Drinking age

I agree that lowering the drinking age is an escape for these college presidents. It almost seems like they are saying if we can not succeed, move the goal to where we can say we are. If you allow an 18 year-old to drink, you introduce the problem in to the High Schools, of course this would not be a be the College's problem, but maybe we should make them provide rehab for the kids. Actually my thought is if a state has a drinking age below 21, cut the federal educational funding by 30%, and apply it to drug treatment programs.

Kris H @ 10:31 PM PDT, Aug 28, 2008

Back in the 70s when the legal drinking age hadn't been set at 21 yet, didn't each state have their own particular age set for legal drinking? So if someone in Illinois who was 20 wanted to drink, they would drive to Missouri, where the legal age was 18 to get alcohol. That could be ONE reason why there were more alcohol related deaths among younger people. I don't think anything would really change if each state lowered the drinking age to the same age. It would probably cause some excitement from the 18 yr olds at first, but then after a while it would die down. 21 year olds are just as irresponsible when drunk as are 18 yr olds.

Jen @ 12:04 PM PDT, Aug 28, 2008

Are the statistics cited necessarily indicative of the success of the drinking age of 21, or are they the result of other factors. While the rate of alcohol deaths decreased during the period in which the drinking age was raised to 21, other laws were put into place during that time frame that increased the penalties for DUI (e.g. reducing BAC levels & 0 tolerance policies). Further, MADD & SADD launched major PR campaigns during these time periods. Thus, the correlation between the reduced rate of death and the drinking age may have been caused by other factors; namely increased awareness of and penalties for DUIs.

Blaine Nelson @ 11:39 AM PDT, Aug 28, 2008

Perhaps professor Parker could explain to me why alcohol can be consumed responsibly, but not marijuana. Why is there any tolerance for imbibed booze to drive? The gritty truth; be prepared to bring back prohibition, or start all over. Age of legal consumption is not what put Al Capone out of business. Our approach to intoxicants, as a society, makes the Magineux Line appear more brilliant each day. (the trouble with declaring war on inanimant objects: they NEVER end)

Peter Close @ 9:06 PM PDT, Aug 27, 2008

The problem is the culture of drinking is so ingrained in the teenage American psyche. From toddler to teen, young people are influenced by advertising, movies, peer pressure, and even parents to think that "getting wasted" is cool. There needs to be a paradigm shift on how we view alcohol. We need to address the realities and stop sending mixed messages. We should lower the age to 18 but also educate young people on how to drink responsibly. It's all about incentives. If teens can pass a MADD alcohol education course, they should be able to legally drink at 18. If they screw up and drink before then, then they have to wait to 21.

Roberto Garcia @ 6:59 PM PDT, Aug 27, 2008

The drinking age should be eliminated. We have a binge drinking problem in this country because it is currently illegal in the United States for children and young adults to learn how to drink moderately from their families and instead they learn to drink from their friends who are binge drinkers. Eliminating the drinking age would eventually cause a social change in our drinking habits because people would learn to drink moderately from adults in public places where being drunk is looked down upon. Our current laws do not stop people from drinking; they just drive this activity underground where dangerous habits are formed.

Jason Young @ 5:35 PM PDT, Aug 27, 2008

It sounds to me like Mr. Parker has the data on his side -- but I'm not an expert, and am mindful of the counter-arguments offered by others who have posted in this comments section. I think the main concern is getting behind the wheel when intoxicated. Americans have become more aware of the profound difference between drunkenness while propelled by two legs and drunkenness while propelled by a two ton lethal weapon that can hit 90 mph -- but, I think, not nearly aware enough. I regard pixilated pedestrians as a minor nuisance, and drunk drivers as appropriate subjects for stiff prison terms.

Tim @ 12:37 PM PDT, Aug 27, 2008

Perhaps we're studying the societies of China and Nazi Germany, since you appear to be suggesting that we should deny privileges and rights to a subset of our adult population. (I'm defining adults as the group of people who can vote, enlist in the military, be held responsible in the court of law, consent to sexual relationships, control their own healthcare, pay taxes... I think you get my point) A major problem plaguing the American society is the government's over controlling attitude on people's responsibilities. The American people need to be allowed to be responsible to ensure the survival of this Democratic Republic.

David Kartsonis @ 11:58 AM PDT, Aug 27, 2008

Sociology, Mr. Parker? Exactly which society are we studying? You sure didn't take the rest of the world into consideration. Yes, around the time we implemented the minimum legal driving age of 21, the rates of alcohol-related traffic deaths did decline by about 26%. However, much of that decline is generally attributed to the idea of having a "Designated Driver," airbags, and seatbelts. Around the same time period, the UK saw a 50% decline, Germany saw a 37%, and Canada’s fell 28% (16, 16, and 19-years-old respectively for public drinking).

David Kartsonis @ 11:57 AM PDT, Aug 27, 2008

We should apply the same rationale to gun possession and ownership; guns kill thousands of young people every year and of course we should keep guns out of the hands of anyone under age 21.

Charles Whitney @ 11:57 AM PDT, Aug 27, 2008

Next