Lower drinking age?

[HereWeGoAgain]

A group of professors has proposed fighting college drinking by... lowering the drinking age. According to their logic, it would end clandestine binge drinking, or something.

Sometimes when people make a "counter-intuitive" argument, it makes sense when you think about it. But on this one, I ain't buying.

Here's a good article I came across:
The Perils of a Lower Drinking Age by Steve Chapman

Some excerpts:

It's true that in the old days, there was no college culture of clandestine, off-campus binge drinking. It was out in the open, right on the quad. Another difference back then: There was more of it.

[...]

According to Monitoring the Future, an ongoing research project at the University of Michigan, binge drinking has not risen since 1988, when 21 became the minimum drinking age throughout the country. Among college students and other college-age Americans, the rate is lower today than it was then, and the decline has been even bigger among high-school students.

[...]

Since 1988, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drunk-driving deaths have ... dropped most among those younger than 21...

This is not a coincidence. When states lowered their drinking age in the 1970s, they got more drunk-driving deaths among teenagers than similar states that stayed at 21. A 1983 study in the Journal of Legal Studies concluded that any state that "raises its drinking age can expect the nighttime fatal crashes of drivers of the affected age groups to drop by about 28 percent."

[...]

... [i]f high-school seniors could legally patronize a liquor store, sophomores would find it much easier to get party fuel. Raising the drinking age to 21 reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities not only among 18-year-olds, who lost the right to drink, but 16-year-olds, who never had it.

It's not hard to make a logical case for allowing 18-year-olds to buy alcohol, but only if you disregard the practical effects of letting them do something that many of them are not mature enough to handle. In this debate, the ultimate wisdom comes from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who reminded us that sometimes, a page of history is worth a volume of logic. (emphasis added by me)

Well said.

[mstang67chic]

I don't understand this concept either. We're having problems with campus drinking so this guy wants to lower the age to include those that have even LESS maturity than the college kids??? Makes absolutely no sense.

[DDD]

I may be the only one who thinks this is worth considering...but I sincerely do think so. Ever since WWII (and maybe before) 18 year olds have been drinking. College kids drink. Young soldiers drink. The 18 year olds hang out with kids two or three years older once they are out of high school. Just like cigarette smoking...some will and some won't.

If you live in a college town the police ignore the drinking age so long as the behavior isn't too far out. OTOH if you live in a town where law enforcement officers are seeking something to do, you can end up with a record in a New York minute.

Every person who is DUI deserves to pay the consequences. Alcoholics, like my much loved PC/GFG, can't be allowed to endanger others.

Some state's used to allow 18 year olds to drink beer with a lowered percent of alcohol. There could be a compromise from the study. BTW
around here (even in the big cities) 18 year old girls are allowed into clubs
but 18 year old boys aren't. HUH?? Interesting. DDD

[muttmeister]

It does make some sense to me. When I was growing up, we lived on the Kansas border, where you could buy 3.2 beer when you were 18. Most people I knew drank much less as soon as they turned 18 and it was legal. Also, about a year after I turned 21, the legal drinking age was lowered to 18. This was during the VietNam era and part of the thinking was that if you were old enough to die for your country, you were old enough to have a drink. During that time, it seems to me that, with the young people I knew, there was less binge drinking. As far as the article goes, you can believe whatever research you want because when somebody is trying to make a point, they can always skew the data to support their conclusions. I'm sure, if I wanted to take the time, I could find data that says just the opposite. Most countries in the world do allow drinking in at least some situations at a much lower age than 21. Twentyone used to be the age of adulthood. In this era, kids are both physically and psychologically maturing sooner. I really think the age 21 law causes more problems than it solves. Kids who are living on their own, making their own money, and doing all of the other things that adults do, are, in most cases, going to drink. Criminalizing it is stupid.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that drinking, and drinking while driving are two different things. I don't know any thinking person who would be in favor of relaxing the laws pertaining to drinking and driving. However, in the last few years there have been numerous attempts to blur the lines between the two and treat them as one problem.
I don't know that I'm definitely in favor or lowering the drinking age but I think that our first reaction to say, "absolutely not" needs to be examined a little more closely.
Of course, I'm somebody who averages about 1 drink every 2 or 3 months so maybe what I think doesn't count.

