Some College Presidents Want to Lower Drinking Age

[280plus]

When I was 18, the drinking age in CT was 18, I survived...

[Antibubba]

Survived, but was the brain damage worth it?








 

[cordex]

I'd argue that the reasoning behind setting ages at a given point for a given privilege is largely circular.  People don't tend to develop a sense of responsibility until they are given some.  The current trend seems to be toward denial of a privilege until a given age, at which point the individual is exposed to something with which they may have had little or no prior experience.  Any prior experience that they had with the privilege was likely illicit and essentially by definition irresponsible.

As long as people of a given age group are expected to be irresponsible, the majority will be.

[Balog]

I'd argue that the reasoning behind setting ages at a given point for a given privilege is largely circular.  People don't tend to develop a sense of responsibility until they are given some.  The current trend seems to be toward denial of a privilege until a given age, at which point the individual is exposed to something with which they may have had little or no prior experience.  Any prior experience that they had with the privilege was likely illicit and essentially by definition irresponsible.

As long as people of a given age group are expected to be irresponsible, the majority will be.

Cordex nails it.

[yesitsloaded]

I liked it better the Native American way of when the kid reaches a certain age, you leave them out in the wild for a month or two. If they make it back alive, full adult privileges. I'm game.

[HankB]

Incidentally, I wonder how many of us actually followed applicable law about drinking age?

Let alone making distilled spirits . . . I remember . . . uh . . . how should I put this . . . I know, I remember we heard rumors about some unknown guys running a still in 7th or 8th grade, and selling the product to one guy's older brother, who sold them out of his locker at a Catholic high school . . . this was over 30 years ago. (Do moonshining or bootlegging have a statute of limitations?  )

[Nick1911]

Incidentally, I wonder how many of us actually followed applicable law about drinking age?

Let alone making distilled spirits . . . I remember . . . uh . . . how should I put this . . . I know, I remember we heard rumors about some unknown guys running a still in 7th or 8th grade, and selling the product to one guy's older brother, who sold them out of his locker at a Catholic high school . . . this was over 30 years ago. (Do moonshining or bootlegging have a statute of limitations?  )

I want to say two years.

But, on the off chance I'm wrong: I might have known some guy who used an old pressure cooker and some copper refrigeration tubing to make a stove-top distillery before he was of legal drinking age...

I think I... err.. he still has the 1/4 NPT tap sitting around somewhere...

[Firethorn]

Cordex nails it.

Exactly.  It wasn't all that long ago we trusted a 14 year old with a rifle to go varmit hunting.

Now?  We can't trust them to walk to school.

[MicroBalrog]

Cordex nails it.

Exactly.  It wasn't all that long ago we trusted a 14 year old with a rifle to go varmit hunting.

Now?  We can't trust them to walk to school.

Is this a good time to point out that at that age, Farragut had his first command?

[wmenorr67]

Cordex nails it.

Exactly.  It wasn't all that long ago we trusted a 14 year old with a rifle to go varmit hunting.

Now?  We can't trust them to walk to school.

It isn't that we can't trust them to walk to school, it is that we can't trust the wackos in society.

[Legionnaire]

Yesterday, I had lunch with the long-time director of a drug and alcohol rehab center in our area.  This topic wasn't the agenda for the meeting, but it did come up.  He made the following observations.

A disproportionate number of the people they serve are young people.  As a PhD, he reports that the human brain continues to develop well into a person's 20s.  Alcohol affects brain function and development (worst case evidence provided by fetal alcohol syndrom).  Alcohol abuse is "not a good thing."  While I understand the logic that there will be less abuse by the 18-21 cohort if it is made legally available to that cohort, I'd like to see some supporting evidence.  The evidence on, say, sex education, might suggest that it certainly didn't cut down on unwanted pregnancies.

Our conversation turned to evidence.  I wonder what happened to the number of incidences of DUIs and alcohol-related traffic accidents and fatalities when the drinking age was raised to 21.  I suspect these numbers dropped.  So what is the real motivation behind college presidents making this argument?  I suspect that to a greater extent than they will admit, the motivation of some of these college presidents is to move the focus of attention off their institutions' reputations as "party schools" and the related liability that opens the universities up to, to spreading the risk to society at large by shifting the focus to the 18-21 cohort.

