Home / News / News forums / Metro and national news / Lower the drinking age?
Lower the drinking age?
A group of over 100 college presidents this week proposed that the nation should consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.
The school leaders say current federal policy -- which reduces highway funds to any state with a drinkiing age lower than 21 -- has led to increased binge drinking and other abuse problems on campuses.
Officials at Northwestern University and other Chicago-area schools haven't signed on to what's called the Amethyst Initiative, and the Washington Post reports that a variety of other groups, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have come out against it.
What impact do you think a return to an 18-year-old drinking age would have on Evanston?
Legislators on both ends of the argument are trying to change the law in order to change our cultural vision; it hardly ever works that way. Our society is based in a culture of binging, and worse yet, having few alternatives to driving in a vehicle afterwards.
If drinking were introduced not as an evil that should be avoided, but as something that should be done responsibly IN THE HOME AT AN EARLIER AGE, lots less people would be binging at school.
We'll never stop binge drinking, but we can certainly cut it down if we didn't demonize drinking beginning at age 1.
Let us independently repeal the 21st amendment and outlaw the transportation, importation, sale and consumption of all alcohol in Evanston!
There'd be no underage binge drinking high school and college students. There'd be no DUI crashes and deaths. There'd be no rowdy bar patrons whooping it up at closing time. There'd be no beer cans or liquor bottles tossed on the broad streets or the pristine beaches. And all the resident alcoholics would move to Chicago to be closer to a source of their poison.
Just like in the 1920s, Evanston would prosper with its new found spirit-free spirit. Residents could retire early on Saturday night in order to get up early on Sunday to go to church with their families and friends. The streets would be cleaner, quieter and greener. ETHS and NU students would attend their 8 a.m. classes clear-headed, prepared and eager to learn.
This is the one issue that is truly worthy of the Evanston City Council’s immediate attention! I challenge you, alder-persons, to stand and be counted. Which side are you on?.
When I went to college (in 1968, a liberal arts college in Minnesota), many colleges still considered themselves "in loco parentis" -- standing in the place of parents. Freshmen women had curfews (though the men didn't), men weren't allowed to be in a women's dorm after hours, and there were a variety of other rules designed to protect us from going overboard with our new freedom. Gradually, those rules were relaxed, as the college explicitly declined to be in loco parentis.
Should universities have that role? Should they be trying to guide the non-academic behavior of students? Is that what parents expect? Is that what our society should expect?
Jan Smith
This problem is costing students their lives, their health, and their opportunity to reap the benefits of a very expensive education. In real life, repeated binge-drinking has immediate and long-lasting consequences: loss of employment and damaged family relationships - and thus, adults are more careful than the typical college student, as we have more to lose. I doubt very much that universities respond to consistently hung-over students in the decisive way the job market or their future families will.
It's interesting that this discourse began with drinking age and not with binge-drinking, which is the real problem. I wonder, did the dry Sunday law have any effect on binge drinking ?
Find out more about Brummel Park Neighbors and Michele Hays
College is nothing but a four year sleep over with no supervision.
As a physician specializing in emergency medicine, I empathize with the fire captain/paramedic who responded above. I treat a large number of severely intoxicated patients of the sort he brings in to the ED. The open debate proposed by The Amethyst group would be worthwhile. Allowing college-age students to drink legally would potentially allow their surrogate parents--university administrators and advisors--the opportunity to monitor and model responsible behavior.
College students drink irresponsibly and there's nothing the school can do about it. That's essentially what they're saying. I disagree. Colleges, along with families, towns, communities, the media and America in general could do more to create a culture of education and entertainment that is not centered around alcohol consumption. For many, drinking culture starts in High School or in the home following the example of parents, siblings or peers and continues or (more often) expands during college.
Why college? No parents, a glamorized booze culture, indifferent or overwhelmed administrators, ... When university senior classes, many fraternities and sororities, a large part of campus life and early 20-something dating consists of copious $1 shots bar nights, booze cruises, bar crawls, club-hopping and other alcohol-centric activities it perpetuates an alcohol-dependent culture, which in turn perpetuates alcohol-related crimes (such as rape, vandalism, fights, drunk driving) and problems (alcoholism, wasted money, lost productivity, poor grades, ER visits, etc.).
Plus the extreme focus on alcohol as entertainment excludes and alienates those who either through religious belief, personal conscience or other reasons (fear of losing scholarships) choose not to consume alcohol or prefer more productive social activities whose sole focus is not drink. These activities, rather than being a complete drain on resources (what is the personal and societal benefit of going to a bar for a few hours, drinking far too much bad beer/shots/jungle juice, spending way too much money, and then stumbling home drunk with or without someone you don't know?)
In order to discourage excessive drinking, 2 steps should be taken:
First, penalties should be well-publicized, strict and well-enforced to provide a disincentive to drink to excess. Bars need to be encouraged to self-enforce drinking age and prices. Fake ids, sympathetic door men, and excessive free drinks for friends (as a rather ironic "favor") are far too rampant and provide too much incentive to drink too much. These steps might help to promote a culture of responsible drinking. Individuals should be encouraged to self-regulate their alcohol intake with disincentives for excess such as loss of scholarship, student aid, probation, fines, etc.
Second, more productive social activities should be encouraged not only in college but also in high school and in the American media outlets that form youth culture. More productive activities whose sole focus is not 'drink as much cheap alcohol as possible as fast as possible' might include free college-sponsored activities such as salsa-swing-country-ballroom-hip-hop dance classes, drum circles, book clubs, fine wine and beer tasting clubs, cooking classes, investment clubs, movie nights, community service projects, competitive and non-competitive sports, dating games, ceramics classes, karaokee, live music, or any other activity that gets co-eds together to socialize and learn something in the process without putting the focus of the activity on an easily abused substance.
Raise the driving age to 25 then!
Lowering the legal drinking age to 18 will not change the behavior and attitudes towards alcohol consumtion for 18-20 year olds on college campuses. What it will do is absolve universities and their presidents of responsibility when one of their students dies from drinking too much. As a fire/captain paramedic, I have spent many a night on NU's campus bringing inebriated 18 year olds to the ER. This will continue whether the legal age is 18 or 21.
The Amethyst Initiative basically states that the age 21 initiative is increasing binge drinking on college campuses. If each campus took individual responsibility and instituted internal policies regarding alcohol use and abuse, with suspension and expulsion as the consequences, I think that would have a more direct effect.
I grew up in a state where the drinking age was 19: this did nothing to increase responsibility among my peers, who used the opportunity to binge-drink legally an extra two years.
BR>Find out more about Brummel Park Neighbors and Michele Hays
They are not proposing we lower the drinking age, they are proposing we lower the legal drinking age. The two have been indifferent to each other since forever.
Maybe the City of Evanston will lower the drinking age with a kneejerk reaction like they did with their gun ordinance.
The City has no backbone
Post new comment