Could a younger drinking age curb binge drinking?

by Angie Felton (Subscribe to Angie Felton's posts) Aug 19th 2008 5:00PM

Categories: Teens & tweens, Safety, Life & Style, In The News

In the United States, you're considered an adult and old enough to vote, make your own legal decision, and be drafted into military service at the age of 18. However, you're not old enough to have a beer for three more years.

The Amethyst Initiative is made up of chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges across the United States who think that rather than curbing drinking issues in young adults, the 21 drinking law actually promotes a culture of binge drinking on campus. So far over 100 university leaders have signed a petition asking lawmakers to lower the drinking age to 18 and the reasons why are very thought-provoking.

The current law has not prevented alcohol from being available, and drinking is widespread at all American colleges, and at younger ages as well. But at colleges and universities, the law does have other effects: it pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks, including risks from drunken driving; and it prevents us from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice. ~Richard H. Brodhead, Duke University

I signed because my 35 years in higher education and my 30+ years as a parent to three sons convinced me that the 21 year-old drinking age is hypocritical, ineffective, guilt-inducing and counterproductive. It is a form of mini-prohibition, and needs to be replaced with education and a focus on the value of moderation, not intolerance. ~Donald R. Eastman III, Eckerd College

But not everyone believes making forbidden fruit (juice) accessible at an earlier age is the solution. Mothers Against Drunk Driving estimates that 25,000 lives have been saved by the drinking age being 21 and is urging people to write their Governors and college presidents in order to maintain the 21 law and to avoid the universities affiliated with the Amethyst Initiative.

I've live in a college town for 20 years and can personally attest that all the 21 drinking law does little to prevent underage drinking. All it really seems to do here is make kids scatter when a police car goes by.

If the goal is truly to curb drinking and driving, the New York approach seems the way to go: you get caught drinking and driving, the car is no longer belongs to you (or whoever loaned it to you.) It would be interesting to see what effect a law like that would have on alcohol related accidents.

Source

Comments (25)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Nancy 8-19-2008 @ 5:41PM

It's not only the US that's crazy - in the UK you can drink before you can get a driver's license.

Liz 8-19-2008 @ 9:16PM

That's not entirely true. In the UK you can get your *first* licence at 17. You cannot drive on public roads without a licence, and until you've passed the full test you cannot drive without a driver who is at least 21 and has been licensed for at least 3 years.

The official drinking age is 18. Between 16 and 18 an adult *may*, in permissable pubs, buy you *a* glass of wine, or a half-pint of beer/cider *with your meal*. Otherwise you are not permitted to buy or consume alcohol in public till you are 18.

Jenn 8-20-2008 @ 10:08AM

I got a DUI, I can tell you that it ruined my entire life. I am not sure why people think there needs to be harsher laws.

One thing I try to educate people on is that one does not need to be even close to drunk to be over the limit. Most people assume "drunk" drivers are "drunk". Not so. I had two glasses of wine at dinner at a restaurant. It would have never occured to me that I was "drunk" or endangering anyone. Alas, two drinks is all it takes. I think the term "drunk driving" needs to be changed, it makes people think that if they are not "drunk" they can drive. They can't, even a single drink can impare your driving. However, society likes to think the DUI drivers are sloppy drunks and out of control- I assumed so and paid the price.

I have graduated college, Dean's list, but with my record I am unable to get a job. Oh, I get the job until they do a background check (I do disclose the arrest) and the company cannot hire me due to insurance reasons. I paid for my college education ($26,000) in loans and cannot get a job that is worth squat. I go to interviews and get hired until they process the paperwork,,,,

I paid $10,000 all told for my DUI as a struggling college student that was working and going to school. I couldn't afford electricity and rode my bike 7 miles back and forth to work and school in 110 degree weather. My insurance tripled and I sold my car (since I couldn't drive it anyway). I spent two days in jail with prostitutes and violent criminals. I spent 6 weeks in classes. I was on probation for two years.

I went to Olive Garden and had two glasses of wine and drove home. My life will never be the same. It destroyed me. I destroyed myself I guess, but I didn't know what drunk driving meant. I had no idea that one needn't be intoxicated to be a danger. Hopefully my story will help someone else, don't even have one drink and drive. Most drinks sold at clubs or restaurants (such as margaritas and cosmos) are actually TWO drinks. That means one margarita and you are drunk driving. You WILL lose your entire career, be in the paper, your life will never be the same. NEVER drink ANYTHING and drive. Period.

Percy 8-20-2008 @ 3:19PM

A younger age will cause more attention to the citizens on the street, while bars are rasing their admittance age every year. some people become reclusive, while intoxicated, parents may start losing more arguements but they'll get more personal attention from thiir family member, who before may have been a little embarrased to share the thoughts inside tightdrum brain.

LS 8-19-2008 @ 5:59PM

As a person who has been the victim of a drunk driver, I completely agree with your last paragraph... I would like to see *real* penalties for those who drive while drunk. Take away the vehicles, take away the licenses for a LONG time, and none of this "three strikes" crap. You drink, you drive, you're done. Period.

