<p>Southern European (Italian, Greek) is REALLY different, and it seems to be much a matter of genetics. Plenty of Ph.Ds being earned on that one these days.</p>
<p>I know Marlatt personally. Marlatt’s shtick (in all areas, not just alcohol - he works on opiate policy as well) is harm reduction. The data don’t support him on “environmental policies” (including drinking age, but there are others); they do support the efficacy of his work in moderating the drinking habits of non-alcoholic drinkers. (His work with alcoholics has not been successful).</p>
<p>He is correct that the number of abstainers in college has risen slowly but steadily over the past 20 years. Many more religious students going to college, as well as many more African-Americans and Asian-Americans, who are far more likely to be abstainers (and, if they drink, far less likely to be binge or heavy drinkers.) And some portion of it is due to the increased drinking age - some students simply never started. As I noted in a previous post, the fact that college binge drinking has not declined (more than it has in the past six years), suggests that bingeing among white, male, and wealthier students has seen a significant increase. But that’s far from what is happening in the general population of college students.</p>
<p>again TS, that’s all news from 1960, 1970, 1980 and so on at UW. But the clubs cannot make a go of music on door charges alone. They need to sell some drinks too. Having some extra kids drinking Cokes won’t pay the bills and now you see few live venues around campus. Back in the day we had about 20 clubs with live music on weekends–and good bands too. Headliners, Church Key, Stone Hearth, Merlyn’s, Ocayz, Nitty Gritty, Club D Wash, Crystal Corner, Regent, the place next to Frabonis on Park and several others I can’t recall. Only the CC is still around. All within walking distance too.</p>
<p>One poster understands the problem…kids have been sneaking alcohol since…well, in most highs schools, since before they can drive. And they learn sneakier ways to pile it on before the school dance or game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prohibition did not stop drinking, it created other crime problem, then it was repealed. I believe this is what the Presidents want to discuss, is there a way to stop the deadly problem of binge drinking and the weighty responsibility of punishing (or helping) otherwise good students and decent kids for underage drinking. </p>
<p>Not every underage drinker drinks and drives. Not every underage drinker is legally intoxicated. But every underage drinker is breaking a law that can lead to severe personal and academic consequences.</p>
<p>Yipes, when it comes to driving and accidents, I’m worried more about cell phones and text messaging with the teen drivers.</p>
<p>The College presidents deserve an opportuntiy to explore the good and bad consequences of repealing teen prohibition.</p>
<p>I found it interested that at my daughter’s school drinking was mostly very expensive cocktails. Yes, underage drinking occurred, but it was not the binge drinking associated with a beer keg. Few kids could afford it.</p>
<p>Its not like I’m going to stop this behavior even if its legal to drink. I don’t see myself stopping or …getting less with this change in place. lol</p>
<p>Though I can see if 19 yr olds are doing this with a 21 yr old limit, think wha could happen to 14 or 15 yr old HS kids with an 18 yr.old limit.</p>
<p>Thanks Mini. The reason I ask is that I’m wondering if it can be asserted taht the higher binge drinking rates of Northern Europe can be attributed to lower drinking age, rather than, as you mention, genetics (I also imagine there’s a culturally different approach in the two areas.) After all, they have a low drinking age in Southern Europe, too.</p>
<p>I’m still wondering, also, how the drunk driving rates in Europe/USA compare.</p>
<p>just seems like a way to get rid of liability. If the drinking age was lowered and something happened to a 19 year old who was drunk. The college could just say “it was legal”</p>
<p>I read this morning that the UT President indicated that there is research both for and against lowering the drinking age to 18. Since, none of the supportive research has been posted on this site, I did a search and came up with the following. I believe it is suggestive, not conclusive, but still raises some interesting questions on the topic. You can google it if you want to read the full report/ Here’s a brief excerpt:<br>
Behavioral Policies and Teen Traffic Safety -
William Evans 2007
Alcohol use and driving (while either drunk or sober) are both activities where experiential learning is likely to be important. The potential impact of learning-by-doing raises some important and often overlooked questions about the overall efficacy of the nationwide movement to a higher MLDA (minimum legal drinking age). A seemingly implicit assumption in most studies of teen traffic safety is that the increased MLDA unambiguously saved lives by delaying alcohol availability until young adulthood when alcohol would be consumed responsibly. However, this perspective may overstate the gains to higher MLDA if young drivers learn about the responsible use of alcohol largely through their own experiences and those of their peers. More specifically, the existence of learning-by-doing raises the disturbing possibility that policies, which keep teens away from alcohol, may to some degree simply shift the attendant mortality risks to young adulthood (Michael A. Males, 1986; Peter Aschand David T. Levy, 1987, 1990).</p>
<p>That’s the thing…a higher age drinking law doesn’t keep underage college kids from drinking. They will drink either way. So, the policies need to weigh which law might result in more responsible drinking.</p>
