Lower the drinking age
That's the provocative topic of a brownbag lunch at the Clinton School at noon Monday.
The speaker is Dr. John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College (and a former college mate of mine at Washington and Lee, but the future Harvard Ph.D. was in the library while I was out drinking underage).
He now heads a foundation, Choose Responsbility, pushing the notion of a "drinker's license" for the 18-21 crowd as a possible encouragement to more responsible drinking and a partial solution to the scourge of binge drinking on college campuses. No, this isn't a front for brewers. Read his website's information on the damage alcohol does to the brain.
The higher drinking age clearly isn't promoting responsible use of alcohol.The familiar parallel is Europe, where there seems to be less binge drinking by youth, perhaps because a sip of wine or two at an early age is considered part of normal behavior, not a taste of forbidden fruit.







Comments
Count ol' Unkel Rick in with Dr. John. The 21 age requirement on drinking is a bad joke. 18 (maybe 19?) years olds are mature enough to get their asses blown off in Iraq, but not to drink a beer in an Arkansas pub. The binge drinking argument makes complete sense. Can anybody here honestly say they weren't czhitphaced more before they were 18 than after?
My son went off to UCA when he was 17 - turned 18 near the beginning of his Freshman year. After his on-campus year he and some other football players rented a house on 286. When we'd go down for visits, we'd stop by the Beer Barn in Fayetteville and load up the trunk. In case somebody doesn't know, Conway is in a dry county (another ridiculous law). The beer pantry kept those guys from having to drive to Mayflower for "college necessities", and having that, none of them ever had an accident or got a DUI. All of them are now mature adults with families and good jobs and doing just fine.
People who think 18 year olds aren't going to drink, simply because some law says they aren't allowed to do so, must be the same ones who let their daughters go off to Mexico on Spring Break thinking she's going to come back a virgin.
Treat them like adults and they're more inclined to behave that way.
(If, by chance, I can be prosecuted for any of the admissions above, I hereby state that I'm completely lying about all of it)
Posted by: RickBaber
|
April 29, 2007 11:04 AM
Well, if the man has a PhD, he must know more than me. Still . . . frankly sounds kind of whacko. I'll bet Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears think he's the cat's pajamas, though.
How about this? If you're 18, have a high school diploma and are actively serving in the armed forces or the Peace Corps you can drink; otherwise wait until you're 21. All bets are off if you've ever been arrested for DUI or photographed without your knickers on.
Posted by: Carrick Patterson
|
April 29, 2007 11:04 AM
I've had the idea of a "learners permit" for alcohol. It doesn't make much sense that the day before your 21st birthday you're not allowed a single sip of beer, but the next day you have the approval to chug a fifth of whiskey. Does anyone think that's a wise system?
I would propose requiring adult supervision and allowing only low content drinks like beer and wine.
Posted by: Rutrow
|
April 29, 2007 11:09 AM
Growing up on the liberal east coast in the very blue state of Maryland (state motto: somebody had to vote for McGovern), the drinking age was lowered to 18 for beer and wine in the mid-1970s. Strangely enough, being granted 2 major freedoms / responsibilities while an adolescent -- driving and drinking -- seemed to really tie them together in our psyches. No one I knew ever got pulled for DUI or drinking under age; but it happened to a couple of my older brother's friends while the drinking age was still at 21.
I agree with RickBaber and rutrow: children should learn to drink at home under parental supervision. Treat them like adults and they'll act that way.
(And, if memory serves me, the federal highway administration stopped funding states with an 18/21 drinking age shortly after Reagan became President.)
Posted by: historian
|
April 29, 2007 12:02 PM
How about some kind of learner's permit for SEX? Man, would my life be different if they'd had that when I was young.
Posted by: Carrick Patterson
|
April 29, 2007 12:06 PM
>>> The 21 age requirement on drinking is a bad joke. 18 (maybe 19?) years olds are mature enough to get their asses blown off in Iraq, but not to drink a beer in an Arkansas pub.<<<<<
Ditto.
Or go to prison as an adult.
For that matter they can get married and start a family. I was married at 19, but could not go out for a drink with my then 22 yr old husband. Legally I should not have had those drinks at my wedding reception.
I think that if we hold the 18-20 yr old crowd to adult behavior they should be able to enjoy the perks. Either they are adults or they are not.
Posted by: Any*Mouse
|
April 29, 2007 12:14 PM
Can't we then have the same conversation about marijauna? Let's work our way through the laws that make no sense, starting with the drinking age. The next time someone walks up with a pile of evidence and research that should at least be considered, perhaps we won't dismiss them as senseless hippies (man!).
