I have talked a little before about alternative strategies to lowering college alcohol abuse -- alternative meaning as opposed to outright bans like the 21 drinking age.
Now a set of college presidents are circulating something called the Amethyst Initiative whose goal is to lower the drinking age back from 21 to 18. (For those of you who don't remember the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 under the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 by tying raising the age to receipt of highway funding from the federal government. This act was championed by then Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole. Incidentally, yes, I know that the law has various loopholes for supervised drinking in private and drinking for religious ceremonies. What we are talking about here is limits on college students going to a liquor store and buying beer.)
The Amethyst Initiative is being opposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving on the grounds that it will likely increase traffic fatalities.
The big question here is whether you think that the minimum drinking age is effective at reducing mortality and whether it facilitates the culture of binge drinking on American college campuses. I think the answer to that question is mixed.
On the one hand, you have a law that is being flagrantly ignored by large numbers of college students. This law is questionably enforceable. Yeah, you can grab students off the street and in their cars, but students can always drink in their rooms in some cases to death. Arresting drunk drivers is vital, but I think that the police have enough on their plate without having to chase drunk wankers into their dorm rooms.
Likewise, the "illegal mystique" of drinking encourages students to binge drink. A little anecdote: When I was a sophomore in high school I went on a Latin trip to Italy. I had never drank in high school. Colorado is a pretty conservative state, and I didn't run with a crowd that had access to booze. But we all went drinking in Italy (the drinking age was 16) and several of us (myself included) got quite ill. (I seem to remember a little incident in which I puked in a bidet -- having no idea at the time what it was used for. Not exactly my finest hour...) What I remember is that the Italians our age viewed us with a sort of amusement. They were over the notion of drinking in excess. They drank in supervised setting since they were very young, and they had successfully integrated it into their lives. For them, the mystique of underage drinking was no longer there. And if some kid had too much, there would be no problem taking him/her to the hospital because there would be no fear of repercussions.
On that ground I could see how lowering the drinking age would have little effect and might be a tangible good. 1) I am not interested in the government passing unenforceable laws just for the purpose of looking tough. That is just stupid. 2) By removing the mystique of underage drinking and the consequences of taking someone to the hospital, overall alcohol-related deaths may very well decrease.
On the other hand, there is data to suggest that the minimum drinking age has reduced mortality in the at least the 18-21 age set. With respect to the decline in drunk driving deaths, minimum age laws reduce drunk driving fatalities in the under 20 age group by about 11% according to that study. Upon reaching 21, alcohol-related mortality does increase. Internationally, the strength of alcohol control policies does correlate with reduced alcohol consumption.
However, the conclusion from that data that minimum age laws are effective at reducing overall mortality has been questioned. There is some evidence that the minimum age laws succeed only in moving alcohol-related mortality from 18 to 21. This is the view forwarded by David Hanson, Professor Emeritus of Sociology of the State University of New York at Potsdam. (This argument is discussed more thoroughly at Neuroanthropology.)
How do we resolve these two points of view?
At least in my opinion, problem drinking in this country is a cultural problem. Alcohol restrictive legislation for key groups (like 18-21 year-olds) may be effective, and it would be reasonable to expect an increase in deaths in this group if these laws are changed. But minimum age laws do nothing to change the intrinsic cultural problem, and they may just kick the mortality increase associated with drinking down the road until the kids are 21 -- not improving overall mortality.
As a consequence, I think we need to address the root of the issue: the cultural problem. If lowering the drinking age reduces the social stigma of drinking, so much the better. However, I doubt that this alone will be sufficient. Just lowering the drinking age will not cause the culture of binging to evaporate. Binge drinking in movies is too prevalent. It is too much part of American culture to be that simple to change.
That is why we need other programs that address binge drinking in colleges to help students integrate this into their lives as healthy adults. Also, Neuroanthropology argues -- and I heartily agree -- there is a large role for parents. A binge drinking 20 year-old is in many ways the product of a 10 year-old who was never properly instructed about alcohol by his/her parents.
I am really curious to hear what people have to say about this one. Two questions:
1) To what degree are minimum age laws effective as preventative measures for alcohol-related deaths?
2) How is the minimum age law -- in your opinion -- related to the culture of binging? If we remove the law, will that culture be affected?
