<p>Another angle: does lowering the drinking age decrease binge drinking? Wisconsin's experience implies NO.
Perhaps the College President's who support the amethyst initiative should read this article and think again.</p>
<p>Big Problem with underage drinking in Wisconsin:</p>
<p>Lowering the drinking age does not lower any drinking problem as you are now sanctioning drinking for a group of kids who are high risk for abuses. Yes, I know the arguments about the forbidden fruits. The fact of the matter is that by making it illegal and enforcing that law, it does make enough kids more cautious about drinking, more adults unwilling to provide alcohol as willingly, and there are those who do obey the law. Even small percentage of those categories make it so that a lowered drinking age will lead to more abuses. </p>
<p>I think that the drinking age should be lowered for consistency sake but I realize that it will mean more problems with drinking abuse in doing so.</p>
<p>Follow-up by a leading researcher on the subject: </p>
<p>[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: Insufficient Evidence for Lowering the Drinking Age](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=525812]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=525812)</p>
<p>Having different drinking ages and laws by states strikes me as leading to a lot of drunk teenage drivers. This is one area where I would really like to see a consistent law nation wide.</p>
<p>I don’t see anything in the NYT article that deals with lowering the general drinking age. I have seen raising the age only drive many kids to more underground drinking venues with even less supervision than the average bar.</p>
<p>Also Wechsler is more advocate than honest researcher.</p>
<p>It is ridiculous that an 18 year old can be drafted and forced into battle but cannot buy a beer at a pub, it is also outrageous that an 18 year old can vote in elections and is legally considered an adult, but cannot buy any form of alcohol. </p>
<p>The U.S.'s drinking age of 21 is the highest in the world–we also have the highest drunken driving rates in the world, giving at least some strength to the argument that the higher drinking age does NOT lower drunken driving. </p>
<p>FYI: there is no federally mandated drinking age, but if a state has a D.age under 21, they will withhold highway funds (National minimum drinking age act of '74). An argument of the unconstitutionality of this law has been made as well.</p>
<p>Plenty of binge drinking at Virginia Tech, see this related topic:</p>
<p><a href=“Parents: Apartments around VT & Binge Drinking - Virginia Tech - College Confidential Forums”>Parents: Apartments around VT & Binge Drinking - Virginia Tech - College Confidential Forums;
<p>I’m only weighing in because I helped my hs junior research a paper on lowering the drinking age this year. From an equity standpoint, for an 18-year-old to be legal in every respect except being able to buy/drink alcohol is absurd and indefensible. From a public safety standpoint, why stop at 21? Why not 22? Or go back to prohibition? Surely making alcohol illegal for all ages would decrease drunk driving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i think the problem is not simply the drinking age but the drinking age in relation to the age of legal adulthood. </p>
<p>between the ages of 18 and 21, if an individual is caught drinking he can be tried as an adult. doesn’t that seem a bit hypocritical? you are penalizing this individual as if he is an adult because he broke a law that prevents him from participating in an activity meant for adults. </p>
<p>if you can be legally persecuted as an adult and drafted by the army, you should be able to drink. </p>
<p>this argument doesn’t necessarily mean that the drinking age should be lowered, only that the drinking age should be consistent with other laws. by all means increase the age of legal adulthood to 21 and it’d be much more fair than it is now. however, seeing as i don’t think it’s been proven that our unusually high drinking age has been beneficial in preventing deaths and drunk driving, it would probably make more sense to lower it.</p>
<p>I’m quite skeptical about the claim that lowering the drinking age would reduce binge drinking, but in fairness, I’m not sure Wisconsin’s experience is going to tell us much about this subject. In the first place, Wisconsin didn’t lower its drinking age; it just continued to allow parents to serve alcohol to their underage children in bars and restaurants, as it always has. Eighteen-year-olds can’t go out and legally purchase alcohol on their own in Wisconsin, which is what the debate is about. Second, Wisconsin is a state with a drinking problem, period. Drinking–and not just “social” drinking but binge drinking, drinking to get drunk–is a popular recreational activity in Wisconsin among persons of all ages, deeply embedded in the local culture. Because it’s so popular, politicians don’t want to tackle it, so the state has probably the laxest drunk driving laws in the nation—and the authorities are loath to enforce even those. This is a huge problem. But it’s neither caused by a lower drinking age, nor necessarily indicative of what would happen in other states were they to lower their drinking age. And I doubt it would change much even if Wisconsin were to outlaw the serving of minors accompanied by their parents—which it’s not likely to do anytime soon, by the way.</p>
<p>Anecdote on the social drinking/binge drinking thing: I once briefly dated a young woman from Wisconsin who enjoyed knocking back a few in the evening, then knocking back a few more into the wee hours. But she absolutely refused to have a glass of wine or beer with dinner, saying she couldn’t stand that & thought anyone who “had to have” beer or wine with dinner must really have a drinking problem; that’s where she drew the line. Apparently it never occurred to her that a beer or a glass of wine with dinner might be an appropriate place to stop, and that the point of a drink with a meal was not necessarily to start the process of getting drunk. Now I don’t mean to suggest that all the good people of Wisconsin share this woman’s views and habits, but that kind of approach to alcohol consumption is not uncommon in Wisconsin. And a lot of other places here in the Upper Midwest, for that matter, though I think Wisconsin has it worse than most.</p>
<p>Huum. Interesting about that way of thinking about social drinking. I do enjoy wines with meals at times. That is really how I view wines and beers: as accompaniments to foods. I’ve known those who can relax with a glass of wine or spirits in the evening too. </p>
<p>The whole definition of binge drinking hinges on its harmful effects, not on having a few drinks. If you drink so much at a time to have harmful effects, it can be a binge for you. Your line can be completely different from others’.</p>
<p>
I don’t dispute the premise of the argument but in fact, there have been no 18 y/o drafted into the military in this country and forced into battle in a very long time - well before the drinking age went to 21.</p>
<p>However, this doesn’t dispute the fact that in the military the 18 y/o who voluntarily joined might be entrusted with a great deal of responsibility and handed under certain circumstances fully automatic weapons, grenades, battle vehicles to drive, etc. </p>
<p>I’ve read that some military bases have their own lower on-base drinking ages for military members to allow them to drink on-base in an effort to reduce drunk driving and maybe partially for the argument stated in the quote.
