University Presidents are asking for a debate about whether to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. They suggest that legalizing drinking at a younger age will allow young adults to be introduced to drinking in a more responsible way, as part of the social fabric. As it is, adults can’t really participate in this sort of education because it’s illegal for 18, 19, and 20 year olds to drink and, therefore, when they do drink — and they do — it’s with people their age, behind closed doors, and to excess.
I don’t know if 18 is the magic age. But, there is something odd about saying that 18 year olds are mature enough to make the life and death decision about whether to enlist in the military, mature enough to cast a vote for our leaders, and enter into any number of binding contracts; but aren’t old enough to drink a drop of alcohol.
There seems to be a slingshot effect where the longer you forbid alcohol, the harder young people will hit it once they have access. But legalization at a younger age isn’t the entire answer. When I went off to college and had access to beer at age 18, I hit it hard, and it’s not because the stuff was forbidden fruit. My folks were strict in prohibiting me from drinking with others, but they weren’t opposed to letting me have a beer or two in their presence. In Ohio at the time, if you were 18, your parents could order you a beer in a restaurant, and my folks would do that for me. Even so, I drank – a lot – throughout my college years.
I drank because it was fun. The conversations were better, the music was better, and the odds of hooking up were (ever so slightly) better. And this is something I don’t think we can lose sight of. If we view drinking as purely a problem and a vice, we’re not going to regulate it very well. Drinking is fun, and it serves a social function. It’s not accident that we’ve been brewing beer since the dawn of civilization. Alcohol has an intrinsic place in human culture.
Opponents of lowering the drinking age cite drunken driving and drinking related deaths among young people, and those are legitimate concerns. But, drunk driving concerns all too often are merely proxies for Prohibitionist tendencies. When I see adamant stances against drinking and no concerns about improving public transportation, I begin suspecting that it’s the drinking that concerns these people, whether driving is involved or not.
I think the approach to this problem should involve a mix of recognizing and teaching the value of responsible drinking; tough measures and extensive public education with respect to driving while drunk; and improvement of public transportation options for those who have been drinking.
Here, here.
I agree with you that college kids don’t drink because of the forbidden nature of alcohol. It’s not that exotic when everyone is doing it, with relatively little risk of getting caught on any given night. I do think the legal prohibition affects the way that college kids drink, i.e., the apartment kegger or frat party with no food or anything else: just a keg, perhaps a few bottles of rot-gut liquor, and a bunch of people looking to get drunk fast. I’m not going to describe college bar culture as some sort of haven of responsible drinking, but at least at bars there is the possiblity of focusing on quality over quantity, ordering food, and the nominal supervision of bar owners who don’t want to get sued. I thinking access to bars eventually leads to maturity in drinking habits compared to the alternative.
You are right, of course, about the neo-prohibitionists. In one of the articles I have read recently, the founder of MADD was critical of the current direction of the organization, noting that her interest was reducing drunk driving, not eliminating alcohol use or defining drunk driving so broadly that the police are using resources to arrest people who aren’t really a danger. I think she even used the term “neo-prohibitionist.” The current president of MADD is a man! They should get it over with and change the name to “People Against Drinking.”
I think your parents had the right approach. I certainly wasn’t allowed to grab a beer out of the fridge at my liesure, but I was allowed a beer or glass of wine at a family dinner or some such thing. Not that it prevented me from drinking heavily in college, but I do think it’s good if people get some sense of the “appropriate” way to drink before being on their own at age 18.
Someone mentioned in a post that drinking culture in states is a Protestant temperance thing.
France high school kids stop in the local cafe or bar and sit with drinking adults while they order lemondade and drinks mixed with grenadine,which the French like. And wine is served at table to minors and Ive see that many times,but its very controlled. It’s because drinking is heavily tied to cuisine ( so much wine for so much food)unlike in the states where drinking is often moral vs immoral behavior and so many drink just to drink. All of us know a neighborhood or family ‘drunk’ and I don’t mean to be disresepctful. One of the problems taking under aged students to Europe is the first thing certain ones think about is how easy it will be for them to drink and get drunk..That’s all some talk about;Ive been there.
Wine and beer are sold with your big mack at McDonalds. But if you’re eating,probably your goal is not to get drunk so much.( ‘Drunks’ don’t eat except salty snack food) Maybe we could encourage a start of an American advertising campaign coupling beers and wine to certain dining,instead of advertising liquor and beer as ‘a cool choice for cool people’,or a ‘jock thing’.
I never really enjoyed beer til it became part of dining in my German experience and now pork and beer just go together.
Alcohol only “ever so slightly” increases chances of hooking up? Hmm, that “slightly” could be debatable…
Anyway, if the MADD concern about lowering the drinking age is truly drunk-driving related, how about this for a compromise. Legalize alcohol purchase/consumption for 18 year olds, but have a “zero tolerance” for alcohol & driving for 18 to 20 year olds. In other words, blowing a .01 would be a crime for an 18 to 20 year old, rather than a .08. Any amount of drinking = no driving. Just a thought.
I should have specified that it only slightly increased *my* chances. The ratio of hook ups to nights drinking were relatively small.
Doug, did hooking up rate higher or lower than getting drunk?
Cars can be fitted with a device that doesn’t allow you to drive if you are over the limit. I’ll bet it would be an option an 18-20 year old would take if the trade-off was being allowed to legally partake. (Sure, the device can probably be defeated, but so can the underage laws.)
I too have always found the military service / voting / drinking age thing illogical.
I suppose it rated higher if only because hooking up was a matter of opportunity. Getting drunk could be accomplished more or less at will.
I really don’t know what you people are all talking about. Doug never, ever hooked up before we were married. Duh.
Amy’s on hallucinogenics! OMG, get her back on the alcohol, for the love of humanity. ROFLMAO!