<p>Soozie, most states allow champagne toasts, or a glass of wine for those underage. You would not be allowed to get soused, legally, that is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe for one second that is what is happening. That may be the story little Biffy and Buffy are feeding their parents when they get arrested, but I really don’t think college town police are looking to arrest every underage student minding his or her own business walking down the street.</p>
<p>My daughter’s college had alcohol at free all-campus parties every weekend. The town police stationed a cruiser outside the party venue. The police knew that the vast majority of students leaving that party were underage drinkers. As long as they behaved like responsible adults, i.e. leave the party and walk (not stagger) home, no problem. </p>
<p>Stagger out of the party and start a verbal altercation with your girlfriend in front of police cruiser? You get arrested. Just like in the real world.</p>
<p>Think about it. There isn’t enough jail space for college town police to arrest every underage drinker. They focus on those wearing virtual neon signs flashing: ARREST ME! ARREST ME!</p>
<p>"They focus on those wearing virtual neon signs flashing: ARREST ME! ARREST ME!
No…you’re wrong here. I imagine it does depend on the campus but I can say for a fact that a number of kids I know have been arrested in situations where they were “targeted” for no reason, other than perhaps walking on the street at 2am. I also know two girls who were given citations for just being at a party where alcohol was served, they were NOT drinking. There are certain schools that are cracking down because they have serious drinking problems …and the kids who are responsible drinkers or even non-drinkers are getting caught in the fray. It IS happening. I know it. Good for you that it’s not a your d’s school.</p>
<p>[Battle</a> of the binge | csmonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0821/p08s01-comv.html]Battle”>Battle of the binge - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>From the article just posted.
“They can enforce zero-tolerance rules against drinking – even if strict enforcement offends many parents and moneyed alumni”.</p>
<p>Yeah, lets get those kids walking home after one or two beers. Throw out the bums. Forget about education on responsible drinking…just don’t do it!
Pathetic…</p>
<p>Also from the simplistic Christian Science Monitor article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, the logic! Is this a real publication??? (jk–i know it is).</p>
<p>I like a middle ground on this. How about a “rationing” law? Perhaps 18-20 year olds would be able to consume alcohol in designated, supervised areas, but not purchase it “to go”. Strictly enforce the “drinking zone” laws. I like this idea and I think would greatly prevent 18 to 20 year olds from buying alcohol for high schoolers. High schools could still say NO drinking (zero tolerance) before or during any school sponsored events. Combine it with a provisional license and required drinkers education for 18-20 year olds and limit them to beer and wine. Those who don’t opt for the provisional license would be free to drink at 21. Colleges could require all incoming freshman to have a provisional drinking license. If your license is suspended or revoked it could prevent your college admissions. Drinking infractions prior to the legal provisional age could also delay your ability to become licensed. That would certainly keep high schoolers in line.</p>
<p>Did any of you see John McCardell on Good Morning America this morning? One of his main points was that many of the innovative ways of addressing this problem, including some of collegemom16’s suggestions, can only happen if Congress gets rid of the 10% penalty on highway funding. States should be allowed to decide for themselves how to deal with this issue. If the majority of Americans don’t support lowering the drinking age (as the Nationwide Insurance/MADD poll suggests), then the states have nothing to worry about. BTW, doesn’t Nationwide Insurance’s poll on lowering the drinking age have about as much impartiality and clout as a poll conducted by Budweiser? Both organizations have much to gain or lose depending on the outcome.</p>
<p>The reason that they’re trying to lower the drinking age is because of the increased magnitude of the problem as it is illegal. It’s based off the idea that if you can’t have something, you tend to want it more, which can very often be true. Thus, the binging. They’re not saying anything about drunk driving;however, they believe that if the drinking age is lowered to the age where adults are responsible for electing the leader of the country or enlisting to serve in the armed forces OR drive an automobile, there will be less irresponsible drinking. They aren’t worried about the current illegality as much as the current IRRESPONSIBILITY of the situation. THAT is why they want to lower the drinking age.</p>
<p>There is one issue that has not brought up.(well now it has… arcadia posted this while I was writing).</p>
<p>The fact that federal transportation aid is linked to the drinking age is what brought all states into line to change the drinking age. This was and still is clearly an abuse of federal power. It was supported by Elizabeth Dole when she was transportation secretary, and in my opinion is clearly not only an abuse of federal power, but possibly unconstitutional as well. (although I am not aware of any legal challenge that has ever been brought).</p>
<p>Besides the debate about whether the law is good or not, and I am of the strong opinion that it is not, it should be up to the individual states to decide what the drinking age is, and to promote whatever policy they feel is effective to control alcohol abuse and drunk driving. </p>
<p>Prohibition is not an effective means of controlling alcohol consumption and abuse. This law is just a form of prohibition. NO matter what the drinking age is, a certain percentage of drinkers will abuse alcohol, and some of them will do that in a way that is harmful to themselves and possibly others.<br>
However the majority of people that drink alcohol do not abuse it, and are responsible. That includes many teenagers who are over 18. </p>
<p>And some have presented stats here suggesting that there is no question about the validity of the statistics that support the higher drinking age because of traffic mortality. Anyone that’s dealt with this kind of data in a serious fashion knows that statisticians can use their tools to make just about anything support a particular viewpoint. I’ve looked at some of the data, and it’s mostly stuff that’s been presented by MADD, and they don’t have anything close to an objective viewpoint on anything related to this issue. </p>
<p>From what I’ve seen with my experience in college in the 70’s in upstate NY (drinking age 18), and my daughter’s experience and her description of what is going on, I think it’s pretty clear that binge drinking has increased tremendously because of these laws. Again, those who are presenting stats that suggest binge drinking is down may not be looking in the right places.
