US Drinking Age

[Jyn]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news....Drinking.Age/

All I can say is that it's about time a group of (supposedly) respectable individuals started pointing out the horrible inconsistencies of the US drinking age.

Hopefully they'll be able to gain some momentum. I actually think that this issue would have popular support if put on the ballot in the upcoming election. I think it's the politicians who would fight it most.

Seriously. You are considered to be legally accountable, you can vote, and and you can *join the friggin military* at 18, but you can't drink a beer. That should be the end of the entire argument right there. To be honest, even if the number of alcohol-related deaths per year tripled (and it won't) as a result of this, it is irrelevant. The principle of the issue is more important here. (Slightly exaggerating here. Don't get offended.)

For the record, I don't like alcohol much. I think the world would be better off without it. It is here to stay, however, and so it comes back to the principle of the matter.

[Khaosai]

I would have to agree that this should happen. Not that I care at all about the american kids getting to have their beer 3 years earlier, but so they would stay down there and drink instead of coming up here every long weekend and start fights in our bars, where we have to ship them back, broken and battered.

[Jidoe]

I think it's a silly rule because any 18 years old American "kid" can get alcohol easily at a frat party or whatever.

And besides, whatever is "illegal" is much more fun to do at this age.

[Ismenia]

A long long time ago, I was eighteen ( no comments) and at that time the drinking age was 18. When I was 19 it changed to 21 and I was grandfathered in. I saw no decrease in the amount of drinking my college peers did, because of the 21 law. If they want alcohol they will find a way to get it regardless.

I have to agree that the drinking age should go back down to 18 years old. If you are considered an adult when you turn 18, then you should be granted full rights. At any age, there will be those who are responsible about drinking and those who are idiots.

[Nephrys]

Wow, awesome article.

I can't stand MADD, I really can't. Drunk driving is a horrible, awful thing and I sympathize with people who have lost loved ones to drunk driving. I am completely in support of raising punishments for those who are caught drunk driving but its hardly a problem that affects only people under 20. Especially on colleges which is the age group the article was targetting, a lot of us don't even have cars because its so inconvenient and NO ONE drives to parties (this is at a Big Ten school.. maybe its different on smaller campuses).

Statistics and studies are so SO SOOOO easy to manipulate and so the frequency with which they cite these studies that prove that drinking related deaths have actually been reduced and so therefore the 21 year old drinking age is GOOD disgust me. I have seen studies (and I will try to find links) that show that they've just shifted the bracket from 18-20 year olds dying to 21-24 year olds dying in drinking-related traffic accidents. How is that any better??? A simple google search for minimum drinking age traffic fatalities will show you so many sources saying that deaths have been reduced, but one common factor that you will find in all of them is that drinking-related traffic deaths have decreased for people under 21. They don't show any statistics for the 21-24 year olds who are the new 18-20 year olds.. and if they do they're not accounting for the fact that people who drive drunk now face much HARSHER penalties.

I think the college presidents are absolutely right that driving drinking underground makes it a lot more dangerous. Those 156 binge-drinking deaths they mentioned probably resulted from underage students KNOWING their friend was really screwed up but being too afraid to call 911 because of the strict laws against underage drinking. I've faced that decision and I think its absolutely ridiculous that I should have to consider "Is my friend drunk enough to risk getting in trouble over?". Because if you do decide that your friend is -that- drunk, and you do call 911.. chances are you're going to get a ticket, or your friend is going to get a ticket, possibly get their scholarship revoked, and any number of awful things. We shouldn't have to decide between our friends possibly dying from alcohol poisoning or getting them (and possibly us) in deep trouble with the law, the college, sports organizations, you name it.. People try to handle it themselves by doing any number of things that aren't really going to help if your friend is really -that- drunk. And then there are the students who will just leave them hoping that they'll be fine. To anyone who hasn't experienced that, it sounds awful that you would even consider not calling 911 but I'm not a doctor and most college students aren't. I can't determine if my friend has had enough alcohol to kill her or not and so you have to weigh all these things before you even pick up the phone to get her some help. Binge drinking is a reality in college and while I'm not sure lowering the drinking age would stop it, at least people wouldn't have to be afraid to seek help when it was necessary. I think that after getting your stomach pumped, you might think twice about drinking that whole bottle of Jack the next time.

This is a topic that bothers me so much. I look at some of my peers and yeah a lot of them are complete idiots and they aren't mature or adult at all. Then I look at some 20 year olds, and some 30 year olds, and I think the exact same thing. If we're responsible enough to vote, if we're responsible enough to make decisions that could land us in prison for the rest of our lives, if we are responsible enough to enter contracts and to serve our country, then we damn well better be responsible enough to drink. I'm extremely concerned that our nation would entrust us with so many of these things, yet not to drink alcohol... GRRR!!!

