College Presidents Rekindle Drinking Age Debate

College Presidents Rekindle Drinking Age Debate
August 19, 2008

News Summary

A year-old campaign by Middlebury College's former president to launch a discussion of lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 has quietly gained the support of about 100 university presidents, the Associated Press reported Aug. 18.

Duke University, Dartmouth College, Ohio State University, Syracuse University and Tufts University are among the institutions whose presidents have signed onto former Middlebury president John McCardell's Amethyst Initiative. McCardell has said his experience in a college environment has shown him that students will drink regardless of age-21 laws and that making most students' consumption illegal simply drives the activity underground and makes it more dangerous.

But many researchers and groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) consider the initiative's stance irresponsible, saying it ignores the progress age-21 laws have made in reducing drunk-driving deaths. MADD in fact has told parents that they should question the safety of campuses whose presidents support the Amethyst Initiative.

"It's very clear that the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at these campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, MADD's national president.

The college presidents supporting the initiative have signed a statement that does not specifically call for the drinking age to be reduced from 21 to 18, but seeks a debate of the law that tied states' adoption of 21 as the legal drinking age to eligibility for federal highway funds. The statement does indicate that the presidents believe the laws are not working on college campuses, where they say a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge drinking" has taken hold.

Other college administrators were disinclined to sign off on the initiative. "I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," University of Miami President Donna Shalala said. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

Rhodes College president William Trout, a supporter of the initiative, understands that a discussion of the issues will be difficult. "I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead," Trout said, "but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue."

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:
(Comments now appear first to last)

Posted by nicole schoen on 19 Aug 08 08:36 PM EDT

i feel that lowering the drinking age is asking for trouble. it's hard enough to be able to buy cigarettes at the age of eighteen and smoke while you are in high school, but to drink? it'll make underage drinking for teens under 17 to get alcohol from a friend that's eighteen. it's bad enough that drinking is so out of control and done so often, but i feel that the age should stay the same; we should be more strict with underage drinking and drunk driving.

Posted by nicole schoen on 19 Aug 08 08:37 PM EDT

*it'll make underage drinking for teens under 17 easier because they can get alcohol from a friend that's eighteen.

Posted by Alicia Beach Halverstadt on 20 Aug 08 08:15 AM EDT

I am totally opposed to raising the drinking age. Aside from all the research that shows it's effect on younger brains, College is a wonderful time to teach young adults ways to enjoy life without alcohol. Colleges should be getting these kids interested in other , healthy activities, and stimulating their brains, not suppressing them.

Posted by Cassandra on 20 Aug 08 08:15 AM EDT

An 18 year old brain is not developed enough to make decisions; not to mention an 18 year old brain under the influence LEGALLY. A brain does not fully develpment until age 25, and JUDGEMENT is the last coming. These presidents are making the wrong statement to young people. They are right when they say young poeple are drinking, however we have to stand up and tell them it in not right. Come on, lets focus on whats important, and I dont thing its lowering the drinking age.

Posted by alicia beach halverstadt on 20 Aug 08 08:20 AM EDT

whoops- my opposition is to lowering the drinking age, not raising it- however, raising it would be fine with me too!

Posted by R Allen on 20 Aug 08 08:34 AM EDT

I believe this is an attempt by the college presidents to make a money grab at the expense of young people. At the present time the NCAA tournaments can't allow alcohol advertising because the majority of college students are under 21. If the law is changed then this would allow the colleges/universities to gain millions and millions of dollars from the alcohol industry in advertising rights at NCAA events. Higher learning institutes are all about the money at the expense of our youth.

Posted by Patty Brickner on 20 Aug 08 08:38 AM EDT

For anyone who thinks this is a wise idea, talk to a wife or the children of an alcoholic. Ask them what it's like to watch alcohol destroy the mind and spirit of someone they deeply love. STOP the insanity. The age of 18 for legal drinking is completely unacceptable.

