NFT - US Colleges seek lower drinking age

[QuikSsurfer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26271328/

RALEIGH, North Carolina - College presidents from about 100 of the best-known U.S. 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 U.S. drinking age, which is among the highest in the world.

"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.

Injuries, deaths from alcohol abuse
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 dependence. 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."

Shifting burden to high schools
But some 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 Bill 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."

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, he added, "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."

[Uncle_Ted]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

This is perhaps the stupidest argument ever made.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Why do you hate our troops? You think our soldiers who are under 21 are not mature and responsible enough to choose whether to drink alcohol? I'll bet you voted for John Kerry in 2004. You must want the terrorists to win!



OK, all joking aside, how exactly is that "the dumbest argument ever made"?

The argument is that when a person reaches 18 we consider that person responsible enough to be a full-fledged "adult". We allow that person to vote. We allow them freedom to choose to join the military and die for their country. We consider them sufficiently responsible to be held fully accountable under the criminal laws for their behavior (and 18 is no longer a magic number ... thousands or people are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were as young as 14). In short, they are allowed to make any decision they want to about their lives except one ... they cannot legally choose to drink a beer.

[Time's Yours]

That's just what I was going to say. They have everything to do with each other. If you are mature enough to decide to risk your life for the good of the country and mature enough to choose the country's leader, you're certainly mature enough to handle a beer.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by phillip

That's just what I was going to say. They have everything to do with each other. If you are mature enough to decide to risk your life for the good of the country and mature enough to choose the country's leader, you're certainly mature enough to handle a beer.

You have to understand, Repubs don't want the government to touch their money or healthcare but want to control what you can do to your body and take away your personal liberties while giving religion a greater role in government.

[irishjayhawk]

You know, the sad thing is, that when one turns 21 they don't care anymore. It's like we just ignore the idiotic wrong things until they no longer apply to us. I just don't get it.

I'm 21 and for the lowering of the reeruned drinking age. I'm also not a smoker and am for the legalization of weed. Technically, I've never even tried it. (I hate the smell. )

[SCTrojan]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ted

Why do you hate our troops? You think our soldiers who are under 21 are not mature and responsible enough to choose whether to drink alcohol? I'll bet you voted for John Kerry in 2004. You must want the terrorists to win!



OK, all joking aside, how exactly is that "the dumbest argument ever made"?

The argument is that when a person reaches 18 we consider that person responsible enough to be a full-fledged "adult". We allow that person to vote. We allow them freedom to choose to join the military and die for their country. We consider them sufficiently responsible to be held fully accountable under the criminal laws for their behavior (and 18 is no longer a magic number ... thousands or people are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were as young as 14). In short, they are allowed to make any decision they want to about their lives except one ... they cannot legally choose to drink a beer.

I can see the validity of all the other points. But it's been my experience that when anyone plays the "I can die for my country but can't get a beer" card, they have no inclination whatsoever about joining the military. If that's really the issue, then let's just make it legal for all servicemembers to drink and that should satisfy the outrage.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by SCTrojan

I can see the validity of all the other points. But it's been my experience that when anyone plays the "I can die for my country but can't get a beer" card, they have no inclination whatsoever about joining the military. If that's really the issue, then let's just make it legal for all servicemembers to drink and that should satisfy the outrage.

I believe that they let you have 3.2 if you are in the military and on the base.

[SCTrojan]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I believe that they let you have 3.2 if you are in the military and on the base.

You know, it's been so long since I've noticed whether anyone gets carded on base. From what I remember, there wasn't much scrutiny in the clubs and the exchanges.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by SCTrojan

I can see the validity of all the other points. But it's been my experience that when anyone plays the "I can die for my country but can't get a beer" card, they have no inclination whatsoever about joining the military. If that's really the issue, then let's just make it legal for all servicemembers to drink and that should satisfy the outrage.

That has nothing to do with the absurd double standard present. We have established the LEGAL adult age as 18. However the LEGAL age to drink is 21. The contradiction is right there. The military part is a powerful ploy to empathy. And it is still accurate.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Yeah, that's respectful. Change the laws until kids like it.

When they turn 18 they're not kids anymore.

[SCTrojan]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

That has nothing to do with the absurd double standard present. We have established the LEGAL adult age as 18. However the LEGAL age to drink is 21. The contradiction is right there. The military part is a powerful ploy to empathy. And it is still accurate.

I agree that there is a contradiction. It is just a pet peeve of mine that when people make that specific argument, it often has nothing to do with any real outrage.

When troops use the argument, I agree, it's very powerful. IMO it loses any meaning when people who have never had any inkling to join the military make the argument.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by SCTrojan

I agree that there is a contradiction. It is just a pet peeve of mine that when people make that specific argument, it often has nothing to do with any real outrage.

When troops use the argument, I agree, it's very powerful. IMO it loses any meaning when people who have never had any inkling to join the military make the argument.

So rhetoric only applies when it directly applies to said arguer?

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Yeah, that's respectful. Change the laws until kids like it.

Please tell me you aren't serious.

[SCTrojan]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

So rhetoric only applies when it directly applies to said arguer?

Well, in this case, with me, yes.

[KCChiefsMan]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't binge drink weekly when I was first in college and under the age of 21

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by Guru

It should have never went to 21 in the first place. Old enough to die for your country but you can't crack a beer.

yep; either lower the drinking age, or raise the age to enlist
(the latter will never happen)

Ridiculous.
Old enough to go to war, and kill someone (possibly)/die for your country, elect a president & congress: yet not responsible enough to have a beer. BS.

If and when I have a kid if he/she's 18 and wants a beer, I'm good with it as long as I'm supervising.