I think these laws also contribute to another thing I can't stand. Police hating! People, who are typically law-abiding citizens, have come to hate the police because they have to enforce the laws, however silly the laws are. I see this on campus so much. A party gets busted, you're underage, and the police have to write you a ticket (which in Michigan typically means hefty court fines, PBT (breathalyzer) tests morning and night for like 30 days or longer, and a number of other awful silly stupid things) because if they don't and you end up doing something stupid like getting into a car and killing someone or drinking yourself to death.. they can be held liable because they didn't enforce the law. Its just so frustrating. The police shouldn't be out there writing tickets to kids in their own apartments who aren't necessarily doing anything irresponsible, but they have to do this because they've sworn to enforce the laws. I wish more police were out catching drunk drivers rather than busting parties where a few 20-year-olds are drinking and listening to loud music. This misdirected hatred towards the police doesn't really lead to anything positive.

I could go on and on about this topic for days and pages but I think I've made my point. I don't think these college presidents will be successful in their endeavor as much as I wish they were. I hate age discrimination. If we are considered adults at eighteen then we should have the rights that adults have not just some of them.. I almost had problems adopting a cat because I'm under twenty-one. WTF?! I sincerely wish the drinking age was at eighteen. I don't like how the federal government has sort of forced states into a choke hold on this, with the whole funding issue.. that doesn't really seem right to me. As much as I'd like to see it changed, I don't think it will be anytime soon, if ever. Le sigh.

[Nephrys]

As far as online statistics that support what I said about drinking related traffic deaths, I couldn't find much. I am in college though. Maybe I will have an opportunity to research this (gotta love university libraries) and if so I will definitely post what I find. Here's a position paper from the National Youth Rights Association that I liked. Some of the sources are a bit dated so I'm not sure how some of the claims would stand up today but I think it warrants some thought, regardless.

Drinking Age

The National Youth Rights Association believes American youth alcohol policy should recognize the inevitability of alcohol consumption among youth and seek to reduce the harm of that alcohol use, rather than unrealistically try to keep young people from drinking at all. Congress and state legislatures could enact any of many different policies, some already in effect in other countries, to promote safer consumption. The country should not dogmatically attach itself to any one policy or set of policies to the extent that it refuses to consider alternatives that might save lives.

The United States has the highest and most rigorously enforced drinking age in the world. Communities nationwide have spent millions of dollars on police patrols, sophisticated driver's licenses and propaganda campaigns to prevent people under 21 from drinking alcoholic beverages. Yet 51 percent of high school seniors and 26 percent of eighth-graders admitted drinking within the past 30 days in a 1996 government survey.1 Drinking rates among youth have remained remarkably consistent over the past 40 years.2 In a country where most of the population can legally buy alcohol, where alcohol advertising is ubiquitous and where drinking is considered an important part of everything from New Year's Eve to summer baseball, this is hardly surprising. As a group of Washington State University researchers put it, "In such an environment, any effort to teach youngsters abstinence from such substances is like trying to promote chastity in a brothel!"3

At the very least, American youth alcohol policy is ineffective. More disturbing, the drinking age may be counterproductive. It is applied so rigidly in most of the country that it precludes any attempt to teach young people how to handle alcohol responsibly. In some jurisdictions, adults who supervise a party with alcohol to prevent drunk driving can be charged for allowing other people's children to drink in their homes; young people who try to serve as designated drivers can be charged merely for being at a party where alcohol is served; and taxi services that give free rides to prevent drunk driving during the holidays ban young people from using their services. "In short, drinking age laws discourage rather than encourage a transition period between youthful abstinence and adult use of alcoholic beverages," writes journalist and sociologist Mike A. Males.4

Under such laws, many young people learn drinking in unsafe environments, like basement keg parties. They use alcohol with the intention of getting drunk rather than as an accompaniment to food. Researchers say American young people engage in dangerous "binge drinking" far too often and far more often than some of their European counterparts, who learn to drink in the open. The United States should take lessons from cultures like those of Jews, Italians and Greeks, who traditionally focus on misuse of alcohol, rather than simple use of alcohol, as the source of problems. "Educational efforts should encourage moderate use of alcohol among those who choose to drink," explains sociologist David J Hanson.5

Unfortunately, the federal government maintains a "no-use" dogma in its alcohol education efforts. Agencies tell educators to reject any responsible-use message aimed at young people.6 As a result, schools often offer "abstinence-only" alcohol curriculums that are far less effective in preventing alcohol abuse than programs that encourage responsibility.7

Much of the debate about the drinking age has centered around the success or failure of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which forced states to raise their drinking age to 21. Government agencies and anti-youth organizations claim that law has saved thousands of lives, a "fact" usually repeated without question in the media. But independent researchers have regularly challenged that assertion. "Minimum legal drinking age is not a significant - or even a perceptible - factor in the fatality experience of all drivers or of young drivers," wrote Rutgers University economists Peter Asch and David T. Levy after rigorously examining traffic fatality statistics.8