Posted by Wendy Norcross on 20 Aug 08 08:38 AM EDT

I totally agree with Alicia, a long term friend and colleague. As a professional and parent who has seen firsthand the amount of drinking that occurs in high school, it is totally irresponsible to lower the drinking age and make alcohol more accessible to minors. There are many young people who begin drinking in early adolescence who become alcoholics and or abuse alcohol. Why would any college president want to encourage their students to drink and make it legal. A young person's brain is not fully developed till age 25 making their choices, behaviors high risk.

Posted by Kathy on 20 Aug 08 09:14 AM EDT

Lowering the drinking age will only accomplish one thing - more (legal)money in the pockets of the alchol industry and the politicians their lobby groups support. Hmmmmmm, lose highway funding for your state or extra cash in your pocket? Tough decision there. When society accepts the fact that alcohol is a drug and kills like other drugs, maybe we have a chance to save others. Lowering the drinking age will not stop underage drinking nor will it stop binge drinking. Wake up!

Posted by Maria on 20 Aug 08 09:18 AM EDT

I believe in lowering the drinking age. I am a Canadian, where the legal drinking age varies from 18 to 19 years of age depending on the province or territory. Stop assuming all young people will become alcoholics or drink and drive!!!!

Posted by FredM on 20 Aug 08 09:22 AM EDT

Mass. tried a lower drinking age and the results were disasterous. Does history have to repeat itself?

Posted by Mark on 20 Aug 08 09:34 AM EDT

I don't think it should ever have been raised from 18. I don't think the direction we are moving in as far as extending childhood into the 20's is healthy for the individual or for society. I think we need to get back to the expectation that by 18 the individual has become responsible for their actions - in all spheres of maturity. We need independent young adults who learn good and bad consequences, not permanently dependent career adolescents. I have felt this way since the early 80's when this reactionary trend started and I feel the same way today. Good for the college presidents for stating the obvious. There will remain the need for prevention and intervention in childhood as well as the need for responsible parenting (including letting children become adults).

Posted by George on 20 Aug 08 09:34 AM EDT

I agree with R Allen, but I have another twist to add. College administrators are grappling with an issue involving assults, vandalism, sexualt assults and rape due to alcohol abuse. When parents come in and put the administrator on the hot seat wanting to know what is being done to stop the 18/19 year old from drinking and doing "this" to my child the parents shift the burden from the students decision to the universities responsibility. The adminisrators what the easy fix...it's not our responsibility "they were drunk". Instead of the difficult issue they are dealing with now "underage drinking".

Posted by SE Rice on 20 Aug 08 09:52 AM EDT

I was a residence life director at Syracuse University in the 1980s, and today I work for a substance abuse treatment center. The transition to the older drinking age was difficult, but the dedication of the Syracuse staff to making the process about education vs. legality helped facilitate the change. When residence life staff focused on the negative behaviors that resulted from someone being drunk vs. the "evils of drinking" progress toward responsible actions was accomplished. Isn't that the ultimate goal? To produce life-long responsibility for one's bahavior under any circumstance? The ability to make good choices. What these schools fail to see today is that changing a law for all 18-21 years olds to accomodate the administration of a university system is not in the best interest of society as a whole. It's time these universities go back to school and learn how to educate these young people for life, about life.

Posted by katherine van wormer on 20 Aug 08 09:55 AM EDT

It used to be at the student parties, faculty members were there also and at fraternity parties older alumni were present. That meant there was some older supervision and there was no atmosphere of sneakiness as you get now when the heavy drinking parties involve lawbreaking. The MADD arguments don't take into account the tightening of the drinking and driving laws and lowering of the blood alcohol levels for legal driving. The death rates on the road have declined for all age groups. co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective

Posted by Jason Renaud on 20 Aug 08 10:01 AM EDT

It seems both more logical, manageable, and thoughtful about the changing character of youth today to raise the age for college admission. See - www.mentalhealthportland.org

Posted by Alan on 20 Aug 08 10:20 AM EDT

The restoration of 18 (even 19) as the legal drinking age could be a helpful start to redress an obviously irrational theory (that those empowered to vote, have children, buy weapons, and command complex weapons systems in the military are not mature enough to have a glass of wine or a beer. However, such a move must be accompanied by a burst of good pre-college alcohol education marked by wisdom, truthfulness and a high dose (now politically incorrect) of harm reduction and approaches to "responsible drinking," while offering continued support for abstainers.

