Thursday, August 21, 2008

What is the Appropriate Drinking Age?


(AP) -- College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependence. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the U.S. could be helpful.

"There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18," she said. "If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus." iReport.com: What do you think?

McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee., who has signed the statement.

But some other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.

"I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," Shalala said in a telephone interview. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

McCardell claims that his experiences as a president and a parent, as well as a historian studying Prohibition, have persuaded him the drinking age isn't working.

But critics say McCardell has badly misrepresented the research by suggesting that the decision to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 may not have saved lives.

In fact, MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said, nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths. A survey of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others reached the same conclusion.

McCardell cites the work of Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist and expert on how changes in the drinking age affect safety. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate.

The college presidents "see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it," Wagenaar said in a telephone interview. "It's really unfortunate, but the science is very clear."

Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative.

"I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them," said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health.

But, "I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence," he said.

Health Library
MayoClinic.com: Health Library
Duke faced accusations of ignoring the heavy drinking that formed the backdrop of 2006 rape allegations against three lacrosse players. The rape allegations proved to be a hoax, but the alcohol-fueled party was never disputed.

Duke senior Wey Ruepten said university officials should accept the reality that students are going to drink and give them the responsibility that comes with alcohol.

"If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," he said.

Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative's Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."

Hurley, of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.

"They're waving the white flag," he said.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just because presidents of universities are agreeing to lower the drinking age doesnt necessarily mean that they are raising the white flag. I think lowering the drinking age would be good idea, if you take the fun of it being illegal out than the binge drinking would stop.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think we should go back to all forms of drinking, over-aged or under-aged, being illegal. Under-aged drinkers are not always the cause of the problems. Quite a few car accidents are caused by 30 year olds driving drunk. I do understand that eliminating all forms of alcohol will not solve all of the problems, like drinking underground, but it will help. There will be fewer drunk drivers on the roads, making it safer for everyone to drive.

Anonymous said...

The brain does not fully mature until the age of 20 according the AMA. Alcoholic consumption can damage important parts of the brain, especially those attributed to memory. Lowering the drinking age only puts more youth at risk.

Anonymous said...

I think that lowering the drinking age might stop the abuse of alcohol and decrease the amount of drinking and driving. This is because people would grow up with alcohol and be familiarized with it at an earlier age, ending the impulse to drink yourself stupid when you finally turn 21. It seems that when you are denied something you suddenly must have it, or when something is banned you must do it. This became apparent in the 1920’s during the USA’s Prohibition period. The fact that alcohol was illegal actually “ended up increasing the consumption of hard liquor,” says About.com. Thus I conclude that lowering the drinking age would help curb underage drinking and excessive consumption of alcohol, because it would not be a banned or forbidden substance.

Anonymous said...

Lowering the drinking age might prevent students from drinking at parties because they can access the alchol at home. This may lead to less alchol abuse among college students.

Anonymous said...

I really don't think it would be a smart thing to do lowering the drinking age. Just think about how many 17-20 year olds get their alcohol from their 21 year old friends. Now, if we lowered the legal age of drinking to 18, it would open up a whole new age bracket of drinkers. Kids (ranging from 14-17) who are friends with the 18 year olds now have a much more open and easier way to get their alcohol. So once you lower the legal age, you are also provoking the illegal, much younger, drinkers to get their alcohol from them. Plus, when someone drinks, no matter what their age, they end up acting like 18 year olds anyway! I really don't think that is what our country is aiming for!

jumbo hippo said...

I think that lower the drinking age is not in the best interest for anyone. Teenagers are already considered reckless drivers and if alcohol were thrown into their driving that would cause a huge increase in car accidents. I just don't think most 18 year olds are responsible enough to handle alcohol and understand the damaging and lasting effects it has on their bodies.

Anonymous said...

If we just leave the drinking age at 21, we won't be damaging a certain part of our brain since we don't fully mature till age 20 or 21. Yes we will most likely have some people who will drink before then since teenagers/young adults love to rebell. But thats their choice. We have stages to growing up. At 16 you can drive, 17 you can see rated r movies, 19 you're considered an adult to the state of Nebraksa, and at 21 you can drink alcohol. It is all a process of growing up. If we let kids drink at age 18, they won't really know how to be responsible. We do grow up quite a bit between the ages of 18 and 21. And if we do change it to 18, a couple years later people will be wanting to change it back to 21 anyways. It will be like one giant game of ping-pong.

Anonymous said...

Why stop at eighteen? Some countries do not even have a drinking age. The citizens have been drinking since their first holiday. They know how much liquor their bodies can handle. A 10 year old in these countries could drink more safely than an American 21 year old.

At age 18, an American is considered free from his or hers parents. They can sign a form and they can train to wield a gun in the United States armed services. The government trusts teenagers wielding guns more than they do teenagers drinking alcohol. If someone can make a decision to join a draft, then surely he or she can make a decision whether or not to drink a beer.

Reintroducing prohibition would not be a wise idea. We have to learn from our past mistakes. Remember the 1920's? Crime rose immensely while the gang came to power. The St. Valentine's Day massacre also occurred. In a nutshell, one gang told another gang that there was going to be a shipment of whiskey in a certain warehouse. The other gang had no choice but to meet the truck. Then Al Capone gives his "valentine" to "Bugs" Moran. Some police men jump out of the truck and there is gunfire.

Prohibition is not the best way to solve the problem. If people truly want alcohol, they will get it. We need to teach people how to drink responsibly. Then the roads will be safer.

Lola said...

I don't think they should lower the drinking age. However, if they were to lower the drinking age to 18 it would open a new age group to drinking like high school students. There are many high school seniors who are 18 and still in school. In order to keep high school students from having fellow students buy them alcohol the government should have the age be 18 and in college. This would hinder high school students from getting alcohol.

fireball said...

The fact that drinking is illegal keeps many teens from doing it. If it were legal it would say to teens that it's okay to put yourself at risk and teens wouldn't be concerned with learning about all the side effects that come with drinking. One of the reasons we are taught about the consequences of alcohol is to scare us out of drinking. If drinking were legal for kids at a younger age they wouldn't find it necessary to learn about what it could potentially do to your body because either way your allowed to do it. Also the larger the age group the more people are put in danger of putting their own and others lives at risk.
I honestly don't see how letting more people drink can solve this problem...it just opens more doors for disaster with younger less mature people. Theres a reason why it's 21. Thats when the brain is fully developed. If kids were to start drinking at 18 think of the teens who's brains didn't get a chance to mature before it was exposed to the effects of alcohol...I don't think it's worth it to put all those teens at risk.

Anonymous said...

I don't think lowering the drinking age would necessarily be a bad thing. Underage drinking is already a problem, and it's only going to get worse. Instead of these kids drinking secretly, let's bring this issue above ground, in public, where students can be monitored. If 18, is too young, consider 19. That way, you won't have high school seniors that are legally of age. If the legit age is 19(when most students are in college), younger high school students won't be as exposed to alcohol. The way I see it, underage drinking is always going to be a problem no matter what the legal age is. Lowering the drinking age could help bring this problem out in the open and eliminate the thrill of doing it illegally.

Anonymous said...

Chihuahua... don't you remember? We tried that in the 1920's. Prohibition? Ring a bell? it didn't work. Mobsters and their speak-easys?

Anonymous said...

lowering the drinking age wont stop underage drinking it will just make kids younger and younger start drinking ilegally because the kids that would become legal for them to drink with the lowering of the age would buy younger kids alcohol and there will be more problems than before