<a href=“http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_alcohol_070511/[/url]”>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_alcohol_070511/</a></p>
<p>However, here’s a quote from Obama. I don’t know if his opinion has changed -
<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/17/politics/main3946522.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/17/politics/main3946522.shtml</a></p>
<p>My kids tell me that the problem with the drinking age of 18 is that, until kids can drink legally, they feel obliged to drink everything that is “scored.” In other words, once someone goes to the effort of obtaining alcohol, the kids do not want to throw it out, and they cannot keep it around because it is not legal, so they have to finish it up. I thought this was interesting. This is one possible reason for binge-drinking on weekends.</p>
<p>Once my son’s friends turned 21, everything got more civilized, and they often would just have a drink at a bar or at a restaurant, because it was then legal to do so.</p>
<p>
Maybe but probably also the fact that they acquired far more alcohol per person than reasonable because they were planning to binge in the first place.</p>
<p>Isn’t the drinking age in Belgium like 15? lol</p>
<p>All lowering the drinking age will do is provide opportunities for high school seniors to give alcohol to their little sis’ and bro’s.</p>
<p>“Isn’t the drinking age in Belgium like 15?”</p>
<p>Isn’t the alcoholism rate in Belgium more than twice what it is in the U.S.?</p>
<p>Alcohol abuse is one of my state’s worst problems, hopefully they will (finally) change the drinking culture I see far too often. Eons ago, circa the draft and the Vietnam War era the drinking age for beer in Wis was 18 and other alcohol was 21. College campus areas would have “beer bars”. Bordering states had all 21 so there would be border crossing- dangerous driving home after hitting the bars. A few months ago there was an ad campaign telling parents they could be criminally charged for allowing underage drinking in their home. BTW, this drinking culture is not practiced by all of us in this state, and historically other European immigrants also have the same beer culture as the Germans.</p>
<p>The argument about going off to war (drafted- not by choice as it is today) but not being allowed to drink or vote led to the changes in both to age 18. Later the age was raised to 21 for all forms of liquor when the Federal gov’t tied laws to highway funding. Many 18 year olds are still in HS- able to affect their younger friends. Sometimes the overall impact of laws needs to take precedence over the “fairness” to individuals. If ALL 18 year olds could be trusted to act in a mature, adult and legal fashion with regard to alcohol I would have no problem with lower drinking ages.</p>
<p>“All lowering the drinking age will do is provide opportunities for high school seniors to give alcohol to their little sis’ and bro’s.”</p>
<p>It’s not an either-or thing. You could make the drinking age 19 like in much of Canada, make a graduated system (e.g. allow 18 year-olds to drink beer in restaurants or bars but not carry it away with them), and so forth. I don’t think attempting to enforce a blanket ban is doing any good (especially if your figures of 45% of college students being binge drinkers are remotely accurate)</p>
<p>I don’t think Wisconsin’s law - allowing a child to drink with the parent’s consent while the parent is present - is a “lowering of the drinking age” that demonstrates much of anything. I have some sympathy for the position that if a person is old enough to fight for the country, vote and be considered an adult for all other purposes, they’re old enough to drink. For me, though, the two biggest things are consistency and enforcement. I think the drinking age should be the same everywhere, whether it’s 18, 21 or something else. I was a teenager in Pennsylvania (drinking age 21) when the drinking age in New Jersey was 18, and I can attest to the dangers of that situation. Disparities in drinking ages between states encourage teens who aren’t old enough to drink in one state to travel to another, and this is a recipe for drunk driving. I also think enforcement should be tough. Drunk driving should be considered a serious crime, and punished as such, right from the first offense. Laws against serving minors should be consistently enforced, and with more than a slap on the wrist. If the law is going to be 21, then there shouldn’t be a culture of looking the other way on or near a college campus - if you’re not going to enforce it, then lower the age.</p>
<p>"I don’t think attempting to enforce a blanket ban is doing any good (especially if your figures of 45% of college students being binge drinkers are remotely accurate).:</p>
<p>Actually, Wechsler’s retrospective indicates precisely the opposite, among the college students. Among the general population, it isn’t even a question. It was one of the greatest public health initiatives of the late 20th Century.</p>