|
I discovered this article (see spoiler button) reprinted on the Fox News Website and found it very interesting.
by Ellis Henican
Somewhere in America, there may be a college student who is dissuaded from drinking by Legal Age 21.
It's a big country, you know.
But exactly 25 years after Washington turned 18-, 19- and 20-year-old drinkers into criminals, the evidence is piling up like a mountain of crushed Budweiser cans: Despite fine intentions by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other anti-alcohol groups, the 21-year-old drinking age actually has caused more harm than good.
It's promoted dangerous binge drinking on American campuses.
It's pushed underage drinkers into dorm rooms, frat houses and moving automobiles.
It's led to a wave of alcohol-fueled assaults and other destructive behavior.
With fake IDs, straw purchasers and cooperative convenience-store clerks, enforcement of 21 has proven almost impossible, undermining respect for the law.
And here's the worst part: The higher age has failed miserably on its own terms. It simply doesn't stop those young people who want to drink.
These otherwise-legal adults can vote, marry, sign contracts and die in Iraq, but still can't buy a legal beer? They almost never have trouble finding an illegal one.
No wonder John McCardell heads a group called Choose Responsibility, which is campaigning for a return to 18. As president of Middlebury College in Vermont, McCardell dealt firsthand with rapes, assaults, car wrecks and emergency-room visits fueled by illegal campus drinking.
"We need to consider new, fresh approaches to a serious problem," said the former college president.
He got an important new ally on Thursday. Dr. Morris Chafetz, who founded the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse and served on the commission that urged former President Ronald Reagan to raise the drinking age, announced a dramatic change of heart. He called his previous support for 21 "the single most regrettable decision" of his career.
"Legal Age 21 has not worked," Chafetz said flatly.
Some things have worked. Designated-driver programs actually have reduced drunken driving deaths since the early 1980s. And honest alcohol-education programs have shown some promise.
But a quarter-century in, some fresh -- sober! -- thinking is clearly called for. "Twenty-five more years of this 'success' is simply unacceptable," McCardell said.
Mr. Henican's column originally appeared in am/New York.
Personally, I agree with the above that the drinking age should be 18. It's hypocrisy to ask 18 year olds to vote, join the military, etc, but that they can't have a beer. Let's show them that we trust their judgement, and believe they can act responsibly.
I also think the President's recent Beer Summit might actually have been a good thing in that it shows that responsible adults can sit back, have a beer or two, and discuss things like civilized gentlemen.
21. Amazing. At the age of 21, I had been able to legally buy beer and wine for 5 years. And 3 years since I could buy pretty much whatever I wanted.
|
We have the legal limit to drinking at 18 here in the UK and we have binge drinking, drunken assaults and so on. The issues aren't really the legal age of drinking at all, but (1) the price of booze, which has got relatively much cheaper over the years compared with wages and (2) drinking culture. Northern European drinking culture (of which the UK is part, at least in this respect) tends to favour binge drinking of beer whereas southern European drinking culture favours sitting in cafes slowing quaffing wine. I suspect that the US has a largely northern European approach to alcohol, given its history and anglophone culture. So I think it is right that the age limit increase to 21 has had very little effect and needlessly criminalises 18-20 year-olds, but I would be very surprised if lowering the age limit would have much impact either.
|
We have the legal limit to drinking at 18 here in the UK and we have binge drinking, drunken assaults and so on. The issues aren't really the legal age of drinking at all, but (1) the price of booze, which has got relatively much cheaper over the years compared with wages and (2) drinking culture. Northern European drinking culture (of which the UK is part, at least in this respect) tends to favour binge drinking of beer whereas southern European drinking culture favours sitting in cafes slowing quaffing wine. I suspect that the US has a largely northern European apprach to alcohol, given its history and anglophone culture. So I think it is right that the age limit increase to 21 has had very little effect and needlessly criminalises 18-20 year-olds, but I would be very surprised if lowering the age limit would have much impact either.
You lousy anglophone hooligans!
;-)
I think the best way to reduce alcohol-related deaths is for the U.S.A to legalise marijuana, LSD and MDMA.
Outlaw cigarettes, and have programs where addicts can get nicotine and health checks.
You should legalise prostitution as well.
I agree with lowering the drinking age to 18. The best means of raising a generation of young adults that approach drinking (and drugs and sex) in a responsible manner, in my opinion, remains health classes in high school. I had to sit through them and while they may have been boring and awkward (especially watching my gym teacher putting a condom on a baseball bat, yeeugh) I still learned responsible behavior. Education is a better means of preventing alcohol-related deaths than arresting underage drinkers.
