College Presidents ask for debate on drinking age - 18 or 21 - make the case

Here is a news article about it.  And now I ramble...

The reason the drinking age was raised to 21 had to do with car insurance and accident rates for various age groups.

It would seem that young people, being less experienced drivers and more prone to risk-taking behavior, have more accidents and more fatal accidents than other age groups. (still true but the 80+ crowd is dangerous too) Add alcohol to the mix and insurance companies don't want to insure 18-21 year olds if the drinking age is 18.

So what if they make the drinking age 18, but dramatically increase car insurance premiums for the age group?  If this would mean fewer young people driving, that would be a good thing.  Except in rural areas and then it would be a hardship.

I don't know... I definitely agree that making it forbidden only increases its allure.  The easy availability of alcohol to people over 21 and also in college means that it's impossible to prevent underage drinking.  So let's let them drink and make them pay through the nose to drive.

Back when the drinking age was raised to 21, there wasn't the increased awareness of the wrongness of drunk driving (to risk the lives of others for a ride home) or the push for designated drivers like there is now.... How much difference does this make? 

Could/Should colleges offer a bus that makes the rounds to bars between midnight and 3 am and for a reasonable fare, like $1, takes drunk studentsback to campus?

Thoughts?

Drinking age in all other civilized countries is 19 or less, AFAIK (and 19 is only in certain uptight Canadian provinces).

I think it should be 18, personally. Raise car insurance rates if you must. I don't think people are dying in droves from drunk driving accidents in Europe or Canada, compared to the US. (Drinking age in Spain is 16!). It doesn't make any sense that you can vote, and serve in the military, and not drink. And if car insurance rates are only somewhat higher here for the 18-21 age group (i.e. still affordable), with lower drinking ages, why would they be SO much higher in the US?

As for the college drinking thing, most Canadian universities have bars on, or very near, campus. And when people go off campus, they should bring a designated driver (or take cabs) like everyone else.

Part of me wants to say yes and part of me wants to say no.

I agree that underage drinking is on the rise.  Will it really slow down if we make it readily available to them?  I don't know.

I'm leaning towards keeping it at 21.  The last thing I want is a bar full of 18 year olds.  21 year olds are bad enough. 

Also, you could say the same thing for drugs.  Drugs have a certain appeal because they are illegal.  Does that mean we should make them legal?  I'd say no to that one too.

Agree with post #1. It should be 18. It is unrealistic to assume that kids aren't drinking in college, so there's no real inforcement, anyway.

At least if it's legal, the university can help with eduction, cheap rides, etc. I think drinking and driving has become so politically incorrect, that the offer of cheap rides would be sufficient to inspire safety. 

I agree with trustwomen.

Drinking ages set as high as 21 is just ridiculous.

If you are legally an adult at 18 in your country - then you should be able to participate in all legal activities that country allows when you reach that age.

Sure... why not offer to have a cheap bus from campus to pick up drunk students?!  There will be college students drinking regardless of drinking ages. And although it is not the responsibility of the college to provide transportation home for them - it would be something I would've taken advantage of myself during that time of my life.

My opinion is that the age should be 19.  I say this because of the fact that there are many 18-year-olds still in high school.  Anyone who's been to college knows that you can get booze if you're in college; all you have to do is befriend someone who's 21, and they'll buy it for you.  Same concept would occur with a drinking age of 18; a 15-year-old can be friends with an 18-year-old high school senior, and that opens up the possibility of accessible alcohol to anyone old enough to be in high school.

At age 19, however, you're most likely in college or working and probably not hanging around with anyone much younger than yourself (yes, I know there are exceptions, but I'm speaking in general terms.)

I would even go so far as to say that active duty, full-time members of the armed services should be allowed to drink at age 18 with a valid military ID.  If the military thinks they're worthy of blocking bullets in a desert somewhere, then they should be worthy of having a few beers, too.

Just my opinion, of course, and by no means a foolproof solution.

I wonder what opinion polls of Americans say? If a majority of people support it being lowered? (My guess would be yes?)

When I lived in Washington, we would drive to Canada to drink and then drive home... Everyone I knew drank at 18 so I think that this is kind of silly to keep the age at 21.  Again I agree with everyone else, if you are an adult at 18 and responsible for your debts, then you should be responsible enough to drink. 

I haven't read the other responses but I plan on chiming in anyway.

