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!