And now, with the world of cell phones and texting....*shiver*
I think the drinking age should be increased to 25.
Drinking is bad for you.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think the drinking age should be increased to 25.
Drinking is bad for you.
So's eating McDonald's but that's legal at any age. And legal or not, 18-20 year olds drink, especially once they get to college. There's really no way to stop them once they know anyone over 21 willing to buy them stuff or get a fake ID or whatever. I don't think it would hurt anything to lower the legal age, but I also don't think it would do anything buy decriminalize a large demographic of drinkers. Binge drinking might decrease, though, because I know that when I was under 21, every time I drank I wanted it to "be worth it" and so I drank as much as I possibly could. Now that I can drink whenever I want, I have found that I actually enjoy a single drink as much or more than I do getting wasted.
Outlaw cigarettes, and have programs where addicts can get nicotine and health checks.
All for that. Can we get the death penalty for first offenders?
You should legalise prostitution as well.
Way ahead of you on that, too, USA.
|
|
21. Amazing. At the age of 21, I had been able to legally buy beer and wine for 5 years. And 3 years since I could buy pretty much whatever I wanted.
I thought you Germans could buy beer as soon as you could see over the bar... or are you just really short? :-p
I also think the President's recent Beer Summit might actually have been a good thing in that it shows that responsible adults can sit back, have a beer or two, and discuss things like civilized gentlemen.
Please, the Beer Summit was a fracking joke. Nobody admitted they were wrong, nobody apologized. It was noting but a PR stunt to cover up the mistake of a World Leader opening his mouth when he shouldn't have.
BUT, to the topic at hand, the drinking age should be 18. I always thought it odd that an 18 year old could give his life for his country,but not enjoy a beer with his brothers-in-arms.
I've seen 18 year olds. I've been an 18 year old. For that matter, I've seen/been 21. They're not much better. Education helps, but there are people that just don't care.
It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of safety. One of the issue at hand is that a person does not know their limits, or refuses to know their limit. When the find out that limit, it's too late. Another issue is that a person usually drives to a "social gathering place" to drink, one more factor in the long equation.
There is no safe drinking age, 18 or 101.
I was "of age" to drink in the 80's at the tender age of 18. I also dwelt in Wisconsin, home to the most booze drank per citizen in the USA. I think the goal of raising the age was to keep drinking out of the High Schools (most people knew someone who could buy for them before they turned 18).
That said I think the drinking age raised to 21 had good and bad effects. While it may have curbed underage drinking it made the "hour of power" a nightmare!
I think Europe has it correct with drinking. Lower the age, increase the penalties for drunk driving.
MHO
I dislike the 'they can die serving their country' argument. What percentage of 18 year olds actually enlist? That being said, I don't have a problem with them being able to buy with military ID.
Sad though, that maturity can't be measured by calendar years. Some people over 21 wouldn't qualify.
|
My problem with this is that the argument basically seems to be that people don't follow the law, so we need to change the law. That seems like a dangerous attitude to me. Nobody ould suggest that things like murder should be legalized simply because people commit murder. Yet, when kids illegally consume alcohol then the argument becomes that we should change the laws to convenience the people breaking it. So hat happens in 10 to 20 years when binge drinking among 14 year olds becomes a problem? do we lower the drinking age to 14? Where do we draw the line? Let's apply the law of unintended consequences here and try and think about what will happen if we do this.
(especially watching my gym teacher putting a condom on a baseball bat, yeeugh)
That could have been ugly, depending.
One of the problems with young people drinking in the US, is the fact that you get access to a 2-ton potential lethal weapon at age 16. In most (all?) European countries you have to be 18 to get your driver's license.
So, underage drinking + access to cars = bad combination.
|
|
I'm all for drinking earlier and driving later. And it really should be lowered to 18. The age of 21 makes no sense, and it means that I can't go to a bar with most of my friends. Once you hit college, it should be legal. Especially considering that you can vote at that point. They trust me to choose our next president, but not to have a glass of wine with dinner? WTF?
|
The problem, in my opinion, isn't so much the age at which people are allowed to drink as how they're introduced to it. I drank more responsibly at seventeen years old than most people in their mid twenties do here in the UK. Why? Because my Granddad made a habit of letting me have a small glass of his whisky when he opened it for a nightcap. He introduced me to the concept of drinking small amounts for the pleasure of the taste. Most people here seem to drink foul tasting shots and alcopops simply because such drinks make them drunk quicker; considering a good night out to be one which they can't actually remember.