As for the 18/21 debate, I can see both sides... on one hand, the lower age may remove some of the "mystique", but the older age may, indeed, prevent problems.

I think, overall, we need a healthier approach to alcohol - as with so many other things in this country, we have an "all or nothing" attitude. Many people can't just have one beer and let it go, it's too "cool" to get sopping drunk. On the other side is the teetotalers who won't drink anything, ever. We model these behaviors for our children, but we never give them the tools they need to face the challenge of alcohol. We're so busy with the "Alcohol is cool" or "Alcohol is evil" attitude, that we can't teach, "Alcohol is like anything else... too much, and you could be in big trouble. But a little isn't a big deal." And rules like the age-21 law turn parents that are trying to impart that lesson into criminals.

I don't really know where I stand on the issue. Perhaps continue to keep it illegal for establishments to serve to the under-21 crowd, but decriminalize it in the home, so kids can see that it's ok, and even possible, to have one beer or one glass of wine with a meal, but that they don't have to get falling-down-drunk.

Or if they do, they're at home, under the watchful eye of parents.

I really don't know, and I'm rambling. I'll shut up now.

Tamyu 8-20-2008 @ 7:24AM

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the attitudes in regard to drinking. It isn`t the law that is causing problems, it`s the attitude. There just aren`t enough healthy views or attitudes about alcohol.
It seems the main appeal is getting fall down drunk. It really is all or nothing. It is very hard to find a good middle ground example in the media.

Changing the age without any of the attitudes just means that 18th birthday parties are going to be held in bars - legally.

hall monitor 8-19-2008 @ 6:43PM

It seems they are using this logic: “The ONLY way to eliminate underage drinking, is by allowing younger people to drink.” All this would do is make it easier for high school students to obtain alcohol. We don’t learn to ‘drink responsibly’ simply when it becomes legal to consume. It comes with maturity, and you can’t really speed that process up.

Hall Monitor
http://detentionslip.org

Kelly 8-19-2008 @ 6:56PM

I am from New Zealand where the legal drinking age was lowered to 18 (from 20) in 2000. The result is most definitely not a society who drinks responsibly. All that has happened is 18 year olds feel free to go to clubs and pubs and get absolutely smashed. We have a terrible drinking culture here, and in order to change it the attitude towards alcohol needs to change. It does not matter what the drinking age is, a vast majority of teenages, young adults and adults alike have a 'drink to get drunk' mind set, and until that changes, people will get drunk no matter what the age limit is. So, USA, don't waste your time thinking a lower drinking age will fix the problem - it certainly hasn't here!

jennings 8-19-2008 @ 8:14PM

When I was 18 I could drink in my home state and my out-of-state school state legally. Everyone around drank as much and often as they could, it seemed like - it absolutely did nothing but encourage even younger kids to drink because their high school senior friends could do it (and buy it for them) legally. I think 21 is too young, personally... (And I have a 21 year old child, who is considered "mature"...)

jennings 8-19-2008 @ 8:13PM

RochelleSC 8-19-2008 @ 8:36PM

If somone would like to do a quick bit of research, I'm sure you'd find that the US is the ONLY country that allows its citizens to VOTE and join the MILITARY 3 years before they're allowed to drink alcohol legally. As Dr. Phil would ask..... 'How's that workin' for ya?'

Karenjean 8-20-2008 @ 9:06AM

RochelleSC you are so right. The voting, drinking and military age should all be the same.
When I was 18 it was legal for me to drink in Jersey. I went to college in Jersey, vacationed at the Jersey shore and lived about 20 minutes from Jersey.
To complicate matters, Jersey raised its age the year I turned 18. I made the cutoff by 3 months so I was grandfathered in. My brother missed it.
I didn't go home much because I spent the next 4 years listening to him whine about how unfair it was and pester me to go to Jersey to buy him and his idiot pals alcohol.
While I was never much of a drinker (the occasional beer party at college but I wasn't one of the ones puking out a window) my brother was a noted drunk at age 16.
I guess it all depends on the person, but you can't legislate that. All you can do is be consistent, which ours is not.

watmancolnee 8-19-2008 @ 9:28PM

I'm 15 and I think that lowering the drinking age just doesn't seem right. There are kids already drinking underage as is. I think if we lower the drinking age it'll just cause more kids to drink even younger.

aj 8-19-2008 @ 10:13PM

im 15 as well and i know that in my school, it doesnt matter how old you are. older kids buy it then sell it again. ive got plenty of friends who drink and have gotten smashed. and im in an accelerated program where kids are supposed to be 'more responsible' and 'more mature'. i personally dont drink, but it doesnt matter what the drinking age is. keep it high and peple like me wont drink till they're 21. on the other hand, i find it absolutely ridiculous that you can be drafted into the army, but you cant have a beer. are you serious? you can be put on the front line, shot, and killed before you can even have a beer on your own? you're entrusted with a multiple lethal weapons but you cant drink? nonsense.