Posted by Michael Smith on 20 Aug 08 10:32 AM EDT

It is very difficult to imagine that these college graduates (I am assuming that college presidents are themselves college graduates) are making these decisions! What is it about the youth drinking culture that encourages these men and women (again, I am assuming that some of the '100' are women. If not, my apologies) to consider lowering the drinking age? Seriously, I 'd like to see the research that genuinely supports a reduction in harm-based activities once children are allowed to drink. (Less rapes, assaults, deaths, DWI, etc.) Also, I'd like to see the research that shows an increase in grades. That said, I am thankful to see at least a partial list of the colleges - I can now say with confidence that my child will never attend one of those institutions and I hope other tuition-paying parents will do the same. It's interesting that parent groups are not included in this decision. I guess we'll have be part of the decision-making process by not allowing (or financing) our children's entry to these schools. Peace & Harmony to all.

Posted by David Rosenbloom, Join Together on 20 Aug 08 10:33 AM EDT

Binge drinking was a big problem in high schools and on college campuses twenty years ago and it is a big problem now. Any discussion on the legal drinking age should be based on facts, and the fact is that before the National Minimum Age Drinking Act raised the legal drinking age to 21 in 1984, binge drinking rates among twelfth graders were 41% and have dropped to 26% today. Underage alcohol consumption is driven by more than just the legal drinking age. If we are serious about reducing drinking among high school and college students, we should look at state beer taxes. The fastest way to reduce alcohol use among young people is to raise the price. Alcohol taxes in many states have not been raised in years.

Posted by Judy Kirkwood on 20 Aug 08 10:45 AM EDT

This is more about liability than about reality, safety, health, or education. In other words, money, which translates into greed. It's certainly not policy based on need.

Posted by Linda on 20 Aug 08 11:49 AM EDT

I personally think the age should be increased to 25. Maturity and responsibility are two of the key reason for my feelings. Hope there are others that agree with me.

Posted by Sue, CADC on 20 Aug 08 12:27 PM EDT

I believe that the alcohol age limit could be lowered, with education for harm reduction and prevention to match. When a person is told that they cannot do something, at age 18, it is more about bucking the system than conforming. When we tell an 18 year old that you cannot drink, it begins the addictive thinking processes by making people feel as if they should be ashamed, hide and lie about their alcohol consumption. Our focus should be on making our children responsible for their actions and teaching them good decision making skills. At 18, we are given adult responsibilities, adult decisions to make, and the first chance to live on our own. There was a post that described this lowering of the drinking age as a way for a college to not be responsible for a student's actions if they are drunk, I feel that I must say, that an individual that makes the decision to drink, get drunk, and rape or assault someone, should be held accountable for their actions not the school that they attend. No institution is responsible for an individuals actions that happen at that institution. This is like blaming the post office for workers that shoot their coworkers.

Posted by alcohol educator on 20 Aug 08 12:36 PM EDT

It is pretty clear that some of the people who posted comments here have never been a parent of teenagers or young adults. No law or age is going to keep youth from drinking if they want to drink! For David Rosenbloom-Join Together, to single out beer for a tax hike is such an uneducated, irresponsible statement. If you look at stats, college youth are not choosing beer. It takes too much and is too filling for their binge drinking. They want to get drunk fast, before the games, before the parties to maintain a "buzz" for a long time. It is spirits they are choosing, shots that go down quickly & are more concentrated to keep them buzzing longer & is way more dangerous than beer will ever be. Has anyone ever thought about graduated drinking ages for certain kinds of alcohol, like 3.2% beer first at 18 or 19 then moving to stronger stuff at older ages, kind of like graduated drivers licenses? Cassandra, you say the 18 yr old brain can't make decisions, but you will trust them to protect your country and fellow soldiers or trust them to decide whether to serve or sell alcohol to others as is allowed in many states? Hmmm? Thorough ALCOHOL EDUCATION is the only real answer!

