We're going to agree and disagree -- but first some housekeeping:

I am in favor of lowering the drinking age -- at least for beer -- to 18. So is one of our chapter advisors who happens to also be the City Attorney in his small college town.

That doesn't really solve any problems, though, because as was the case when I was an undergraduate, if you can drink beer, you want to go the next step and get fake ID's or have older folks buy you wine and hard liquor. We did.

OK.

First, the changining of the drinking age in Ohio had nothing to do with high school students -- nor did it have anything to do with Vietnam and the draft. Ohio, like every other state in the nation, was forced to raise the drinking age by the Federal Government under the threat of losing U.S. highway funds if they didn't.

As for surveys, I'm pretty sure they were done some years ago, and I'm reasonably sure they proved that the teenage highway fatality count did decrease when the drinking age went up.

At our recent international conference, I attended a Risk Management seminar and, you guessed it, by far the largest number and amount of insurance claims for Delta Tau Delta were alcohol related. In fact, the number one cause of claims resulted from "falls from high places," and every single one of them was alcohol related. I can't remember any category mentioned that wasn't top heavy with alcohol caused incidents. Those included such things as sexual assault and fights.

I doubt than other fraternities would have statistics that varried greatly.

Because of the above, and the reputation that Greeks have, I also think we would be the wrong group to spearhead a drive to lower the drinking age. I think that our reputation, and unfortunately, our history in this area would be a huge detriment.

Sorry.

I think angelove was referring to when it went down to 18/19 in some states, not when it went up to 21.

As far as "OMG if we come out in favor of this, we'll look like lushes" - that's kinda like saying if you go to a gay rights rally, you're gay. I think James' point is that Greeks are already a unified (to some point) group and the networking to set up a movement is already there.

Greeks spearheading lowering Drinking ages, NOT!:( :o

We already have a stigma of Drinking, having wild parties, etc. Not what we really do for Betterment, that is shunted to the rear of the bus so to speak.

What it takes is people like us showing no Greek Affiliation doing this with our Duly Elected Morons.:) We, The Electorits.

They understand one thing, Money that is coming into Federal and maybe State Coffers.

But, as DA said, We Need to clean our own Problems up before this happens.:(

http://www.reconsider.org/issues/pub...nking_Ages.htm


Examples of Legal Drinking Ages Around the World

United States: 21

Great Britain: Minimum age for purchasing alcohol is 18, although those who are 16 or 17 can purchase beer or cider with a meal.

France: 16.

Spain: 16.

Germany: 16 for beer and wine, and 18 for spirits.

Canada: 19 in much of the country, 18 in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec.

Australia: 18.

Japan: 20.

South Africa: 18.

Malaysia: 18.

Ukraine: 18.

Russia: 18.

South Korea: 19.

I took a quick look and according to the Ohio Insurance Institute for Public Safety, alcohol related accidents involving people from 15 to 20 years old dropped by 50% during the ten years following the raising of the drinking age in Ohio.

I think this would require a change in society's attitude before a lowering of age limits. Sure some other countries have 18 drinking limit, but not all of them deal with it well.

Quebec has a limit of 18, but when I was working there, I know I had 14 and 15 yr old students who went to the bars. I don't mind if kids drink that young - but it should be at home with their family.

I think in most of our society alcohol does seem to mix often with dangerous situations such as driving and unsafe sex(or rape). I don't expect to ever see the elimination of the correlation between alcohol and bad situations like that, but if young people can't drink somewhat responsibly (yet illegally), why should we trust them any more just because they'd be of legal age?

(yes I understand that not only young people are drunk drivers, but again it is the young people that seem to make the news more often, isn't it?[and i don't think that's purely media spin])

I still remember one thing from alcohol awareness week my freshmen year: if you're drinking just to get drunk, that's not a good reason to drink (and can actually be a sign of alcoholism).

Some European statistics about drinking related issues

here is an excerpt:

Overall alcohol-related deaths among 15- to 29-year-olds will be presented in four main groups of countries by WHO officials. Those for Britain, EU partners and other more developed European states, suggest one in eight male and one in 12 female deaths are drink-related. But in a group including Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the drink-related toll is one in three male and one in eight female deaths - across the whole of Europe, it is one in four male deaths in the age group.


Sounds like they are having some pretty serious problems with alcohol in those countries.

Dee

Okay, here's another old guy's perspective. Back in 1974, Illinois voted to allow 19 & 20-year-olds the right to drink beer and wine. That meant that you couldn't partake of the "hard stuff" until you were 21.

This didn't stop us in northern IL from crossing the border and enjoying libations in the land of cheese, Wisconsin. The barkeeps were "supposed" to make us wait until we were 19, but that was never enforced much (boy, I remember a walkout to Whitewater...).

This little social experiment lasted all of two years because the policies weren't strictly enforced ("Hey, if they're in my bar I'll serve 'em whatever they want."). Having worked as a bar bouncer back in those halcyon days, I can vouch for the fact that there were plenty of under-18's with fake ID's.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but a higher percentage of Illinois 19 & 20-year-olds died in car accidents during the two-year period than in previous years. That's why it switched back to 21 for everything in Illinois in 1976.

