by Peter Panepento
You might have read a bit about the push by some college administrators to campaign for rolling back the drinking age from 21 to 18.
One scholar — John M. McCardell Jr., president emeritus of Middlebury College in Vermont — says the current drinking age is actually prompting many college students to engage in risky behaviors such as binge drinking, which in turn leads to increased incidents of sexual assault and other problems.
He proposes a system in which those between the ages of 18 and 20 are given the right to legally consume alcohol — provided they complete alcohol-education programs.
His argument, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education:
“It is naïve to believe that 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds are not going to drink,” he says. “The question before us isn’t do they or don’t they drink, should they or shouldn’t they, but how to make it the safest environment for these young people.”
It’s still too early to say whether this push will gain any type of real traction.
But given the close town-gown relationships that exist in Erie around Gannon University, Mercyhurst College, Penn State Behrend, and Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, this is a debate that could soon hit home.
What do you think? Would lowering the drinking age help or hurt the relationship between the Erie community and its colleges? Would it make the community safer — or would it lead to a host of new dangers?
After more than six years working as a journalist in Erie, I'm now the web editor for the Chronicle of Philanthropy in Washington, D.C., and the publisher of GlobalErie.com. I still maintain close ties to Erie - a community that I care about deeply. I hope this Web site can help inspire a better future for Erie.
Josh Glessner
September 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I agree with the college administrators saying that the current limit encourages irresponsible behavior and more dangerous situations.
Thinking back to college, the social drinking scene was almost unavoidable for anyone staying in town for the weekends. The worst part of it was that the underage drinkers were confined to doing it on campus or at private residences, which leads to the “it’s within stumbling distance” mentality.
Underage drinking, especially on college campuses, cannot be avoided, and can barely be controlled. Making it legal for 18+ people to drink wouldn’t do much to change the accessibility of alcohol to the 18-21 group, but it would provide safer environments for them to drink in.
It’s also my experience that once it was legal to drink, the novelty of getting belligerently drunk wore off very quickly. I can’t say for certain whether this was because it was now legal and mostly took place in public places, or if it was just coincidental maturation. Either way, I can’t imagine a single way in which lowering the drinking age to 18 would cause any harm.
Jared
September 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I think it’s short-sighted to battle a campus problem by changing a state-wide law. It may help appease the president’s guilt and lower his liability insurance, but it’s not a step in the right direction. The age limit to me has never been about the people over the age-limit, it’s always been about the people just under the age-limit. And if you lower the drinking age to 18, those just under the age limit are the 16- and 17-year-olds, who are even less able to make reasoned decisions in the face of peer pressure.
If the president wants to do something about the problem, let’s take his idea of alcohol education and make it mandatory for incoming freshman, whether or not it’s legal for them to drink. After all, “they’re going to do it anyway.”
Dale Hannah
September 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I think the change would have to come with certain safeguards.
I started drinking beer while I was in high school. No way will you stop college kids. Perhaps limit the younger drinkers to low-octane beer.
And lay heavy mandatory penalties for DUI for ALL drivers. In some European countries the first offense means your license is gone!
As in forever. Flunk the test and lose your wheels.
Of course, that would be a great way to cut back on fuel consumption, too.
I honestly do not see much difference in behavior between the under and over 21 age groups.
TonyF
September 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I think there should be no age limit. In Europe, kids can drink but they don’t. They have parental alcohol education and are expected to “do the right thing”. If a 12-year old walks into a bar, the barkeeper should ask them to leave. We don’t need Harrisburg to tell us at what age we can begin comsuming alcohol. I am aware that parental guidance is not available for many children. If society acts their age, we won’t have a problem. If public drunkenness is illegal, throw the drunks in jail.
Dan
September 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I know this will sound archaic, because I’m an old guy. Here’s my take. Change the drinking age to 23. Then most kuds in college shouldn’t be able to drink. The only exception to this rule is if a person can produce an active duty military ID card. If he can stand and fight for this country (as I did), then I’ll always buy him or her a drink.
