DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum College presidents seek debate on drinking age

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20080818/College.Presidents.Drinking.Age/

College presidents seek debate on drinking age
Mon Aug 18, 9:57 PM EDT
Loading... Must Read?Thank YouYes 602

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependance. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the U.S. could be helpful.

"There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18," she said. "If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus."

McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., who has signed the statement.

But some other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.

"I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," Shalala said in a telephone interview. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

McCardell claims that his experiences as a president and a parent, as well as a historian studying Prohibition, have persuaded him the drinking age isn't working.

But critics say McCardell has badly misrepresented the research by suggesting that the decision to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 may not have saved lives.

In fact, MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said, nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths. A survey of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others reached the same conclusion.

McCardell cites the work of Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist and expert on how changes in the drinking age affect safety. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate.

The college presidents "see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it," Wagenaar said in a telephone interview. "It's really unfortunate, but the science is very clear."

Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative.

"I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them," said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health.

But, "I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence," he said.

Duke faced accusations of ignoring the heavy drinking that formed the backdrop of 2006 rape allegations against three lacrosse players. The rape allegations proved to be a hoax, but the alcohol-fueled party was never disputed.

Duke senior Wey Ruepten said university officials should accept the reality that students are going to drink and give them the responsibility that comes with alcohol.

"If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," he said.

Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative's Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."

Hurley, of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.

"They're waving the white flag," he said.

This means nothing to me now, but I wish OU's president backed this.

the 21 year old age is BS.

I've been hearing a lot about this in the past few days here in Dayton ( U.D. )

And I do think they're on to something.............

How can you justify saying someone is old enough to drive a tank in war, carry an automatic weapon in war, lose their LIFE in a war, but doesn't have enough common sense to drink?

One of those conclsions is wrong. I say if you can fight, kill or die for your country, you should be able to drink in it. But that's just my opinion.

I know during Vietnam and for some while afterwords, they had 3.2% beer that you could buy at age 18 legaly. But I guess with "no draft", they figure "no beer".

But it does appear like a double standard IMO

It's not just that...it contributes to binge drinking.

You never know when your next drink will come so you get as much in your system as you can before going out, or get as much in your system as you can at the party before the beer runs out.

I know I've been a lot more relaxed since I turned 21. It's more "chill" now.

this was a long overdue move and, while i agree with the argument of going to war and not being allowed to drink is wrong, i don't think that's the reason why they're considering it.

sad as it is to say it, i'd guess that the biggest reason why this is taking steam is because it takes liability off of the schools. if legal drinking age is 18, there is almost no enforcement liability on the schools to bust parties and or pay for the results of abuse (rape, injury, etc.).

additionally, i think people are now realizing that it's not so much the age of drinking that leads to abuse/irresponsibility but the fact that students are away and on their own for the first time in their lives, which leads to "letting loose" away from mommy and daddy. the people that want to drink have been drinking for a while and they'll continue to drink regardless of whatever the legal drinking age is.

what i have to wonder, even though it has no effect on me, is what this does to insurance rates for drivers between the ages of 18-21 if they lower the drinking age. it's expensive enough to drive at that age as it is, let alone the lowering of the drinking age. the potential for accidents rises exponentially also...

I do understand the aspect of binge drinking....when you get something you normally don't or can't, you tend to indulge.

I would either lower the drinking age to 18 or raise the voting age back to 21.

Probably raise the voting age.

Like you, I agree with pit about the issue he brought up.

Like you, I can almost guarantee colleges could not care less about the students going to war - they care about their liability.

Someone mentioned insurance rates - I see no reason why they would go up. Or should I say why the SHOULD go up? (I'm guessing insurance companies would raise premiums "just in case").

I've always believed and always will that it should be whatever age makes you a legal adult. If you're old enough to ship off to war and to vote, you're old enough to drink a beer. The younger crowd will always be more irresponsible with alcohol. As it stands now it's just a big money maker to bust underage kids at bars and parties. My cousin got busted just before he left for Iraq and had to have a continuance because his trial was after he was already gone. He got back and the judge basically threw it out.

j/c
OK so if you join the Armed Forces you can have a Beer... problem solved

You know the contributes to binge drinking argument is BS....I understand the argument, but......

DANGIT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.... The age limit law DID NOT MAKE anyone binge drink.....They did it THEMSELVES!!!!!! It is a CHOICE. No one shoved it down their throats. In the END it still comes down to a CHOICE by the person. Unless you were strapped down, a hose shove down your throat and loads of booze poured down the hose....It still comes down to your decision to take that glass/can/bottle to your lips and to drink. the Law doesn't care if Peer Pressure "made you" murder someone...and it shouldn't care if Peer Pressure "made you" or "contributed to" binge drinking.