Alanna 8-20-2008 @ 12:00AM

I'm also 15 and I go to a boarding school (not as a punishment, as a privledge... i had to work very hard to get in) where many of the students spend their weekends drunk in their dorm rooms. I think that LS has the best solution.... maybe if alcohol wasn't treated like this unattainable treasure... and we could drink (in small amounts) under the eyes of our parents in our homes... maybe it wouldn't be so "mysterious"..... but of course there are some people who would take advantage of this too.....

Josh 12-23-2008 @ 12:22AM

I'm 23 years of age and live in a college town in the United States. Here, most of the people you see walking around are under 21. But that certainly doesn't stop people from drinking. There are probably 15 or more bars here, and many of them don't check IDs very well, or even at all. You can imagine what the streets look like every weekend. Before I moved here, I would frequently attend parties where most of the party-goers would be underage. I was 17. I was just like these people.

Binge drinking can have it's up and downs, but years later when I turned 21, drinking just lost it's appeal. I still do it from time to time -- Hell, I'm having a beer as we speak, but my point is that kids are going to be drinking under the legal age limit, no matter what that limit is. As just about everyone I know that can legally purchase and drink alcohol, they too say they have lost their appeal for this substance.

Personally, I'm not for or against lowering the legal age limit. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter. If there is alcohol, people will drink it.

Rosslynn Carpenter 8-20-2008 @ 12:15AM

I have to say that the US has it butt backwards along with many of the post here. Instead of saying "oh but if we lower the drinking age it will only increase the amount kids drinking, and they will drink at a lower age". We need to lower the drinking age to 18. Some of the others on here have the right idea, if we can send our boys and girls to the front lines, and give them the responsiblitly of voting then we need to give them the responsiblility to drink. Why do people not have a concern with the age for driving? Lets think about it. More deaths come from car accidents each yr, and most of these are caused by teenage boys (statisically). While some of these accidents come from drunk driving most are from dicking around instead. While some of you will say "well it only goes to prove that you shouldn't lower the drinking age due to lack of maturity" how about we look at it the other way. Instead of letting a dumb 16 yr old be responsible for a moving vehicle that travels upwards of 100mphs.....lets let them grow up a little more have more training and let them get a licensce when they are 18 at which time they will have gained the vaulted maturity, they will then be able to join the military and drink and vote. I have a soon to be 16yr old and am hoping that the driving age is bumped up before she turns 16. I have no problem teaching her the responsiblilites that go with driving and drinking, and at 18 I would have no problem letting her have some cocktails (as I did and I was never one to drink and drive)....its up to us parents to teach our kids and help them recognize their limits.

Open Season 8-20-2008 @ 1:10AM

I've always been irked by MADD quoting the NHTS study that claims "25,000 lives have been saved by the national drinking age." This study used shaky methodology and considered alcohol the primary cause of fatal accidents even when drivers had BACs well below the legal limit.

Does prohibiting 18-20 year olds from drinking save some lives? Probably, since there are over 20 million Americans in that age group and a least some are dissuaded by the law. Less drinking means less drunk driving which means fewer fatalities. If the drinking age was raised to 25, you would almost certainly save even more lives. So why stop there? Let's raise it to 30!

Eighteen year olds are considered adults in every other legal sense and should be afforded the same rights as any other adult. Many rightly argue that current drinking laws violate the equal protection clause, despite a 1978 ruling that found otherwise.

Like most things, what really matters is polling and voting. Legislators are happy to trample the rights of 18-20 year olds because they have terrible voter turnout. Meanwhile, parents worried about their kids and barflies who don't want younger company are a much bigger group and actually vote.

The fact the law won't be changing creates an even greater need for early exposure to responsible drinking practices. My college used to publish fliers about how 1/3 of freshman didn't "regularly" drink, as if that was a good thing. Convincing your kids to never drink underage is exceedingly difficult. Teaching your kids how to drink responsibly is far easier and far more useful in the long term.

Mihir 8-20-2008 @ 10:44AM

heard some good commentary on the radio this morning about this. the host's take was that college's were pushing this in order to reduce their liability. to break his argument down into a couple sentences: how do you reduce liability for an illegal activity (drinking under 21, not drinking in general) that goes on on campus? change the rules so the activity is no longer illegal.

thought it was an interesting take.

Paul Cyopick 8-20-2008 @ 11:15AM

Moving the drinking age to 21 does little to stop the 18 -20 year old's from drinking, it just makes it illegal. There is no legal age for drug use, yet a certain percentage of people do it.

To me, it seems like everyone today knows their rights, but very few want to own up to their responsibilities. Like when people sue bars for making them drunk. Harsher penalties seem to me to be the way to go, that way you're punishing the guilty, not everyone.

Another option in my opinion would be no drinking hours. I worked at bars for years, and seeing everyone leave at 2am, quickly downing their last few drinks always seemed a bit scary and crazy.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments