“I am an American but was educated abroad in England as well as in the US, both of my parents are American, but have lived extensively in other countries. Alcohol has ALWAYS been acceptable in my family and I have never had a problem drinking with my parents or with not being allowed to drink. I think that the laws in America are irresponsible and inappropriate. I feel very strongly about changing them, to the point where I would love to be involved with your group and any other who has the same values as I do. Having lived in a country where the drinking age was 18 for a bar, 16 at a restaurant, and no questions asked when you are with your parents, I can tell anyone that there is a huge societal difference, and one is very clearly better than the other. I think it is socially irresponsible for Americans to have such a high drinking age when it’s clear to everyone that people are not waiting until 21. That is simple stupidity. We need to not turn a blind eye to underage drinking, we need to change it and teach teenagers responsible drinking. Obviously drinking and driving is a problem and I personally feel it is exacerbated by the high drinking age and not helped. I know many kids who have been caught for DUI’s and I can tell you that a part of that is due to the fact that they have to hide their drinking from their parents, and as they can’t tell them they need a ride for being drunk, they just drive home. I’m not saying changing the legal age will fix drinking and driving, but obviously having the drinking age at 21 isn’t changing anything either. I just want to thank you all for making a group about this and making change a possibility.”
Vermont lawmakers are considering adding mandatory ignition interlocks to the possible punishments for individuals convicted of DUI. The Burlington Free Press reported today that the legislature would be studying the use of the devices in other states and may consider legislation in the next session, which begins in early 2009. This discussion comes in response to the tragic death of 18 year-old Nick Fournier who was killed when a thrice convicted drunk driver slammed into his vehicle. The man responsible for the accident is 33 and had consumed eight or nine beers at a nearby bar before getting in his brother’s car and driving the wrong way down the interstate.
In this case, the use of an ignition interlock may have saved a life. If the convicted drunk driver had had an ignition interlock in his vehicle, he would have been unable to even start it that night. The devices work simply and effectively by blocking the ignition if the driver’s BAC is over an established limit. While most states make use of ignition interlocks in DUI sentencing, only a few require it for first time DUI offenders. In their Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, MADD strongly supports state-level legislation that would make installation of ignition interlocks mandatory for all DUI convictions.
Choose Responsibility strongly supports ignition interlocks. Research has shown that drunk drivers are 60 percent less likely to reoffend if they have been ordered to install an interlock as part of their sentence, and also that 65 percent of the public supports interlocks for first time offenders. That proportion jumps to 85 percent when considering repeat offenders. Unlike Legal Age 21, ignition interlocks present a specific and tailored solution to dealing with the scourge of drunken driving.
Looking for an engaging and hands-on summer internship?Interested in public policy, education, and social change?Want to work with a dynamic new non-profit organization?
Choose Responsibility is a new non-profit organization based whose mission is promote general public awareness of the dangers of excessive and reckless alcohol consumption by young adults through a program of research, publication, education, and related activities seeking to engage young people, their parents and public officials in serious deliberation on the role of alcohol in American culture.We seek to engage American society in a debate over the successes of the 21 year-old drinking age, and to offer policy alternatives.In a short time and with limited resources, Choose Responsibility has succeeded in drawing national attention to the once-settled question of the drinking age. Through articles in major publications like Newsweek, The Washington Post, USA Today, PARADE Magazine, and many others around the country, Choose Responsibility, has stirred debate about the drinking age and reality-based alcohol education.
We are looking for motivated and enthusiastic individuals who are committed to Choose Responsibility’s mission and eager to contribute their skills and energy to the organization.Positions available include office and web assistant, research assistant, and educational liaison.All positions are paid and will be based in our home office in Middlebury, VT.Please contact Grace Kronenberg for detailed job descriptions and information on how to apply.
On a Fox News panel on Monday April 7, Candy Lightner, Founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, shared her belief that young adults “don’t think for themselves.” Lightner used this as a justification for why the drinking age should not coincide with the age of enlistment. Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have heard members of the MADD network stereotyping young adults as immature. The same argument has been put forth by several of Lightner’s colleagues, including a 19 year-old M.I.T student (who, interestingly, is considered mature enough to sit on the Board of a large national organization), as well as MADD representatives on local panels.
The moment, naturally, was captured by YouTube, and we have provided a rough transcript below.
“…That’s exactly why the draft age is 18…because these kids are malleable. They’ll follow the leader. They don’t think for themselves. And they are the last ones that I want to say, here’s a gun and here’s a beer…they are not adults.”