- Log in to post comments
1) My opinion is that the people who are reckless with their lives and others are reckless at any age.
2) It definitely contributes: I wanted to get drunk because it wasn't allowed and so did all my friends. But I plan on allowing my son to start having a little wine with dinner when he's in his teens in an attempt to take away the "neatness" of it and teach him responsible consumption in social settings.
1) My opinion is that the people who are reckless with their lives and others are reckless at any age.
2) It definitely contributes: I wanted to get drunk because it wasn't allowed and so did all my friends. But I plan on allowing my son to start having a little wine with dinner when he's in his teens in an attempt to take away the "neatness" of it and teach him responsible consumption in social settings.
Anecdotal evidence. YMMV. I have had an ask-me-if-you-want-to-try-alcohol policy for my daughter for several years (This does not extend to supplying alcohol to her friends.) So far, she's made minimal use of it. She's tried wine. Doesn't like it. She's tried pina colodas at the home of a trusted older friend who is a de facto aunt. She enjoyed that experience (as much for the company as for the taste, I think). I also have an I-don't-care-what-time-it-is-you-can-call-me-if-you-feel-you-are-an-unsafe-situation policy. So far she's used it once, when she tried vodka at a friend's house and panicked at the burning sensation. Anyway, my sense is that she is not overly anxious to drink, let alone drink to excess, and that she doesn't feel as if she has to do so to prove her adulthood. Also, she understands, from seeing how I and other adults drink moderately, that binge drinking is not a necessary (or desirable!) part of the drinking experience. Above all, she feels comfortable talking with me about alcohol and its use and abuse. At my university, we lose a student every few years in an incident that involves drinking. (One year an 18-yr-old who came from a non-drinking family died of alcohol poisoning during her first semester away from home.) I suspect some students would do better if they didn't arrive at college and go wild with the easy access to alcohol provided by older students. Those students would be far better off having tried alcohol in a setting overseen by their parents and other older relatives.
Your questions are irrelevant. I know it's a tired argument the seventeen year olds use, but it's true. Why should an eighteen year old be able to be drafted but can't buy a beer.
The laws need to be all or none, either you're an adult at eighteen, or twenty-one. Don't mix and match. Personally, I think everything should be 21. The right to vote, drink, get drafted. All 21.
I am 15, and have never had alcohol. My parents would not allow it. If I were irresponsible, when I eventually go over to wild parties, I would get drunk, and act like an idiot. But I will not. I am one of the smart ones.
I feel that I should have been exposed to alcohol when I was young. I was then mailable, under my wise parents. I have escaped their thumb, now. I am one of the few people who have enough willpower to not get in trouble. As long as a child's parents are not alcoholics, then I think it is fine for them to introduce them to alcohol, and indeed should be encouraged. Parents should be able to instill habits in their children at that age, such as remembering how many drinks they've had, and realizing when they've had too much.
The problem is a cultural one that is causing trouble. It would be much less if the parents could be held responsible, so as to instill good habits in their children.
Anyway, just my say.
I work on a university campus so these questions are of more than academic interest to me. I think the minimum age laws contribute to alcohol-related deaths in parallel to the extent they contribute to binging. Which is to say (from my unscientific observations), a lot.
I went to a conservative Christian college. Who do you suppose we had to help up the stairs, clean up and put to bed? Right - the preacher's kids.
Caleb, being 'one of the smart ones' surely you realize self-destructive behavior isn't confined to the set of stupid people? I know plenty of smart people who drink too much. Alcoholism isn't an inverted intelligence test.
Drink with people who drink in moderation.
I agree with you that the problem lies largely with our culture. The example comparing our drinking culture to that of Europeans I felt was especially good. I also agree that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 will solve the problem. All that will do is to push the "illegal mystique" margin downwards, which may help on college campuses, but will create more problems for high schools. Younger and younger students will begin to feel that they've reached the age at which they're "close" enough to deserve the ability to drink.
What we really need to do to change the culture is to eliminate the minimum drinking age altogether. We might suffer a transition period in which current teenagers suddenly celebrate their newfound freedom, but newer students growing up in the new culture will find nothing special with the ability to drink. I remember seeing a news report about the role of wine in France. Children there have small amounts of wine all the time at the dinner table, and some health experts privately mentioned to the reporter that they would recommend serving watered down wine instead of milk in school lunches.
