The former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, John McCardle, started a movement several years ago to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. Last year a hundred or so university presidents have signed a declaration supporting that idea. This has stirred a spirited debate at many colleges across the country.
McCardle says:
"It hasn't reduced or eliminated drinking. It has simply driven it underground, behind closed doors, into the most risky and least manageable of settings."
Some even in law enforcement think that this initiative has merit. Chief of Police Mark Beckner of Boulder, Colorado, which is home to the University of Colorado, sees merit in changing the law:
"The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving. Those are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give 'em a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."
On the other hand, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) stands in opposition to a change in the law. Chuck Hurley, the executive director of MADD observes:
"The inconvenient truth is that a drinking age at 18 would cause more funerals. Nine hundred families a year would have to bury a teenager..."
"When the United States reduced its drinking age in the seventies it was a public health disaster. Death rates in the states that reduced their drinking age jumped 10 to 40 percent..."
In fact, when states changed the legal drinking age to 21, traffic fatalities among the affected population dropped 13%.
McCardle points out that while deaths on the highways have declined the number of non-traffic related deaths numbers around 3000 a year.
What do you think? What other points can you add to the discussion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There are many more factors at work in the drop in traffic deaths than just the drinking age. Seatbelts, the 55 limit, safer cars, designated drivers, tougher DUI laws. We should instead look at Canada, a similar culture with a lower drinking age. What has their experience been? I am 50, and have two teenaged kids, one who is driving now, at 17. I am fully in favor of lowering the drinking age.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 for many reasons. One is the smple fact the people 18-21 are going to be drinking anyways and often have friends of legal drining age. All the age f 21 is doing is creating more "criminals". Another reason that the age should be lowered is that In the U.S. a person is considered a legal adult at 18 (barring extreme circumstnaces). It is a complete slap to the face and unfair that a person can ne considered an fuu-fledeged adult and even die for the country yet they cannot drink. If drinking at 18 was not so taboo than I believe the drinking problem would not be so enormous in America.
ReplyDeleteI think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 also. Like some others have said if one can be drafted off to war at the age of 18, why can he not drink? Kids are going to drink anyways no matter if what the age limit is. Maybe if they lower the age then it wont be such a big deal and secret and kids will not want to drink as much or drink and drive. Kids want to follow what is in than something that is not. So if its not in to drink illegally then they wont be as tempted to do it. Also in other countries there are no age limit and because of that when "kids" reach that age of mischeive they are already use to the consumption so therefore people at the age of 21 in those countries are not as likely to act "stupid" like people here in the United States at the age of 21. Lower the drinking laws!!!
ReplyDeleteI am 17 years old and I can honestly say that the 21 year old drinking limit ISN'T STOPPING US FROM DRINKING. We drink under age because it is a rush for us to do so. Drinking because we aren't supposed to makes us feel like rebels and teenagers seem to really dig that. And keeping the drinking age at 21 isn't going to make us drink more responsibly. If you're going to get wasted, it doesn't matter how old you are. You're just going to do it. So I say lower the drinking age to 18 because we're doing it anyway. I'm not going to say that changing the age limit will change everything but if we don't give it a shot we will never know.
ReplyDeleteI believe they should not lower the drinking the age. At a bar, which is obviously 21 and up, there is a certain amount to which you can drink. They have a cut-off time and can limit you to how much you drink. I am a bartender myself, and it is easier to cut off somebody who has had a considerable amount of alcohol in a controlled setting, than to have a bunch of underage drinkers at a party or friends house putting all their money together and going to get someone to buy them numerous amounts of alcolhol. In a setting such as this when everyone could possibly be over the limit, it is hard to control the setting, or better yet control the amount or the person from driving. I believe the rates on alcohol posioning would increase, traffic accidents, as well as arrests.
ReplyDeleteLets be honest, although the legal age to drink is 21, it doesn't stop those who aren't of age from drinking. Some may say that 18 years old isn't mature enough to take on the responsibility of intoxication, but realistically there are 50 year olds they can't handle their alcohol consumption. I think that if young adults are able to go into the military and fight for our country at 18 years old, then by all means they should be able to have a beer.
ReplyDeleteI can say that at 18 I was all about lower the drinking age to 18. But now as I am about to turn 21 it doesn't really matter that much to me. I know at 18, 17, and even younger if you want to drink, you are going to drink. I just would think that right at first kids are going to be crazy and be ALL about getting drunk all the time. But maybe as time went on they would see that yea they are 18 and can buy beer but it wasn't a big deal. Both ways have pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't know whether we should lower the age or not. At 18 a childs brain is still growing. A persons frontal lobe is not fully developed until between the ages of 21-25. Womens being around 21-23 and mens around 23-25. Our frontal lobe is responsible for our decision making. Thats why we act the way we do at certain ages. An 18 year old, already acting as immaturely as they do, intoxicated would be much worse. Can you imagine being a bartender and trying to control a bunch of kids? Its hard enough as it is. Not only would it affect their decision making but could stunt the growth and development of the frontal lobe, potentially altering their personality and their social cognitive abilities indefinitely. I think we would see a lot more fatalities due to alcohol if we lowered the age. On the other hand I agree if you can die for your country at 18 you should be able to have a beer.I think we should raise the age of being able to fight for our country to 21. I think we should lower the age of drinking with restrictions. Maybe we can make it to where they can have a drink at 18 when accompanied by a guardian or while in their own home. And they should have a cut off point of maybe 2 drinks, or they are only allowed a drink an hour. I think this is a very touchy subject for many people.
ReplyDeleteNo, keep it where it is. Lowering it would be a gigantic mistake, the mind of an 18 year old and a 21 year old are completely different. And lowering the age limit won't stop kids from drinking underage, it'll just lower the age that kids will start it. (It's what around 14-15 that most kids have tried booze as it is?)
ReplyDeleteAlso to dive a bit into my personal opinion, it's not fair to us that had (or have to) to wait until 21 and then these new batches of kids would get it handed to them. Kids these days...