MGR
September 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
The age should be lowered, the only thing that the drinking age of 21 has accomplished is to push the activity underground when underage drinkers try to hide their alcohol consumption and not get caught. Making the situation worse is that the well intentioned but misguided M.A.D.D. organization insists that lowering the drinking age would cause more drunk driving. Logically it seems to me that the correlation would only work in the opposite direction.
themadlibs
September 17th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Young people (anyone really) will always challenge 2 things: the status quo and the law. Hence why speeding, underage drinking, drinking and driving, stealing, murder, blah blah blah. Lowering the drinking age, will only encourage people to go younger. Working with middle and high school students, I can first hand tell you that middle school students already drink - but they do it not b/c they’re not informed, but because they’re not supposed to and they want adults to pay attention.
Keep in mind the business the states provide to Canada, Europe, Asia, etc., for college students pre-21. You realize half of them travel there to “party’ while they’re “studying abroad” right?
Phil G
September 18th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Underaged drinking happens. If the legal age is lowered, what happens to kids a few years younger than the NEW drinking age? That’s right. They would have easier access to alcohol.
Ed Tonkin
September 18th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Here’s a radical notion, and its not mine, no drinking age. Will Wilinson, of the CATO Institute argues that creating a drinking age creates a right of passage that kids binge drink on. His arguement in the latest Forbes magizine is that compared to Europen nations, with limited or no age restricitions we have more deaths, especially in auto accidents.
Europens have higher age requirements for driving. He argues that drinking isn’t the problem, but driving & drinking is. Socializing alcohal consumption at earlier ages and under parental control helps to reduce problems with alcohal in the teens and early 20’s years.
We have a real Victorian-Prohibitionist streek in this country. After all up thur the 1840’s beer was the main drink for everyone because public water supplies were so terrible. Temperance and prohibitionist movements really began after the Civil War and WWI. War’s aftermath brings out the worst in men it seems.
Personally I don’t drink because of religious injunctions against it. I believe alcolhal is one of the great “demons” in our society. I also believe that you don’t stop stupiity by trying to legislate against it. A free society, which is under real assalt currently, needs to rely on parental, individual, and socital taboos and controls. It says something like this in Proverbs, Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he won’t depart from trhat way. (My appologies to the King James Version.). Being a parent is more important than using government reg’s to go by. Fighting drugs with legislation throughout histroy has proven to be a massive failure.From Murad IV of the Ottoman Empire trying to ban tobbacco to our current “WAR” on DRugs, all massive failures.
So bottom line, yes, no to reducing the drinking age, eliminate it and increase the driving age.
bojosmom
September 18th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Here’s my two cents..we billeted some athletes from Canada in the past. The Ontario drinking age was eighteen at that time and it was an adjustment [one of many] for them when they stayed here in the States. I found them to be responsible and informed young men. I am not sure what we are doing ‘wrong’ here in the States that binge drinking has become so out of control but some of the behaviour I have seen in young [teens to early twenties] Americans is outrageous. I agree with many of you that there seems to be a mystic to the taboo that our children cannot handle. This is just my experience. Also, Dale, I have believed for some time that there should be more severe penalities like the ones in Europe for d.u.i. . Those Canadian guys who were of legal age here to drink thought nothing of calling a cab or a sober friend or billet for a ride if they had been drinking alcohol. It does seem to be changing here though, don’t you think? Designated drivers are much more prevalent than before. Good thing, eh?
Jim
September 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Kinda goes along with sex education in preschool.
Heavy D
September 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The age was raised to 21 by a bunch of men and women who were allowed to drink at 18. We have a few employees under 21 where I work and they ( like me) drink under age. It is a joke, except the HUGE amounts of money spent on this ‘problem’.
And Phil, if the 18 to 21 year olds now get alcohol because they are closer to the drinking age how high do you think we should raise it?