College Presidents Seek to Lower Drinking Age

[boz130]

Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Let's get into the Way Back Machine w/Mr. Peabody and go to that long-past year, 1974. Say we stop in Illinois.

Since the Land of Lincoln is situated next to the border of America's Dairyland (Wisconsin), many of us flatlanders were prone to heading north to quaff brewskis. At that point, Wisconsin's state law said it was OK to drink @ 18. Illinois had come up w/a hybrid law: beer/wine @ 19 & hard stuff @ 21.

This law worked...for a while. Then the Dept. of Transportation started noticing that there were far too many kids between the ages of 19-20 ending up in their local morgues due to drunk driving. That's why MADD doesn't want to see anybody getting the age brought down to 18.

Wish all you want, gang...since the 21-years-old law is attached @ the hip to highway $$$, it's not gonna change.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by boz130

Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Let's get into the Way Back Machine w/Mr. Peabody and go to that long-past year, 1974. Say we stop in Illinois.

Since the Land of Lincoln is situated next to the border of America's Dairyland (Wisconsin), many of us flatlanders were prone to heading north to quaff brewskis. At that point, Wisconsin's state law said it was OK to drink @ 18. Illinois had come up w/a hybrid law: beer/wine @ 19 & hard stuff @ 21.

This law worked...for a while. Then the Dept. of Transportation started noticing that there were far too many kids between the ages of 19-20 ending up in their local morgues due to drunk driving. That's why MADD doesn't want to see anybody getting the age brought down to 18.

Wish all you want, gang...since the 21-years-old law is attached @ the hip to highway $$$, it's not gonna change.

You just said yourself that people were driving state to state. Doesn't that maybe have more to do w/ the drunk driving being higher than age? I think the drunk driving would have gone down just as much if all of the states had gone to 18 or 19 instead.

And the group does state that they want the Federal Highway Funding Act re-evaluated/eliminated.

http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/

[AGDee]

Interesting statistic found on the Howard County chapter of MADD website:

The U.S. Surgeon General reports that life expectancy has improved in the U.S. over the past 75 years for every age group except one: the death rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is higher today than it was 20 years ago. The leading cause of death is drunk and drugged driving.

Please note, 20 years ago was 1988, AFTER the drinking age was raised to 21 everywhere.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by boz130

Wish all you want, gang...since the 21-years-old law is attached @ the hip to highway $$$, it's not gonna change.

We know that. Allow me to quote Dr. John McCardell from the C&C article.

In 1984, federal law did not set a national drinking age. It said the states may set the age limit wherever they chose but, if they set it lower than 21, they would forfeit 10 percent of their federal highway funds.

“Well that was a pretty effective way of stifling debate,” McCardell says. “So the legislative remedy, or the change that needs to take place, which we are beginning to advocate, is the lifting of that 10 percent condition.”

Ultimately, the decision would then fall to the states to determine what the drinking age would be — but it is unlikely any state legislature or governor would consider a new bill and risk a cut in federal funding.

“I don’t think anyone would have predicted the degree of public response to this issue, which really says to me it’s time to reopen this debate,” he says.

I saw McCardell on CBS this morning, and he made some very logical points.

I also saw a representative of MADD on TV last night who said they were going to discourage potential college students from enrolling in any institution whose president was among the 100 who signed the letter. Before there's even any debate, their tactics have gotten dirty, and they've ruined what little credibility they had.

[ree-Xi]

We all know that one can skew the presentation of statistics to demonstrate an argument (argument as in one's position, not "fight).

Examples:

1. Let's say the American Society for Statistics publishes a report that 40 percent of people who eat shellfish at some point in their lives will get food poisoning. Upon hearing of this study, The United Chicken Coalition puts out a warning that says "Seafood borne illness strikes two-fifths of all seafood consumers!" Their campaign fails to include that the chances increase only when fish are not cooked to a proper temperature, stored properly, or left out for too long before eating.
2. Or a warning on a medication label: "Thirty percent of people using this wart cream reported flu or flu-like symptoms". No where does it state that the drug testing was reported during January and February in Michigan, where 30% of the population gets the flu anyway.

In my reading, I came across several studies, surveys and opinion sites.

• Statistics will tell you that in the years (A-G) following the increase in legal drinking age, the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities for the 16-21 age range decreased by X%.*
• Since the change in drinking age, according to the Fatality Awareness Reporting System of the Natioanal Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the number of motor vehicle deaths related to alcohol DECREASES across all age groups.* http://silk.nih.gov/niaaa1/database/crash01.txt
• The one glaring change is that the majority of alcohol-related crashes resulting in death shifted from the younger age range to the 21-24 age range. In author Mike Males' book, The Scapegoat Generation, he claims that:
  • "the first year or two after a person can legally drink alcohol - regardless of what age is chosen - is the period in which that person is most likely to be involved in an alcohol-related accident. http://www.asfar.org/zine/6th/cover.html

I am guessing here that the changes in speed limits, mandatory seatbelt laws, mandatory airbags, more dilligent carding, stricter punishments, stronger car frames, etc. may likely have contributed to changes in drinking habits and therefore the decrease of deaths in this age range. That is, more people may have prevented or walked away from alcohol-related motor accidents for several reasons.

• According the a national survey, that the percentage of high school students drinking has stayed relatively the same. http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol1_2005.pdf

The argument can be made that stricter laws for legally purchasing or consuming alcohol has made no difference in adolescents' drinking behaviours.

