The Baytown Bulletin Board

Aug. 18) -- College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.
The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.
"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."
Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.
But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.
"It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.
Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.
Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependance. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.
A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.
Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the U.S. could be helpful.
"There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18," she said. "If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus."
McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.
The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.
But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."
"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., who has signed the statement.
But some other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.
"I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," Shalala said in a telephone interview. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."
McCardell claims that his experiences as a president and a parent, as well as a historian studying Prohibition, have persuaded him the drinking age isn't working.
But critics say McCardell has badly misrepresented the research by suggesting that the decision to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 may not have saved lives.
In fact, MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said, nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths. A survey of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others reached the same conclusion.
McCardell cites the work of Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist and expert on how changes in the drinking age affect safety. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate.
The college presidents "see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it," Wagenaar said in a telephone interview. "It's really unfortunate, but the science is very clear."
Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative.
"I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them," said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health.
But, "I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence," he said.
Duke faced accusations of ignoring the heavy drinking that formed the backdrop of 2006 rape allegations against three lacrosse players. The rape allegations proved to be a hoax, but the alcohol-fueled party was never disputed.
Duke senior Wey Ruepten said university officials should accept the reality that students are going to drink and give them the responsibility that comes with alcohol.
"If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," he said.
Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative's Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."
Hurley, of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.
"They're waving the white flag," he said.

What do yall think? Should the drinking age be 18 or 21? I think it's amusing that our country considers 18 year olds adults and we think they are mature enough to vote on who leads our nation, smoke, get tattoos, drive motor vehicles, be tried as an adult in the court of law and put their lives on the line for our freedom but they're not mature enough to drink alcohol. Ironic in every sense of the word.

What about the kids that respect the law and wait until they are 21 to drink? Many of them may start drinking earlier if the age limit is lowered. The age limit is not the problem. Kids being out of control and irresponsible is the problem. That fact alone means they are not mature enough to handle alcohol. If an 18 year old wants to drink badly enough, he/she will find a way. Lowing the age limit just facilitates the behavior.

Telling someone that they are not experienced enough to handle alcohol is not treating them like a child. This is another case of "when people can't meet the standards, just lower your standards." We're going to start changing our laws based on the belief that "kids are gonna do it anway"??? Instead of catering to irresponsible children, they should crack down on those "alcohol-fueled" parties.

I see your point, Lde. But, aside from driving, the things you mentioned like tattoos and smoking are things that one does to one's body that don't normally effect others. Legally putting alcohol in the hands of 18 to 21 year olds can inadvertantly cause a lot of harm in the way of car accidents, fights, etc. These college kids should spend their time from the age of 18 to 21 studying and working on their future. Not boozing it up at parties. Sure, some are going to do it anyway. But lowering the drinking age isn't going to fix that.

If a child is not mature enough to respect the law, why should we lower the drinking age and reward them with a bottle of booze?

at 18 years old, you are no longer a kid.

Again, they're no longer kids. They are legally adults.

And keeping the drinking age the same is just going to give someone a police record to enjoy for the rest of their lives. If they are pulled over for driving drunk, the penalty would be the same as it is for you, or me, or anyone else who is currently legally allowed to drink. But, a college kid arrested for MIP will have the joy of that coming back to haunt them in the future.

I dont know how many times it can be said before people realize it, but, at 18 years old, you are no longer a child in the eyes of the law in ANY sense, with the exception of being allowed to drink. How on earth does that make the least bit of sense?

I'd be very interested to see the statistics on what happened with the drunk driving incidents (tickets, jail time, accidents, ect) by legal adults (then 18, now 21) 2 years prior, and 2 years after the age was changed.

if we are going to maintain the drinking age at 21, we need to raise the military age, age at which a person is legally considered an adult, smoking age, age of being legally allowed to enter into a legal and binding contract, so forth and so on, to 21. There is no reason at all for the difference. an adult is an adult is an adult. If they make poor choices at 18, they're making the same poor choices at 21.

I have seen & lived through both sides of this debate. When I was 18, it was illegal. Then they changed the law to allow 18 year olds the right to drink. Then, due to the increase in accidents, fights and other such reasons, they changed it back to 21.

So, does the higher age requirement reduce the infractions caused by immature actions? Statistics say "yes." Due to statistics, you will also find that insurance companies charge higher rates for male drivers under the age of 25. However, this does not mean that ALL males under 25 drive irresponsibly. It also doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of males (or females) that don't ever seem to develop the proper maturity for many things in life.

HOWEVER! I must agree with Caymon.

By law, an 18 year old is considered an ADULT. They can own property, buy a car (regardless of the horsepower), join the military and even own a gun (unless they are a felon or known gang member), as well as, purchase cigarettes. They can sue and be sued. If they break a law, they can be sentenced to prison. In fact, they can do ANYTHING that any other ADULT can do, EXCEPT purchase and consume alcohol. Again, that doesn't mean that there aren't many people over 21 (or 51) that have never learned responsibility for their actions, either.

So, if they are an adult, they have the option to learn from other's mistakes or learn the hard way. Will it stop the "binge" drinking, as these university directors think it will do? I seriously doubt it. But, it's still an individual choice of an adult.

You guys made some very good points. I hadn't considered that an 18 year old can even buy a gun. I guess drinking is the only right we make people wait until they are 21 to have. Maybe I was a bit hasty with this one...