Lower the drinking age to 18?
With school starting up again, so comes a long list of college presidents calling for a new drinking age debate:
The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.
Bloggers are more than happy to oblige. Atrios says let them drink, then adds a proposal of his own:
Perhaps they should consider my cunning plan to let 18 year olds have a drinking license or a driver’s license but not both, which would have the added benefit of
helping my plot to make everyone move to Manhattanincreasing the appeal of less car dependent locations.
Ezra Klein calls 21 a bizarre marker:
Demanding that kids refrain from drinking for three years after they become legal adults and, in most cases, leave their parent’s supervision, is a bit odd. “Welcome to adulthood, except when it comes to beverage choice!” But this could point the way towards a grand new education policy scheme: Drinking age is 18…if you attain a college-worthy GPA. Otherwise, 21. Implement that and you’ll blow those other, way lamer, educational attainment proposals out of the water.
Andrew Sullivan says Ezra’s a genius! Overlawyered’s Walter Olson says lowering the drinking age is a good idea. “MADD, of course, is having a fit.” He’s got good links; one of which led me to The Volokh Conspiracy’s vigorous comment debate thread. Ryan Grim says, “Fine with me, but can we keep the 18 year olds out of my local bar, at least?”
Angry Bear’s Ken Houghton actually parses the article to find in around the 16th or 17th graf:
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.”
He also points out that “the researcher whose work the Amethyst Initiative cites not only disagrees, but sees through the facade.”
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.”
There really is no answer. In this podcast from last spring, John McCardell covers the same territory in a debate with Chuck Hurley, MADD’s Chief Executive Officer. I am inclined to want the drinking age lowered — with restrictions (I like McCardell’s license idea) — but I know there will be an increase in alcoholism among young people at least at the start.
I do not like MADD’s focus on driving. Driving safety matters and should be emphasized, but it almost seems as if MADD would rather treat the symptom than the real problem — alcohol abuse!
9 Responses to “Lower the drinking age to 18?”
This debate has certainly picked up quite a bit of traction. The Chronicle of Higher Ed covered it earlier in the week, and it seems to show up quite a bit on Google News.
I think I can understand the rationale on both sides here. My only concern is that lowering the drinking age to 18 could make alcohol more accessible to let's say 14 – 17-year olds in high school. What then? Let's not kid ourselves here. If our youth are determined to drink, they will most likely find a way, whether it is legal or not. I'd be interested to hear others on this. I know it may sound redundant, but personally, I feel that if you're old enough to die for your country in the service, then you should be old enough to sit down for a cold one (just so long as it's not something domestic and watered down).
Old enough to vote, old enough to go to war and die for your country, old enough to buy a beer. The whole idea was silly from its inception.
Kids and adults would be less likely to abuse alcohol if it weren't a “forbidden fruit.” We should abolish any age threshold.
Chris – I am very libertarian, and started letting my children drink at home (wine with dinner, even a light cocktail if they wanted) at age 12. But abolishing any age threshold is going to far the other way.
How about a 'moderate' compromise of 18 on their own, or 13 if with a parent or guardian at a restaurant or bar? That is the law here where I live in Texas, and I think it works great, myself.
Twenty-one, who cares any more (despite the developmental science behind it)?
I'm suprised some aren't saying “old enough to drive, old enough to work, old enough to drink!” as well as to vote (Nader, Obama both could exploit this) and to lower the voting age as well as the drinking age to sixteen (Nader has sought this before; it's sought by some on the far left). Fifteen, even, with a learner's permit(!).
Hopefully the drinking age flap (popular among Obama's collegiate crowd, no doubt) won't be a gimmicky short-lived campaign issue between Obama and McCain. What a “town hall” question. [rolling eyes]
The idea that the government should be able to tell an adult whether he or she should be able to vote is ridiculous in the first place.
As Jazz referenced above, if a 19 year old is old enough to pay taxes and and fight and die for his/her country, then he/she ought to be old enough to drink alcohol.
In terms of freedom, this is one issue where the United States lags behind the vast majority of the other democracies of the world.
I have friends who keep in touch with their families in Greece and Italy, and they say that even though the drinking age is a lot lower than even most pro-lower people are asking for, they don't have the teenage drinking problems that we do here. Simply put, it's sticking it to The Man, or The Parents, for a U.S. teenager to drink underage. I agree that the 21 designation seems arbitrary and stupid.
I'm personally with jchem–the “trickle-down” effect should be an issue. (In the same way that raising the national speed limit from 55 to 70 didn't mean that people would continue to drive 70; now they drive 90, and accidents go up as a result, even with safer cars.)
That said, I find the “Old enough to vote, old enough to go to war and die for your country, old enough to buy a beer” argument absurd on the face of it.
Old enough to vote–yes, if you get your paperwork in order (including prove citizenship), register, and take the time to vote.
Old enough to go to war — true in the time of the real Senator Bayh (who spearheaded the “18-year-olds should be able to vote” campaign [and, for those who don't remember, at that time you could buy a beer and fight a war, but not vote]), but in the case of the volunteer Armed Services, you have to go through several hoops to “fight a war.”
So that leaves “buy a beer.” If you want to put all of those on a par, it seems clear that drinking publicly (“socially”) should be subject to restrictions and licencing, just as the other two are. Which still means the college professors who are hiding behind Wagenaar's work would still have to monitor the students who were not licenced (either by choice or by failure to qualify). Which they seem to want to avoid.
It should be 18. although the age is not followed as it is. When i was underage all i did was have someone go to the store for me or worse case scenario you go to the grocery store and buy sugar and yeast and mix them in water and a week later you have enough liquor to get you drunk. Tasted terrible but kids will find a way to get drunk.