Ask any college student about freshman drinking and you will hear the same thing. Check the statistics for alcohol poisoning in the ER’s and deaths from alcohol binging amongst teenagers in college towns… I guarantee it’s markedly increased. That, of course doesn’t concern MADD.</p>
<p>In the 70’s we didn’t keep alcohol in our dorm room, or drink it there, because it was available at the student center or at pretty much any party you went to. We didn’t have to “pregame” in our room and try to chug alcohol before going out, as many, many students do now. </p>
<p>Instead of being able to supervise activities with alcohol and promote responsible drinking on campus, the Universities have been forced to act as prohibition officers with this ridiculous zero tolerance policy. These policies are totally unrealistic, and in some cases results in police abuse and students being arrested for taking a sip of beer, or even being present at a party where alcohol is being served. In addition drinking is pushed off campus and behind closed doors, where there is no supervision, and it ends up causing problems in off campus areas and surrounding neighborhoods. If you don’t think this is happening, just read some of the history that preceded all the problems at Duke. Police officers carried out mass raids off campus on parties where students were basically locked in the house, while the police questioned everyone and forced them to admit they were drinking. They arrested about 100 people in the fall of 2005. Every case was thrown out by the judges as it was clear the student’s rights were violated. This is the result of the zero tolerance policy. I asked my daughter if there is any less drinking amongst underage students because of this policy and she looked at me like I was crazy. She’s over 21 now, so it doesn’t affect her. But the policy is a joke… it has no effect.</p>
<p>I hope these Presidents are successful in bringing attention to this issue, and bringing about change.</p>
<p>I agree that the higher drinking legal age does not keep those who are 18-21 from drinking at all. It seems to me that since they will drink either way, that it makes sense to have drinking be in more controlled situations than the way it is now behind closed doors. It is unrealistiic to think that college aged students are not going to drink if the law is 21.</p>
<p>Completely unrealistic.
Take a survey of what percentage of college freshmen have fake id’s.
The kids know they don’t work everywhere, but they do know they need them if they want to have a social life in college (I’ve been told this).
That will tell you how effective zero tolerance is.
Anyone who wants to drink still does. They just do it illegally.
In addition, there is more drinking of hard alcohol. Beer doesn’t work very well for “pregaming”, so they get a bottle of gin, vodka, tequilla, or whiskey, and drink it in their dorm before going out. The policy clearly fosters irresponsible habits, and alcohol abuse. </p>
<p>And I don’t know what campus is described in a previous post where there are alcohol events where underage students are allowed to drink without being carded, and are not bothered unless they are arrogant or aggressive? On the campuses I am familiar with, there are no longer any University sponsored events with alcohol. Frat parties that are on campus and have alcohol are required to have monitors that card every individual and give them bracelets which are required to drink. I haven’t sampled policy on that many Universities but I am familiar with two, and neither allow the kind of event described. </p>
<p>When I was a student there was a keg of beer at just about every social event either on or off campus. Some parties had hard alcohol. It was never a big deal. You knew it would be available… nobody obsessed about it as they have to do now. Sometimes you drank and sometimes you didn’t. We didn’t drive, because we knew that was stupid. My daughter and her friends would never drive if they drink either, not even after a sip. They are much more cautious about it in my opinion than the previous generation. I see it pretty universally. They get a ride, they call a taxi, but they are RESPONSIBLE. This is something that college students are capable of.