• The stated survey did, however, shine light on the growing trend of binge drinking.
  • When youth drink they tend to drink intensively, often consuming four to five drinks at one time. MTF data show that 11 percent of 8th graders, 22 percent of 10th graders, and 29 percent of 12th graders had engaged in heavy episodic, or binge, drinking within the past two weeks.

Age restrictions on drinking are often viewed as arbitrary. "Most kids drink anyway", "If you can vote and die for your country, then you should be able to drink". The other side argues that the lower the legal age, the lower the age group of kids with fake IDs or sneaking into bars hoping that they don't get carded. Both sides' arguments are valid, but the first one is based on emotion, while the second is a logical assumption.

I don't have an answer, but I my biggest question is, if an 18 year old's brain is still developing, as are their level of maturity, responsibility, and worldliness, wouldn't handing them something that all but absolutely can/will skew their judgment only increases the lieklihood of impulsiveness that is more prevalent in younger people?

Yes, there are many "kids" out there who are capable of drinking in moderation, driving responsibly, and managing their lives productively, but even the most savvy, intelligent, world-traveled 18 or 19 year olds still have so much to learn. Presumably, then, giving them something that decreases their judgment (as more than one drink can) has no merits other than to satisfy emotional reasoning.

So to those who advocate lowering the drinking age, how would you respond to my last few paragraphs?

*Some of my points were inspired/triggered from http://www.asfar.org/zine/6th/cover.html with additional citations I found. The rest (in green) are my own thoughts.

[33girl]

Ree-xi -

As you said, "18-19 year olds have so much to learn." Do you feel that book learning about drinking is adequate? I don't. The only way you can learn about your drinking limits is to drink. The drinking laws as they stand now are like declaring cadavers illegal and asking medical students to go right from reading a book on heart surgery to operating on a live person.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Ree-xi -

As you said, "18-19 year olds have so much to learn." Do you feel that book learning about drinking is adequate? I don't. The only way you can learn about your drinking limits is to drink. The drinking laws as they stand now are like declaring cadavers illegal and asking medical students to go right from reading a book on heart surgery to operating on a live person.

33GIRL - I meant that they have so much to learn in terms of life experience. Without those extra few years of "life", a time when you are learning to control your impulses, understand that there are consequences of your actions, etc., giving them something that will impair their judgment (which will liekly happen after consuming more than one drink in a shorter amount of time) is like adding gasoline to the fire.

I absolutely do not think that simply book learning or a single school assembly will be effective for most young adults. Perhaps a course - a la driver's ed - should be part of a high school curriculum. It can be a few weeks long.

Years ago, our local radio station did an exercise on the morning radio show. The female DJ would have a drink every 20 minutes or so, and they tested her BAC and her ability to do mundane tasks (such as adding). It was done in a "funny" way, but what came out of it was very serious. They were trying to demonstrate to the audience that after a few drinks, verbal, motor and judgment skills were thrown off considerably, and her BAC rose MUCH faster than even she thought.

The bottom line is that kids need to be SHOWN how alcohol acts on the body. I don't advocate letting kids experiment at 16 (again, the brain is still developing). But we need to be responsible and let them know that alcohol is not an innocent entity.

I think THAT is the problem. Like someone said, when kids first drive, we don't just hand them the keys and let them go.

Because alcohol can and does lead to poor decisions and ultimately death, there needs to be more education. Hands-on education. A session on the biology on alcohol's effects on the body, a session on how to use alcoohol responsibly - as in one an hour, drinking water in between, etc.), a session about the law, accidents, featuring a police officer and maybe an ER doctor. Use pictures, videos of crashes and crash victims. I saw a commercial for an insurance company that said 16,000 kids will die in motor accidents this year, with the visual of thousands of cars driving away and never coming home. Pretty gut-wrenching.

I don't know the perfect balance of books and experience, but if the parents are not teaching respect for the drink at home, the school systems need to pick it up. We are losing too many kids to alcohol.

[33girl]

But all those things are still not hands on - they're still book learning, just gussied up technologically. And pictures, videos and demonstrations work on some kids - but others just dismiss them as over the top propaganda.

Maybe your driver's ed was different than ours, but we got in an actual car and drove it on actual roads, with the instructor in it and a brake pedal on his side.

And like I said, parents CAN'T teach at home - even with a "brake pedal" - it's illegal for them to do so. I'm not saying send the kids out into the world after they drink, I'm saying show a 13-14 year old that it's OK to have a glass of wine or beer with dinner and that it can be enjoyed on its own and stop there - you don't have to drink to get drunk.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Age restrictions on drinking are often viewed as arbitrary. "Most kids drink anyway", "If you can vote and die for your country, then you should be able to drink". The other side argues that the lower the legal age, the lower the age group of kids with fake IDs or sneaking into bars hoping that they don't get carded. Both sides' arguments are valid, but the first one is based on emotion, while the second is a logical assumption.

I don't have an answer, but I my biggest question is, if an 18 year old's brain is still developing, as are their level of maturity, responsibility, and worldliness, wouldn't handing them something that all but absolutely can/will skew their judgment only increases the lieklihood of impulsiveness that is more prevalent in younger people?

Yes, there are many "kids" out there who are capable of drinking in moderation, driving responsibly, and managing their lives productively, but even the most savvy, intelligent, world-traveled 18 or 19 year olds still have so much to learn. Presumably, then, giving them something that decreases their judgment (as more than one drink can) has no merits other than to satisfy emotional reasoning.

So to those who advocate lowering the drinking age, how would you respond to my last few paragraphs?

*Some of my points were inspired/triggered from http://www.asfar.org/zine/6th/cover.html with additional citations I found. The rest (in green) are my own thoughts.

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