<p>Most parents seem to expect kids to break the law. By saying the law is unenforceable or unrealistic you send a message that
underage drinking is OK. And colleges do this, too, by leaving freshman unsupervised, not providing enough non-drinking social/recreational activities, and looking the other way when violations occur. IMO the speed limit/traffic flow analogy doesn’t apply. Do kids just “naturally” have an age where they will automatically start drinking alcohol in spite of efforts to stop them? I’d rather give my kids the message that I expect them to obey the law, even if others disregard it. Kids will tend to live up (or down) to what is expected of them. </p>
<p>(Silly me. I know I’m really old-fashioned-- I actually stop at red lights when no one is there).</p>
<p>In many states the legal age was 18 for some time. It was increased due to heavy lobbying by MADD and their agenda. Most other modern countries have a much lower age than 21.</p>
<p>Although it would never happen, I loved mini’s idea of making binge drinking a factor in the USNWR! Would love to see them scramble!</p>
<p>From reading the specific college’s threads, there are a LOT of kids (not just parents) on CC who are looking to avoid a heavy party/frat culture. S’s GC had recommended Dartmouth, but the heavy frat and drinking reputation steered him away. I forget if it was regarding Lehigh, Dartmouth, or maybe Colgate, but someone once posted something on CC that made a lot of sense-- if you’re a mellower type attending a ‘party’ school, you’ll still probably find your niche, but it helps if you’re someone who’s comfortable being out of the mainstream.
Yes, kids are drinking everywhere, but overall social atmosphere should definitely be considered. Most reputations have some basis in reality, and shouldn’t be shrugged off.</p>
<p>Most parents seem to expect kids to break the law
Show your research</p>
<p>Don’t most people stop at red lights?
In my city, people even stop when pedestrians at a no walk signal, when no one is there- doesn’t everyone? ;)</p>
<p>How many times does mini have to say it but there is no evidence that the drinking problem is less in countries with lower drinking ages, and in many it is worse…</p>
<p>Btw, 18-20 year olds were only allowed to drink for about a period of 14 years, depending on the state, from 1970 to 1984. The reason they were given the legal right to drink back then probably had more to do with the enactment of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution which gave them the right to vote. Prior to that the drinking age was 21, same as the voting age. </p>
<p>MADD on the other hand was not even formed until about 1980. Kudos to any group that could accomplish such a change in federal laws in just a 4-year period. What they can be credited for, more than anything else, is the amount of research that has been done on drinking since their formation.</p>
<p>Are you talking about high school or college? Many high schools pride themselves in having “zero tolerance” policies. Somehow that does not always equate to zero alcohol consumption. (unfortunately). :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The drinking age varied by state. NY was 18 for many years. Wisconsin and Colorado were 18 for beer. That was in the 60’s. I believe several other states were exceptions.</p>
<p>I am not a big fan of binge drinking and certainly not a fan of sme of the behaviour it can result in, but I think criminalizing alcohol consumption for young adults makes about as much sense as criminalizing consensual sex for young adults. Punish the behaviour that results from binge drinking is fine. If you want to get drunk that is your business but if you puke in lobby that is another.</p>
<p>If you want people to behave responsibly the first thing you have to do is treat them as if they are responsible for their actions and the only way you can do that is to give them freedom - not freedom from consequences but freedom from prior restraint.</p>
<p>scansmom: You’re wrong. The New York drinking age was 18 long before 1970. (I don’t know beginning when.) I was 13 in 1970. My 16 year-old brother, and everyone else in his class, was getting served in bars with an 18 year-old ID. None of them could remotely have passed for 21.</p>
<p>I remember a scene in “Rally Round The Flag, Boys,” where a bunch of western Connecticut teenagers make a beer run across the New York border. That was early 60s, I think.</p>
<p>California, meanwhile, has been a 21 state forever, as far as I know. It was a 21 state in 1973, and in 1978-1981 and thereafter. That’s why most of the Cali kids I met in college were much heavier marijuana users than the people back in upstate New York.</p>
<p>I actually think the natural flow of traffic is about 10mph above the posted speed limit whatever it may be. 35 - in 25 mph zones, 65 in 55 mph zones, and 75 in 65mph zones. </p>
<p>For what it’s worth Mass. raised the drinking age from 18 to 19 in 1974 or 75, giving my roomate a second year of not being able to drink legally.</p>
<p>I don’t know about that, Mathmom. I began college in Massachusetts in the fall of 1976, and I’m almost positive the drinking age was 18 then (although I was only 17). I don’t recall the age going up while I was there, but I suppose I may not have noticed once I was past the cutoff age.</p>