Of course, by that time I had already turned 21, so it didn't affect me as much as some of my younger brothers. The bottom line is this: if you're looking for a scapegoat, undergrads, ask your parents. We screwed it up, and the federal crackdown will keep things this way.

Interfraternally,
Bill F.

I have a problem with these stats for one reason really. Drinking and driving laws of yesterday are nothing like what they are today. My stepfather is a police officer (now retired) and he always talks about the major changes in this area. He has often said it was not uncommon for police officers to let drunk drivers off with a warning. I don't think you'd ever see such a thing today.

ETA**

I just found this case study: Link

It states that between 1982-1986 the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths dropped by only 4% while those deaths among those between the ages of 18-21 dropped 14%.

While after 1986 alcohol-related traffic deaths among those "under 21" (this could consider people as young as 16 because it doesn't define under 21 as between 18-21) declined 43%. But it doesn't give the percentage increase or decrease for the general population. I'll try to find some different stats but I feel there could have been a trade-off with the age ranges...

You may be right, however there are a couple of other mitigating issues that, if memory serves, might taint the 1980's death rates.

But, memory may not serve correctly, so take it for what it's worth.

Wasn't that about the time that the speed limit was 55, and safety features (bumpers, airbags, etc) became mandatory. We also didn't have mandatory seat belt laws back in the "Drink 18" times in Ohio.

By the way, regarding another post above, I don't recall the drinking age ever being 19 in Ohio. But, I've been wrong before. Maybe that was after we left the state (around 1974) and were living elsewhere.

Since I used Ohio as an example and people seem to have honed in on statistics of the Buckeye state, I'll explain where I got my facts. I lived in Toledo. I turned 18 when you could get 'low beer', although just over the line in Michigan you could get anything you wanted. That changed while I was in college, and Michigan became a 21-state (sort of changed directions of the profitable carry-outs). Ohio increased the drinking age to 19 while I was a chapter officer so yes, I do remember it, and yes, the campaign ads (well, we all know how "true" those are) depicted high school students at football games drunk (as if having the legal age being 18 really promoted that) and taking the SAT hung over. That change was taken to the voters and they grandfathered in those who were caught in the middle. The change to 21 came after I graduated and was because of threats to take away highway funds at the federal level. At that point they didn't grandfather in the 19-20 year olds. Can you imagine? You're "legal for a month and then have to wait two years.... Course, living in Toledo, we'd solve that by going up to Windsor (just a quick 45 minutes up the highway).

You are correct in saying that the laws and attitudes have changed. Enough of my friends got DWIs in college and got them dismissed taking the same kind of defensive driving that you now take for speeding tickets. That's why I think this would be a tough sell. Right now we're comparing apples and oranges. Regardless, GLOs should not take up this issue. While we have the organization and manpower to take on big issues, it would be taken the wrong way by too many people and would never get past any committee.

I don't know if we are going to survive in a recongizable way if we don't. We already have that reputation for drinking whether deserved or not.

It would be fairly easy to spin the campaign as one that just represents our constituency.

I think it is generally understood that sororities have been spared to a significant degree some of the consequences, because generally fraternities will provide the place, and the alcohol. Therefore we mostly assume the blame.

I can understand the sorority position on this because as long as this status quo continues you will be sheltered behind the gradually shrinking shield of the fraternities.

Until one day we are gone. Or completely emasculated.

I was looking in the Risk Management section of our website for some information for another thread and stumbled across this:

DELTA TAU DELTA FRATERNITY

5 YEAR CLAIM HISTORY 1/1/91 to 1/1/96


ALCOHOL RELATED LOSSES AS % OF TOTAL LOSSES



Non-Alcoholic Related Losses

6%



Alcohol Related Losses

94%

Re: Sholuld Greeks Speahead a movement to reduce the drinking age to 18?
 

I'm not so sure I agree. First of all, the premise of the argument seems to be "if they are breaking the law anyway, why don't we change the law to where what they currently do is not considered in violation" or something similar.

That is not the way to address an epidemic problem on our campuses. To me, it seems to admit defeat without having the courage to stand up for what is right.

I don't recall fraternities being founded as a "refuge" from drinking laws. Far from it.

Not only that, but, we would also be courting financial disaster in a place you may not be aware of. Why did states that didn't have 21 year drinking laws enact them in the mid to late 80's? To not lose out on federal highway funds to maintain roads and bridges. Whether or not you agree with the strongarm tactics that forced many states to do this (as I disagree with), it is what will happen.

Underage drinking still accounts for too high a statistical percentage in DUI deaths to make lowering the age seem like a noble goal of any sort. It seems more of an easy out than anything else.

Even if the statistics do show that alcohol related losses are a large part of insurance claims, and that underage drinkers are a large proportion of DUIs and alcohol related deaths/injuries, shouldn't we still explore the "forbidden fruit" aspects of the drinking age? Are college students bingeing because they can't go into a restaurant and have a drink with dinner like a "respectable adult"? Maybe if we remove the novelty and the forbidden nature of alcohol, it won't be such a big deal. Like when you're a kid and your parents won't let you watch a certain TV station - but every time they leave the house, you watch it all you can. It's sort of a chicken and egg situation - do we raise the drinking age because people under 21 drink too much, or do people under 21 drink too much because they're not legal?

Anyone have any statistics from before the drinking age was raised?