<p>I was in college when the drinking age changed from 18 to 21 (allowed to drink at 18 as a freshman, not allowed to drink as a 20yo senior).
There was plenty of binge drinking going on even when it was legal. I am all for keeping the drinking age at 21. For students turn to 18, go off to college AND start drinking around the same time wasn't a pretty picture. (I had two roommates who experienced date rape which wouldn't have happened without legal alcohol). What is so great about alcohol that we WANT our kids to drink it? It is a drug. I would rather have my kids completely abstain than ever see them "get drunk"--whether at 18, 21 or 35.
IMO, parents who disagree with the law and allow/expect their kids to drink, think fake IDs are OK, etc. are part of the problem.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the law is ridiculous. Drinking age was 18 when I was in hs. Don't really rmember when it turned to 21 because it wasn't an issue to me. My kids always had access to alcohol in our home (wine with dinner, beer in the fridge mostly) and were offered a taste when they asked. Neither of them liked it and preferred their sweet soft drinks (now energy drinks). They knew we thought extreme American attitudes towards alcohol were ridiculous, but we also made it clear we expected them to obey the law. </p>
<p>S1 (over 21) now drinks moderately and is careful not to drink and drive. I know S2 (18) has been in situations where he has been offered alcohol and since he has talked about it openly, I believe he declined. </p>
<p>The absurdity of the situation was brought home to me one day when I went grocery shopping when S1 was 8 and S2 was an infant. I bought a heaping cartload of groceries plus 2 bottles of wine. When everything was bagged, it was necessary to put the fragile items in the child seat, so I carried S2 and told S1 to push the cart out to the car. A grocery store employee came racing clear across the store to stop us and inform me that S2 could not touch the cart because there was alcohol in it! Finally, I was forced to dig around in the cart and remove the offending bottles of wine, which I proceeded to lug along with S2 so that S1 was allowed to touch the cart. I was doubly miffed because no employee even offered to help me to the car. (I never went back to that store BTW). I have been in circumstances where I was asked to pass a bottle of wine over the scanner and bag it myself because the cashier was not 21. </p>
<p>Why are we unable to deal with so many of these issues with a little common sense, whether it be alcohol, sex education, teen driving under any circumstances, etc.? Everything usually ends up devolving into extremes on both sides of the issue.</p>
<p>That an otherwise good law sometimes results in extreem or foolish outcomes (ie: the shopping cart incident) is no reason to scrap the law. And, while our kids may be responsible, the law is drafted with the overall adolescent/young adult population in mind - - an age group whose frontal lobes are not yet fully developed and who, therefore, tend to engage in high-risk and impulsive behavior with a greater frequency than adults and who are often incapable of evaluating risk the way an adult would.</p>
<p>intparent, my son has received some mailings from your d's college, and a high school friend of mine went there years and years ago. Your description of the orientation there makes me think less of that college.</p>
<p>One of my close friends has a D at the college. She preferred the college's attitude to drinking over that of another school that cracks down heavily on any campus drinking. She said she would prefer her D and kids drinking on campus over sneaking out to local or out of area bars, possibly driving and dealing with local authorities rather than campus security.</p>
<p>Mini's take is correct, whether you like the conclusion or not. Changing the drinking laws to over 21 has lowered the incidences. The old forbidden fruit argument does not hold statistically. The younger a kid is who starts drinking, the more likely he has a more severe problem. Clearly there are cases that do not fit these situations but statistically, overall, they do hold whether we like it or not. The question is whether the efforts to uphold these rules and consequences are worth the cost and troubles caused. That is really what is under debate. That and folks who refuse to believe the facts.</p>
<p>^^^ "The question is whether the efforts to uphold these rules and consequences are worth the cost and troubles caused. That is really what is under debate."</p>
<p>On concern, re: conseq/costs, of decreasing the drinking age to 18 is that drinking is then legal among high school aged children. Certainly, pushing the illegality (not to mention the cost of enforcement) off the college campus is a no-brainer for college administrators. </p>
<p>But isn't this just a matter of the college's passing the buck? Someone (hs administrators? parents?) will stll be responsible for enforcements/conseq/costs/trobules if the drinking age is lowered to 18 - - that "someone" just won't be the college!</p>
<p>Actually, it is worse than that. From what we see in British Columbia and Ontario, a drinking age of 18 (or 19) is associated with heavy drinking among 14-15 year olds. The reason for that is simple: social norming (high seniors drinking), and easier access to alcohol.</p>
<p>Follow-up on this issue: </p>
<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: Insufficient Evidence for Lowering the Drinking Age</p>