A policy that fosters responsible drinking for 18-21 year olds could work.</p>
<p>I didn’t even read most of the responses to this thread, so excuse me if this has already been said. I am not a parent, but a rising college senior. My brother who is a freshman brought up a good point. Why are 18 year olds allowed to go in the military and be blown to bits for their country and yet they can’t even legally buy a beer? I mean, think about this. </p>
<p>There is no pressure to drink at the college I go to. I have two other siblings who are in college. I think it comes down to posturing and not having a solid sense of who you are and what your goals are. Drinking too much at any age is only a symptom of something else. Kids are getting popped at 18 for being intoxicated in public. Our parents didn’t face the serious punishments which are in force now. </p>
<p>Lower the drinking age to 18, or make military recruits be at least 21. Obama for President.</p>
<p>oldfort, I’m with you - I started teaching my daughter how to consume alcohol responsibly when she hit 15. Figured it was time to do it before she had the mobility of a driver’s license. Even earlier, made sure to model responsible drinking behavior and allowed an occasional sip of my wine at family parties at my house. Once she hit 15, family vacations in locations where drinking attitudes are relaxed were great places for controlled, parentally monitored progressive learning. By the time she hit 17, she could be trusted to go clubbing in Cancun on family vacations (with her friends who traveled with us) without any concern that she would be irresponsible and unsafe in her drinking behavior. By 18 she was trusted and had internalized the self knowledge and responsibility to safely vacation in Cancun with friends on her own. At 19, she is in college, living in her own apartment with a room mate, and the only risk that responsible, moderated alcohol consumption creates for her is that technically she is violating “the law”. But for “the law”, there would be no issue what-so-ever.</p>
<p>In contrast, when my daughter was in high school I remember well the reactions of “PTO Parents” (I was an officer of various Parent Councils and PTO’s in my school district for 12 years) who were aghast at the approach my wife and I took. For them, the “law’s the law” and “Just Say No” were their mantras. We were very bad, bad parents in their view. In the mean time, their kids were constantly getting soused at parties, their girls having promiscuous sex as a result, while my daughter never drank at parties (no, I am not being naive and deluding myself) and often left parties where alcohol turned up and behavior became out of control.The drinking at high school parties just had no appeal to her and was viewed by her as stupid. At college, she often observes students at her school and other neighboring schools who think that getting trashed is the coolest thing ever and the worst offenders are those who were never given the opportunity to develop responsible drinking behavior under their parents’ guidance. Once not under their parents’ watchful eyes, it’s time to run amok just to show how independent they are.</p>
<p>I have a lot of difficulty with the notion that my daughter and others like her are subject to criminal sanctions as the result of laws that are politically expedient forays into legislating personal behavior which can be better addressed through sound educational, behavioral, sociological and objective scientific approaches.</p>
<p>RDS:</p>
<p>Why would it be unconstitutional? Congress has the right to condition Federal financial assistance and routinely does so, e.g., when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it forbade discrimination in access to federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, and national origin. It has since added sex (in educational programs), age, and disability as well as other bases for specific programs. Some federally funded programs are limited only to Native Americans, or people below a certain income level, on the basis of age, or to those who have served in the military. Currently, convicted drug users can’t get Federal student aid, and I think, if you are eligible you have to registered with your draft board to get student financial assistance.</p>
<p>Now you may not agree with the two latter issues, but unconstitutional? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>[Marc</a> Fisher - On Campus, Legal Drinking Age Is Flunking the Reality Test - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003238.html]Marc”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003238.html)</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good for the people of Maryland. I think it’s great that they hold the President of U Maryland accountable for the out of control drinking on his campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As if the Washington Post columnist isn’t hiding behind zero statistical support for the fairy-tale notion that making alcohol more availble will reduce teen drinking.</p>
<p>MichaelNKat - your daughter sounds very similar to my older daughter. I would trust my daughter completely at any social situation. In high school, she also left parties when she thought it was inappropriate (too many kids, no parental supervision, or too much drinking). </p>
<p>We just came back from Cancun Club Med. She was of legal age to drink. My family was kidding with her about it is her chance to get trashed legally. She probably drank a lot less than most of adults in my family. It is really not that big of a deal to her. Not a forbidden fruit.</p>
<p>Preventing college drinking is like trying to prevent sex in college. Ain’t gonna happen. If you think drinking is out of control well…you don’t wanna know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not a lawyer or an expert on the constitution. However it is my understanding that this type of federal law (changing the drinking age in all states to 21) normally would require a constitutional amendment (as did the prohibition laws in the 30’s). They require 3/4 of the states to ratify, and it was clear that this would never have passed at the time. Therefore the feds did an end run by linking Federal transportation aid to the drinking age.</p>
<p>The constitutional argument is that it represents an inappropriate use of federal power… they are using a financial incentive to coerce states into changing the law… changes that should require a constitutional amendment.
Anti discrimination laws are different… they don’t require the state to change laws, and they apply to the individuals seeking the assistance. As far as I know the 18-21 year olds who want to drink legally are not applying to receive the federal highway money.
It’s an end run by the federal government around state’s rights.
It should be up to the individual states to decide the drinking age without penalty from the Federal government as it was for a century before Elizabeth Dole intervened with this bogus law. </p>
<p>To give another example which might make it clear, what if the Federal government under a pro-life President decided to withold any federal Medicare payments for health care to states where abortion is legal.
How would you feel about that? (By the way I am pro choice).
Wouldn’t that be pretty outrageous and a total abuse of Federal power?
I think it’s pretty clear that the Pro choicers would go ballistic if something like that ever happened. This is just a more extreme example of what the government did when it linked the highway funding to the drinking age.</p>