I guess I should have said what I meant...you can drink without getting drunk.

this is, in my opinion, the best solution:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/You...046347764.html

I can see both sides of the argument. I'd like to point out, however, that I had friends who were 18 year old binge drinkers and friends that were 24 year old binge drinkers. Plus, even if it's legal, college freshmen may still binge drink at a higher rate than others because it's their first time away from home.

I'd have to agree with the whole culture shift point. Unfortunately, even if every family started it now it'd still be about 20 years before we saw actual results. Plus, if you look at other social parameters we have - some change quickly, others take longer than normal.

Plus, no matter the age there are always going to be people that abuse the substance. Controlled substances are illegal for everyone and I bet most of us could name at least one person who abuses controlled substances, either someone that we know personally or someone that one of our friends or family knows personally.

Exactly. So why apply an unrealistic and arbitrary age that doesn't fall in line w/ the other age limitations in the country to it?

Because no matter what age you set as the legal age to do anything, you will have people/kids several years younger trying and succeeding in doing it.

Now the legal age is 21, yet lots of 18 year old are getting into clubs and drinking, buying alcohol, etc. You lower the legal age to 18, and you have 15 year olds being able to pass for 18.

Granted, anyone who really wants to drink will probably not have a problem getting it, but why make it easier for children - and yes, a 15 yo is still a child - to get their hands on alcohol?

I admit that there is no right answer, and it might be a moot point, but even if the law sets an arbitrary age, I think that people feel better knowing that it's much harder for a 15 year old to get alcohol than an 18 year old.

This isn't about what makes people "feel better." It's about laws that actually work. And lots of 15 year olds are getting into clubs right now, even with the increased age.

I almost feel like it's not going to make too much of a difference either way. But that could be because I'm (and I think a lot of the people in this discussion are) coming from the viewpoint of someone who is above the legal age regardless.

I'm pretty sure though, that if you ask most 18 year olds if they want to be of legal age, they'd say yes.

Great in theory, but I think that many people vote based on their emotions, though. I'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people understand the laws (any law), how they came to fruition, and who supported them.

Look at the presidential election campaigns. Ask ten people who they are voting for and why, and I'll bet that most of them will give answers like "he's too old", "he's too inexperienced", "he has miliatary experience and that makes me feel safe", "it's time for a black president", "women are too emotional to be president", etc.

I remember when the drinking age in Texas was 19. No, we didn't have bands of 15 year olds running around from happy hour to happy hour. As an 18 year old I remember vividly not being able to even get into clubs, never mind buy a drink. Could I get alcohol? Probably - but I wasn't all that motiviated, I guess. And, I was legal my freshman year - so it wasn't that long of a wait.

With today's harder to duplicate ids, and proper enforcement, there is no reason that lowering the drinking age to 19 (or 18) has to mean younger teens getting into any more trouble than they already do. Also, the penalties for MIPs and DUIs are stiffer now (at least here) then they were "back in the day".

I wouldn't be sure about that. I know people with fake ideas that look just like the real ones. The ones I saw didn't glow under a blacklight, which meant it was no good for clubs. But it still worked plenty well for bars and liquor stores.

Very few people get a "fake" id anymore. They find someone that looks like them and get theirs. That's what almost all the fakes I've seen recently are at least.

A former student of mine had an interesting idea - why doesn't MADD try and get the DRIVING age upped? It's easier to control driving than drinking . . .he said this firmly tongue in cheek, btw.:rolleyes:

I would respond by saying that since the National Institute of Health believes that the brain is not fully developed until 25, why do you think the drinking age of 21 is high enough? Maybe we should move it to 25 - maybe even 30 just to be sure. That would be ideal, so 25 year olds can't sneak into bars with fake IDs. Then people would feel better knowing that 'minors' with underdeveloped brains aren't drinking. Right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan31.html

You know.. for every year the age is pushed back, lives would probably be saved.

Why not just move it to 65?

I turned 18 just a couple of weeks after arriving at college. Though I wasn't supporting myself financially, I was taking care of myself in all other respects. I also, on that day, became qualified to choose who leads my country, fight and die for my country, and had I lived in any other normal state, buy cigarettes, sign my own contracts, and marry. I already had the right to drive.

So why can I not drink a beer?

I felt that way before I turned 21 and I still do.

I feel that the age for everything needs to be the same. I can say that drinking did lose a little of the sparkle it had before I became legal. I enjoy it and frequently have one with dinner (when I can afford it), but drinking like a freshman almost never happens now. If nothing else, my body can't handle it as well. Now instead of waking up ready to do it all over again I wake up feeling like someone threw me down a hill in a trash can full of rocks. And it's that way for most of my friends too.

I think the argument that liability issues could be reduced by lowering the drinking age is a damn good one. We're not all mature by 18 or 19, but I think choosing the president or sacrificing your life or getting married are all life changing and important decisions and if we're deemed mature enough to make those, we are mature enough to choose to drink or not.

And at Indiana University of Pennsylvania apparently just rolling out of bed when intoxicated can be dangerous, although in this case the fall from a second-story window at Theta Chi didn't result in serious injuries. The young lady and her boyfriend are both reported as being 19:

http://online.indianagazette.com/ind...6331&Itemid=52

There's an editorial in tomorrow's Washington Post about this (they always have to slide in the slam on greek life, don't they? ;)): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

This falling out of open second story windows always makes me wonder... Why do these windows not have screens???? Cuz seriously, you wouldn't have to be drunk to roll out of an open window while sound asleep if your bed is right next to an open window...