There is no age limit on drinking/acting responsibly. To lower the age to 18 is a step in the right direction but alcohol education should start at a earlier age. It is much better for a young person to get it out of his or her system when surrounded by mature adults. When they get amongst their peers the incidence of stupidity increases but if they already got sick as a dog they may think twice before going overboard. To restrict the age to 21 is ludicrous as at 18 you have the right to vote, serve in the military (possibly get killed) but no alcohol. How ridiculous! Lower the age and take away the "coolness" of underage drinking. Educate your kids well before 18 and possibly adopt MORE EUROPEAN attitude towards alcohol.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is the view of ETOH in the US as a drug. It is known primarily for its mind-altering properties, and so is used primarily for such. I have always thought that adopting a more epicurean approach toward alcohol with kids, i.e., allowing younger folks to learn to appreciate alcohol as a complement to a meal, or as something modestly celebratory, would go a long way toward curbing the appeal of bingeing.
So, in answer to 1), I doubt that drinking age laws reduce fatalities in any absolute sense, but rather shift the preponderance of fatalities to an older age group.
As for 2), I think that there is something to be said for the view that adulthood ought to be all-or-nothing (i.e., if you can serve in the military, you should be able to have a drink), but ultimately, I think that lowering the drinking age in and of itself will have little impact. In all honesty, I think assuming that lowering the drinking age will somehow change binge drinking behavior among young adults is naive, and probably destined for embarrassing failure.
Rather, I imagine the solution is reevaluating our cultural approach and perception of alcohol, as this is, in my view, more responsible for the culture of bingeing.
Where I live you can drink, get your drivers licence and vote at 18. Binge drinking is still a big issue here so I don't think that lowering the drinking age is going to help much (but would it hurt much? I don't know). After a few years people get over it but the last few years of high school and first few years of Uni/College are pretty full of drunkenness.
Binge drinking among teenagers is a huge problem in Europe too. The UK and Scandinavia are well known, but Spain has 'el botell�n' and the Germans call it 'komasaufen'.
Yeah, let us know how that works out for you... ;)
Just posted on the same topic over at Coturnix's, and I want to make the same point here: the single most important change we can make (IMHO) is to restrict advertising. It is advertising (including product placement) which shapes attitudes to alcohol more than anything else.
I'm not convinced that minimum age laws have much of an effect (in either direction) in themselves.
This post seems to refer to some reality that might exist on some foreign country or other.
(oops, hit post instead of preview too soon).
to take a world view appropriate of publishing on the "World" Wide Web, it would be more satisfying to discover the alien nature up front, prefixed, prefaced, introduced to the regional restrictive application of the discussion, rather than discover it as one approaches the end. It began quite alienating, until it dawned why.
According to my parents, my generation, up to about 30, have a very different attitude to drunk driving than their generation's attitude. We just won't do it and anyone who does it is a social pariah. Their generation, on the other hand, don't tend to see much wrong with just getting themselves home, not causing anyone trouble, I'm perfectly alright...
maybe that's what's caused the change in mortality, rather than the raising of the drinking age.
My attitude towards it is simple and very much aligned with Jeb's. It's ridiculous to tell an 18-year-old that s/he can now legally vote, smoke, join the army, get married without parental consent, or sign a contract -- but not have a beer.
I also doubt it will have much impact one way or the other on college student behavior. The drinking age in my state was 18 when I was an undergrad. Among us were people who binge-drank regularly, people who drank only in moderation, people who usually didn't bother but overdid it once or twice a year, and people who didn't touch the stuff at all. I've been around undergrads for the last 15 years, under the uniform age-21 requirement, and little if anything has changed. There's going to be a wide variety of drinking behavior in any population with access to alcohol, especially among inexperienced drinkers.
I'm all for arresting drunk drivers or drunken brawlers of any age, and agree that regular drinking during adolescence is a generally bad idea, but trying to prevent some 19-year-old from having a beer at home or in a restaurant is a waste of law enforcement resources.
I think the culture involved is really important. I'm an American living in England (which has a drinking age of 18). The result seems to be drunk 14 year olds and 1st years at university still binge with about the same frequency as in the US (this is all my experience, no actual stats). It seems like there is something about the culture that the US and England share that causes this bingeing. And the only difference in college towns in the states and England is the ratio of bars to liquer stores.