My own thinking is that comparing the drinking age with the age one can vote or serve in the military is not at all compelling.  The age at which one can hunt, drive, is allowed to drop out of school, get a full time job, vote, serve in the armed forces, and drink, all vary.  But the vectors of responsibility and abuse also vary for these privileges.  Society believes that education is important, and you can't just stop going to school.  Young people need to be of sufficient physical development and sufficient maturity to be permitted to drive a car; since these are difficult and costly to assess on an individual basis, we set the age at 16 (and still give basic tests).  Serving in the military puts one in a regimented social structure where "responsible behavior" is encouraged; look at the many directionless high school grads who "grow up" in the military (yes, I know there are exceptions).  Freedom to drink, though, is easily abused, with high cost social consequences.  Thus a higher age for more maturity to develop prior to awarding this privelege.  So I don't find the argument "I can do this at this age, so I should be able to do that at this age" compelling in the least.  With age and experience come more freedom and responsibility.  When one looks at the regular abuse of alcohol by young people, I can't see the benefit of making it more readily available to a younger segment of the population.

[Boomhauer]

(Do moonshining or bootlegging have a statute of limitations?   )

I hope so. Those two activities comprise a large portion of my family's history.

 

[Firethorn]

A disproportionate number of the people they serve are young people.  As a PhD, he reports that the human brain continues to develop well into a person's 20s.  Alcohol affects brain function and development (worst case evidence provided by fetal alcohol syndrom).  Alcohol abuse is "not a good thing."  While I understand the logic that there will be less abuse by the 18-21 cohort if it is made legally available to that cohort, I'd like to see some supporting evidence.  The evidence on, say, sex education, might suggest that it certainly didn't cut down on unwanted pregnancies.

The thing is, the DUI statistics didn't happen in a vacuum.  Education, police crackdowns, increases in car safety, ride home programs, designated drivers, etc...

As for the human brain still developing - one could argue that happens your entire life.  After all, you're still creating memories, learning, etc...

What some of us do is look over at Europe - with their much, much lower drinking ages, and they also have much lower DUI rates.

There's something cultural going on, and I think it trumps the drinking age that only the types who wouldn't drive drunk anyways obey.

Personally, I think we need to fight the binge culture, not drinking overall.  Part of what legalization would do is help get this stuff out in the open.

[cordex]

Alcohol abuse is "not a good thing."

Agreed.

While I understand the logic that there will be less abuse by the 18-21 cohort if it is made legally available to that cohort, I'd like to see some supporting evidence.

I suspect that most evidence you get for this would either be anecdotal or tend to show different attitudes toward alcohol in different cultures.

I wonder what happened to the number of incidences of DUIs and alcohol-related traffic accidents and fatalities when the drinking age was raised to 21.  I suspect these numbers dropped.

I can't speak to this specific statistic, but I did come across this website: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

Some selected quotes:

Young men ages 18 to 20 (under the legal drinking age) reported driving while impaired more frequently than any other age group (Shults et al. 2002, Quinlan et al. 2005).

At all levels of blood alcohol concentration, the risk of being involved in a crash is greater for young people than for older people (Zador et al. 2000). In 2005, 16% of drivers ages 16 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking alcohol (NHTSA 2006).

On the flip side, the article also points out:

Over the past 20 years, alcohol-related fatal crash rates have decreased by 60 percent for drivers ages 16 to 17 years and 55 percent for drivers ages 18 to 20 years, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The page says it was modified in 2008 and the Uniform Drinking Age Act was passed in 1984.  It has been 24 years since the Feds started forcing states to change the drinking age to 21 and they indicate that the decline took place over the past 20 years.  Take that as you will.

Another CDC page: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/underage_drinking.htm

The 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey5 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days:

    * 45% drank some amount of alcohol.
    * 26% binge drank.
    * 11% drove after drinking alcohol.
    * 29% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

I guess what it comes down to is the fact that the current laws are not accomplishing the goals that proponents claim they are.  Please note that I am not saying that deregulation or dropping the drinking age to any given point would necessarily accomplish those goals.  I am simply pointing out that (at least according to the CDC) people under 21 are drinking at a very high rate, as well as drinking and driving at a high rate despite the stringent laws intending to prevent just that.

