(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.
Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.
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.
Get the story here.
Yeah, we totally need to lower (if not eliminate altogether) the drinking age law. It's arbitrary, unenforceable and has no positive effect on American drinking habits. Our current dumb law encourages binging. The whole thing's a joke.
And MADD, come on, think about how silly that is. What kind of argument is that? Actually, MADD putting a 16-year-old behind the wheel of a vehicle is dangerous regardless. Hey MADD, does the current law work?
If I was a college president I would sooooooooo sign the statement and lobby Congress. I would rather teens be introduced to drinking with responsible adults and learn responsible alcohol consumption. Thanks to random laws like this we have entire generations with no alcohol etiquette.
Wait... I thought outlawing behavior automatically eliminated the illegal behavior. You mean kids still drink even though it's illegal?!?
Mind Blowing.
I agree that the drinking age should be eliminated altogether. Parents should begin with giving their kids a sip of wine with dinner and showing them how to drink responsibly by their own example.
I've talked to Christians before who consider this a matter of civil disobedience--where the state has created a law that is detrimental to the health and well-being of Christian children. Thus, they practice something very similar to what Conlbear suggests.
I don't know that I would go that far with it, although I am totally sympathetic to the position.
What do you all think? If the drinking age is upheld, is this an issue on which Christians justifiably may be civilly disobedient?
Some state laws permit parents to give their children alcohol in the privacy of their own homes. I've put a link to a Time Magazine article where it says that only 6 states ban underage alcohol consumption completely. So in some states, by giving your children alcohol you're actually functioning within the law as it was created. In Missouri, the law states that "Furnishing [of alcohol to minors] is prohibited WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION(S): parent/guardian; one or more specified religious, educational, or medical purposes."
Time Article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1816475-1,00.html
Missouri Drinking Laws:
http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/stateprofiles/StateProfie.asp#UACN
I think it is ironic that we believe 18 year olds are mature enough to conquer Iraq, but incapable of drinking a beer. What gives? You have the capacity to determine who is going to become the next leader of the free world, but can't enjoy a good Merlot with your dinner.
Then again, I think Marijuana should be legal too. There, I said it. I wouldn't smoke it. There's something sad about anyone still getting high past the age of 30, but holy flippin dog crap! If we aren't going to invest in real meaningful loving relationships with our youth, at least let them get high. It may be a gateway drug, but I've never tried to escape from a place I enjoyed being in in the first place. We shouldn't worry about stopping people from smoking pot, but we should start worrying about how crappy we treat others that would make them want to escape in the first place. HELLO!! CHURCH PEOPLE!!! I'M TALKING TO YOU!!
"I won't give him any money because he'll just spend it on alcohol."
"F'n A he'll spend it on alcohol! He lives in a damn box with no family and no one to love him. I can't think of anyone who needs alcohol more than he does! Hell, whatever you do, don't buy the man a drink, or multiple drinks!! Don't hug him or love him."
sorry....was that over the top?
rob taylor: supplier of the best single comment I've read in a long time.
I was going to also point out the absurdity of allowing an 18 year old to shoot and be shot, but not to have a shot. (though, perhaps, beer and wine are more appropriate for a lower drinking age).
On a related note...Munger4NCGov...
What do you all think? If the drinking age is upheld, is this an issue on which Christians justifiably may be civilly disobedient?
I do not because the law does not directly contradict a specific instruction of God. I think this is an area where you don't actually have to provide your children with alcohol in order to teach them to drink responsibly.
I don't really have strong feelings about the drinking age. If there is a move to lower it back to 18, go for it. I don't think that would be detrimental, particularly since it used to be 18. I do think that underage drinking exhibits a deeper problem of rebellion. Whatever a person's feelings about the law, it's still a law that parents should teach their children to obey. Just my thoughts.
Something else I thought of...They're running a story about this issue on NBC Nightly News right now, and they just posted stats on how alcohol related collisions dropped following the raising of the drinking age. I'm curious as to how that coincides with stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws.
@ Rob Taylor - Comment of the month!
dramaturge:
What was the drinking age before it was raised? 18 or...?
It makes more sense to me for kids to be drinking before they're allowed to operate a one-ton piece of potentially deadly machinery, I mean drive.
Even if the age is lowered, it might not help. I've seen 16 year olds in Europe buying beer for their 14 year old friends. But, I'm all for a lower drinking age.
On a side note, my Christian college in the south doesn't allow its students to smoke or drink even when a student is of age (with a few exeptions). Yay for appearing holy.
18.
You go to class for driving and learn under the direct supervision of a trained adult. And in many states you must continue to drive under the supervision of a trained adult until you are 17 or even 18. There are also an increasing number of laws regulating how and when teens can drive. There aren't any classes on responsible drinking and the only law is not to drive while drunk, so it's not really the best comparison.
Absolutely opposed to lowering the drinking age in the US. I feel it would be a disaster of unparalled proportion.
This is not a problem of laws (note how the presidents complained that it is unenforceable, but not about the high costs of enforcing it. The difference is worth noting, because it implies that the problem is not necessarily that they are trying to enforce it-my own experience from undergraduate school ending two years ago reminds me they aren't-but that it isn't even worth trying to enforce), but a problem of culture related to drinking. And the college presidents are not trying to fight this culture, they are basically saying, lower the drinking age and take this problem away from us. Avoidance rather than working to a solution.
I know people always bring up Europe, but is that really the best answer? Britain (the most realistic outcome of a European-style drinking laws here in the US, given our common background) has higher rates of youth binge drinking than we do-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/14/drugsandalcohol.health-
and are debating raising the drinking ages. Youth binge-drinking rates are higher across Europe than they are here, suggesting that maybe Anglo-Saxons aren't the only ones doing who don't have a grip on alcohol abuse.
http://www.udetc.org/documents/CompareDrinkRate.pdf
I'm not saying that drinking is a bad. I enjoy a drink or two now and then. I learned to appreciate alcohol in moderation, and did very little drinking until I turned 21. I grew up around a family that rarely, if ever, drank. I figured out on my own that getting wasted wasn't that cool.
However, I think that is rare. Most people listen to our culture, which encourages going out and getting hammered for no real reason. And this is why lowering the drinking age would fail: it wouldn't change the culture surrounding drinking. If you could do that, then you could change the drinking age without any problems. Any move before that would lead to what I saw in Spain, or what you can see in England: instead of drunk 18-year olds, you have drunk 14-year olds. So fix the culture, and then fix the drinking age.