Posted by Mac on 20 Aug 08 12:41 PM EDT

I am opposed to lowering the drinking age to 18 at the same time treatment services are being cut and more difficult to access unless Dr. Phil helps with a treatment gift or the family has the money for private pay. The result will be more not less irresponsible drinking, more young people progressing into alcohol dependence and the usual increase in taxes and alcohol industry profits. The sad fact is that for every tax dollar from the sale of alcohol the country pays out $8.00 in alchohol costs. This is worse than voodoo economics. Who is operating the moral compass these days? Apparently not these university presidents.

Posted by John French on 20 Aug 08 12:53 PM EDT

Theater of the Absurd, once again. How can academicians not pay heed to the overwhelming historical data showing that this would be a really bad decision, and cost lives of the very kids they are supposed to protect! Oh, I forgot. It would mean less problems trying to enforce the law if we let kids do what they want on college campuses. How silly of me.

Posted by Mary on 20 Aug 08 01:48 PM EDT

Is everything not measured by age? Graduate high school @ 18 give or take a yr, graduate college @ 2,4 or more years, vote @ 18, politians have a age min or max. So what's up with not just using experience as an age grader? Why do we ponder "age" back & forth?

Posted by Dave Sweeney on 20 Aug 08 03:35 PM EDT

To those who don't know me, I've reached out and helped thousands of teens as well as young adults break free of the devastating effects of drug & alcohol abuse. Some of these young men and women are now returning from Iraq and Afganistan with terrible damage to their mental well being. So my friends, it is my vigorous and firm opinion that the legal age for drinking remain at 21. However, the legal age for going into battle and harms way must also be changed to 21. Thanks for listening.

Posted by Jane on 20 Aug 08 04:34 PM EDT

The only reason colleges are getting on this bandwagon is so they don't have to enforce illegal drinking laws anymore. This makes me so mad, I could spit nails. Seriously, yes drinking in college is a problem and by that very virtue, it is mostly an underage drinking problem. If the drinking age is lowered to 18, then colleges don't have to answer to townspeople or parents yelling about (deservedly so) what the college is going to do about the underage drinking problem. any institution who signs this inititative is doing nothing but saying they don't want to deal with it. It's so amazingly irresponsible.

Posted by Sue on 20 Aug 08 05:07 PM EDT

I remember the day when there were 3.2 bars for 18-21 year olds and the drinking age was 18 and death and DUI count was not nearly as high as it is in today's society. I believe the drinking binges come from lack of parenting and alcohol education. Everything can be done in moderation, including drinking a beer or a glass wine, and this is what needs to be taught to the children today. Older adults consume just as much incidences as much as "teen and college drinking." So I believe if a child can vote, purchase a home, go to war and buy cigarettes, then they should be able to purchase and consume alcohol.

Posted by chris volkmann on 20 Aug 08 05:43 PM EDT

My son Toren is 5 years sober after struggling with alcohol until age 23. Irregardless of legal age, highway deaths, or consequences of heavy drinking, we feel that it is mandatory to educate all potential drinkers and their parents about the vulnerability of the adolescent brain and the increased chance of problems with alcohol with early, heavy drinking. Our country is one of few with such a late legal drinking age. While the legal age of 21 may prevent some youth from early drinking, it is still problematic, because it seems many tend to drink before age 21 no matter what. It is essential to educate our population early and in many different ways, since the majority appears to discount the danger of youthful, heavy drinking. The legal drinking age is not merely a college issue, but a health issue for all citizens of our country. Whether the drinking age is lowered or remains age 21, there should be added funds for education, intervention and treatment, and appropriate taxes on alcohol products to pay for these services. Problems associated with adolescent drinking will be present at both age 18 and 21. Chris Volkmann, author of FROM BINGE TO BLACKOUT, www.bingetoblackout.com

