<p>By reducing the number of kids who are legally allowed to drink, you do get a reduction of kids drinking. There are those who do obey these laws. There are also those more careful because of the law even if they do not obey them. Those categories exceed those who break the law just because it is there.</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>
<p>So how many were binge drinkers before the drinking age became 21? 60%? 70%? </p>
<p>My experience might be clouded a bit by going to a Big 10 school, but it takes very little effort to acquire essentially industrial amounts of alcohol (go join club or RSO; meet 21 year old; go from there).</p>
<p>I’m 17 and have drank minimal amounts in the past but basically don’t.</p>
<p>The big problem I have with the drinking age being so high is that lots of concerts (and any other events that happen in bars) become 21+ by proxy, which is stupid. I’m a big proponent of all shows being all-ages, but shutting them out to 3/4s of all college students is incredibly bad policy.</p>
<p>Also, there is that whole argument about “voting, joining the army, being tried as an adult, even buying cigarettes at 18 but no booze until 21,” which, except for the fact that the human body doesn’t have the full capacity to process alcohol until around age 22, holds water (although when you think about it, you’re never really biologically ready to go to war!).</p>
<p>My parents were both legal to drink at 18 and drank a fair bit both before and after they hit 18; on the social side of things, my dad’s fondest college memories were from either playing concerts or eating burgers and drinking Guinness at the bar across from Trinity in Hartford. My brother drank infrequently before he hit 21 (although he had a fake ID, I think that was to get into shows) and probably an average amount after that, saying that it’s a lot more fun when it’s legal.</p>
<p>We read South Dakota v. Dole (the Supreme Court case that authorized the drinking age being nationalized) in my class on constitutional law and the reasoning for authorizing it was pretty sleazy and political–you can look up the history yourself if you want.</p>
<p>It wouldn’t matter a whole lot if it were JUST the drinking age changing in a vacuum and it had no other consequences, but it DOES have consequences. Whether the binge-drinking argument is true or not is up to a whole lot of interpretation, and drinking patterns vary so widely from person to person that it would be hard to get good information on that.</p>
<p>I think, especially in our time of recession, we should try anything that might help the economy–more people legal = more alcohol sales = more money from taxes. It also helps the nightlife industry and the music industry.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I like (most of) Canada’s policy–the drinking age is 19. It shuts out high-schoolers from bars, and although I’m in high school, I know nobody wants a bunch of high school seniors going to the bar after school. It does shut out college freshmen, but they’ll find their ways to get boozed up for that one year (and that’s not even a big concern, in the grand scheme of things), and, failing that, they’ll learn that alcohol is not necessary to a fulfilling adulthood. Because it’s really, really not.</p>
<p>I would prefer my kids learn how to drink and how much they can hold while in a relatively safe environment as opposed to when they go out into the “real world.” Same thing with driving, I’d prefer them to become experienced drivers while I’m around to make “suggestions.” </p>
<p>Drinking on campus or in a college town is safer as driving is much less often involved than once you’re out in the working world. You also learn the social aspect of drinking - with dinner, while watching a sports event, etc. Drinking is also important for business - Cornell used to (don’t know if it still does) offer a class in wine tasting that my nephew found immensely helpful early in his career.</p>
<p>Drinking being legal at 21 only makes criminals out of the kids, it doesn’t stop the drinking.</p>
<p>Just going to chime in here that one of Madison’s (Wi) biggest money makers are the fees and costs associated with busting underaged drinkers on campus. There is absolutely no financial incentive to lowering the drinking age when your municipality seems to be raking in the money due to weekend partying. </p>
<p>I’ve given up thinking any of these laws are for the benefit of our kids. When they raised the drinking age to 21 it was to end drunk driving and had nothing to do with binge drinking. They tied it to financial incentives from the federal govt (hiway funds) and I think Louisiana was the last hold out on the 18 law. The culture has changed and it’s no longer alright in anyone’s mind to drink and drive - although plenty still are stupid enough to do it. But it sure is a different attitude out there. Lowering the drinking age isn’t going to change the new culture of not drinking and driving, but perhaps it could change the culture of binge drinking when at 19 you can actually have a drink legally in a bar or restaurant instead of having to dubiously procure the stuff. </p>
<p>I think keeping it out of the HS age group is smart, and that’s why I think 18 might not be the best answer, but at 19? Fine by me. What I’d like to see get consistent is DUI laws. Make the consequences severe enough and consistent enough and even a stupid kid would know better than to try and get away with it. But that’s the thing… for the most part, kids today already know this! That particular learning curve was our generation’s!</p>
<p>Then too, I think the whole gay marriage thing has nothing to do with “morals” and everything to do with taxes and marriage benefits. Call me a cynic.</p>
<p>I’m with you, Modadunn, on both issues.</p>
<p>19 is a great idea. It’s also possible to make beer and wine legal for college-age but not hard alcohol. In my day we drank beer and cheap wine, and I never heard of anyone dying of alcohol poisoning. Now with 8 shots of vodka for pregaming… well, it’s more intense now.</p>
<p>As the parent of sons age 19 and 22, I’d be all for making the age of majority 21 for everything. Boys 18-21 make too many stupid decisions about all sorts of things, engage in risky behavior, do not see long-term consequences, and in general, have some growing up to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting that what you believe is best for your sons should have a law mandating that it be the same for the children of all other parents.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s me, thrill, but I interpreted sryrstress’s comment differently. I did not understood it to mean that what was best for the 2 boys should become federal law because it is what is best for those 2 boys.
I think stress meant if the age were changed to 21 for all alcohol, though one of the sons would instantly qualify and one wouldn’t, it is the age sryrstress thinks is appropriate. I am guessing the mention of their ages is to show sryrstress is not biased toward helping or stopping alcohol purchases for these 2 based solely on what might be convenient for the 2 boys. Note that sysrstress’ opinion would aid one of the boys but block the other.</p>
<p>While I agree that there is some impulsive behavior from kids (and yes, maybe boys more often) and their brains aren’t fully developed (which is, IMO, the best argument for keeping the drinking age where it is -although it makes little difference whether or not they choose to drink), I do think as a generation we’re as much to blame about their needing more time to grow up. I am not making comment specifically to Thrill at all, because on some level I might agree with her. But it seems to me that in a generation of helicopter parenting and continuous contact via electronic whatever (phone, computer, etc), we don’t necessarily allow our kids to mature out there in the “big bad world.” Not sure how you govern “letting go”, but it sure would help.</p>