[CR] Week in Review

It was another busy week for [CR] President John McCardell, as he traveled to give presentations in Indiana at DePauw University and in Kentucky at Eastern Kentucky University. We’ve also received word that the student governments at James Madison University and Clarkson University are considering bills in favor of the Amethyst Initiative. Clearly, the demand for an open conversation about the drinking age isn’t going away. The debate has even popped up in some state legislatures, and you can read about those developments in this edition of the [CR] Week in Review:

Stories this week:

Legislators in Minnesota and New Hampshire are considering bills that would lower the drinking age in those states. You can read the details of New Hampshire Representative Timothy Henderson’s bill in The Dartmouth, while Minnesota Public Radio and the Minnesota Independent have coverage of the situation in Minnesota.

On a related note, State Legislatures Magazine sat down with Matthew Gever, a policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures, and recorded a podcast on the drinking age debate in different states across the country. Visit the NCSL’s Thicket blog for the audio.

Deminski and Doyle, the morning show hosts at Detroit’s WCSX 94.7 FM, expressed their support for the Amethyst Initiative in a segment they recorded earlier in the week. You can listen to the segment at their WCSX page.

In other news…

Meghan Reilly, a legislative analyst with the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research, published a short summary of the history of the drinking age debate in Connecticut in a new OLR report.

Researchers at The University of Texas School of Public Health found more evidence that positive interventions between college students can help curb binge drinking. The results of their latest study will be published in the February issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. You can read about the details of the intervention method here.

3 Responses to “[CR] Week in Review”

  1. Edwin Says:

    Lower the drinking age because 18, 19, and 20 year olds are adults, not “kids”. Lower the drinking age because it has eroded the 21st amendment. Finally, lower the drinking age because the alcohol program will encourage alcohol responsibility among young adults. In addition, the current drinking age can easily be questioned because it has no provison for educating new drinkers on alcohol, and because it treats 18-20 year olds with ageism. End the silence-it’s time for debate. Don’t forget to leave a comment.

  2. Michael Says:

    Edwin, you forgot to mention that the 1984 Minimum Drinking Age Act shirks the 10th Amendment of the U.S. constitution which gives states the right to choose their own drinking age independent of the federal government.

    Clearly the federal government is overstepping its boundaries on this issue by penalizing states for not conforming.

  3. James Says:

    Ironic that Timothy Robertson, the sponsor of the bill to lower the drinking age in New Hampshire, has also introduced HB 277FN that would raise the smoking age to 21. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/membe/m_billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0277.html

    So I guess the age or majority isn’t his concern. Or is he just hedging his bets?