Posted by Elle on 20 Aug 08 06:09 PM EDT

Changing the legal age, higher or lower, isn't going to change if kids drink, because they will anyway. A younger drinking age is not going to automatically turn kids into alcoholics; instead, it won't be as cool because it's no longer forbidden. If 18 were the legal age, kids could more easily call their families or the authorities for help if there is trouble, without the fear of punishment or jail time just for being drunk. I've had friends that should have gone to the hospital after binging but no one wanted to call the cops or an ambulance because then everyone at the party would have gotten busted. Instead, there were drunk kids (or a rare DD) trying to take care of very drunk kids, some passed out, vomiting, and/or unresponsive. Parents should be drinking with their kids at home and teaching them to drink responsibly, not telling them it's something they're not allowed to do until they're adults. If we're going to raise the legal age for anything, raise the driving age to 18 (with exceptions for farm permits, etc.) and lower the drinking age to 16. Then kids can learn how to drink, and drink responsibly, long before they ever try and drive.

Posted by D. Lewis on 20 Aug 08 06:41 PM EDT

It's illegal to drive drunk whether you're over 21 or not. There are laws against hazing whether it involves alcohol or not. Irresponsible drinking is irresponsible whether someone is underage or not. Why do so many people assume age is the cure-all for this? I attend a school that puts very little effort into enforcing the drinking age, and I see very few problems with alcohol. If someone does have a problem, people make sure they have the resources and the stimulation to fix it. The rest of society should look at a similar path. There are mechanisms to block irresponsible behavior that should be used more than they are. Rather than let them learn to drink responsibly, society pushes teenagers away until they are beyond liability and on their own. Kids learn math and reading before they are sent off on their own. Why are they not taught lifestyle skills before then?

Posted by Todd, LICSW on 20 Aug 08 06:53 PM EDT

I enjoy reading these posts, but it's extremely annoying to hear yet another person blame the parents for their child's behavior. I'm not in favor of lowering the drinking age on college campuses. Why should a college student have more privileges than someone who doesn't attend college??

Posted by Gloria Moore on 20 Aug 08 11:49 PM EDT

How much is the former president of Middlebury College being paid by alcohol interests to front this initiative? If lowering the legal drinking age is inevitable, then raising alcohol taxes and earmarking the new revenues to pay for treatment, prevention and emergency services should also be inevitable. If the drinking age is lowered, it will be but one more example of how the American public "pays the tab" to subsidize the alcohol industry without a clue about how much the misuse of alcohol costs us all.

Posted by Mary on 21 Aug 08 01:25 AM EDT

Kudos to Gloria. If so many want to bring this up, then let's follow through....Voting at 18 can maybe cause political caouse, going to war at 18 is the price we pay for our freedom, buying a house at 18 isn't harming anyone, and smoking at 18 {besides the controverse about second hand smoke} isn't going to harm anyone....drinking at any age can harm yourself and innocent by standers, get the point? Why allow a harmful drug to be available to 18 year olds just because of the fore mentioned things? Pure unamerican.

Posted by Dan D. on 21 Aug 08 10:31 AM EDT

Yes, we need to better respond to underage drinking, but this is not the answer. Ask yourself this: why would a college administrator acquiesce to this idea? One reason is the headache of having to deal with all the problems underage drinking causes, but the other is what they are not talking about. The college adminstrators who have signed this proposition do not want to have to assertively address drinking issues for fear of how it will impact enrollment. They keep their jobs, in part, based on enrollment. Any college's "party quotient" is a factor in whether kids will want to go there, or not. Don't kid yourself that this is not a major factor...but don't hold your breath that they will readily admit it, either. McCardle's assertion that lowering the drinking age would reduce binge drinking is laughable. If you know about brain development and psychological/physiological maturity, not only would you not lower the drinking age you might actually advocate to increase it! Really bad idea.