My own thinking is that comparing the drinking age with the age one can vote or serve in the military is not at all compelling.  The age at which one can hunt, drive, is allowed to drop out of school, get a full time job, vote, serve in the armed forces, and drink, all vary.

Agreed.  It is an emotional argument.

With age and experience come more freedom and responsibility.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect.  With age and age alone comes more freedom and responsibility.  Experience - regrettably -  has nothing to do with it.  Indeed, in this case experience with alcohol prior to 21 is strongly discouraged by society.  Which is not to say kids won't find ways to become experienced ... but perhaps not in the most positive way.

When one looks at the regular abuse of alcohol by young people, I can't see the benefit of making it more readily available to a younger segment of the population.

Given the CDC statistics above, it would be hard to make it any more readily available to kids.  I can't speak for everyone else, but I could have obtained alcohol at just about any time throughout my childhood as my parents kept some in the home.

My personal view on the subject is that - as with other things such as firearms and driving - parents should introduce their kids to alcohol in a controlled manner at a younger age than what the government considers appropriate.  That might vary from family to family, but I don't see anything wrong with very, very small glasses of beer or wine as a teenager.  That introduction should emphasize the responsibility surrounding alcohol and ideally the parents should set a good example for their children through demonstrating responsible drinking themselves.  That wears away a good bit of the mystique and naughtiness surrounding booze and provides the experience necessary to allow kids to mature.

Of course, laws are not written for the responsible.

I should probably also note that I do not drink alcohol at all, and that it was a personal choice made when I was about 18.  Prior to that I did drink alcohol but never drank before driving and never got into trouble because of it.

[Legionnaire]

cordex, thanks for the thoughtful reply ... and the CDC link.  I'll be doing some reading ...

[Legionnaire]

Only just started some research in this area, and came across a 2006 article by Michael French and Johanna Maclean, published in Health Economics.  This examination of National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) data links underage drinking to delinquency and criminal activity.  Article is titled: "Underage alcohol use, delinquency, and criminal activity," Health Econ. 15: 1261-1281 (2006).  Here's the abstract:

Since 1988, the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has been 21 years for all 50 US states. The increasing prevalence of teenagers driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and the resulting traffic accidents were two main reasons for raising the MLDA to 21 years. Following the passage of this legislation, several published studies have found that the higher MLDA is associated with a significant reduction in both fatal and non-fatal accidents. While the relationship between MLDA and DUI events among young adults has been extensively studied, less information is available on other potential consequences of underage drinking. The present study uses data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a recent nationally representative survey, to investigate the effects of underage drinking on a variety of delinquency and criminal activity consequences. After controlling for the endogeneity of alcohol use where appropriate, we find strong evidence that various measures of alcohol consumption are related both to delinquency and to criminal activity. However, the findings are not uniform across gender as we find striking differences between males and females. These results have interesting policy and public health implications regarding underage drinking.

A couple of interesting lines from the discussion section:

One of the most interesting and unexpected findings was the relatively large and statistically significant marginal effect of very light underage drinking during the past year on each of the six measures of delinquency and criminal activity.  A priori, one would expect heavier drinking behavior to be associated with anti-social activities, but we were surprised to uncover this relationship for a relatively broad measure of underage alcohol consumption ...

In conclusion, the findings of this research suggest that, all else equal, less underage drinking will have a positive (i.e., socially desirable) impact on delinquency and criminal activity ...

The research focused on the 18-20 cohort.  Seems to suggest that there are a lot of related matters to examine in this discussion.  Will keep looking ...

[Firethorn]

In conclusion, the findings of this research suggest that, all else equal, less underage drinking will have a positive (i.e., socially desirable) impact on delinquency and criminal activity ...

The problem I have here is that right now, they're studying the correllation between criminal activity(drinking underage), and criminal/marginal criminal activity.