They made a huge deal out of this at W&L. Campus hearsay was that a similar incident (rolling out of your bed while drunk) had happened at W&L in the 80s or early 90s. Don't know if this was true.

When I was a dorm counselor I was required to inspect the girls' room set-ups to make sure that no had had their beds pushed against the window. Really. I was also supposed to do informal visual checks from time to time to ensure that that the screens were still in their windows.

People do take their window screens out for a variety of reasons, and IMO it is a good idea for colleges to require that people not do this. Of course I guess it's more of a problem at places that have dorms without A/C - if the dorms have A/C the windows probably aren't getting opened nearly as much.

A lot of states are trying to do this with the graduated licensing laws - I know NC passed it right as I was 14 or 15 and was in the first cohort of teenage drivers affecting. It basically limited driving at night or driving friends around until you were 16.5 or 17. It also required that you be enrolled in high school to have a license.

There is waaaaaaaay too much opposition to raising the driving age though for that to ever be viable for MADD... :rolleyes:

Several years ago, a US congressman said, "If I had my way, they'd be able to drink at 16 and not drive until they were twenty-five." There is a certain wisdom to that.

Hmmm...said the poster with raised eyebrow
 

This seem quite 'fishy' to me.

I noticed that most of the school represented are smaller institutions which do not have major sports teams (which usually results in less alumni $$).

And while several of these institutions are considerd good schools, I bet many of them are elipsed by larger state schools and the ivies in terms of competing for the same college age students. The Census has indicated that the 'pool' of 18 year olds in the US is decreasing as native born families have fewer children and often start their families later in life.

I also imagine that several of these institutions are being squeezed in state/federal funding cuts. So, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the motivation behind this 'initative' is to secure alternative sponsorship/funding streams (whether it is directly or indirectly sourced from alcohol companies and their vendors/suppliers).

Teeny tiny Ohio State? In the teeny tiny town of Columbus? Umm, ok.

I would not be surprised though if for the smaller schools, in smaller towns, part of the issue is to take the burden of enforcement off the local police department.

Very perceptive!:D

Yeah..you know...50,000 plus students is small. Plus Ohio State has no major sports teams..no alum dollars rolling in..poor old Ohio State. Ohio State is the largest state school in Ohio and one of the largest in the country.
Ok..done with my snark for the day..carry on thread.

There's an article in the Chicago Tribune today about how the driving age should be raised:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1775625.story

I know its been said many times before but this issue is sort of personal to me so please bear with me. It seems to me to be absurd that one can vote, enter into valid contracts, and serve in the Armed Forces at age 18 but one cannot drink until the age of 21. The outfit I commanded when I was forward deployed on active duty had a substantial percentage of under 21s serving with courage, honor, and professionalism. It seems to me that if one shoulders the responsibilities of citizenship then it naturally follows that with responsibilities come rights and priveleges. How do I tell a soldier I have just recommended for a combat decoration that he can't have a beer. How do I tell a soldier I have just rated highly in his EER annual appraisal for skill, dedication, maturity, and professionalism that he is not allowed to have a glass of wine with his steak. Well, actually, its part of my job to do so, but in following the law I don't have to like it or approve of it.
Are there risks attendant to lowering the drinking age? Of course there are, but who ever said that life was risk free? And speaking of risks, there are no draftees in today's Army, everyone is a volunteer. So if a soldier is willing to take the voluntary risk of laying his life on the line then this absurdity is unsupportable when one considers the principles upon which this Country was founded. I do not say that the drinking age should be lowered only for those who serve in the Armed Forces, but as all qualified men and women are eligible to serve, and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, at 18 then it seems that all men and women should be seen as intrinsically entitled. Not as a favor or privelege but as of right as fully participating citizens enfranchasized to vote, contract, and all other aspects of participating citizenship.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

what he said

That wouldn't work in America, save for highly urbanized areas. People in suburban and rural America are way too dependent on cars to have to wait until they are 25 to be able to drive. Think of how much harder it would be to get a job if you were limited to places where you could transit, bike, or rely on your parents to drive you. I'm 22 and I can't imagine my life still waiting to get my driver's license.

The bottom line is that no drinking age and/or driving age law is going to change drunk driving related deaths and injuries, personal responsibility and education will.

Their statistics are just not clear to me. Are they saying that there are more 16 year old driver traffic fatalities than 17 year old driver traffic fatalities? Did they only go with "first year" drivers for each age group? If not, then did they consider that 17 year old drivers had a year more experience than the 16 year old drivers? A year of experience makes a big difference.

Well the article does include the debate.

But, they're saying that New Jersey, where the minimum for a license is 17, has a lower fatality rate among teens than Connecticut, where the minimum is 16 years and 4 months.

My assumption with New Jersey is that you do not need to be 17 in order to get a driving permit - so either way they'd (potentially) have a year of experience with driving at 17 anyway.

I got my permit the day I turned 16. I got my license a month after my 17th birthday. Just a random fact about myself thrown in there for good measure.