Happy “New Beer’s Eve!” (Well, a bit belated). 75 years ago yesterday, April 7, beer started flowing legally in America for the first time in 14 years. Under the 18th Amendment and Prohibition, all “alcoholic” and “intoxicating” beverages — defined by the Volstead Act as substances containing more than 0.5% alcohol — were banned. While the amendment to repeal Prohibition was brewing before Franklin D. Roosevelt stepped into office, ratification was still months away, and the president decided that it was time to take an important first-step towards repeal. The Cullen-Harrison Act raised the threshold of alcohol “intoxication” from 0.5% to 3.2%, thereby permitting the sale and consumption of 3.2% beer — the only alcoholic drink permitted for the next 8 months.
Beyond representing a victory of “wets” over “drys,” the legalization of 3.2% beer helped moderate what had become an excessive and reckless use of alcohol by the American public under Prohibition. Bathtub gin in underground speakeasies was replaced by beer in public gatherings, and a covert and corrupt production network by a regulated industry offering economic and employment benefits. The result? An era of greater responsibility and a healthier national attitude towards alcohol.
Sound familiar? We have a lot to learn from 3.2% beer today, as 18 to 20 year-olds face a modern-day prohibition. Surely, the majority of them continue to drink, but their behavior, like that of their counterparts under the 18th Amendment, has become reckless, excessive, and geared towards the product that is most readily accessible and potent to them — hard liquor. The act of “pre-gaming” with shots of vodka in basements or dorm rooms has become the norm, as young adults no longer have access to public gatherings where alcohol is served in moderation. Parents and educators lose their capacity to educate young adults about the risks and rewards of drinking, and as a result, the instructor role has been transferred to fraternity brothers and college roommates — hardly pillars of moderation. Further, as in the 1920s and 1930s, enforcement is lax, helping to breed disrespect for law.
Americans in the 1930s realized that laws must reflect reality, and that safety and moderation are more important than lofty yet unattainable social experiments. It is for this realization that we celebrate April 7, 1933 and continue to work to find our own equivalent middle ground of 3.2% beer.
April is Alcohol Awareness Month and organizations across the nation are focusing on alcohol and its many implications for our society. Pertinently, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), a government agency that deals with issues related to alcohol and underage drinking, is hosting a series of 1,600 town hall-style meetings across the country this week and next. These meetings are informal get-togethers whose goal is to bring together people from various roles within a community—parents, teens, law enforcement, educators, elected officials—to discuss and raise awareness of underage drinking.
We encourage you to attend a meeting near you, and to participate in the discussion. [CR] volunteer Beau Weston attended a meeting in Danville, KY where he brought up ChooseResponsibility’s concept of alcohol education and licensing. “The drinking license idea was clearly new to most people there,” said Weston, “but only one was set against it, and most were willing to give it a hearing.” Check here for a list of meetings in your state, and find one to attend in your area. Email Grace Kronenberg at [CR] if you have questions about what to say!
We applaud Beckner’s courage in taking a stance against Legal Age 21 and have been please by the follow-up discussion that has taken place in Boulder since. From columns and letters in the local paper, to a community discussion on underage drinking which took place last night, what is going on in Boulder exemplifies what could be going on in every community in the US. Perhaps this is best put by Boulder City Manager Frank Bruno, who says:
Proponents of a lower drinking age need to be bold enough to speak out, ruffle feathers, and prompt discussion. [CR] will continue to do that on as many levels as we can, but we need each of you to bring this debate to your communities, just as Mark Beckner has in Boulder, CO. Cheers to Chief Beckner!
If you’re looking for ideas on how to speak out and get more involved, check out our new Volunteer Center!
March 6 was a watershed day for the drinking age debate: it marked the first time the leaders of two of the most vocal organizations on either side of the question met in public to discuss the merits and demerits of Legal Age 21. Beyond some sparring in the media in which MADD CEO Chuck Hurley has described John McCardell as “a dog with a bone,” (Boston Globe) a “dangerous gadfly” (PARADE) and Choose Responsibility as an organization representing nothing more than “off the cuff musings” (PARADE), Chuck Hurley and John McCardell have never formally debated.
We were, therefore, very excited by the invitation to join Chuck Hurley, a Dickinson College alumnus, for a debate at his alma mater. The two leaders met at Dickinson College last week in front of a full house of nearly 200 students, faculty, staff and community members to defend their perspectives on Legal Age 21. Even in a short format–Dr. McCardell and Mr. Hurley each presented for eight minutes, then were given three minutes to rebut–many of the key arguments on both sides were aired and addressed. Questions from the audience further elucidated many of the points made on both sides.