One thing not in dispute is the segregatory effect of the drinking age, encouraging entertainment establishments to shut out people under 21. It limits where and with whom young people can spend their free time. Like other age restrictions, the drinking age makes clear that no matter how hard you work, no matter how successful you are, you are still a second-class citizen unfit for association with adults until you reach an arbitrary age. As Males says, "Alcohol policy in the United States is the classic example of the genesis, entrenchment, and perpetuation of modern anti-youth doctrine. It is the model of modern scapegoating of youth."9

1. United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Monitoring the Future Study, 1975 - 1996," 24 Oct. 1997, http://165.112.78.61/NIDACapsules/NCMTFuture1.html (25 Apr. 1998).
2. Mike A. Males, The Scapegoat Generation (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1996) 204.
3. Armand L. Mauss, et al., "The Problematic Prospects for Prevention in the Classroom: Should Alcohol Education Programs be Expected to Reduce Drinking by Youth?" Journal of Studies on Alcohol 49.1 (1987) 59.
4. Males, "The Minimum Purchase Age for Alcohol and Young-Driver Fatal Crashes: A Long-Term View," The Journal of Legal Studies 15 (January 1987) 207.
5. David J. Hanson, Alcohol Education: What We Must Do (Westport, Connecticut: Prager, 1996) 45.
6. Hanson 106-7.
7. Hanson 90.
8. Peter Asch and David T. Levy, "Does the Minimum Drinking Age Affect Traffic Fatalities?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6.2 (1987): 189.
9. Males, The Scapegoat Generation 186.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Jidoe
I think it's a silly rule because any 18 years old American "kid" can get alcohol easily at a frat party or whatever.

And besides, whatever is "illegal" is much more fun to do at this age.

What's really "silly" about this is that in almost every state a child of any age can drink in their own home with parent supervision.

[Aristotle]

I am all for lowering the drinking age to 18.

To placate MADD, what if the law did three things:

1) Lower drinking age to 18.

2) Massively increase DUI penalties. First DUI is a mandatory 1 year in prison. No exceptions. Sorry Michael Phelps. Second DUI, 2-10 years in prison. Third, life. All DUI convictions are published on the front page of the local newspaper and announced on all location TV and radio news stations. Also, a web site would be created nationwide to track all DUI offenses. It would be publicly searchable. You could also enter your address and find all DUI offenders near you. It would be like a sex crime offender list.

Driving drunk is a helluva lot more dangerous than people seem to understand and accept. It needs huge penalties and massive public scorn.

3) Increase the punishments for businesses selling or serving alcohol to people under 18.

[Metiao]

Originally posted by Aristotle


2) Massively increase DUI penalties.

I'm all for this even if the drinking age isn't lowered. I have an aunt that, last I knew, was busted 7ish times. It's like they just keep giving slaps on the wrist. "Well, pay this much, and just don't do it again."
"Oops. Looks like you slipped. Well, I guess you'll have to pay just a little more. Be careful next time." "Oh, we see you slipped again. Well, its' been 3 months since your last DUI so lets have you pay the same as last time...."

The last time I talked to my dad, he told me my aunt was busted again and got 45 days. DAYS. Not months, not years. Days. She still kept her license, but had to install that machine that she had to blow in to start her car. Granted, she could easily have a sober friend start it. Or start it, leave it running and drink, then go home. There's still ways around it. 7 some odd times she's been busted.

There used to be a small, compact car that my cousin was driving and was in a real bad accident. One of those type that when you look at the car you say "Oh the hell did you walk away from that." Backseat up where the front seats where, engine where the front seat was suppose to be. That kind of accident. He walked away, but now he's been busted so many times he doesn't have a license anymore.

I think they need to make the fines a lot more than they are. 45 days for a 6-7th offense? That's laughable.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Metiao
"Oh, we see you slipped again. Well, its' been 3 months since your last DUI so lets have you pay the same as last time...."

A DUI expires after three months? Ugh. As a general rule, I agree that mercy should be shown - you don't hound someone when he's 53 for speeding when he was 18 - if for thirty-five years he's been sober and wary. But three months isn't nearly long enough, unless the police force is out enough to guarantee that they'll catch her EVERY time, which they never will.

Drink-driving is way worse than speeding, and speeding is way worse than popular impression gives it. One DUI should cost you your licence, and you only get it back after retaking a test, and the lic comes back endorsed as .00 BAC limit for some period of time, maybe a year. Second offense - and this includes any nonzero BAC during the probation period - gets you jail time. I'm not sure about 1 year jail for first offense, but if you're stupid enough to get behind the wheel drunk a _second time_, then you deserve all you get.