<p>I was in college (Ohio) during the change years 80-84. I was legally able to drink beer after I turned 18 as a freshman. The drinking age was changed to 19 my sophomore year. Then it was 21 my junior year (I was in Europe then-- you could buy a bottle of beer from a vending machine in the school and sit in class drinking it). Also, I recall being in Texas in the 80’s–I freaked out when I saw a guy driving and drinking a beer at the same time–I was told that it was legal.</p>
<p>I’m all for the higher drinking age–I think it has helped cut down on drunk driving accidents, date rapes, alcohol poisonings, etc. I don’t have stats for this, it just seems that SOME people would be following the law, so fewer 18-20 year olds would be drinking than before, and the later people start drinking alcohol, if at all, the better for their health and safety.</p>
<p>S goes to a small religious college. I suppose I can’t say there is NO alcohol there, but even students of legal age cannot keep alcohol in their rooms; the school has a strict alcohol policy. An alum told me a student in her class was kicked out for possession of alcohol during orientation. No second chance. He was not allowed to start classes.</p>
<p>I would say that consensual sex is less controlable because adult males and females have hormones which compel them to reproductive behavior.
Drinking alcohol is an unnecessary and unhealthy behavior–kind of like smoking cigarettes, IMO. Humans don’t have a universal drive to drink alcohol. I’d like to see drinking alcohol acquire some of the same “yuck, unhealthy” stigma that cigarettes have gotten over the last 10 years or so.</p>
<p>Regarding “stopping at stoplights when no one is there,” that was a little joke. I suppose that most people (sorry, I don’t have the research on this) still stop at stoplights when there is no traffic, no cops around. I want to show that people can and do obey “unenforceable” laws. Just a matter of training.</p>
<p>“Most parents expect their kids to break the law.” I should say, most parents on CC seem to argue against the current drinking age and do expect their underage college kids to drink. I think parental attitude toward the law contributes to its lack of enforcement. Students feel freer to drink if they see that their parents approve of drinking and think the laws are unreasonable–and some parents even provide the alcohol. (I don’t mean that parents expect their kids to break any random law–like shoplifting. But if you think about it, what’s the difference? What if your kid were busted for shoplifting vs. sneaking into a bar with a fake ID?–Parents who shrug and laugh about the fake ID are part of the problem, IMO)</p>
<p>I agree with nceph - I turned 18 about 2 weeks into my first year at Williams (fall 1976). Back then it was a tradition that you got free pitchers at the Log on your 18th birthday. Massachusetts law might have changed later.</p>
<p>atomom - your are opposed to alcohol in general for everyone not just underage binge drinking. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to make educational choices in conformity with those beliefs. However I am not sure we as a society have the right to use the power of the state to force our morality on our fellow citizens.</p>
<p>I am admittedly pretty libertarian. I’m socially conservative. I don’t like abortion, not keen on homsexual marriage etc etc. However I don’t want the cops in MY bedroom or MY doctors office so I don’t support laws that would put them in anybody else’s. I also enjoy a beer now and then just like I enjoy fattening foods and am under no illusion that alcohol might make more amusing and socially attractive any more then my full round belly makes me sexier or healthier. But I am willing to trade off one pleasure for another.</p>
<p>While I don’t condone binge drinking, I occasionally imbibe and feel I gain some benefit from it. </p>
<p>I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind making the legal drinking age 21 while 18 is an adult for every other facet of life.</p>
<p>I think it is unrealistic to expect college kids not to drink. In my mind, the real problem is not the alcohol per se, it is drinking and DRIVING. So I don’t worry TOO much about my kid who lives in a dorm and has no car drinking on campus.</p>
<p>I’m not morally or religiously opposed to alcohol. (I’m not a Mormon, Baptist, Muslim or member of any group that forbids drinking). I drink alcohol on occasion, and would classify myself as a light drinker. All I’m saying is just imagine if people chose to obey the law and not drink until after age 21. We’d have fewer problems on campus. </p>
<p>IMO the government does have a right and duty to regulate the use of food and drug substances for the health of the general population–cigarettes, trans fats, alcohol–none of these are good for us. I think of it as a public health issue–obesity and alcohol abuse are both up there for their high costs to society.</p>
<p>“IMO the government does have a right and duty to regulate the use of food and drug substances for the health of the general population–cigarettes, trans fats, alcohol–none of these are good for us.”