[hearts and roses]

IMHO, the bottom line is education - again. We teach our kids about everything from sex to alcohol to drugs, driving, how to kill people in other countries; 18 year old's can own property, sign contracts, get married and have babies and yet, for some reason, we can't teach them how to drink safely and within appropriate limits?

In my house, I allowed both dd's to have a wine cooler or beer (if they wanted one - they often said No Thanks) with dinner occasionally after 18. ONLY IN MY HOME-AND NONE OF THEIR FRIENDS, EVER. I didn't encourage it, but it wasn't taboo. Did they partake? Sometimes to rarely. Even despite gfg's involvement with with alcohol this past year, she is not a big drinker. Her friends once told me that she rarely even finishes a beer. And at a family graduation party, her cousin said she turned down a second drink. Pot yes, alcohol not so much. And PC has never been a real big drinker. I believe that thier 'take it or leave it' attitude is because we never made it a super big deal. I am a responsible drinker and H has come clean about his alcoholism and they know and respect that he's not drinking anymore.

Whether the drinking age is 18 or 21, I believe that most kids start stealing booze and snatching drinks when they are about 14/15 years of age. Binge drinking has been around forever. I remember playing a game called "Quarters" at bars all the time. You bounce a quarter into a shot glass. If you miss you drink the shot - if you get it in, your friend drinks the shot. It's similar to Beer Pong. And what about those stupid hats with the holders for 2 beers and a tube that leads to the drinkers mouth? Those have been around before I started drinking.

I see this as just another way of our government trying to micromanage it's people again. Values and appropriate behaviors are taught at home, not by making up laws that don't work or inhibit people from doing what they are going to do anyway. Some European countries don't even have age limits at all.

That said, I think that the laws regarding driving while intoxicated, etc., should all stay in force as is. Up here in CT they are very strict. Re-educating our soon to be adults in HS health class can be helpful. Even more helpful would be to have some people who have either lost a child or have been jailed due to drinking...and some speakers from AA wouldn't be a bad thing either - to stress how a social activity could soon turn into an addiction or possibly lead to jail time or death (of themself or an other person).

I think it's naive of anyone to believe that when they ship their 18 year old off to college, he/she's not going to imbibe. I would rather have my child be fully aware of what her reaction to and limitiations are of alcohol BEFORE she reaches the campus. And in regards to campuses - there is campus security and RA's in every dorm. My pc told me that the RA's look the other way and security is rarely even around on weekend nights.

I think this has the potential of being a very touchy discussion I think; especially on this board.

[Dammit Janet]

I am officially old. I grew up when the drinking age changed with me. Or at least it did in the state I grew up in. When I turned 18 we could buy beer. When I turned 21, you could buy liquor. Then right after I turned "legal" for everything they did the whole nationwide thing where you had to be 21 for everything but it didnt matter to me.

I dont think VA had 3.2 beer but maybe it did. I do remember going to Denver and that was a big deal. Remember the movie Smokey and the Bandit? Wasnt that about importing higher alcohol content beer? Or was it another movie...lol.

I dont know where I stand on this to be honest. I dont know if we drank more or not. I know that once the ability of being legal to buy and drink beer and liquor was there...I didnt much care for it. It was more the thrill of doing something wrong. And it does seem stupid that people can go fight for this country but cant drink a beer. Of course that doesnt stop a one of them. Bars will sell beer to almost anyone in a uniform. Its almost a right of passage in the military.

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well I confess that I am surprised at the responses; I had thought that most parents on this board would agree with the premise that lowering the drinking age would lead to more drinking among 18-to-21 year olds, not less, and consequently, fewer alcohol related pathologies in that age group.

