<p>greenbutton - what´s the difference between someone drinking at 18 vs 21, notice I am not saying 16 (not an adult). You might as well propose to ban drinking for everyone because I am sure a lot of old people do all those stupid things too.</p>
<p>Ok Ok:
- Research now shows that immature brains (under say age 25) are more likely to activate the addiction loop with use of alcohol or drugs.
- The prefrontal lobe, which is about self-control and judgement, is the last part of the brain to mature, i.e. young people take more risks and do not have their full judgment faculties in place. That is one reason why young people think they are immortal, take risks, in the face of education and laws.
They DO respond to peer pressure, however- how can excessive alcohol consumption and public drunkenness and indiscriminate sexual behavior be made socially unacceptable to these young people? see #5 - There are huge institutional, social and individual costs to: alcoholism (in at least 10% of population), violence (to body and to property), non-consensual sex, casual sex (Std’s HIV, pregnancy), risky behavior, drunk driving… what am I missing?
- Illnesses, Incidents related to alcohol consumption are VERY VERY HIGH. Maybe the the highest cause of death, as even social drinking leads to diabetes, fatty liver, liver cancer- there is the component much like cigarettes, and then you add the part about risky behavior and it packs a big punch. ALL TOLD, DEATH FROM ALCOHOL-RELATED ISSUES MAY BE THE HIGHEST OF ALL.
- This is a cultural problem. Yes, some families like Oldfort’s are able to buck the culture, but not so easy for many kids, esp if they have alcoholism in their genes or a particularly immature pre-frontal lobe or are using alcoholism to medicate themselves for another condition… Hey, it is NORMAL to puke after pre-gaming 4 -6 shots, to wake up in some person’s bed, blah blah blah
- Laws cannot effective if they are not enforced- and if not enforced, we are teaching our kids to be immoral, to ignore rules and laws.</p>
<p>It has stopped being funny, an accepted rite of passage for me. Back in the old days, even before the culture of drinking changed, many of my family members did become alcoholics, and have spent their lives dealing with it.
Due to the current high volume/rushed and it’s normal to be totally drunk style of drinking the risks of being an alcoholic have actually risen. And so have the risks of being poisoned, getting raped, getting HIV or an STD,etc.</p>
<p>It is not ok.</p>
<p>BUT HOW can we change this culture??? I do understand how raising the drinking age tried to address all this. But it is not working. Some say it is making the problem worse…??
We need to try something else.</p>
<p>^^ there’s not a difference, apart from the substantial fact that one has been deemed illegal, and one is not. And yes, a lot of “old” people do those stupid things too, you are absolutely correct. “Old” people tend to be taxpayers, and hence are more invested in the community they live in (as opposed to students – as a group —, who are less invested because they are simply passing through). Not to mention the consequences of mortgages, car insurance, employment tend to weigh more heavily on a 30 yr old than a 20 yr old. Even so, point conceded. Obnoxious drunk is obnoxious at any age.</p>
<p>performersmom:</p>
<p>Some universities are trying things because it is a HUGE problem.</p>
<p>The University of Nebraska (according to most experts in the field) has provided the template for developing the programs, education, and policies in an attempt to reduce binge drinking on campus. The U Iowa is currently using their template to attempt a change at our local culture. We are starting to see signs that it is working after about 2 years. It is not easy and is a costly and lengthy process…10 years.</p>
<p>Use of policy, education, and enforcement to reduce binge drinking among university students:
The NU Directions project
<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/7tpkkxf[/url]”>http://■■■■■■■.com/7tpkkxf</a> </p>
<p>[Stats</a> from UI Alcohol Harm Reduction Plan show decreases - The Daily Iowan](<a href=“http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/07/14/Metro/24147.html]Stats”>http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/07/14/Metro/24147.html)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/12/07/Metro/20393.html[/url]”>http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/12/07/Metro/20393.html</a></p>
<p>performersmom,</p>
<p>I’d have an easier time accepting the medical justification for the drinking age, if we also made it a misdemeanor for a pregnant woman to drink a glass of wine, a diabetic to eat a candy bar, and a skin cancer sufferer to sunbathe. In America, we give our adult citizens a lot of freedom to make their own choices about their personal health.</p>
<p>I am happy to hear this. May the news and techniques spread.</p>
<p>Ironically one of my alkie bros lives in O, married a fellow AA gal whose prior 2 kids do not drink a drop, and the older one is at UNO! They are happy now, and I pray everyday that things continue to be good for them.
