A group of college presidents, chancellors and assorted other campus dignitaries are part of something called the Amethyst Initiative. Their goal is to lower the drinking age to 18 in an effort to eliminate binge drinking. No U of I signatories, but Nancy Cantor signed.
Not sure how or if this will solve the problem. I'd personally like to see a little more attention given to the Illinois statute which allows those under the age of 21 to drink in their own homes with their parents. It seems if parents did more modeling of responsible drinking, and the minors actually practiced it before going to college, perhaps the rush of illegal drinking would lose a little of its lustre.
Lower it to 14.
I think it's a good idea to set back to 18. Just overhearing general chatter, it seems to be a pretty common thing for the underaged to drink pretty heavily and pretty QUICKLY out of fear that "when this runs out, we can't get any more," whether "this" be the booze at the house before people go out to the bar or the one pitcher someone managed to buy them.
If the supply is scarce, no one wants to run out and be the guy who doesn't get that second bottle, particularly if the party is moving to a place they can't legally buy more.
Whereas, if it's more of a "if I still want another after I enjoy this one, I can just order it then" situation there's less pressure to "drink it now before the other guy gets it."
Man, it might be a good idea, but I really don't want to sit in a bar with drunk 18-21 year olds. They're just so excitable at that age, that they're annoying. But that's not to say that the age shouldn't lower.
As the father of a 22 year old daughter, I can attest that 21 year old law doesn't stop 18 year olds from drinking in campus bars.
The only good thing about the 21 age limit is the handsome income stream for the City from slow witted students who pay $375 for a beer.
I believe there is some Federal coercion to the effect that if your state doesn't have a 21 year old law they receive no Federal highway money.
I would support Paul Frisbee's, (of Alley Cat fame) idea that everyone should be required to obtain a drinking license, available at age 18. If you misbehave in a bar or drive while under the influence, you lose your drinking license, regardless of your age.
PropertyRights - That's why there is a VARIETY of bars... somehow I manage to not find myself in the ones that currently get busted in underage raids, I imagine that will not change.
I mean, the lure of sticky floors only goes so far.
Anonymous 11:29 - Yes. Back in the mid-80's the feds decided that they would withhold highway funds from states that did not raise the drinking age to 21. Many of my friends (in Hawaii, yes, I have elite friends) were able to drink at 18, only to then have the age raised instantly to 21 and be cut off again (they did not do the intelligent thing and have the age rise a year at a time, so that no one reverted). As a result, respect for that particular rule was pretty low.
But indeed I don't think that bribe has changed, so I do wonder what the people who want to lower the age intend to do about that, in all honesty - or are people suggesting a bigger campaign nationwide?
By the time I turned 21 and was old enough to drink, I had cut back so much on the amount and frequency of my alcohol consumption that I had essentially quit. So the legal drinking age had pretty much no utility at all for me. I never did think that it was all that great drinking in bars, too crowded, too noisy, not my music, etc...Anyway it seems like a fairly deep hypocrisy for the city of Champaign to place bars near the University and then criticize them because college kids are served alcohol...
Regnad Kcin said: "...hypocrisy for the city of Champaign to place bars near the University..."
Huh? I must have missed the entry of the City into the bar business. Did the City also place clothing stores at the mall and gas stations near the busy corners?
It's about time a movement like this started. The drinking age is a great way of teaching people that laws are stupid and it's OK to break them if you don't get caught.
I suggest making drinking legal for all high-school graduates, but if you demonstrate your irresponsibility by dropping out you wait until you're 21. It's a nice incentive for kids on the margin, you keep legal drinking out of the high schools, the transition happens while there is still parental supervision, all of your friends become legal at the same time, and you have all summer to sober up before college.
Sounds like a good idea to me. It also avoids all the weirdness of military members technically being forbidden to drink.
Only VERY tangentially related but in old newspaper ads for porn flicks showing at the Art and various places, often they have small print at the bottom "Must be 18 or have a marriage license." I suppose there's the "well, presumably you've seen what there is to see at that point" logic going on, but it's an example of a not strictly age-based entry rule.
it gets tricky though if not done everywhere. My college had a tradition of making roadtrips to Iowa, for the 18 year old drinking. Then a nice long trip home.
We have been there and done that, bad idea then it would be a bad idea now. If 18 to 20 yearolds are having problems drinking now on campus we should educate them. We shouldn't create more problems down into the early teen years and do nothing with those kids either.