Why?  There are probably a fairly substantial portion of the population that would drink; probably responsably, if it was legal.  Because it's not legal, only those predisposed to violate the law end up drinking. 

Thus, it becomes like doing a study and determining that illegal gun possession tends to lead to crime.

A better case would be to look over at Europe for some of this stuff.

My personal view on the subject is that - as with other things such as firearms and driving - parents should introduce their kids to alcohol in a controlled manner at a younger age than what the government considers appropriate.  That might vary from family to family, but I don't see anything wrong with very, very small glasses of beer or wine as a teenager.  That introduction should emphasize the responsibility surrounding alcohol and ideally the parents should set a good example for their children through demonstrating responsible drinking themselves.  That wears away a good bit of the mystique and naughtiness surrounding booze and provides the experience necessary to allow kids to mature.

Another home run for Cordex, as far as I'm concerned.  I got bits of alcohol here and there as a kid, it wasn't a big deal  to me as a teen.  Binge drinking, whatever the age, is a bigger deal to me than underage drinking.

[roo_ster]

Lower the drinking age to between 16 and 18 and raise the voting age to 35.

That way, the self-destructive types get the better part of a decade to off themselves before they get a chance to darken a voting booth.

Those that survive will make a better electorate.

[Dntsycnt]

Hmmm...you may be on to something.

[280plus]

Survived, but was the brain damage worth it?








 

That would imply I had a brain to damage at 18. 

[Frank Castle]

The only thing that changed for me at 21 was the place of the party. The party moved from the back woods to the local bar.

[The Annoyed Man]

I spent nearly eight years babysitting dormlings in university housing, a depressingly large portion of that duty enforcing alcohol policy and dealing with drunks.  The largest objection I might have is that the 18-21 crowd is probably even more likely to buy for underage drinkers than the 21+ crowd, thus increasing the ease with which high schoolers get drunk.   That would not be a good thing.

That having been said, the real solution, in my less than humble opinion, lies in changing the US social attitude toward drinking and getting drunk, a process that would take generations even if you could manage the needed reversal of parental abdication in the raising of kids.

(Did I work in enough weasel words?  I have absolutely NO data to back my opinion!)

[Iapetus]

  However, then you look at Great Britain where they are having a serious problem with drunk kids.

I think that's more a result of heavy drinking and causing trouble being a centuries-old British tradition, combined with the more recent malais of nobody wanting to take responsibility for anything or to maintain disciplin.

The Continentals (particularly the French and other mediteraneans) generally have a much more relaxed attitude to alcohol, but much less trouble with drunken youths.


I have heard a few people over here calling for the legal drinking age to be raised to 21 to prevent under-age drinking.  (Because obviously people who are breaking the law now will stop when there become "even more" underage, and none of 18-21s that are currently drinking legally will continue to do so when the law changes.  )


In some ways I think the British problem with alcohol-related crime is analagous to the American problem with gun-related crime, in that to an outsider (or nanny-statist) the "obvious" cause is the "lax" laws regarding possession/use/ownership of alcohol/guns, and the "obvious" solution is tighter restrictions or a ban.  However, in both cases, the cause is really the attitude/behaviour/"culture" of the criminals.  A ban without changing that would only inconvenience the law-abiding, while if a way could be found to change the behaviour, a ban would be unnecessary.


That said, while I've always thought the US alcohol laws seemed unreasonably strict, I don't know enough about that aspect of US culture, and there may well be a good reason for you to be doing things differently.

[roo_ster]

Iapetus:

The drinking laws used to be a patchwork of local ordinances & state law.  Unfortunately, the Federales have muscled in and mandated certain restrictions across the board as just another means to wipe their backside with the COTUS.

Some places were strict as all get-out.  Some places were extremely lax.  I prefer the local approach to the top-down approach, as it lets more folks live in the environment they choose to make for themselves and allows those not of the same opinion as the majority in a locality to move where they might be more comfortable.

[taurusowner]

That having been said, the real solution, in my less than humble opinion, lies in changing the US social attitude toward drinking and getting drunk, a process that would take generations even if you could manage the needed reversal of parental abdication in the raising of kids.

Change the social attitude from what into what?