Underage Drinking

[I.J. Reilly]

John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College, has now spent a good portion of the last several years campaigning to have to legal drinking age reduced from 21 to 18 and to issue "learner's permits" in the intermittant years between 18 and 21. In his most recent attempt at evangelizing his issue he wrote a small piece for The Atlantic that can be found here. He also was at the organizational heart of the group of over 120 college presidents across the nation who signed op-ed pieces about a year ago that caused a lot of controversy when they collectively called for the reduction in the legal drinking age.

McCardell's argument is that if we teach drinking to our young people they will be more responsible with it. He believes that this responsibility would be able to stem the rising tide of heavy drinking among 18-20 year-olds, that binge drinking, which causes harm and even thousands of deaths in the US yearly, would be reduced and that a graduated policy would just make more sense.

What do you think? Is that thinking at all colored by the prohibition of alcohol by the Church?

[JohnnyLingo]

If we teach drinking to our young people...

What does this mean, exactly?

And I'm not convinced lowering the drinking age will result in college kids not trying to give themselves alcohol poisoning every weekend. College is for rebellion and fun, and partying hard is the way to do that, legal or not, IMO.

[All-American]

Interesting that college presidents are leading this charge. I'm not so sure there isn't a little something coloring their thinking, either.

I'm always a little suspicious of the "it happens anyway, so why not legalize and regulate" argument, but mostly, I doubt that giving a legal avenue to get drinks is really going to slow the flow. I don't really see such a proposal having much of an effect. It may, however, make it more difficult to crackdown on heavy underage drinking if law enforcement have to prove that the drinking is excessive or that the drinks were not legally obtained.

But yeah, my thinking is probably colored, too.

[I.J. Reilly]

What does this mean, exactly?

They might license 18-year-olds—adults in the eyes of the law—to drink, provided they’ve completed high school, attended an alcohol-education course (that consists of more than temperance lectures and scare tactics), and kept a clean record.

Is what he put in the article.

[il Padrino Ute]

All this is is an attempt by University Presidents to prevent the universities from being held liable for deaths of underaged students as a result of binge drinking.

[JohnnyLingo]

...alcohol-education course...

Sure, but what would that entail?

[I.J. Reilly]

Interesting that college presidents are leading this charge. I'm not so sure there isn't a little something coloring their thinking, either.

I'm always a little suspicious of the "it happens anyway, so why not legalize and regulate" argument, but mostly, I doubt that giving a legal avenue to get drinks is really going to slow the flow. I don't really see such a proposal having much of an effect. It may, however, make it more difficult to crackdown on heavy underage drinking if law enforcement have to prove that the drinking is excessive or that the drinks were not legally obtained.

But yeah, my thinking is probably colored, too.

When I first heard about them trying to get the laws changed, my first thought was, "They just don't want to be accountable for all of the irresponsible behavior that takes place on their campuses". Now, I'm not as sure.

Many other countries in the world have 18 as their legal drinking age and it seems to go over a little better*. I am not aware of binge drinking being a problem in, say, France, but I could just be unaware. It could be that social factors in the U.S. are just different enough to make comparisons about drinking among younger populations unreliable, idk.


*I do not know this as a statistical fact, but rather as a general sense of the situation. I am open to being persuaded by the facts.

[I.J. Reilly]

Sure, but what would that entail?

I don't know, as I have not seen a full blown curriculum.

[wuapinmon]

I think 12 would be the correct age, with parents able to teach their kids how to drink. I also think that drunk driving should result in forfeiture of the car, and a 10 year drivers license suspension.

[Non Sequitur]

It's not a rebellion thing as much as it is a maturity thing. When I go to bars, the people that are over-the-top stupid and drunk are invariably the young 20-something kids. Drinking is now legal for 21 year olds, yet there is no shortage of those kids abusing alcohol.

A better alternative to lowering the drinking age would be to simply legalize pot. If kids are hell-bent on getting wasted, it's probably a lot safer that they do it with pot rather than alcohol.

[wuapinmon]

I don't know, as I have not seen a full blown curriculum.

I believe those only happen in Utah Valley seminaries.

[JohnnyLingo]

I don't know, as I have not seen a full blown curriculum.

Fair enough. I was just curious since I am almost completely ignorant when it comes to alcohol. My education has consisted of TV commercials, mostly. And movies.

[I.J. Reilly]

I believe those only happen in Utah Valley seminaries.

Zing!

[TripletDaddy]

John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College, has now spent a good portion of the last several years campaigning to have to legal drinking age reduced from 21 to 18 and to issue "learner's permits" in the intermittant years between 18 and 21. In his most recent attempt at evangelizing his issue he wrote a small piece for The Atlantic that can be found here. He also was at the organizational heart of the group of over 120 college presidents across the nation who signed op-ed pieces about a year ago that caused a lot of controversy when they collectively called for the reduction in the legal drinking age.

McCardell's argument is that if we teach drinking to our young people they will be more responsible with it. He believes that this responsibility would be able to stem the rising tide of heavy drinking among 18-20 year-olds, that binge drinking, which causes harm and even thousands of deaths in the US yearly, would be reduced and that a graduated policy would just make more sense.

What do you think? Is that thinking at all colored by the prohibition of alcohol by the Church?

The increased revenue from alcohol sales to all students at football games and other events probably isn't a turnoff for these schools, I would imagine.

[pellegrino]

Many other countries in the world have 18 as their legal drinking age and it seems to go over a little better*. I am not aware of binge drinking being a problem in, say, France, but I could just be unaware. It could be that social factors in the U.S. are just different enough to make comparisons about drinking among younger populations unreliable, idk.

Cultural differences are the main cause of the differences in drinking habits. I can't speak for France, but if it's anything like Italy (and I suspect it is) then getting drunk in front of anyone, much less strangers in a bar is very embarrassing and is something to be avoided. Italians are scandalized by the American students who come and drink so much and then try to make it back to their apartments. It's no wonder they think that most Americans have the decorum of a sailor who's been at sea too long.

Italians frequent bars and drink hard liquor much less than Americans and Northern Europeans do. A bar in Italy is more like what we'd call a cafe than a bar. You can buy alcohol but an espresso is the most common beverage sold there and they don't keep late night hours. In general I find Italian and southern European attitudes towards alcohol very reasonable and they are very moderate in consumption at all ages.