College Presidents Seek to Lower Drinking Age

[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.

[Scandia]

To be honest, I think the drinking age should be lowered. In many other countries, children start drinking responsibly at a younger age. And thus alcohol is not seen as a forbidden fruit- and thus it is not abused so much upon legal drinking age, nor before. If you are introduced to alcoholic beverages in small amounts gradually, it will lead you to know your tolerance better and you will be less likely to become an alcoholic or get majorly drunk so quickly and easily.

[JonoBN41]

I agree. Giving people carte blanche to drink all they want just because they reach a certain age without any instruction is like letting them drive a car at a certain age without any instruction. In both cases, you greatly increase the chances of them killing themselves.

Parents cannot teach their children how to drink socially and in moderation if he or she becomes of age after leaving home or going to college. The laws, in fact, make it illegal to do so while they're still home.

We might as well ban drivers ed too and just hope for the best. "Here are the keys, son, try not to hit a tree."

[DSTCHAOS]

The drinking age shouldn't be lowered just yet because that's a surface-level solution.

Binge drinking, underaged drinking, and buzzed and drunk driving are problems with American culture (and similar cultures) and has less to do with the legal age of consumption. As someone else alluded to people in some countries, and certain cultures and families in this country even if the law doesn't allow it, learn early on how to drink in moderation, drink with meals, drink with family at the dinner table, and so forth.

Adjust the American culture as it relates to drinking. Then it will be less perceived as the forbidden fruit and it won't be such a big deal if people have a glass of wine or beer with dinner. This level of socialization and education takes time so lowering the drinking age shouldn't happen anytime soon. Adults need to learn how to do better so that young people can learn how to do better.

Some colleges and universities require freshmen to take alcohol classes their first semester. That can be annoying but it serves a purpose.

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

I think we should reverse the drinking and driving ages. You can drink at 16, but you can't get your driver's license until 21.

A 16-year old that's allowed to drink is only doing damage to himself/herself. But a 16-year old that's allowed to drive could possibly kill several people (even without alcohol being involved...just by driving too fast, talking on the phone while driving, joking around with passengers in the car, fiddling with the radio, etc.)

[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.

[Kansas City]

I get what you are saying and generally agree but ...

Originally Posted by 33girl

... you don't have to drink to get drunk.

... this made me chuckle!

[33girl]

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

[Achilles87]

this is, in my opinion, the best solution:

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

[agzg]

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Plus, no matter the age there are always going to be people that abuse the substance.

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?

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.