Should We Lower the Drinking Age? MomTalk
A group of university and college officials believes the current minimum drinking age does little to curb risky drinking. Would you let 18 year olds drink?
Photos
Eighteen is the magic number. It's the birthday so many teens anticipate as the day they gain autonomy from parents and become masters of their destinies. They can vote, marry and go to war.
But should they be allowed to drink alcohol?
John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont and current vice chancellor and president of the University of the South, thinks so. As a member of the Amethyst Initiative, a group comprised of university and college presidents and chancellors, he and his cohorts believe the 21 drinking age does little to curb irresponsible drinking on college campuses and in homes across the country.
"This law has been an abysmal failure. It hasn't reduced or eliminated drinking, it has simply driven it underground, behind closed doors and into the most risky and least manageable settings," McCardell said in a 60 Minutes interview in 2009.
According to Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, despite the hundreds of tickets his officers write every year for underage drinking, particularly among students at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the law does little to "contain it." In a college town with a reputation as one of the biggest party schools in the nation, he believes the law simply drives underage drinking further underground.
The advantage to lowering the drinking age, according to Beckner, is that time and money wouldn't be wasted on "enforcing a law that is unenforceable."
The National Transportation Safety Board, MADD, the U.S. Transportation Secretary, the American Medical Association, the National Safety Council and the International Association of Chiefs of Police disagree.
A spokesperson for the National Safety Council cited a 13 percent decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities among 18- to 20-year-olds within a month of enforcing the 21 drinking age in 1984.
So the dilemma is whether to dissolve a law that improves highway safety but does little to deter unsafe drinking habits on college campuses across the United States.
Should lawmakers revise the drinking age and lower it to 18?
Jim Vondracek
6:58 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
This is a tough call, with no clear right answers. As the parent of a 17 y/o and a 20 y/o, my two biggest concerns are that they not be in a car with someone who's been drinking and not engage in binge drinking. I've tried to give them a sense of what an appropriate, healthy approach can be by letting them have wine and beer with us at the table. I've also talked with them candidly about the possible tragedy that can come from abusing alcohol, and about alcoholism.
Karen Schultz
8:50 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Ask them why they would drink. Ask yourself what example you set. This is not a tough call. What do you think about parents who start the practice early in a childs life of training them to go get daddy or mommy a beer?
Tony
8:02 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Drugs and alcohol are available to almost any kid nowadays so what difference does it make, if they want it they are going to get it. You can buy imitation drugs from any tobacco store and in most cases they are more potent than the real thing, and they are legal.
Karen Schultz
8:52 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Understanding the ripple effect of choices to do drugs or drink alcohol are the important part of this discussion. Should young people, let alone those who are supposed to be more mature, impair their thinking more than it might be when they are sober.
David Boettcher
8:15 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
I don't think European countries have a "drinking age." Is teen drinking a serious problem there? We always want what we can't have, so "forbidding" alcohol to young people just makes it more desirable.
Karen Schultz
8:52 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
So what I hear you saying here is that when you are forbidden to do something, it is more desirable?
cal city steve
8:46 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
David is right--that is exactly true. Just because it's a law doesn't mean people will follow it. Driving under the influence is illegal, yet it happens all the time.
I am curious about the months and years after the age 21 drinking law was in effect. The article only cites the first month.
The MADD group is out of control. They are just a group of angry women that take something tragic that happened in their lives to the extreme and try to railroad anyone and everyone for it.
Karen Schultz
8:55 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
My only question is what will change when your son or daughter's life is taken by a drunk driver, an unplanned pregnancy occurs that effects your life alongside that of a new life, someone you know is hit by a stray bullet of a drive by shooting? You should be angry these things are occurring.
Karen Schultz
8:48 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Why drink at all? That is the question everyone should ask themselves? Why the need for escape, loss of inhibitions, buzz? Things that numb the mind when we need them to be the sharpest...school tuitioin should be best spent on time to learn and study or ....they are not ready for college. If they are not ready and mature enough for an adult approach to life, what makes us think they are ready to drink any earlier? As for drugs, we should be showing the deaths caused by those drugs. Every drug user should consider lives lost over drugs by drive by shootings. They may as well have pulled the trigger. Responsibility starts with choices that build a GREAT life, understands the ripples of their choices such as drunk driving outcomes, unplanned pregnancies, etc. etc. etc. The difference it makes in what we allow is the stamp of approval we give to the forementioned outcomes. We either condone these behaviors and outcomes or we do not.
Russ
9:53 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Wisconsin tried 18 for awhile but, they went back to 21.I don't think enough is done to prevent alcoholism.When smoking was determined to cause cancer, commercials were taken off the radio and television.Alcohol is still everywhere to be seen and drinking is promoted every where we look.All of the commercials glamorize the drink,with beautiful people on a beach or doing daring acts all to be finished with their favorite alcoholic beverage.Big money would not allow otherwise .Oh yea,they do their little disclaimer "Drink responsibly"As we have seen again and again, drinking is addictive,and causes many deaths in and out of the car.lowering the age to me is not the answer.