Drinking age should be lower. I like the way other countries do it. Set it to 16. The driving age should be increased to 18. That way by the time people start to drive they already understand the dangerous effects of alcohol. They've stumbled around, they've had nights were they didn't really know what was going on - they realize that this is not a way that you should be driving or doing anything that could endanger someones life. I also think that drunk driving penalties should be much more severe though.

The thing that bothers me about it is the damage it causes to innocents. If you're drunk and you want to drive yourself into a ditch and die, it's sad but it's your choice. When you hit someone else and change their life - that's when you should be stopped.

Unfortunately so far, Trust, the polls are indicating that most Americans are against it.

I think you are on to something Laura. That makes sense from many perspectives.

Wow, kathy, do you think it's sour grapes on the part of the public? ("I couldn't drink before 21, so why should you get to!")

No. I think it's just the hype that MADD is perpetuating about the thousands of lives that will be lost. When the reality is that stronger enforcement has led to fewer deaths, IMO.

I believe the age should be 18. If you are old enough to serve and die for your country and have all other manner of legal responsibilities resting on your shoulders at 18, drinking should be one of them.

I remember a different scenario when the drinking age was raised to 21 from 18 across the US.  It was forced on the states by the federal government. They threatened to withhold federal tax money from states who refused to raise the drinking age. I don’t remember the insurance companies being behind it. I think it started with MADD and grew from there. I do believe the insurance companies are against raising the age.

When I was 18 Ohio had 2 drinking ages. You could drink low beer (3.2 % alcohol) at 18 and you could drink high beer (6% alcohol), wine and spirits at 21. The Ohio legislature compromised and made the legal drinking age for all alcohol at 19. Then a couple of years later the US forced all of the states to go to 21. Ohio fought it, but getting federal tax money was more important than telling the fed to stay out of the state’s business.

Raising the drinking age did not lower drinking on campus. I was on campus during this period and remember it. All it did was make kids be sneaky. It also caused them to be arrested for drinking and obtaining alcohol. I don’t believe raising the limit to 21 lowered the incidence of drinking amongst teens 17 and younger. They still got it.

If young teens want to drink they’re going to do so. There will be some kids who won’t drink until it’s legal to do so out of fear or wanting to follow the letter of the law. I believe the kids who fall into this category make up a pretty small subset of the teenage population.

Original Post by kathygator:

No. I think it's just the hype that MADD is perpetuating about the thousands of lives that will be lost. When the reality is that stronger enforcement has led to fewer deaths, IMO.

I agree. I also wonder on who they asked when they did the poles. Most of the people I know think it should be 18. I wonder what would happen if there was a grass roots movement to get it on the ballot. I wonder how the public would vote. I'm guessing they'd lower it to 18.

No one thought that Ohio would ban all public smoking. It was easy for the organizers to get it on the ballot for the general election in 2007. It passed by a whopping majority. Over 80% I believe. The majority by which it passed flabbergasted the pundits on both sides. The ones for it really thought it would pass, but they hadn't an inkling how the public really felt about public smoking.

"most Canadian universities have bars on, or very near, campus"

so do American campuses. My campus has two bars and it's a state college.

"Could/Should colleges offer a bus that makes the rounds to bars between midnight and 3 am and for a reasonable fare, like $1, takes drunk studentsback to campus?"

Hey my campus has that too. But it's FREE with a student ID card and it runs from 10-3am

 

"If you are old enough to serve and die for your country and have all other manner of legal responsibilities resting on your shoulders at 18, drinking should be one of them."

Maybe you should have to be 21 to enlist in the military. It's heartbreaking to hear that teenagers have lost their lives fighting wars.

I don't see the point in lowering the drinking age. If young kids want to drink alcohol, they're going to do it regardless. The age restrictions just make it slightly harder to buy. And the only time minors get caught is when they do  STUPID things while they're drinking (drinking in public, driving, etc.)

Original Post by moonikins:

I believe the age should be 18. If you are old enough to serve and die for your country and have all other manner of legal responsibilities resting on your shoulders at 18, drinking should be one of them.

I remember a different scenario when the drinking age was raised to 21 from 18 across the US.  It was forced on the states by the federal government. They threatened to withhold federal tax money from states who refused to raise the drinking age. I don’t remember the insurance companies being behind it. I think it started with MADD and grew from there. I do believe the insurance companies are against raising the age.