Posted by Pat Nichols on 21 Aug 08 03:24 PM EDT

Here's my idea, if the drinking age get's lowerer whoever votes it into law must take turns personally going to the home of the family and informing them of the death of their loved one due to alcohol or other drugs. Be sure and put that into the law and see how fast they change the law back and increase the legal drinking age to 25! In our society we tend to legalize that which we can not control. So, if we lower the drinking age to 18 0r 19 and the problem continues or even gets worse should we lower it to 14 or 15?

Posted by Bob Boivin on 22 Aug 08 03:54 AM EDT

Telling adults that we can not trust them to make adult decisions is ridiculous. At eighteen you're old enough to vote, to serve your country in the military where you literally make life or death decisions, be a parent but not to drink what kind of distrustful society do we expect? As a culture we are teaching kids to binge drink. It starts in high school where they have to sneak it usually on weekends, that means they drink to get drunk. The concept of socially responsible drinking is alien to them. Teen alcoholism is not going away and many drunk drivers are still under age the law does not change behaviors and can even stigmatize problem drinking by making it a legal issue rather than a medical one. We need to teach our children the responsible way to handle alcohol and we don't encourage the needed dialog by pretending its not an issue just because they aren't supposed to do it. We should encourage conversation because other than trial and error it's the only way for them to learn. Making drinking illegal to minors has not stopped teen drinking. The only way to help is to educate to do that we need their trust to gain that we must show trust in them.

Posted by Renee B. on 25 Aug 08 09:50 AM EDT

I am an Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug educator in Michigan who went to college here back when the legal drinking age was 18. Then, it turned 19, then it turned 21. So I have been "legal" 3 times, which never really mattered since I started drinking at age 13 and was an alcoholic by the time I was binging on weekends in college.Law or no law, I would find alcohol to consume because I needed it. From there daily drinking ensued and it took many years before I found a way out of my addiction. I blame no-one for this and don't know what could have changed the progression of my disease, if anything could have, any sooner. For me, alcohol almost took my life. The fact that this initiative is called "Amethyst" is troubling as so many people in the "recovery community" consider that stone to be one symbolizing sobriety. Another case of folks taking a lie and trying to rationalize it into the truth; which ironically enough is a behavior addicts use quite alot. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....................

Posted by Jason Blanchette on 25 Aug 08 10:28 AM EDT

I often hear the "if you're old enough to die for your country than you're old enough to drink" argument for lowering the drinking age. However, if you've ever been in the military than you know that as a young soldier you are entitled to nothing and have a whole lot of other things that you can't do. Simply serving does not entitle you to anything. Although the federal government requires military bases on U.S. territory further from 50 miles of Canada or Mexico to have a minimum drinking age of 21, they allow the military to choose whatever age limit they want for their foreign bases. Despite this freedom to choose their age limit on bases within foreign territory, all four branches require their soldiers and sailors to be 21 years old to drink no matter where they are (with the exception of marines stationed in Japan where the age limit is 20). I can't think of any organization that would know more about turning adolescents into responsible adults than the United States Military. We can teach an 18 year old to be a soldier in the greatest military world-wide, but we cannot teach him to use his brain when he has a beer in his hand. Some of them have the ability but most do not.

Posted by adreeene on 25 Aug 08 01:23 PM EDT

Where do 18-year-olds get alcohol? From friends who are 21. By this rationale we can assume thta if the drinking age is lowered to 18 we are going to have a huge increase in the number of 15, 16, and 17-year-olds who now have easy access to alcohol because their 18-year-old friend (who may very well still be in high school) is now suddenly legal. BAD IDEA!

Posted by mike on 25 Aug 08 02:38 PM EDT

if 18 year olds were mature enough to drink responsibly we wouldn't be having this debate.

