At age 18, an American can enlist in the military, vote, sign a contract, get married, have an operation — hey, in California, a 14-year-old can have an abortion without telling her parents — but he cannot buy a beer. Not legally, anyway.
It makes absolutely no sense, and it is shameful that my generation, which won the right to vote at age 18, continues to infantilize people who are allowed to make life-and-death decisions on every issue, save one. We believe in rights — except for college-age kids — even if they are serving in the military.
Enter the Amethyst Initiative, pushed by former Middlebury College President John McCardell and signed by more than 100 college presidents, which is pushing for Washington "to reopen public debate over the drinking age." According to McCardell, it is time for Washington to reconsider a 1984 measure, signed by President Ronald Reagan, that withheld 10 percent of highway funds from states that had a legal drinking age lower than 21.
The reason for the Amethyst Project — named for a gemstone believed to be "an antidote to the negative effects of intoxication'' — is simple. Many college officials do not believe that the 21-year-old drinking age works. They believe that most students break the law. Worse, McCardell argues, they believe that the age fosters a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking."
Does the law work? How many kids break it? More than half of 18-to-20-year-olds, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' latest survey on drug and alcohol use, reported that they drank alcohol in the last month alone, despite legal prohibitions. College students were more likely to drink than their same-age peers not attending college. So apparently it doesn't work. I submit that there is something wrong — something that breeds contempt — with a law that most people break.
The primary opposition to the initiative comes from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD argues that if the drinking age is lowered, then more high school students will drink.
That may well be true. Although it does seem that teens have scant trouble finding alcohol — or illegal drugs — as it is. The same national study found that close to 30 percent of 16- and 17-year-olds drank alcohol in the past month, while 13 percent smoked marijuana.
MADD also argues that the 21-year-old drinking age saves lives. Amethyst Initiative's McCardell argues that there was no big dip in fatalities when the drinking age was raised. Instead, there has been a small steady decline in drunk-driving fatalities over the years as MADD's work rightly has stigmatized drunk driving — the term "designated driver" came into use in the 1980s — and improved car safety has saved lives as well.
MADD Chief Executive Officer Chuck Hurley notes that several studies have found that the 21-year-old drinking age saves lives. As the Associated Press reported, a survey of research from the United States and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the 21-year-old drinking age has saved lives.
By that account, then, raising the drinking age to 25 or 30 or 40 would save lives, too. But there is this thing called freedom. And freedom should apply to men and women old enough for military service, old enough to get married and old enough to have had an abortion (four years before).
There is something nasty in the way MADD takes on the critics. "Parents should think twice before sending their teens to these colleges or any others that have waved the white flag on underage and binge-drinking policies," MADD President Laura Dean-Mooney warned. This is MADD's way of trying to stifle debate.
MADD execs also have charged that university presidents want to rethink the drinking age to make their lives easier — as if they don't care about students — or to protect against legal liability. Now maybe the argument that lowering the age will reduce binge drinking is just plain wrong, but it also is false to argue that the 21-year-old limit has stopped teen drinking.
How can we trust 18-year-olds to vote or run for office, but not to legally buy a beer?