When I was 18 Ohio had 2 drinking ages. You could drink low beer (3.2 % alcohol) at 18 and you could drink high beer (6% alcohol), wine and spirits at 21. The Ohio legislature compromised and made the legal drinking age for all alcohol at 19. Then a couple of years later the US forced all of the states to go to 21. Ohio fought it, but getting federal tax money was more important than telling the fed to stay out of the state’s business.

Raising the drinking age did not lower drinking on campus. I was on campus during this period and remember it. All it did was make kids be sneaky. It also caused them to be arrested for drinking and obtaining alcohol. I don’t believe raising the limit to 21 lowered the incidence of drinking amongst teens 17 and younger. They still got it.

If young teens want to drink they’re going to do so. There will be some kids who won’t drink until it’s legal to do so out of fear or wanting to follow the letter of the law. I believe the kids who fall into this category make up a pretty small subset of the teenage population.

 yeah i was gonna say i thought it was a gov't thing. Hell lets be like italy with no drinking age or open container laws, you don't see them being drunk and stupid. I just this americans need to learn to savor things rather than just consume.

I agree with Trustwomen, I'm Canadian and our drinking age is 19 (in Ontario) and I don't think it stopped anyone from drinking underage, just as I don't really think it stops Americans under 21.  It just stops you from being in a bar.  Insurance rates are not the reason why I don't drive drunk either...I don't do it cuz it's a stupid thing to do.  

Maybe if the consequences from DUIs were harsher and it was ingrained into the minds of teens by the education system and their parents/family that driving drunk is not ok, then it wouldn't be such a big deal.  Who cares about insurance rates?  I'm more concerned about why kids are driving drunk. 

my two cents...I am 19, and really not into the drinking scene...however I do think that the drinking age should be lowered. Why? At the age of 18 we are considered adults, we are mature enough to vote for something as important as who the next leader of the country will be, we are mature enough to choose to buy tobacco,  we are mature enough to go to college and take charge of our own learning, we are mature enough to enlist in the military(and for women to choose to enlist in the military). Hell at 16 we are considered mature enough to get behind a possibly multi ton vehicle and drive 55+ mph down a highway. But what makes us so immature that we need to wait 3 years after we turn 18 before we can drink alcohol?

What kind of profound "growing up" are we supposed to go through to make us mature enough to drink at 21? Have you ever been to a 21st birthday party? The birthday person is normally falling down drunk by the end of the night....how is it that they are more mature at 21 that they should be allowed to consume alcohol? If alcohol was legal at 18 it wouldn't have the "forbidden fruit" allure...it would just be something else...kind of like driving....everyone is so excited to get to drive at 16 then after the initial feeling of freedom wears off it isn't anything special...just something else. 

 And if the drinking age is lowered I don't think that insurance rates should go up unless it goes up for EVERYONE! I know that it isn't just 18-21 year olds that drive drunk...it is all ages and people who are older should not be saying that if the drinking age is lowered that our insurance premiums should be going up, that is making the assumption that all "young adults" will be driving drunk and people over the age of 21 don't. Guess what, us young adults are not nearly as stupid as most people think...in fact if people would stop assuming that we are going to screw up our lives with every decision we are allowed to make on our own we just might surprise them...

I am a DUI counselor, and have been listening to both young and old people in this situation for many years. I have heard hundreds of people say their drinking decreased (for whatever reason - the kick was gone, they werent quite so young/dumb) when they became 21.

I think the drinking age should be lowered. I dont believe it is effective now. This is a big college town, we have oh maybe 50 bars and many many fraternity and apartment parties all the time. The drinking age was 18 when I was 18, in the stone age, and these kids seem to party even more (which is saying alot). 

Anyway, my two cents. I dont think I'll ever lack for clients, regardless.

Kathi

the current age limit for alcohol is infantalizing.  you can vote, you can buy a house, you can go to war... but you can't legally have an alcoholic beverage?  make the DUI laws stricter.  or raise the driving age, or the insurance rates for kids.  but restricting the rights of legal adults based on their age is wrong. 

question about insurance.....

Lets say you are 21...the legal age to drink and you decide that you are going to go out and drink...you then decide to drive home and you get in an accident. No one is killed but you hit another car and cause significant damage...Will insurance cover the damage you caused to the other car because you were at fault?

If so, wouldn't it just make more sense to have it so that if you are in an accident and you have been drinking that insurance will not pay for damages that you cause?