Now is the time to reconsider drinking age

March 1, 2009
By Face The State

Face the State Staff Opinion

President Barack Obama drew heavy support during his campaign from young voters for his pledge to reconsider many aspects of drug prohibition. But what about the nation's outdated drinking laws, which deny the legal consumption of alcohol to anyone under 21?

On Feb. 22, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner appeared 60 Minutes to ask serious questions about whether our current system is working. It was a bold move for a law enforcement official representing a college town sometimes known more for its binge drinking than its academic prowess.

Beckner knows what he's talking about. The University of Colorado has been rocked by scandals over the last two decades. In 2004, CU student Gordie Bailey was left to die at a fraternity party that got out of control and just one year ago the campus ranked No. 13 on the Princeton Review's list of party schools.

The original intent behind raising the legal drinking age to 21 was to decrease the frequency of drinking and driving accidents involving 18 to 20 year olds. But instead, a lack of responsible access to alcohol has increased experimental and dangerous drinking among college students. And it's not just parents who are noticing. As the CBS piece points out, a group of more than 100 college presidents signed a declaration last fall stating that the 21 year old drinking age is not working.

The arguments have scarcely changed over the years. Many people question why 18 year olds are eligible to vote, serve in the military, and apply for credit in this country but are not allowed to purchase or consume alcohol. We extend nearly every outstanding right and privilege to teens upon their eighteenth birthday, but tell them they are not yet responsible enough to drink. Indeed, handing over car keys at the age of 16, years before we want teens to be exposed to alcohol, makes little sense.

But if we want to make a persuasive case for lowering the drinking age, it is imperative that we abandon the traditional tactics that have done little to provoke change, and instead focus on an approach that appeals to today's generation. As CBS points out, today's colleges and universities are not the pure and simple educational institutions we wish they would be. For many students, college is their first time away from home, first time without direct supervision and for many, their first exposure to free-flowing alcohol.

John McCardell, a former president of Middlebury College, also appeared in the piece to support lowering the drinking age back to 18.

"This law has been an abysmal failure," said McCardell. "It hasn't reduced or eliminated drinking. It has simply driven it underground, behind closed doors, into the most risky and least manageable of settings."

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, has been extremely effective in lobbying state and federal agencies to create and uphold laws that support their goal of "eliminating all drinking among people under age 21." It isn't just the deaths on the roads that count. A higher drinking age may decrease deaths on the road, but as Gordie Bailey's death proved, the current standard means that too many students die on the floors of dorm rooms or frat parties, abandoned by friends scared of the consequences of taking an intoxicated minor to a hospital emergency room.

States committed to lowering the drinking age face the rath of a federal government that has pledged to withhold highway funds. But now is the time fo nationwide conversation. Kids are silently dying under prohibition. For those unconvinced, a simple visit to Boulder on a Saturday night should do the trick. Perhaps Obama can take a tour the next time he comes to town.

Comments

MLDA-21

Submitted by jsearles on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 7:58am.

Let me get this straight - you write that "Kids are silently dying under prohibition" even though one of the major thrusts of McCardell's advocacy to lower the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) is that they are NOT kids!

Please explain to me the process whereby increasing access to alcohol will reduce harmful drinking and alcohol-related consequences in this age group? While there are many scientific studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of MLDA-21 in terms of reducing alcohol related harms, there are NO studies that show any positive effects of lowering the drinking age. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the mandatory educational program proposed by McCardell will result in the "responsibility" he is seeking. Let's look at his model program - driver's ed. Evaluations of these programs indicate that they are not effective in reducing traffic crashes, injuries, or fatalities. This is a quite remarkable finding and does not offer much hope for a similar program designed to teach "kids" how to drink responsibly.

If the MLDA is lowered to 18 two results will likely follow. First alcohol-related traffic and non-traffic fatalities and injuries among this age group will increase almost immediately. Second, consumption and binge drinking rates will rise dramatically for 18-20 year olds as well as 15-17 year olds because they will have increased access to alcohol through friends and older siblings. A growing body of research now indicates that alcohol can negatively impact adolescent brain development. While this research is in its early stages, the preliminary results suggest regular early drinking may have sugnifcant adverse consequnces on cognitive development as well as increasing the liklihood of future problems with alcohol as adults.

Not surprisingly MLDA-21 is supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the driving force behind the original 1984 bill. However, other noteworthy organizations also support maintaining the 21-year old drinking age including:

1. American Medical Association
2. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine
3. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
5. Surgeon General of the United States
6. World Health Organization (WHO) Alcohol and Public Policy Group
7. WHO Expert Committee on Problems Related to Alcohol
8. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
9. Governors Highway Safety Association
10. National Safety Council
11. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

Given Chief Beckner’s position, it is interesting to note that that his professional organization states: “In response to calls from 100 college and university presidents, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is expressing its strong opposition to lowering the national drinking age to 18.” And incidentally, as a candidate speaking to a veterans group, President Obama explicitly stated that he would not lower the drinking age "I know it drives you nuts. But I'm not going to lower the drinking age." (USA Today, 3/18/08).

Here's a question to advocates of lowering the drinking age: At what point do you realize that this was a mistake that cost lives? McCardell advocates that State’s be given “a minimum” 5-year waiver of the significant federal financial penalty associated with lowering the drinking age (currently, he is working toward eliminating this provision entirely). How much data do we need to collect, accumulate, and analyze to make a decision? Of course, by "collecting data" I mean how many lives need to be lost or seriously injured as a consequence of increased access to alcohol. There are no traffic safety researchers who endorse lowering the drinking age for a very good reason: we have already done this experiment with very tragic results.

Finally, the World Health Organization Alcohol & Public Policy Group succinctly focused the issue when discussing MLDA-21:

“The difference between good and bad policy is not an abstraction, but very often a matter of life and death.”

If you are of the opinion that lowering the drinking age will result in a new mature and responsible 18 year old who will be sipping a vintage wine with meals, you have been in the Ivory Tower way too long.

Drinking age

Submitted by 1uncle on Mon, 03/09/2009 - 12:08pm.

We all know that an alcohol limit would be best certainly at a young age. Otherwise, 25 years would be better than 21.Or even higher.