The binge drinking argument is the absolute WORST reason to consider a change in the drinking age.

with all of that said...and it may sound strange after what I said...but I do agree with a lowering of the age limit......at most to 19 (in order to keep it out of High Schools)....We can't consider someone an adult and then treat them like a child....Everything else by law declares that person as an adult but they can't have a drink????

Drinking should be about responsibility. And an adult should be able to show some responsibility(though I know it is rarely seen in the news....most adults actually do have a sense of responsibility)If the Law is going to label these people as adults then they should have the rights of adults. Hopefully they have had the proper training to become adults at the time the law designates them so.

Quote:

---

I know during Vietnam and for some while afterwords, they had 3.2% beer that you could buy at age 18 legaly.

---

How has Ohio handled the drinking age?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

That depends on whether you're talking about hard liquor or softer drinks.

1919-1935: Ohio lived under the constitutional amendment banning sales, consumption or manufacture of alcohol until Prohibition was repealed in 1935.

From then on, you had to be 21 to purchase liquor and wine. That hasn't changed.

Beer was another story.

From 1933 to 1935, if you were 16 or older, you could buy 3.2% alcohol beer.

In 1935, that age was raised to 18. It remained there until 1982, when Ohio raised it to 19.

In 1984, Congress bumped the age for all alcohol to 21 but Ohio didn't follow it until 1987.
web page

Drinking-age debate focuses on health, safety
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:04 AM
By Bill Bush
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

The Vietnam War changed the debate on the appropriate legal drinking age, when young men who had been drafted to fight were denied a beer when they returned home.

"We strongly felt that if we could risk our lives, we should have full adult status in this county," said Louise Douce, a student at the time who is now assistant vice president of student affairs at Ohio State University. "We wanted more."

Between 1970 and '75, 29 states lowered their drinking ages to 18, 19 or 20, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Ohio had allowed people younger than 21 to drink some kinds of alcohol for decades, but by the mid-1980s, it and many of the states affected by Vietnam had reversed their decisions as the deadly toll of alcohol-related teen accidents took center political stage.

Now, a group of about 100 college presidents have relaunched the debate by arguing that the 21-year-old standard has simply forced youth drinking underground and contributed to binge drinking.

Presidents who signed the Amethyst Initiative statement -- including the leaders of Ohio State University, the Columbus College of Art & Design and Kenyon College -- are calling for "an informed debate" about the issue.

Amethyst Initiative founder John McCardell, the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, has suggested that the decision to raise the drinking age to 21 might not have saved lives.

Douce acknowledges that results are mixed but said most research has found that raising the age to 21 has produced positive results, particularly with regard to traffic fatalities.

The findings are not balanced, Douce said. A University of Minnesota study compared more than 100 studies between 1960 and 1999 on the effectiveness of drinking-control programs and concluded that raising the drinking age to 21 was the best method yet.

Although the magnitude of effects "may appear small," the researchers concluded that "even modest effects applied to the entire population of youth result in very large societal benefits."

Kent Smith, vice president for student affairs at Ohio University, said lowering the drinking age alone won't do much to stem binge drinking. "I don't know that there is any one process without doing other things that will reduce high-risk behavior."

From the 1930s until 1982, Ohio law allowed people younger than 21 to drink 3.2 beer, which has less alcohol than other drinks.

Ohio raised its limit in 1987, three years after the federal Uniform Drinking Age Act reduced federal transportation funding to states that did not raise their drinking age to 21.

Studies have shown that males ages 14 to 22 are at the highest risk of poor decision making, Douce said.

"The combination of impulsivity and alcohol is really the dangerous component of underage drinking," she said. "I do believe kids are drinking younger, and a lot of kids are coming into the university with drinking habits."

Douce doesn't think lowering the drinking age will have positive effects on these problems, particularly traffic accidents, and she's "a bit surprised" it's even being debated.

Information from the Associated Press was used in this story.

bbush@dispatch.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether it be this topic, marijuana, or even the oft debated smoking in bars issue----it all boils down to the ability to enforce the law.

I fully agree with Pit's line of reasoning as to why it should be 18.......'nuff said.

I don't care one way or another personally, because from what I have seen in my own personal experiences is that if someone under 21 wants to drink they will find a way.

What I see as a benefit as far as colleges go is that if the under 21 students were legally allowed to purchase and consume alcohol, they might stay on campus and do so, instead of going off campus, which then means they are on the roads driving to and from.

