TheLastManInAmerica

That might as well be the fight song for higher education as a whole if a group of about 100 college presidents have their way. The heads of such renowned schools as Duke, Syracuse, Ohio State and countless others are urging lawmakers to consider the possibility of lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. They say that as it is now, laws actually encourage binge drinking and unethical behavior and are hypocritical to boot. But honestly, what are the real motives of these people? What can they hope to gain by making alcohol accessible to younger people, other than lowering crime rates at their schools?

            The group of 100 some-odd university presidents is called the Amethyst Initiative, headed by former President of Middlebury College, John McCardell. And while at the moment, the group is not directly calling for a reduction of the drinking age, they are looking for an “informed and dispassionate” debate on the subject. They claim the hypocrisy inherent in our society of giving 18 year-olds the freedom to vote and enlist in the military but denying them the right to drink has created “a culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking.” They also go so far as to say that the age limit sees students making “ethical compromises” by choosing to use fake IDs.

But what would change if the drinking age was lowered remains unclear. It’s not as if binge-drinking is only common among the 18 to 20 year-olds. On the contrary, I’m willing to bet that binge-drinking increases once alcohol become legally obtainable. And the statement on using fake IDs is so fanciful that can’t imagine such educated people would agree with it. They can’t honestly tell me that they don’t think if the age were lowered that 16 year-olds wouldn’t be picking up fake IDs that say they’re 18; no matter what the legal drinking age is those who are younger will still want to get it. Then you’re left with the problem colleges have but now it’s in high schools and instead of it being “I know someone who knows someone who can get us booze,” it’s now, “I know someone who can get us booze,” for any student who knows a senior.

The only logical idea as to why these administrators would endorse such a plan is to reduce the amounts of students who are arrested for underage drinking. Nothing else makes sense! Honestly, what good could come from lowering the drinking age? Sure, they say that those who the law is directed at find it unfair and discriminatory and that’s why they are lashing out by binging. “If you treat students like children, they’re going to act like children,” said one senior from Duke. Isn’t that a convenient excuse? Blame the law for it getting broken, that’s a good one (“If it wasn’t for murder being illegal, my client never would’ve killed that man!”). I have been drinking (sometimes in excess) since I was 14 and drinking in bars since I was 18 and never once was I doing it because I felt it was unjust that I could go off and die for my country and not be able to get a beer. I was drinking because I wanted to drink!

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Lowering the drinking age to 18 won’t solve anything, quite the opposite, I think it would become an even bigger problem for 18 year-olds and those even younger as anyone who doesn’t quite meet a given restriction wants even more what they can almost have. The simple fact of the whole situation is drinking is a potentially dangerous activity and there will always be those who behave irresponsibly while doing it; I’m 22 and know several people my age and older who aren’t responsible enough to drink. Maybe we should raise the legal age to 30.           

Trackback URI | Comments RSS