"the Amethyst Initiative whose goal is to lower the drinking age back from 21 to 18."
Actually, it doesn't go quite that far. The statement calls for "an informed and dispassionate public debate". It may just be posturing, but the signatories who I've heard interviewed seem cautious to explicitly say that they are not certain that the drinking age should be lowered.
"to take a world view appropriate of publishing on the "World" Wide Web, it would be more satisfying to discover the alien nature up front,"
Why? Any regular reader probably knows, any irregular reader can glance an inch to the left, and any awake reader should probably have realized that this wasn't about their home country (unless they're from the US) by the second paragraph. To head it off, this isn't some US-centric thing, since I regularly see the same lack of place-identification on British and Australian sites/blogs.
The drinking age in the US Virgin Islands is 18. Both of my kids were taught social drinking when teenagers at home. We discussed all the pros and cons of underage drinking especially driving while drunk or after a few drinks. Although the legal age is 18 many high school students started trying to sneek into the bars at 16, many of them got away with it. But, because we are a small community, this fact was usually hammered home to the parents of said underage kids. They were found out and dealt with. Because they were allowed to drink at home, and legally from the age of 18, my kids never went wild when they went off to college. They were actually disgusted by friends that would get completely blotto. This is not to say that they never got blasted...they did...but didn't drive.
I think drinking responsibly is a function of parental involvement, you have to show them how to do it so their friends don't.
I'm in favor of 18 as the drinking age.
With respect to EtOH, I think there is a greater attitude problem that needs adjustment before we can solve the binge drinking issue.
While I agree that the drinking age should be lowered, I seriously doubt it will do anything to stem the number of alcohol-related deaths. Sure, it'll cut the number of crimes and convictions because people can get their booze legally, but the drinking habits themselves are unlikely to change.
Why? Because when you're in the US and UK, it's fun to get hammered. The drinking age in the UK is lower than it is in the US, but binge drinking is still an issue there.
If American society took on an attitude towards drinking that was more like the French -- drinking to savor -- then we might see some real change in the way young people drink.
MRW, - that's precisely what I'm referring to. It isn't a US-centric post at all. It feels almost familiar, almost like home. But something's not quite right.
The thing I'm alluding to is the feeling or sensory environment that I perceived as I read from the beginning (ie, pretty neutral) up to about as you say, a few paragraphs in, when it began to be apparent that I've woken up in someone elses house after all, and toward the end, this was confirmed. It's becoming a recognisable pattern that I'm identifying as I continue the quest to read all of teh internets - this almost kinaesthetic environment that builds as a piece of prose develops, which turns one way or the other, and affects the expectation of the rest of it as it goes on. Sometimes it's seductive, and seems to 'fit', and sometimes it's an uncomfortable vaguely scratchy gradually irritating feeling that for want of a better comparison, seems like the opposite of advertising.
But anyway, this is going to drift the topic if I pursue this phenomenon here - I'd better cook up a blog post of my own, and post it for nobody to read. Give me a while to get it down.
It's funny; my first reaction to the suggestion that moving legalization from eighteen to twenty-one merely safeguarded eighteen to twenty year-olds at the expense of twenty-one year-olds was "Why don't we just move the drinking age up to never? Then EVERYONE would be covered in that buffer! And then I remembered how well that worked the first time.
Or didn't it? Obviously, comparing traffic deaths from the twenties and now would do us no good, for innumerable reasons, but what are the statistics for alcohol-related deaths in areas that ban alcohol? I understand that most people would happily ignore that law in the same way college students ignore pot and alcohol laws now, but there would have to be some level of protection afforded by this. Would the benefit of this outweigh the cost (in terms of the inevitably racist and classist enforcement of such laws, or the increase in organized crime, or whatnot)?
MADD says that lowering the drinking age will "likely increase traffic fatalities". So apparently they don't have any data to back up their theory.
I remember when the mandated 55 mph speed limit was eliminated and speed limits all across the country were dramatically increased. All the experts said that this would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities. This never happened.
I don't think traffic fatalities will dramatically increase with the lowering of the drinking age. Young people who want to drink already ignore the age limit, and they are already out there driving.