As far as the under 21 non-college public, it would probably do the same thing, they would hang at home and party rather than going out to the woods or some remote lake or where ever they all go these days to drink.

Do I want a bunch of drunk 18 year olds driving around on the roads I am on? No, but I don't want a bunch of drunk 40 year olds either.

Lowering the age to 18 isn't going to reduce drunk driving.

Exactly, which is what M.A.D.D. point is, that by lower to 18 you add all the extra drunk drivers to the roads. And that isn't true. being under 21 hasn't stopped anyone who wants to drink from drinking in decades.

Bring back 3.2 beer!!!

It should be 18, based on the reasons others have given above.

Can't wait for the slippery slope and age of consent arguers, and the off the wall analogy peeps.....

I agree it should be 18 too.

Beer at 18?

Pot = illegal

BS

JC

All that the 21 limit has done, is provide free beer for the cops that catch underage drinkers.

There are 12 year olds sitting around in germany downing warm beer and laughing at our 19 year olds. How are we going to win the next beer fest

Yeah, it should be lowered to 18, it's not like they aren't drinking already. I mean, most people start drinking in High School...

IMO, in a perfect world, we would lower the drinking age to 18, the age that is supposed to be the age of adulthood.

Then legalize drugs, gambling, prostitution, and rename the country, "The bastions of hedonistic glory."

Quote:

---

The college presidents "see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it,"

---

This, in my opinion, is the big problem. The only way to "deal with it" is to punish, fine, imprison, suspend and expel otherwise good students who simply want to drink some beers. How else are they going to "deal with it", have some nice dry sock hops for the kids to go to?

Thats right...its not the person doing the binging who is at fault....They are completely blameless

While I am not exactly enamored with the "zealots" either...where the heck is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in these arguments????

To make something legal that was once illegal simply because "they will do it anyway" or "it will reduce binging" or any other reason that excuses a person of personal responsibility is WRONG.

I agree with lowering the age limit for alcohol...but not if we are going to do it for the Wrong reasons.....

Personal responsibility went out the window years ago.

It should be 18. I completely agree with the military argument. And if anyone thinks that someone being underage stops them from drinking they're crazy.

And besides, I'd be able to drink in three years.

Quote:

---

I agree with lowering the age limit for alcohol...but not if we are going to do it for the Wrong reasons.....

---

So you are in favor of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but not the right thing for the wrong reasons?

jc..

Simply put...at 18
- you can fight a war
- you tried as an adult for crimes
- you are no longer protected under child protection laws
- you are no longer a dependent of your parents
- you can vote
- you are required to pay taxes
- you are expected to either got college, or start working a full time job
- you can buy cigarettes

So we expect at 18 for you to act like an adult, we just don't think you are old enough to drink. Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

Ahh grasshopper, you look at this too black and white....

If we don't change it....it doesn't mean we did the wrong thing. But if we did change it for the wrong reasons...we would be doing the wrong thing....because we would be reinforcing those wrong reasons....

I mean think about certain learning situations with your son....sometimes you may teach your son in a longer more drawn out fashion when you could have given him the information in a note card. But the method was part of the point not just the lesson. Well in this case the reasoning is part of the point...not just the change itself.

This isn't necessarily an ends justifies the means situation...And as long as I perceive the majority wanting to change for the wrong reasons, then yes I will be against the change. If I see an honest decision in the majority to change for the right reasons then yes I will a proponent of that change.

I'm sure there is, I also recall a study that coffee is unhealthy to anyone under 25
And that fatty foods are bad for people.
Lack of exercise in youth is a problem.
And smoking is unhealthy as well (which is legal at 18)

What I was getting at was that at 18 you are legally an adult, and one of your rights as an adult in the US is freedom of choice.

Now that choice includes knowing your limits and not driving while impaired, or you face one of the other benefits of being 18, being tried as an adult.


Personally, I don't care, I'm well over 18, and I wasn't interested in drinking as a teenager, I was busy riding dirt bikes, fishing, hiking, building crap, fixing things, etc. For me waiting til I was 21 was no big deal, but I also wasn't one who felt I needed to do something to fit in and be cool, so I didn't give to peer pressure.

yes i did. apparently, my sarcasm comes through a bit thinner than his. thanks for the "heads up", though.

just clicking

I don't really understand some of these arguments for lowering the drinking age.

Lowering the drinking age because many college students are drinking too much makes no sense. College Students don't drink because it's against the law. They drink because they can get a hold of it. And if college students are the one's doing it now, wouldn't lowering the age just make high school students the one's doing it?

And the whole deal with serving the country but not being able to drink, I've never really heard one of our service men and women complain about that. I've heard that they don't really have that problem.