Kathy Quilty
4:50 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
From what I recall, Wisconsin upped the age to 21 because the federal gov't said they would not give federal money to any state that did not have a drinking age of 21. That is why most (if not all) states have the drinking age of 21. The federal gov't decided on that age. I have a 22 year old son who is not a drinker and a 20 year old daughter who doesn't drink either. Can I say that is because of how they were brought up? Who knows. My husband will drink beer, I very rarely drink. If I do, it's one margaritta and that's it. I have taught my kids that you can have a drink and it's okay. They also will see my husband and I not drink at the same time if we are out at a restaurant. One will always be the designated driver. That is what we have taught them. I agree that if you tell some one you "can't" have something, it makes it more desirable. My oldest is down at U of I in Champaign/Urbana. It's a free for all down on Green Street at times. These are smart & educated young adults, but they still will bindge drink. It is a tough call, but the kids will drink or find a way to drink if they really want to. There are parents who allow their high school teens and their friends to drink if they are at their house and not driving. This is something that my kids know I would not stand for. My two high schoolers respect that too.
CB
11:15 am on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Coincidentally, my high school juniors recently wrote about this topic right now for an argumentative ACT prep essay. It is true that there are many underage drinkers, especially on college campuses. Because it's illegal, they are forced to hide it and most likely would be hesitant to admit or act quickly if there was an emergency for fear of getting in trouble. On the other hand, however, if you lower the age to 18, then you essentially put alcohol in the hands of all high school students. Most people turn 18 their senior year of high school, which would make alcohol even more prevalent at high school parties than it already is. I think there are valid arguments in favor of a lower drinking age, but maybe the appropriate age is 19. Majority of 19 year olds are out of high school and either working or in college. This would help alleviate the issues seen on the college campuses while helping to curb its accessibility to high school students.
yoka ward
2:41 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
I grew up in a country where we didn't have a drinking age and I recall only one friend who had a drinking problem. Since it wasn't a big deal, usually people had a drink or 2 and that was it. In high school when there was an event we could drink beer,wine and pop and we never had any problems. We also could not drive until 18 so drunk driving wasn't much of an issue either. Maybe we should consider lowering the drinking age to 16, and raise driving to 18? We also had a smoking room! How times have changed. I do believe that you would have less problems with binge drinking if you lower the age, especially in college.
Steve Burke
4:15 pm on Thursday, November 24, 2011
Good point. If you lower the age, the less hidden drinking, which can include increased binge drinking. Drinking out in the open is always better than hiding it. If you can vote, and get killed in service to our country, why can't you choose to drink or not?
Cheryll
2:57 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
I think the drinking age should be lowered to 19, but the legal BAC for driving should be 0.00 for drivers under 21. This way, we could teach responsible drinking and encourage designated drivers from a younger age. Groups of young adults could get in the habit of taking turns being the DD.
Shaun
7:07 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
At the age of 18 this country says that you are mature/old enough to join the service. Thus, if you are old enough to fight and die for this country not to mention old enough to kill for this country you are old enough to have a beer in this country.
Steve Burke
4:10 pm on Thursday, November 24, 2011
agreed.
Anita
1:50 pm on Saturday, November 26, 2011
I agree with Cheryl. Lower the drinking age, but toughen the penalties for ANY drinking while driving... 0.0 alcohol limit when behind the wheel.
In the 70s, when I was 19, many municipalies in Illinois, including Chicago, lowered the drinking age to 19--but 2 years later, when I was 21 they raised the drinking age BACK up to 21. Perhaps we need to look at the reasoning of those changes 40 years ago.
Denise Du Vernay
9:24 pm on Saturday, November 26, 2011
For fairness and consistency, the drinking age (and everything else) should be 18. Lottery tickets, cigarettes, alcohol, drivers licenses, being tried as an adult, joining the military, marriage. Everything. Sure, a lot of people aren't mature enough at 18 to understand some or all of those things, and some understand the importance of all of those things well before age 18, but 18 is the age we've decided as a society is an "adult." What sense in 15 for some things, 16 or 18 for others, 21 for drinking? The idea that teens can be legally married years before they're allowed to buy a six pack of beer at the grocery store is simply mind boggling.
Someone's Mom
9:25 pm on Sunday, November 27, 2011
As a parent of teenagers, I agree 100 percent with Denise and others. We should allow all adults (18 years and older) the choice to drink alcohol. I don't agree with the comment that 18-20 year olds need stiffer penalties than anyone over 21 who drinks and drives. The .08 law should apply across the board.
Cheryll
1:31 pm on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Actually, Bobby, the penalty is stiffer now with zero tolerance for under age drinking. The reason I suggest stiffer penalties for 19-20 year olds is to try to please people, like Karen the non-drinker. We get it Karen you don't understand why anyone drinks ever. Drinking leads to unplanned pregnancies and drive-by shootings???