This bro, however, started drinking in MS with friends to be cool, ended up with problems with all substances during HS, never finished college, has had to do rehab twice, and is a staunch active member of AA. This is just ONE family-member who is an addict… with a pretty good outcome (I pray), but it was HELLLLLLLL for him and us for years. He is now in his 40’s and finally seems to have stabilized. </p>
<p>He did not start drinking in college.
However, of my HYPS classmates, there are alkies, addicts, and their lives are run by it. They did drink more heavily than others in college, more along the lines of what is considered normal now… How can kids with the genes or the need to medicate dodge this bullet in this day and age?</p>
<p>Bay- so define adult as per the latest medical research about the brain.</p>
<p>Yes, I do agree that the fetus needs to be protected, and do not believe that a law would help. To make matters even more complicated, plenty of moms are under 25. And fetuses, well, they are totally helpless to the behavior of their moms…
So I get how complex this is.
I am not advocating LAWS, if you read my posts. I am advocating CHANGE, and lack of acceptance and tolerance in people’s attitudes.</p>
<p>Why should the government have laws to make sure a segment of population doesn´t do something harmful to themselves? Should we ban certain “bad food” because we have people with heart and weight problem? Whose responsibility is it to make sure they are living a healthy life? Adults - anyone who is over 18.</p>
<p>Bay, you would have to go a lot further. Make it illegal for anyone with Northern European ancestry to sunbathe. 
(Regarding diabetes, the government and much of the medical establishment actively PUSHES T2 diabetics to consume foods that make it more difficult for them to control their blood sugars, as well as drugs that not only have life-threatening side effects but may well hasten the progression of the disease. The drugs are “necessary” in many cases only because of the foods pushed by the ADA, nutritionists, et al. But off my soapbox…)</p>
<p>Greenbutton, whatever I think of age-related drinking laws, DUI is a different thing. I in general oppose blue laws that attempt to legislate some people’s idea of “morality,” and even most laws that are supposed to protect people from themselves, but behaviors that endanger other people are another matter. I’d support no drug or alcohol prohibition at all–coupled with very strict laws regarding DUI and enforcement to match.</p>
<p>performersmom, it would be very interesting to see uniform laws defining “adult” as 26…and not allowing people to serve in the armed forces before then, much less drive a car or sign a contract. What would our leaders do without a supply of 18 to 25 year olds to send to their wars?</p>
<p>I don’t think we need a nanny state.</p>
<p>If your kids aren’t old enough to act like adults most of the time, perhaps they aren’t ready to go off to college.
Both of mine took a year off & they were much more focused when they started school.</p>
<p>Looking over U of N and U of Iowa’s programs- wow!
They are working on ALL levels: education, correcting misconceptions, limiting availability and occasions, enforcing rules, and so on. HUGE efforts. Very very impressive that they took all this on, yet shows what a challenge this is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evidence is actually mixed, but perhaps whether you think raising the drinking age has “made the problem worse” depends in part on what you think the problem is. I’m no expert, but there’s actually a very rich and fascinating academic literature on youth drinking generally and college student drinking in particular. Since this thread has been running I’ve gotten curious and spent a small amount of time dabbling in that literature—just the tip of the iceberg, to be sure, but based on that I’d make a few observations:</p>
<p>There’s pretty good evidence that the percentage of 18-to-21-year-olds who drink has declined slightly since the drinking age was raised to a uniform 21, and the percentage of HS students who drink has declined much more sharply. Causation is disputed, however: there’s some evidence that abstinence had begun increasing even before the change in the drinking age, and large-scale PR campaigns against drunk driving and alcohol abuse generally may have been equally or more important than changes in the law. Despite higher rates of abstinence, however, drinking among college students is still extremely widespread: roughly 80% report having consumed alcohol in the past 12 months, and a smaller but still substantial majority report drinking regularly. It’s figures like these that make some of us skeptical (along with most college administrators, I believe) that you can ever put a major dent in the rate of college students who drink–a figure that has remained persistently high during periods of liberalized access laws, stringent access laws, and total prohibition in the 1920s. Those who think the problem is underage student drinking generally (the “dries” as they’re called) may be beating their head against a wall.</p>
