“Thank God we got the convicts”

We, unfortunately, got the Puritans.
As long as drinkiing is viewed as a “sinful”, “criminal” and “dangerous” behavior, people will act accordingly, since they like to drink, and they may start to think sin, crime and danger are pretty cool.
An earlier poster wonders why Canada has no problem with an 18 drinking age and we have to remember that this is a question of cultural attitude. Warren says he’d happily raise the legal age even higher than 21 and we must come to terms with the fact that Prohibition never really ended in this country and there are more people than we’d like to think who’d love to ban alcohol completely.
After all, if forbidding alcohol to those under 21 really does make the highways safer, we can make them really, really safe by outlawing alcohol entirely.
Oh, wait, they already tried that and it didn’t work very well….

One more thing: the current rdiculous laws exist for one reason and one reason alone: young people don’t vote, so politicians aren’t afraid to punish them for something that cuts across generatioanl lines. Where I live on Long Island, there’s a commuter railroad and alcoholic beverages are sold on platforms and some rush-hour trains. Lately, a self-appointed crusader has been trying to ban this, arguing that people drinking on trains tend to get into cars when they reach their station. He’s had no success becaue those he’s targeting vote and have political and economic clout. They’re not going to let some modern-day Carrie Nation deprive them of their after-work cocktail. There really needs to be a movement among the youth to take back their rights.

Kudos to Choose Responsibility!

While it may be all fine and good to have 18 year olds drink at the campus pub and stagger to their nearby dorm rooms, we must remember that a change in the drinking age affects *ALL* 18-20 year olds, not just those on your campuses. So even if one makes the argument that your students will drink on campus rather than seeking an off campus location to party, the vast majority of newly legal drinkers will almost certainly be on the roads driving to and from liquor stores and taverns.

When states increased their drinking age to 21 there was as much as a 28% decrease in fatal crashes among young people [Williams, A.F.; Zador, P.L.; Harris, S.S.; and Karpf, R.S. 1983. The effect of raising the legal minimum drinking age on involvement in fatal crashes. Journal of Legal Studies 12:169-79].

While one might argue that even without the lowered drinking age, your young charges will just go ahead and drink and drive anyway, the statistics plainly point out that is not the case.

Of equal importance is that a 21 year old drinking age gives law enforcement additional tools to prevent crashes by intercepting young drivers *before* they get to the full .08 BAC. In my state *any* detectable BAC for someone under 21 will result in (at least) a 90 day suspension of driving privileges. One of the hallmarks of mood altering substances is that the user is oblivious to their effects. Knowing that *any* alcohol will result in significant penalties will keep drivers sober a lot better than some arbitrary limit that a driver is supposed to recognize.

As a police officer, I have seen my share of the senseless carnage that results from impaired driving. Of course, not all DUII crashes are attributable to drivers under 21. And, the victims of these crashes are not always the young people themselves. I am firmly convinced that while maintaining a 21 year old drinking age (I’d happily make it higher if I could) will increase the safety of our young people, it will also increase the safety of everyone else that has to share the road with them.

One also cannot discount the affects of alcohol on individuals that as a group already exhibit poorly developed judgment and impulsiveness. Indeed, the doctrine of in loco parentis seems to argue that both universities and parents don’t think their college-age children are ready for adult roles. Otherwise, why have RAs in the dorms? Why even have dorms? My experience in the academy both as a peer as well as a faculty member (B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. and close to 20 years as a tenured faculty member) does not suggest that this philosophy is misguided.

Many otherwise law abiding individuals often commit crimes ranging from domestic violence to criminal mischief to sexual abuse while under the influence of intoxicants. My experience tells me that upwards of 80-90% of the people I arrest (both minor and adult) are intoxicated to some degree. Why would one wish to encourage such behavior?

While I am happy to debate increasing the drinking age, I am just as happy to debate the re-criminalization of homosexual behavior, the reintroduction of slavery or making dog fighting legal. Debate is always stimulating. But in all of these cases, the right decision is clear and has already been established.

I spent two years working as a resident assistant in a a dry undergraduate dorm. Every single Thursday, Friday, and Saturday we had increased rounds. We knew exactly when to catch people with alcohol – they would pre-party heavily from 8pm to 10pm, then go out for 3-4 hours. After midnight the fun really began. After party shots with the girls. Throwing up in the hallway ’cause they couldn’t stumble their way to the bathroom. Passing out in the stairway.

One night we found a room in which both residents were freshmen. We made them pour out over two hundred dollars worth of alcohol, everything from a case of cheap beer to a handle of top shelf vodka.

Two to three times a month we’d have to call 911 when we’d find someone passed out that we couldn’t wake up. Another freshman that didn’t know how to drink responsibly.

Age is not the issue – drinking responsibly is. And that is what needs to be worked on.

Make more people responsible drinkers. Then you’ll be closer to solving the problem.

I’m a little bit lost… are you saying that drinking directly affects rape on campus? SO does that mean that alcohol makes you a rapist? So doesn’t that mean that all people who drink are going to be rapists? Oh the transitive property.

Sir, you are the kind of guy who believes that alcohol does nothing but bad things, which is sad. Didn’t you ever wonder why people drink at weddings? Or when they go out to night clubs? At dinner? After a date?…. is it becasue that plan on being a rapist? .. Right, it’s not.

With education and experience comes wondrous things. I think you should re-evaluate your argument and open your eyes.

I digress, however, MADD does need to be quieted- being angry and not listening to anyone only does harm. let’s do this. Sorry for ranting.

GRADUATED

Drinking Age? The solution is as simple as one word. GRADUATED. If you are responsible enough to get your High School Diploma, then you are responsible enough to drink. The issue with any law with an arbitrary age limit is that it ignores the fact that some people are responsible while others are not. Driving is a good example. We require education and testing and then have GRADUATED licensing. Prove yourself to be irresponsible, your PRIVILEGE is reduced or revoked. The same should go for Drinking. The college presidents have a point. If you are responsible enough to gain admission to my school, then you are responsible enough to drink.

It is time to tie personal responsibility to the privileges in our society – with a PRL – Personal Responsibility License or Privilege Responsibility License. If you show yourself to be responsible – in school, a GED, admission to college, enrolled in a trade or any skill, or public service – like an Eagle Scout or the Peace Corp — and in driving, drinking, any adult privilege – then you maintain a full license. But show yourself to be irresponsible, reckless, ignorant, or just lacking common sense – your privileges are reduced.

There should be GRADUATED levels Novice, Rookie, Veteran – managed by the states via the drivers license systems. When you get in trouble with the law – the rules of adult responsibility – you lose privileges. Imagine what a PRL can be applied to:
• Drinking
• Driving
• Firearms
• Voting
• Credit
• Insurance
• Child support
• Job Applications

We might even reduce the number of drop outs and increase public service. Ok, legislators, ACLU, NRA, AAA, ATF, many other special interest groups, have at it. It will be interesting to see the arguments against Personal Responsibility Licensing – a GRADUATED system of tying privileges to performance.