E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
7 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Ma'am; When did a law ever stop a kid from doing what they want to do while no one is watching them, as is too often the case? Your argument that since they can go to war etc. neglects the facts that the vast majority of wars depend upon the ignorance of people to get going, and upon the intelligence of people to prevent or stop. If it were not for stupid people at all levels, war would be impossible, and even the slightest injustice would be without support since, as Socrates noted: Knowledge is Virtue. The real problem of countless eighteen year olds drunk and drinking is not that alone, but that we have no rite of passage in this country as primitives do. So, there is no division between eighteens, or seventeens or sixteens. If people are drinking at eighteen it is certain their friends of a younger age will have alcohol. By the time a person turns 21, they have been out of school for a while, they have lost touch with the highschoolers. Then they can get stupid drunk, and no one but the cops care. And I have been there, where I had to drive because I was too drunk to sing. You know you are too drunk to drive when you fall down more than once on your way to the car. And you may be drunk if you inhabit two locations at the same time, as when you wake up in your drive way with your feet in the car and your body on the ground. But as much as alcohol can lead to a process of self discovery, as when you discover your self in jail for drunk driving, still, that experience is better left to those on the horizon of maturity. So I would say your argument is fatally flawed. Ignorance is not an argument in favor of ignorance. We have an army as an assistant to diplomacy, and for self defense. We let children join the military so they can learn first hand of the waste and corruption inherent in all large beaurocratic organizations so they can avoid them in the future. War is a failure of communication, but I suppose most of your articles fit into that catagory too. Thanks for the laugh.... Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Hey Ma'am; Something else... Have any of your statisticians asked any one of their subjects why so many of the young and so many of all the people at all ages are trying escape reality with drugs and alcohol if your ideal Republican, Christian, Capitalist, Western, War Making world is any place any one wants to be. It is nice for some, but unsatisfying for nearly all. Look at your Sarah Palin. She is the Governor of one of the most beautiful places on earth and she can't wait to trade it in for something better. If I could handle the hang overs I might drink too because you power freaks have wrecked this world almost beyond the point of reclaimation. Ah; who cares. Give me a beer. .. .Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:03 AM
|
|
|
|
I have a question. In my state, it's legal to sell "long guns" (rifles and shotguns) and the corresponding ammunition, to any adult over 18 who does not have a criminal record or a history of mental illness. However, in order to purchase a handgun (revolvers and automatic pistols), the minimum age is 21. This is because handguns are more easily concealed, this carrying a higher potential for mischief and therefore requiring more maturity to own and use. So tell me - if lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 is such a good idea, should we also lower the legal age for ALL firearms to 18 as well? And for that matter, should we also lower the minimum ages to serve in the US House of Representatives or the Presidency to 18 as well - when they're currently 25 and 35 respectively? Isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt
Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: James A, Sweeney....you talk WAY too much, pal. Clearly you've got a bit too much time on your hands. Didn't care for your commentary over on Ben Shapiro's column, either.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Matt
Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: James A, Sweeney...you have way too much time on your hands. Your writing, as usual, is rubbish.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Matt
Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Folks, I enjoyed the comments, but I do have a simple question. If our soldiers are not mature enough to drink then they are certainly not mature enough to handle the horrors of war. So to solve the debate why don't we just raise the age of miltary entrance to 21 and bring back the draft board. Because if we do this then we are forcing people to fight. Our goverment doesn't want to be labled any worse then they already are, but I say they can't have their cake and eat it too. This goes for MADD. I know that they are a exceptional program, but they can't say that soldiers are not old enough to drink but they are old enough to choose wether they die for the country or not. That is just crap. Let MADD fight in the next war if they are so mature.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Marty
Fri Apr 2, 2010 9:18 AM
|
|
|
|
A person can be just as easily killed by a (long gun) as you put it as some one can with a pistol. I teach a course on usage of firearms and trust me, firuatively speaking if I were going to kill someone I would choose a rifle or shotgun rather than a pistol. Therefore, more maturity should come with purchasing a "long gun" which the government believes one should be able to buy at 18. So theres the first flaw in your statement Matt. Also, I'm a United States Marine and when I was underage I remember not being able to purchase alcohol or small firearms and it didn't make since to me then and it doesn't make since to me now that I could go over seas, risk my life everyday, may even have to use a sidearm, but I am not able to buy one at home or buy alcohol. You say that being 21 to purchase alcohol is because your more mature at 21, but if I'm mature enough at 18 to go to Afghanistan, lead a fire team into a combat zone, get caught in a fire fight, and still bring all my men out alive, I believe I'm mature enough to buy a little beer every once in a while.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Jeremiah
Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