Good idea. Soft drinks are a major health hazard. Per capita consumption in the US is astronomical and a major contributor to obesity and diabetes. Let’s start by getting these products out of the secondary schools, then ban advertising, and finally get the products off the market entirely. Juices have the benefit of promoting regularity, but otherwise most have little nutritional value and are empty calories. We should probably take a serious look at some restrictions. Obesity is a serious problem which we should not overlook. It is time to consider mandatory counselling and intervention for those individuals who cannot control their weight. Next we should take a look at extreme sports. Skydiving and bungie jumping are inherently dangerous and should be banned immediately. There are not many skydivers or bungie jumpers, but there are a lot of skiers. Lots of people suffer injuries and some even die. For some reason, we have given the ski industry virtual immunity from liability law suits. Let’s remove those restrictions and hold the ski resort and equipment manufacturers responsibile for ski injuries. Our court system will shut down the skiing industry in nothing flat. We also really need to do something about the horrific toll due to motor vehicle accidents. Speeding is a major problem. We can easily and cheaply embed sensors in every car. Repeat speeding offenders should lose their licenses and their cars should be confiscated. Now back to the original topic. We know alcohol causes tremendous harm and has no benefit. We also know the solution – prohibition.</p>
<p>Yup, I’m with you atomom. The government has a duty to regulate harmful activities which generate costs and impinge on the general welfare of society.</p>
<p>“I don’t know about that, Mathmom. I began college in Massachusetts in the fall of 1976, and I’m almost positive the drinking age was 18 then (although I was only 17).”</p>
<p>It’s possible it was a Cambridge or Boston thing, but I know it affected my 17 yo roommate. Just as she turned 18 the law changed.</p>
<p>edit: Just looked it up on the web, and according to an article there, MA went from 18 to 20 in 1979. That’s after I graduated! Weird. I don’t think I’m making this up!</p>
<p>edad-now what have we said about typing without smiley icons early in the morning?
seems to me this is about the safety of the public v. individual self destructive stuff. Yes, yes feel the wind in your hair as you ride your motorcycle without a helmet, just sign away any right to sue someone for a head injury and have special no-helmet insurance you pay for yourself.
Don’t wear a seatbelt, but again, sign away your right to sue if you are injured. Since kids can’t sign away the right to sue, the law tries to take away parent’s right to let the kid suffer major head trauma. I trail ride with a lady who has an extra horse she lets me use. I signed away any right to sue, the paper notes the legal decision that said this is an dangerous sport and I know it, etc.<br>
The drinking age changed because of auto deaths. As mini noted younger folks have no clue how much they drink - underestimating-a warped sense of what is funny -setting fires, peeing on trees while yelling school songs, driving to another bar. Along with this post about drinking are posts here about the Seton Hall fire, the Duke students, hazing conviction etc. The trouble is drinking can be harmless, but also can cause danger to self and others.<br>
btw I note everyone here has a child who is a light drinker. muhahaaaaaaaaaa. This is not a glass of wine at dinner and a few beers while playing ultimate. It’s drinking themselves half unconcious on a regular basis.</p>