The ban on drinking for 18-20 year olds is probably the most ignored law on the books, and therefore the most ridiculous. Plus, it never really sat well with me - perhaps it's entirely constitutional to say to someone that's otherwise a full citizen with all rights and responsibilities that there's still one thing that they can't do, but it still sounds wrong to me. Someone may have served a couple of tours of Iraq, be married with children, and vote, but he can't get served if he's only 20? That's just dumb. I also didn't like the way the feds strong-armed the states into raising the age the way they did. We say that driving a car is a privilege, and not a right, but is drinking really a privilege, or is it something that everyone who has reached the age of majority should be able to do? That's not to say that we shouldn't bring a ton of hurt down on people that drive drunk, but you don't have to be 18-20 to drive drunk, any fool can do that.
As the philosopher has said, "drinking is a way of life...drinking is *my* way of life...and I aim to keep it."
I also didn't like the way the feds strong-armed the states into raising the age the way they did.
That is for sure.
I'm not sure what sort of education would help. Lessons on drunk-sitting?
The problem, I think, isn't about age or maturity. It's the young-adult notion that entertainment means going out and drinking yourself blind, then barfing on the nearest shrubbery. It's something that's reinforced by every pop-culture image of what college is like, as well as every beer ad on TV. That's what really needs to be changed; the drinking age is a minor problem compared to that.
"It seems if parents did more modeling of responsible drinking, and the minors actually practiced it before going to college, perhaps the rush of illegal drinking would lose a little of its lustre. "
I must agree with Mark here. Although there were no alcoholics in my immediate or extended family, beer and sometimes diluted wine were available to me on certain occasions from a fairly early age. At 15 or 16 I was tending bar at my parents' parties, so like Mr. Danger there was no mystery or rebellion in alcohol for me after about 18 anyway. This philosophy actually requires very diligent parenting to ensure the right lessons are being learned, but when it works it works very well -- I count myself and two sons (26 and 20) as examples of success *clears throat, adjusts collar...*
The problem with alcohol is that it leads to other things like foolishness and promiscuity and girls showing off by lifting up their tops and shaking their rearends. Haven't you ever heard about Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
The age to drink should be raised to 30 years old when people have more sense than to get half naked or more and parade around.
"The age to drink should be raised to 30 years old when people have more sense than to get half naked or more and parade around."
Au contraire mon frere -- I didn't really feel comfortable getting half naked and parading around drunk until I was at least 30.
In some European countries (like the UK), the drinking age is lower and there seems to be less of a problem with young adults binge drinking. There may be other cultural differences at work, though.
The USA has the highest legal drinking age of any country in the world where alcohol is allow to be consumed. Here is some intersting dialogue and a chart about the USA's drinking regulations.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act.... It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. The term "public possession" is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following:
Many of the states that have chosen to specifically prohibit alcohol consumption by those under age 21 have a variety of exceptions. For example,
Exceptions to Minimum Age of 21 for Consumption of Alcohol as of August 5, 2005 3
Note: This map is based on statutes and regulations only. It does does not include exceptions created by case law (judicial decisions), custom, or application of constitutional protections.
In some European countries (like the UK), the drinking age is lower and there seems to be less of a problem with young adults binge drinking.
Oooh, I'm not so sure if I would use Britain as an example - they practically invented binge drinking. Maybe Italy or something.
It is troubling to me that I should tend toward supporting anything that Nasty Canker is in favour of.
It would seem that lowering the minimum drinking age to zero and not letting them drive would cause the problem to go away, but maybe there is something more to it.
In some sectors of the US population, the consumption of alcohol in any amount is not socially acceptable, but in some sectors of the Asian cultures, it is nearly socially Unacceptable to Not drink with friends, guests, and business associates and the alcohol consumed at such occasions is often vodka-like liquor of 74 to 106 proof (even up to 126 proof). In Beijing's Zhongguancun, KFC serves beer, a thing Unimaginable in Urbana.
Many Christian groups forbid the consumption of alcohol in any form, although the Bible mentions "wine" 212 times and "strong drink" 19 times. I seldom drink alcohol but I permit it at times. The Bible does offer advice against the consumption of wine, but also mentions its benefits, and of course "wine" is quite often used in symbolic representation of the Holy Spirit. Jesus turned the water into wine at Cana, the water of Passover (John's baptism, repentance and justification by faith) changed into the wine of Pentecost (receiving the Holy Spirit, the law written in the heart by grace). It is absurd to imagine that the water was turned into Welch's grape juice, or that Welch's was the beverage shared at the last supper, or that people regularly got drunk by drinking the unfermented juice accounting for the supposition in Acts 2. The Apostle Paul recommends "a little wine" for Timothy to calm his nerves and for his health. The Bible clearly advises regarding the dangers of the consumption of alcohol and provides advice about drinking and not drinking.