I went to a Christian college where underage drinking is rampant. Hard liquor is very easy to get on campus. Without supporting data, to assume that lowering the drinking age is going to increase traffic fatalities is ludicrous.
I feel that if the goverment can take our children to war at 18 then they have a right to drink.
I totally disagree w/ the option of the 18 yr old legal drinking age. I was 18 when fla first tried this law. Looking back, I wish I was a little older and wiser, it nearly took my life, and did of two others. If you wish to teach your children about alcohol, then do so at hme, in a controlled environment. They will learn nothing at bars or parties, at any age.The peer pressure alone could make them drink - more than they should, and be brave enuf to drive. I say, have a hme party,lettem drink what they want, or dare to. Then givem the drunk test,that any law officer would.(head back, stand on one foot, and touch yer nose!!) Bin there , done that. Lowering the age will do nuthin to change the loss of life I have seen in recent yrs, of teens and wrecks. Those that drink and get hme a few times , think that they can do it always. I know I was one. And I will live w/ that the rest of my life. Lower the drinkin age? Lets give 8 yr olds a live revolver.
I believe it should stay at 21, I see all the time about fatalilties with young drivers dieing from drinking and driving. One person on here mentioned at 18 you can get drafted into the millitary. I like to just say there's no draft any more, and just because your are considered an adult at 18 does'nt mean your responsible. I see all the actors and actresses Drinking and becoming Acoholics. I don't even need to mention thier names. Not only do they become Acolholics but Acolhol can led to Drugs and jail time, and who pays for all that the mother and fathers and Tax payers. So I say let it stay at 21 its been that way for tweenty three years why change it now, so some College Students can buy Acolhol and wind killing someone on our Highways. This is just my two scents.
I belive that MADD is over exaggerating
with everything they say about traffic
fatalities they will probably say anything to get their way. the point is lowering the age limit or not kids know where to get beer or hard liquor getting it will never be a problem so i say just go ahead and lower it it might even help in the way that some teen might even lose interest in drinking because its not available to them.
how about getting rid of alcohol altogeter
as a younger person in my early 20's i can tell you that the fact that alcohol was illegal in no way stopped me from drinking underage! if anything it caused alot more binge drinking. now that i am well past the legal limit it seems less 'inviting'. it think it would be a great thing to lower the drinking age! people may have their 'data' to discourage it but they are also the people that must not remember what it's like to be young!
Really I just have one thing to say about lowering the age to 18 ,�What is this country coming to� next we are all going to want to smoke at 16 .Give them in one hand a license to drive at 17 and a beer in the other hand at 18 yeah this makes a lot of sense.
DUI is a curse imposed by govt on their own people in USA.
13 years for DUI.It is better to hang the person instead of sending them to go on welfare curse.There is no paying job ig you ever get DUI for 13 years.Why they have liqour shop in every corner of the street.Why they banned liqour instead of collecting heavy fine and worst than lashes punishment.It reminds Roman empire or Changez Khan cruel dictators of the world.We are using same laws with sympathatic attitude.Actually these laws are made to collect heavy fine not for the correction.One time DUI...?
The congress must look into the matter and reduce DUI fine to $ 100 + record to one year for first time DUI.
I don't have a problem with trying to protect kids or their potential victims. I do have a big problem with criminalizing behavior that other people are happily engaging in. This is sheer hypocrisy and in my opinion a gross violation of rights of 18-20year olds. The real issue is the danger of drinking and driving. That is certainly something that should be legislated for everyone. But ban it for everyone!! But to make it a criminal offense simply to drink alcohol solely based on a persons age is just not something I can support. We are supposed to be trying to protect our young folks, not give them criminal records for the rest of their lives. We need different solutions and better education, and kudos to the University Presidents for having the courage to stand up to the hypocrites.
In my opinion we should lower the drinking age to 16 for kids if they drink in a restaurant, with their families at a meal. I also think college students should be allowed to drink in controlled environments on campus with limited quantities. Also, they can be given a choice between being allowed to drink and bringing their car to campus.
My opinion is short and Black & White. As a veteran, I believe very strongly that you CANNOT regulate freedoms and rights to an individual at a later age than you can send them to war. This is not a grey area. Up the age for individuals able to join the military; or lower the drinking age to 18!
KAS