<p>Others (the “wets”) would define the problem differently: in their view it’s not student drinking per se that’s problematic, but rather high risk behaviors like binge drinking, chronic drinking, the fast drinking that’s associated with “pre-gaming,” public drunkenness, drinking and driving, alcohol poisoning, etc. There’s pretty compelling evidence that rates of “heavy drinking” among college students have been pretty high for a long time (perhaps around 25%) and are not increasing, perhaps even declining a little. But that’s not quite the same thing as these more particular behaviors. It could well be that while there are slightly fewer heavy drinkers, a higher percentage of them are engaged in some of these extreme, high-risk behaviors. To me, it’s the high-risk behaviors that are the real problem. The “dries” want to curb high-risk behaviors by curbing all underage student drinking. The “wets” think that will never work and may even prove counterproductive. They argue, for example, that the higher drinking age actually encourages “pre-gaming” because students who drink now seek to compress their drinking into a shorter period of time before they go out, knowing alcohol won’t be available later on, and also believing the risk of being caught in unlawful possession is reduced if the alcohol is consumed rapidly. </p>
<p>Apart from the fact that college students have always drunk alcohol and probably always will, access to alcohol is particularly hard to control in college settings because there will always be some students around who are of a legal drinking age and are willing to provide alcohol to younger students. (In fact, one of the strongest points in favor of setting the legal age at 21 is that it made it harder for HS students to get access to alcohol from the 18-year-olds, and the percentage of HS students who drink fell dramatically; college students, not so much). </p>
<p>Finally, there are some striking demographic differences. White college students drink far more than their black or Asian counterparts (I haven’t seen figures for Latinos), and students of British and/or Irish ancestry drink more than those of other ethnic backgrounds. Drinking is more prevalent among college students in the Northeast than in other parts of the country (though the rates are fairly high in all regions). Drinking is far more common among college students who live on campus than among those who live at home. and, not surprisingly, both drinking generally and “heavy drinking” are far more common among those with a Greek affiliation than among those without. This all suggests there’s a strong cultural component to the college student drinking problem–which again, I’d define as extreme and high-risk drinking behaviors rather than drinking per se, though of course others may differ.</p>
<p>I am a “wet”.
I appreciate that researching and posting that you have done, bclintonk. You conclude as I do that this is a cultural issue, and the problem is how the drinking is done in some (too many) cases.</p>
<p>I guess I still wonder how reliable the surveys are… Are students honest about how often/how much they drink?</p>
<p>Supposedly there is debate over whether the reduction in traffic fatalities is properly credited to raising the drinking age. Supposedly seat belt laws, air bags, reduced speed limits, new driving rules (multiple teenagers not allowed in the car) and curfews may be the real or contributing reason.</p>
<p>I blame harsh DUI laws, lower level to be drunk (.08), stronger enforcement etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Blame”??? Are you in the liquor business? Or a mortician, perhaps?</p>
<p>Another hypothesis is that simple national uniformity in the drinking age played some role in reducing highway fatalities. It’s argued that different drinking ages in different states induced a lot of college-aged kids to hop in a car and drive across the border to get liquored up. Not as much interstate driving by intoxicated youth if the law is the same everywhere. On this theory it would have been equally beneficial to have a nationally uniform 18-year-old drinking age. I haven’t seen data to back this up, but the theory was given what I thought was a surprising amount of credence in one major literature review I read.</p>
<p>bclintonk, thanks for the excellent post. I’m among those who are most concerned with addressing those extreme, high-risk behaviors.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that it’s idiotic to consider an 18 year old an “adult” when it’s so very obvious (particularly from reading the parents college life forums on cc, but also from general observation) that they mostly aren’t capable of functioning as adults, but the government has it’s reasons for legislating that age. None of those reasons have anything to do with common sense, but there’s no point in debating that.</p>
<p>My original question, “why is being able to drink (at ages 18-20) so very important to (some) people” was never really answered, but apparently our culture values alcohol consumption so highly that the reasons don’t really matter. There are probably a lot of 14 year olds who would really like to drive and may do it as well as the average 20 year old but it has been decided that collectively, they lack the maturity to do so safely. It doesn’t kill people to wait until they are old enough to engage in any given activity, even if they consider the age of eligibility to be arbitrary.</p>
<p>It has never and will never do any harm whatsoever to any individual to refrain from drinking alcohol until the legal age (whatever that happens to be at any time and place). OTOH, it frequently does a great deal of harm to the young people who drink underage. Given that, why would any parent want to take that risk with their own kids (yeah, KIDS)? Why is it so unreasonable to wait a couple of years?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What would you propose we do? Put our 20-year old offspring in “time out” if they consume a beer?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know…is that what you usually do when your 20-year old offspring does something really stupid?</p>