In particular I thought that the contention that HS underclassmen would have much easier access to alcohol if seniors can buy it legally made sense. Of course they can still get it, today, if they want it; it's just harder.

I would note that some of the counterarguments here (for example, "raising the drinking age doesn't prevent underage drinking") are against arguments that never were made in Mr. Chapman's piece at all or that were already addressed in the piece; I'd encourage you all to read the whole thing, not just the excerpts I posted (click on the link). In particular: of course raising the drinking age to 21 did not make underage drinking go away; hopefully no one is so naive as to think so. Nor do drunk-driving laws prevent drunk driving. But as Mr. Chapman points out, it's not all-or-nothing: the law does not have to be 100% effective in order to have a positive impact.

I recognize that all age limits are more or less arbitrary. Some 16 year olds are way more mature than some people twice their age (just look at my GFG!). But in general, 21-year-olds are much more capable of making good choices than 18-year-olds. Then again, someone will point out, 25-year-olds are much more capable than either, so why not raise the age to 25? Or 50? Well, it's a balancing act -- I could take the opposite tack and say, why not 16? Or 12?

I just think that Mr. Chapman's statistics that he quotes (and I have no reason to think they are cherry-picked, since I've seen reports on the correlation for years now) do strongly indicate that lowering the drinking age will have a negative net impact.

As for the libertarian argument (the one which goes, "It's the parent's business, not the government's") -- well, I have some sympathy with that. I am curious, though, would you then advocate legalization of all drugs? Again, I think, it is a balancing act between reasonable limits and individual liberty/parental autonomy.

Oh, and I have no problem with parents allowing their older children to have a glass of wine at the dinner table, actually I think that is probably healthy as it eliminates the mystery/rebellion factor (but then again, would not the same be true of, say, marijuana?).

[hearts and roses]

HWGA - Our papers have had op-eds on this daily since the original story broke as well as excerpts from articles printed in papers around the country. Plus, I've been reading about it on line for a couple of years now. That's likely why there are references to other ideas not addressed within Mr. Chapman's article that you've pasted here.

I have strong opinions about it. In fact, my H and I can't even discuss it without one of us getting up and leaving the room!! Haha.

[flutterbee]

Despite what the article says, if an 18 year old can be responsible enough to vote, go to war, own property, sign legally binding contracts, get married and be held accountable for their actions - or charged with crimes - as an adult in the same manner as a 21 year old then s/he must be responsible enough to drink.

It's hypocrisy any other way.

[Shari]

I agree with Wynter.
***
My brother is significantly older than I am, and has 3 very successful daughters. Drinking was something he allowed his girls to do - in the home, supervised, not taboo, etc. As they got older, he even let the girls bring friends into it (WITH PARENTAL PERMISSION). Also keep in mind they lived in a VERY rural area.
***
By the time the girls were on their own, the "appeal" and rebelion factor of alcohol was gone. They experienced their first "too much" in the safety of their home. They learned their limits in the safety of their home. And I, personally, think that's an invaluable lesson. They both drink occassionally, they both call for rides when they need to, etc. They just learned to handle alcohol, just like they learned to handle everything else - with mom and dad's guidance.
***
I modeled a lot of my parenting after my brother, including this (except the friends part). Gfg1 was caught drinking long before I allowed him to at home. Pc1 is just like the girls - responsible. Gfg1, I beleive, is an alcoholic. He drank different from the beginning when I allowed him to - his drinking is not social, he drinks to be drunk. He is Native American, both bio parents are addicts and/or alcoholics. I did not introduce him to drinking, but I beleive having seen him drink may put me in a better position to help him when/if he ever addresses his problem. The one mature conversation we had while he was home on leave was about his drinking - he is starting to realize he's got a problem. Had I been a parent that hadn't allowed alcohol til 21, that's a conversation we wouldn't have had. So I think even tho the goal was not reached with gfg1, it was also not all lost on him, either...