Posted by T. Lindsey on 25 Aug 08 03:10 PM EDT

College Presidents taking a stand about national and state laws is amazing. It makes me wonder about the payoff for such a noble stand....like maybe if the kids get drunk and fall out windows someplace ELSE then they wont face so much pressure to keep the greek system sober.... Has anyone looked to see how many "accidents" happen each year at rush and graduation events....thousands. and lawsuits follow, to all those party- hard colleges. Who Know what they value anyway? Let the kids drive drunk or fight elsewhere. What incredible leadership guys, thanks How about we consider the fact that research demonstrates the human brain prefrontal cortex still being underdeveloped and needing more outside assistance as consequences are learned... While its true that our over population issue is serious....our youth are precious. This is not an issue for special interest groups to decide for us. I bet the liquor industry will join in...there is another real shock. TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT decision...Let the research be done on current death rates, accidents and addiction treatment stats first;then let the juvenile justice, and the experienced parents of injured adolescents weigh in.

Posted by nisie on 25 Aug 08 05:53 PM EDT

My only child, Amanda, was seventeen when she was killed by a forty-one year old drunk driver at three in the afternoon in a residential area. If these college presidents are so concerned about the students death why haven't they brought up discussion about crashes are the number one cause of death ages 15-24 and almost 50% of those crashes are alcohol related. Why haven't they asked which impaired driving laws need to be strengthened if they are so concerned. We need to do everything we can to prevent teenagers from becoming a drunk driver in their forties like the on that killed my daughter.

Posted by michelle on 25 Aug 08 09:09 PM EDT

The Liberal college president who started this crusade to lower the drinking age, probably also believes that marijuana should be legalized, too. For this man to lead and bully other college presidents into following his "crusade" is a complete abuse of power in his position of prominence. I lived through the age 18 legal drinking age, which was later changed in New Jersey, to 21. Looking back, I consider it a miracle that I was not killed or killed another innocent person, due to the many, many times I drove a car, utterly intoxicated. 18 yr. olds have undeveloped (until age 25) pre-frontal cortexes (the decision maker of the brain). Giving them alcohol will cause death to their developing brain cells as well as too many innocent and unsuspecting lives. Step down, Mr. Middleberry president. You had your 15 min. of fame.

Posted by Bill Windsor on 26 Aug 08 12:49 PM EDT

Nationwide Insurance released a survey last week containing some of the most recent public opinion on the topic. This Nationwide Insurance Survey on Underage Drinking was done in April 2008 by Opinion Research Corporation, an independent third party. Among the key findings: Americans continue to overwhelmingly reject an ongoing push to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. 72 percent of adults think lowering the drinking age will make alcohol more accessible to kids. Nearly half believe it would increase binge drinking among teens. More than half even say they are less likely to vote for a state representative who supports lowering the legal limit. Missouri is one of nine states where organized efforts have been taken to lower the drinking age. For other key findings: http://www.nationwide.com/newsroom/stop-underage-drinking.jsp

Posted by Virginia Oldham, MA, CPP on 26 Aug 08 02:34 PM EDT

Wow! I don't think I've ever seen so many comments. I hope Amethyst Initiative's 100 college officials are getting the message. Lowering the legal drinking age to 18? Bad Idea!!

Posted by Anthony Carter on 26 Aug 08 04:12 PM EDT

Being a safety professional I was aghast at hearing that supposedly "learned individuals" were even contemplating supporting lower-age drinking. I have seen what alcohol does in the hands of teenagers. I agree with several other comments posted here that it is the University Presidents that don't want to deal with it or take responsibility for the destructiveness alcohol causes on their campuses. Only the "big, bad alcohol incidents" get connected to drinking. There are untold events that occur at every university and we all pay the price. Lowering the drinking age -- bad, bad idea.

Posted by Jerri on 27 Aug 08 09:08 AM EDT

Presidents Gone Wild? The Surgeon General has issued a call to action on the epidemic of underaged drinking throughout society. Maybe this is a call to action for parents, who remain the #1 influence on whether youth drink or not, and for the community at large. Colleges presidents need our input and our help in addressing this huge issue. The drinking age should be 21 or 25 and we all need to be invested in it.