Any dividing of Christianity into denominational groups is the result of the abandonment of the precepts of the Bible, and if all groups really did read it there would be no formation of splinter groups but all the splinters would reform into only one true church. Just as alcohol is a by-product of fermentation (from the standpoint of the yeast), the rules against alcohol consumption are a by-product of error being introduced into the Church.
The great operant stupidity at work in the anti-alcohol laws of the USA is the notion that after 21 years of abstinence, a child is suddenly going to gain competency in the consumption of alcohol in any amount. The implication is that upon reaching the magical age of 21 there will be an immediate bestowing of wisdom and of biochemistry that was conspicuously absent only seconds before midnight?
Imposition of a Federally-mandated cut-off age on drinking is something that the states should have opposed as another creeping violation of the 10th amendment rather than embraced. A culture of legalism is a sorry substitute for a culture of understanding and liberty.
The hundred college presidents and the posters to this site in support of this idea to lower the drinking age is a fascinating hypocrisy that has become a staple of America's War on Drugs. It's clear that drug use (and Sgt. Scott Friedlien of the Champaign Police Department consistently calls alcohol a drug.) when done by the white middle class always receives the special accomodations that minorities and low income people fail to get in our criminal courts.
Before refuting this post with "crack, cocaine, heroine, and marajuana are more dangerous than alcohol" consider this: when the University Police Department began tracking alcohol use in cases of battery and sexual assault, the numbers came back to the tune of 80%-90% of those type of incidents on campus were alcohol-related. No need to remind folks here of the recent rash of alcohol-related traffic fatalities, (7 since May of last year), and cigarettes continue to be reported as the cause of about 400,000 deaths per year nationwide.
It remains clear that when your white kids keep running afoul of the law (in this case, underage drinking), the laws get changed. I'm surprised that anti-big government proponents continue to want to spend $17,000 a year to house people in prison when, judging by the recidivism rates, it is the worst taxpayer buy in history and is a classic example of the conservative mind-set that government can't get nothing right. And yet, people will still call this crazy to even suggest cocaine be made legal. I wonder what the emotional attachment is to the current drug laws in the face of overwhelming evidence that prohibition does not work.
It is troubling to me that I should tend toward supporting anything that Nasty Canker is in favour of.
Name-calling is so classy.
The greatest harm to the conservative movement is done by the statist poseurs who are really not conservative at all, but actually are big government socialists, wolves in sheep's clothing who delude the masses and maybe even themselves into believing that the legislation of morality is a conservative notion, while nothing could be farther from the truth. The message of social conservatism is getting the government out of your lives and turning liberty and personal responsibility back to people.
An even more horrific notion is that the mission of Christianity is the legislation of morality rather than the administration of grace of God.
One can't help but note the irony of the appeal to grace after such an invective. Classy indeed.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
It is troubling to me that I should tend toward supporting anything that Nasty Canker is in favour of.
Name-calling is so classy.
Pointing at name-calling is soooo classy too ain't it? And cutely dismissive as well.
And original if not stultifying. But thank you for the opportunity to expound further.
I really wanted to call Nancy Cantor "[someone] that I am so glad we are rid of but whose name keeps coming up", but that could have indeed been even more inappropriate, so her common nickname seemed to be a shortcut expressing her residual effect on this community, a blotch difficult to erase even with the passage of time, someone whose ill effect on the University of Illinois is shudderingly approaching the uncalculable, because it affects so many in such a negative way, not only the Institution itself but also the students, and on and on.
"Canker, Nasty" is so descriptive of that person and her egregious legacy of blight, that it really isnt name-calling at all but rather is clarity of meaning encapsulated in just 2 words. Nasty is easy enough for all to grasp, but canker is not that familiar to all...
can·ker
1.a gangrenous or ulcerous sore, esp. in the mouth. 2.a disease affecting horses' feet, usually the soles, characterized by a foul-smelling exudate. 3.a defined area of diseased tissue, esp. in woody stems. 4.something that corrodes, corrupts, destroys, or irritates. 5.Also called canker rose. British Dialect. dog rose. –verb (used with object) 6.to infect with canker. 7.to corrupt; destroy slowly. –verb (used without object) 8.to become infected with or as if with canker.[Origin: bef. 1000; ME; OE cancer < L cancer; see cancer
]
—Synonyms 4. blight, cancer, scourge.
"One can't help but note the irony of the appeal to grace after such an invective. Classy indeed. "
I was thinking the same thing.
Libertarians *(small-l) have to fight an uphill battle to persuade people about our ideas anyway. When the argument is draped in childish name-calling it makes being taken seriously even more difficult.
On August 20th, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Glock21 said:
One can't help but note the irony of the appeal to grace after such an invective. Classy indeed.
Me too. :) I thought you would like it.
Can we just let 'em drink, but only let them drink in campus bars or at home. :-)