The former president of Middlebury (now at Sewanee) initiated lowering the drinking age a few years ago and was lambasted by MADD which has a strong lobby group in DC. What’s interesting is how many of the chapter mother’s of madd all resign once their own kid turns about 16 or 17. I’ve met many madd mom’s and seems their oldest is always about 12 or 13 and they’re on a mission to eradicate D&A. I’ve spoken to judges and lawyers who admit it is real money maker in the college towns. Again unfortunate because when your 18 and get busted for drinking in addition to the monetary hit, you get a record because you’re an adult. Bottom line, lawyer up when your kid gets in trouble off campus.
• Lower the drinking age:
Argument: “If I’m old enough to go to war, I should be old enough to drink”
Actually the argument is much stronger than the NIAAA acknowledges. The fact is that citizens are legally adults at the age of 18. They can marry, vote, adopt children, own and drive automobiles, have abortions, enter into legally binding contracts, operate businesses, purchase or even perform in pornography, give legal consent for sexual intercourse, fly airplanes, hold public office, serve on juries that convict others of murder, hunt wildlife with deadly weapons, be imprisoned, be executed, be an employer, sue and be sued in court, and otherwise conduct themselves as the adults they are. And, of course, they can serve in the United States armed services and give their lives defending their country. One of the very few things they can’t legally do is consume an alcohol beverage. They can’t even have a celebratory sip of champagne at their own weddings.
• Argument: Lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19-to 20-year-olds aren’t related to the age 21 policy, but rather they’re related to increased drinking-driver educational efforts, tougher enforcement, and tougher drunk-driving penalties.”
• Counter-Argument: The agency wants us to argue that “Careful research has shown the decline was not due to DUI enforcement and tougher penalties, but is a direct result of the legal drinking age” and that “Achieving long-term reductions in youth drinking problems requires an environmental change so that alcohol is less accessible to teens.”
However, there are a number of weaknesses in what the bureaucrats want us to say. It’s true that lower rates of alcohol-related traffic accidents now occur among drivers under the age of 21. But they’ve also been declining among those age 21 and older, with one notable exception.
Raising the minimum legal drinking age has resulted in an apparent displacement of large numbers of alcohol-related traffic fatalities from those under the age of 21 to those age 21 to 24. In short, raising the drinking age simply changed the ages of those killed.
• The argument that we need to make alcohol less accessible to adults under the age of 21 fails to recognize the fact, well established by governmental surveys, that it’s easier for young people to obtain marijuana than alcohol.
It’s also foolish to think that effective prohibition can be imposed on young adults. The U.S. already tried that with the entire population during National Prohibition (1920-1933). The result was less frequent drinking but more heavy, episodic drinking. The effort to impose prohibition on young adults has driven drinking underground and promoted so-called binge drinking. This is a natural and totally predictable consequence of prohibition