Posted by tokerdesigner on 27 Aug 08 08:51 PM EDT

Binge drinking, not moderate drinking is the problem. Lowering the drinking age (so children can learn the right way to do it under supervision) makes sense if combined with some other steps promoting moderation (and defeating various sneaky ways the industry promotes overdose!). 1. Permit lower-age usage of specially designed mini-dosages such as, in the case of whisky etc., an ampoule containing an amount like 5 cc, which once empty either converts into a part to make jewelry from or, if aluminum, recycle. Beer or wine could be packaged in an aluminum container the size and shape of a pack of cigarets-- something you can carry in your pocket like real cigarets but less dangerous to your health! Capacity 1-2 ounces.

Posted by Join Together on 29 Aug 08 10:56 AM EDT

The Boston Globe has published a letter to the editor on this issue from David Rosenbloom, director of Join Together.

Posted by joe dupont on 31 Aug 08 11:52 PM EDT

There is one and only one reason why the college presidents want to lower the drinking age!!! To reduce the college liability. Screw the kids. They don't care about the kids.

Posted by Robert on 03 Sep 08 08:23 AM EDT

What's the big deal? I say give all the college presidents underage kids the first case of beer. Let them get caught drinking and driving and see who cries the most. It makes me wonder how these people got into the position they are in with this type of logic. If they want to use the arguement that you can go to war at 18, let them enlist and serve and I'll buy the first drink when they return, they've earned it. But to say all should get to drink just because they "could" go is absurd. 18 failed before and it will again.

Posted by denisernmsnhnc@aol.com on 03 Sep 08 08:24 AM EDT

With what we know about the effects of alcohol on the still developing brain of young people (up to 25 years old), I do not understand why college presidents and parents want to sbdicate their roles as protectors of our young. Alcohol is a toxic substance, which lowers impulse control (already an issue in young people.) and impacts attention and ability to concentrate. If we are sending out children off to study, why is it necessary to make alcohol a part of the normalization process to college life? These decisions might be coming from presidents and parents who do not wish to look at some of their own issues in relationship to alcohol.

Posted by Pat Nichols on 03 Sep 08 03:25 PM EDT

Simply require each college president who supports lowering the drinking age to personally go to the parents home to notify the family that their child has died if it was from the abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

Posted by Dirk on 10 Sep 08 07:25 PM EDT

Alcohol & drug abuse are public/mental health problems. It would be great if families could model responsible behaviour, and many do, but many have already made poor decisions leaving their ability to teach compromised. Legalize all drugs and re-direct the funds wasted on the war on behaviour to the effort to change behaviour. It is a cultural sea change which will require all of our best efforts. I know, the political will and the social awareness to support this is lacking. We must work on both if we are to stop the pain and loss of our culture's dysfunctional drug taking.

Posted by what's wrong with debating again on 15 Sep 08 01:13 AM EDT

it's clearly mentioned in the article that"The college presidents supporting the initiative have signed a statement that does not specifically call for the drinking age to be reduced from 21 to 18, but seeks a debate of the law".From when is it wrong to debate again ?Why are people so afraid of a simple debate?Do they think it's a loosing battle from all fronts!!

Posted by TIME FOR A JOKE on 15 Sep 08 01:31 AM EDT

hmm.So much discussion.and so much stats.It's just funny.CNN said this and Washington post said that,New York post reports this... What ever happened to letting things be done democratically.Since it's 18 yr old in question:LET them vote.If they win they drink.If not,ah well they drink nevertheless.So have fun discussing.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (guidelines):

Name:
Comment: (limit 250 words)
Enter this word (help):	Change

GUIDELINES:
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

Keep it clean, courteous, brief, and on-topic. Comments are for discussion of the above article, not general rants or manifestos. Serial comments intended to circumvent the 250-word limit may be deleted.
Do not post promotional web links, personal information or requests for assistance (get help).
Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercial posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.

Coalition Forms to Keep N.J. Drinking Age at 21

Lowering Drinking Age to 18 Gets Consideration

Study Casts Doubt on Effectiveness of Social-Norms Campaigns

Schedule Friday Morning Classes to Cut Students Drinking, Colleges Urged

Binge Drinking On College Campuses

What Colleges Need to Know Now: An Update on College Drinking Research