Quote:
Originally posted by angelove
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"?
|
I think a lot of studies have linked the disappearance of "in loco parentis" as one of the major contributing factors to binge drinking...but I will defer to Delt Alum on that one - he's talked on that point before.
But your first claim doesn't make sense...even though a lot of deaths, injuries, and other risk management risks are related to alcohol, you'd STILL advocate making the consumption easier for minors?
You also asked if anyone has that stats before the age was raised...when the federal government threatened to withhold matching highway funds, they did so precisely because at that time, as well as today, too many under-21 aged DUI accidents were injuring and killing people. While I firmly believe this should have been up to each individual state to determine, the federal government forced the issue with the carrot and stick approach. To revert back to the old under-21 laws would make the problem even worse.
It's not a culture issue, it's not a "boys will be boys" issue. It's a safety issue.
Now, am I naive to believe that keeping the law as it is will simply make binging and it's associated costs go away? Of course not. However, what I would recommend is more personal responsibility and accountability into their behavior, and the example each individual sets. Isn't that what fraternities, in many cases, were founded to help foster?
Threaded Mode