your perspective, I'm wrong, but my 4yr old thinks she's a big girl now. Just because you think you are, doesn't make it true.
32Torg, there is no right to drink or right to drive. These are privileges that are given to us by a compassionate government. As such, they must be strictly regulated so that we may be prevented from victimizing ourselves.
33Maybe if you don't get a GED or diploma, you can start drinking at 21? I don't know.
34That's pretty condescending, UnDave. Sounds like somebody is throwing a temper tantrum because they can't have a logical argument with a "big girl".
35Hmm, this would normally be the part where people post the drinking cartoons, right? I can't decide if that would be inappropriate or right on the nose. Is everyone here 21?
We see statistics about underage drinking gone wrong, but about it gone right? don't most people drink in high school or college, to no disastrous consequences?
36Torg, yes. I would say the majority of high school students have tried drinking. Certainly the vast majority of college students.
37No, I'm just accepting the fact that as I dispell one argument ("The law isn't stopping anyone from doing it, so we should lower the age."), I get bombarded by others that are just as bereft of any substance.
Torg - If you drink in HS, eventually something is going to happen. Also, not everyone drinks in high school, the ones that don't are the only ones I would say could handle the responsibility.
38I never made the argument that "The law isn't stopping it so it shouldn't be the law". I simply pointed out that your counter argument was not sound.
If you don't believe 18, 19, 20 year olds are old enough to make mature decisions, why do you believe they're old enough to go to war, go to prison, and vote?
39Hypno made the argument. I used murder for shock value. The concept is the same. You don't remove a law just because it doesn't stop someone who is intent on breaking that law.
Because we have a volunteer army, the 18-20yr olds who enlist are generaly more mature than their counterparts. They also grow up a lot in basic training. The majority of 18-20yr olds also do not vote, for whatever reason. Those that do vote are probably more mature than the ones who don't. Because most aren't mature enough to handle the responsibility, no one should be given the privilege.
40I know a lot of 18-20 year olds who enlisted. As much as I appreciate their friendship and respect their service, they are less mature than most of the other people I know. They tried to go to college and didn't have the discipline to go to class. One of them brags that he drank and partied for two weeks straight. Didn't go to class once. Real mature. They weren't mature enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives, so they go to the military for structure and discipline.
I'll agree that most 18-20 year olds don't vote. But I do. And I take the responsibility very seriously.
"Because most aren't mature enough to handle the responsibility, no one should be given the privilege." Most people can't handle the responsibility of being married. Maybe none of them should be given the privilege. A lot of people can't handle the responsibility of getting a mortgage on their home, should we take away their right to do so?
In a free country, you don't take away a group's rights just because a few can't handle it.
41Michelin, I think what you don't understand is that drinking is the most important decision that a person can make.
It is more dangerous than wielding a four thousand pound hunk of iron down the highway at 70mph. And it is more important than choosing a leader for the free world. Finally, it is more important (and warrants more maturity) than giving your life occupying a foreign country.
The specific gravity of alcohol, in particular, (any other brewers here?) is very, very heavy.
42As an outsider, the 21 thing seems just stupid. I'm sorry I couldn't be more articulate about it.
43I agree with Mich and Torg on this one.
BTW I was friends with a couple of guys who enlisted right out of high school and they were a couple idiots. Not at all the definition of "mature." In fact, I seem to remember one of them more than once saying that he wanted to join so that he could "Blow $h!t up."
44I've lived in both here in the US and in the UK where the drinking age is 18. Although we have underage drinking here in the US, it's really epidemic in Britain. With the lower drinking age the kids start drinking way earlier, between 10 and 12.
A British friend of mine used to sneak out and drink at boarding school, and his first time he overdid it so badly he had to call his father, who was a doctor, to come give him a shot. It didn't even occur to him that it could be bad because everyone did it.
45Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.