<p>sooz - agree - but I think there is still a question regarding HOW kids drink under both scenarios. As a parent, I struggled with the idea of teaching my s responsible drinking because I respect the law and I know that he can get in trouble for having just a couple of beers. My initial guidance was “just don’t do it…it’s not worth the risk.” But you know what…that doesn’t work with the vast majority of college kids out there. So it seems we (parents and colleges) are missing an opportunity to educate here. And I DO believe the current law gets in the way of that. Why are we punishing kids who are modeling responsible behaviors?(like drinking one beer and walking home).<br>
I know all about the research in Europe…but I’m not sure it can be applied here. The cultures are very different.</p>
<p>The best thing my parents did for us was letting us drink with THEM first. Would you rather your kids first night out drinking be at some high school or college party with irresponsible kids or at home with you?</p>
<p>“Statistics” and “studies” can always be found to support maintaining the MLDA at 21 or to attack lowering it to 18. On many levels this is an emotional issue, touches on puritanical roots in our society and reflects a distrust of someone labeled as a “teenager”. It is incongruous to think that 18, 19 and 20 year olds can be trusted to have the judgement to drive commercial vehicles with the tremendous potential risks which that entails, work other jobs in which errors in judgement can result in serious and often fatal injuries on large scales and to make judgement calls of whether to pull a trigger in a war zone which can mean the difference between killing an innocent civilian or an enemy combatant but, for some reason, can not be trusted to have the judgement to decide whether to drink, how much, and whether they are impaired and should not drive. There is nothing about turning 21 that suddenly transforms a 20 year old from a person with limited judgement to one with good judgement. The illogic is astounding.</p>
<p>The key is education, training and guidance. There are loads of 18, 19 and 20 year olds who are responsible drinkers because their parents have invested the time and energy to make sure their kids grow up with sound mature judgement when it comes to alcohol consumption. Unfortunately, there are many more (as well as post 21 year olds) who are not because no one in their lives has been willing to invest the time and resources to provide guidance and experience and instead just rely on “you are under 21 and it’s the law”. Setting the minimum drinking age at 21 is about as effective at addressing issues of irresponsible drinking with our youth as “Just Say No” was in addressing drug usuage and “Abstinence” is at preventing teen age sex.</p>
<p>Isn’t time to put an end to semi hysterical rantings and a “head in the sand” approach to this issue. One needs only to spend a lot of time with college kids, on or off campus, to quickly realize that the issues of alcohol abuse and binge drinking are pervasive and are not being solved 1 iota by artificially setting the MLDA at 21. I applaud the call by the various college administartors for a dispassionate objective dialogue on how to better address the very real problem of alcohol abuse by college students.</p>
<p>All the arguments on this subject seem to be purely cultural, while not unimportant, depending on your personal perspective, you may come up with one answer or another. What about the fairly recent research on brain development of teenagers, which shows important leaps in brain synapse construction during the teen years, equivalent to that of infants, but in the areas of judgement and perception?</p>
<p>I don’t want to say we have invested time in teaching our kids how to drink because it just sounds awful. But they have been exposed to it since they were 16. We’ve talked about proper decorum when it comes to drinking - never get sloppy. Over the summer, our daughter has told me a few times that she was going to friend’s house, there would be alcohol and she’s going to sleep over. Later when I asked if she had much to drink, she’s told me, “not really, a few beers, but that’s not why we get together.”</p>
<p>It is the same thing with sex. We have talked about having safe sex. I have told her it is something she needs to decide for herself, when she is ready and never be pressured. To date, she has been comfortable in saying no. I do not applaud her for her decision, but I do respect her for making the decision that’s not the norm.</p>
<p>There is a healthy way of approaching both alcohol and sex. By setting an abitrary legal age for those type things, without proper education, does not necessary make the problem go away. It is much easier to tell your kids “don’t do it because it is illegal,” than to teach them to act responsibly. I think parents could play a bigger role with helping our kids drink responsibly, rather than make it our school or government’s problem.</p>
<p>If a young man and a yound woman decide to get married and have their own family at the age of 18. Do they have the right to drink? Also, should the minimum age to have legal sex be 18?</p>
<p>I got married at age 20. Back then, the legal drinking age was 18. But had it been today, I could not have had the champagne toast at my own wedding. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>There are some kids who will be a bit more careful about drinking if it is illegal for them. Especially those who are already in trouble from it. So the law does have some effect that way. Also, the 21 age limit has cut down the number of drinking events that would be planned when the situation was such that the majority of the kids at college were legal.</p>