Posted by: calmwriter
|
April 29, 2007 12:40 PM
It appears laws, like the Bible are mere guidelines, suggestions to be glanced at while you do as you damn well please. No law or strict daddy stopped an 18 year old from having a drink or having sex. My own natural goofiness caused me to be an experienced drinking long before I ever had sex, no law was involved in either.
The bottom line is if you are old enough to come home from Iraq without a face or worse, you are old enough to drink until you puke. Another amazing law is that in Arkansas and Oklahoma and who knows where else, your daughter can prance buck naked in front of a crowd in a strip club at 18, but no drinky for her for 3 more years.
Though I'm a drinker, pot is less harmful to your health, easier to recover from after an all-nighter and except for me, impairs one's abilities less than booze. It should be legal, regulated, taxed and sold in every liquor store. DWI should be joined with DWStoned. No bigger fuss is needed or helpful.
Living in a fantasy world has given us George W. Bush. It's time to wake up and run things according to what people do instead of what we wish they'd do. Oh...and get the girls out of the weather on 9th street and back in a safe whore house where they belong. Look at old Europe....they're smarter and happier than we are and that's the real bottom line.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
April 29, 2007 01:29 PM
I agree with Rick...
If you're old enough to serve your country then you should be able to have a cold beer...
Posted by: rosso
|
April 29, 2007 02:20 PM
We need pubs on every corner, like churches are. We need to take the big gulp size of consumption out of all drinking (especially sodas). We need to drink for the enjoyment of quality like good wine and good beer...instead of massive amounts of cheap stuff for a big buzz.
We need to turn the wars on drugs on its head and treat addictions in terms of health care..
Decriminalize it, tax it. regulate where absolutely needed such as when driving.
I agree with many above if you are old enough to vote for a president, go to war, go to prison, get married, you are old enough to decide to drink or not.
Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
|
April 29, 2007 03:33 PM
Middlebury College, Max.
John McCardell was an outstanding President and has taken on a new initiative that actually seeks to solve a problem.
His lecture on Monday should involve many of the issues addressed above and I hope that everyone will attend.
Posted by: Middpanther
|
April 29, 2007 04:43 PM
In some circles we seem stuck in a '50s mentality when it comes to vices. It's just not realistic to think that kids aren't going to drink.
The age disparity between military service and service at a pub is clearly off-base.
Of course, the fundies will say no one should be drinking, and the notion of parents "supervising" or teaching their kids how to drink is crazytalk. (They would conveniently leave off the word "responsibly" when referring to "teaching kids how to drink _____"). We all know the fundies don't partake, whatsoever.
The argument of extremes would inevitibly come up, though. "Oh sure, lower the drinking age to 18 and before long goats will be drinking, too."
We should also take a more realistic look at drug legislation: drug courts should be established, marijuana should be decriminalized, and treatment programs for addiction should all be expanded (or created).
Posted by: hugh mann
|
April 29, 2007 07:37 PM
Why is it illegal for a store clerk, bartender or waitress in Arkansas to sell alcohol to a minor, but there's no penalty on the minor for trying to purchase the stuff?
Posted by: MysteryShopper
|
April 30, 2007 01:28 PM
Mystery shopper, the law can hammer the minor as well. To wit:
3-3-203. Purchase or possession by minor.
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person under twenty-one (21) years of age to purchase or have in possession any intoxicating liquor, wine, or beer.
(2) For the purposes of this section, intoxicating liquor, wine, or beer in the body of a minor shall not be deemed to be in his or her possession.
(b) It shall also be unlawful for any adult to purchase on behalf of a person under twenty-one (21) years of age any intoxicating liquor, wine, or beer.
(c) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a violation and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500).
(d) In addition to the penalty provided in this section, the trial judge or magistrate may impose the following penalty or penalties or any combination thereof:
(1) Require a person under twenty-one (21) years of age to write themes or essays on intoxicating liquors, wine, or beer; and
(2) Place a person under twenty-one (21) years of age under probationary conditions as determined by the court in its reasonable discretion designed as a reasonable and suitable preventive and educational safeguard to prevent future violations of this section by the person.
History. Acts 1967, No. 44, § 1; 1979, No. 61, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 48-903.1; Acts 1997, No. 1210, § 1; 2005, No. 1535, § 1; 2005, No. 1994, § 28.
Posted by: Quapaw
|
April 30, 2007 02:38 PM
Never mind...I forgot
Posted by: RickBaber
|
April 30, 2007 02:58 PM