Changing the drinking age in either direction won't help (though lowering it won't hurt; half of the attraction to alcohol for the underage is the fact that they're not allowed to have it). The only way to change things is for parents to teach their kids to drink responsibly once they reach their mid-teens; any later and chances are it'll already be too late.
Edit: Oh, and it's 17 to drive here in the UK.
These otherwise-legal adults can vote, marry, sign contracts and die in Iraq, but still can't buy a legal beer?
Actually, people who serve in the military are legally allowed to drink at 18.
Also, raising the drinking age to 21 hasn't been a failure. In fact, a study done in 1995 showed that the number of alchohol related deaths for young adults 15 and older dropped by nearly 50% since the law's inception in 1984.
It should also be noted that states with laws designed to discourage binge drinking also tend to have fewer alcohol related deaths, and that students who attend college campuses that do not encourage binge drinking are less likely to binge drink themselves.
Personally, I would rather see the legal voting age lowered before the legal drinking age. After all, it seems a little unfair that we force kids to attend failing schools, but we don't allow them to vote on the people and bills that fund them.
Also kids over the age of 14 can be tried as adults for murder, but they aren't old enough to vote? I'm just saying.
On the other hand, if we lowered the legal voting age, I can't imagine that the legal drinking age would be far behind. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Enlisted soldier aren't necessarily allowed to drink at 18. Some bases near the Canadian and Mexican borders have an exception, to prevent soldiers from going across the border to get drunk. Non-US bases can also have a drinking age under 21.
Check it out yourself, rather than taking my word for it. Page 40:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/101510p.pdf
To answer the "murder" question - when a law is widely disobeyed, it is quite possibly a bad law. Bad laws are good candidates for removal and reform. In this case, trying to address irresponsible drinking with an age limit? Not such a great idea.
|
|
To answer the "murder" question - when a law is widely disobeyed, it is quite possibly a bad law. Bad laws are good candidates for removal and reform. In this case, trying to address irresponsible drinking with an age limit? Not such a great idea.
Changing the drinking age in either direction won't help (though lowering it won't hurt; half of the attraction to alcohol for the underage is the fact that they're not allowed to have it). The only way to change things is for parents to teach their kids to drink responsibly once they reach their mid-teens; any later and chances are it'll already be too late.
That's the rub here. Is it the law that is bad or is it that children aren't taught responsibility? In a study done a few years ago by the Department of Health and Human Sevices, It was found that only 28% of young people aged 12-20 report drinking alcohol and only 19.6% report being binge drinkers. Interestingly enough, the study found that underage drinking was most prevelent among whites who's average household income is $125,000 a year or more. The other thing that was interesting was that while the problem with binge drinking and underage drinking is statistically small, among college age white males (18-24) the rate is 56.2%, and according to the report it is most prevelent at college an university.
On thing that most people forget is that prior to 1984, the states, not the Federal government set the drinking age. Some states even had legal drinking ages as low as 16. It is historical fact that there was a decrease of teenage alcohol related deaths with the increase of the legal drinking age. In fact, most statistics that I could find show that the rate of death was cut more than in half. Yet here we are 25 years later debating the matter once again based on the nehavior of young people who's historical perspective began with the day they were born.
Now granted, I have a somewhat different perspective than many people. I was a teenaged alcoholic and did get my booze legally. Had I ben required to wait until 21, I believe I would have been made different choices, but I aso believ that I woul have made different choices if my parents had talked to me about alcohol when I was younger. Instead, when I was 18 I enlisted in the military and found myself in a culture where alcohol was common and, because I was overseas, easily accessable. However I was also military police so I hve the unpleasent memories of dealing with the aftermath of many drunk driving incidents, which was what eventually drove me to seek help with my problem.
Ultimately though, I believe that it is not so much a matter of what the drinking age is, but how responsible are we going to expect our children to be. I see this less as a matter of bad law and more as a matter of bad judgement, primarily on the part of parents. I also see it as part of a disturbing trend in our society. By lowering the drinking age because a small percentage, or even a large percentage, of young people refuse to follow the law, we are sending a message. That is what I was saying about the law of unintended consiquences. Do we really want to say to the next generation that because they are not willing to live up to the staards that we have set that we will just go ahead and lower the standards? I would suggest taking some time and thinking about where that road leads, because that is the off ramp we will be taking if we do this.
I know that other countries have lower drinking ages, nd that this works for them. I also know frm experience that most parents in those countries take a greater role in teaching their children about rtesponsible drinking then they do in the United States. So, ultimately, if we could get parents more involved in teaching their kids about responsible behavior, then I would support lowering the drinking age. However, with our society the way it is today I think it would just create more problems than it would solve. It reminds me of this commercial from my childhood.