One of Mr. Hurley’s recurring points made a play on the popular Staples “Easy Button” ad campaign. He repeatedly described [CR] as doing nothing more than “pushing the Easy Button on underage drinking and drunk driving” and reminded the audience that there is “no such thing as an Easy Button.” Frankly, we beg to differ, and would point to MADD’s strong lobbying for the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984 as the most unmistakable example of pressing the “Easy Button” that we could find. The passage of that act and attendant setting of the drinking age at 21 across America was a blunt instrument that, 23 years later, continues to take undue credit for single-handedly reversing the downward trend in alcohol-related traffic fatalities while ignoring many of the its unintended consequences. Today, with an increase in binge and extreme drinking through the 1990s and beginning of the 21st century, and more than 1,000 lives of 18-24 year-olds lost to alcohol off the highways each year, we can see clearly that Legal Age 21 was an “Easy Button” pressed all too readily.
What the current, complex situation calls for is a critical look at our nation’s alcohol policies, and the culture they have propagated over the past three decades. Last time we checked, there isn’t an “Easy Button” to help us do that–but who knows, maybe Staples will have a special deal on one soon!
Stay tuned for video from the Dickinson debate and updates to our homepage and all-new Volunteer Center coming soon…
Debate season is upon us. As Clinton, Obama, McCain and other candidates continue to display oratory prowess, we are reminded of the importance of engaging each other in a discussion of the problems plaguing our nation. Organized debates and panels help equip both representatives and everyday citizens with the facts necessary to shape informed public policy. While we may not always agree on the end goal or the policy proposals leading us there, we find commonality in our desire to improve conditions for millions of Americans.
What would the public say if a presidential candidate refused to debate his or her opponent? Beyond reflecting poorly on the candidate, it would withhold from the American public an important point of view. It is therefore not a surprise that we rarely see candidates decline debate invitations. Why, then, has Mothers Against Drunk Driving repeatedly refused to represent its position in drinking age panels across the country? Surely, all other points of view are represented there — from Choose Responsibility to alcohol counselors, enforcement agents, students and educators.
Alcohol is a reality in the lives of young adults, and the drinking age is an issue that affects millions of Americans. No policy represents a “settled question” immune from questioning and debate– especially when a hefty body of evidence points to the fact that conditions may have worsened under present law. Therefore, MADD’s absence needs to be explained. We encourage MADD to reverse its debate policy and provide much needed answers to the American public. If all evidence is on one side of the question, they should have nothing to fear.
Update: It should be noted that while we applaud MADD CEO Chuck Hurley for debating John McCardell last week at Dickinson College, this post was motivated by feedback from many organizations who are currently planning events featuring the drinking age debate. Among the groups who have contacted MADD for a representative to appear on an upcoming panel, only to have the invitation declined are The New Jersey Center for Alcohol and Drug Resources, Greenwich, CT community organizers, St. Michael’s College, and TIPS (Training forIntervention Procedures–Responsible service training organization).
Happy February 20th! 75 years ago today, Congress approved the 21st Amendment, kicking off the ratification process and bringing national prohibition to the point of no return. Congress’ approval built upon the momentum generated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s landslide victory over Herbert Hoover — a victory considered by many to be a mandate for repeal. After February 20, repeal steamrolled through the states at a pace faster than anyone could have envisioned.
In many ways, Legal Age 21 can be considered a latter-day prohibition — denying legal alcohol purchase and consumption to a specific group of adults who are allowed all other rights of citizenship. Indeed, historical parallels abound. Today, the excessive, reckless use of alcohol has become the norm as law forces drinking underground and out of public settings. The criminalization of ordinary behavior continues to breed disrespect for law. The unenforcability of the law, compounded with increasingly commonplace consumption, have engendered creative lawbreaking. Off-campus parties and beer pong constitute the modern subculture equivalent of speakeasies and homemade spirits, and clearly illustrate the failure of a law — albeit one with good intentions — to bring about desired cultural change.
Just as Americans on February 20, 1933 had repeal within reach, so can we, in 2008, affect change. Start the debate in your community. Talk to your local officials. In the words of a prominent prohibition-era poster, “Their security demands you vote REPEAL.”
One of Mr. Hurley’s recurring points made a play on the popular Staples “