local

Home › News › CU & The People's Republic

Drinking age: Debate is on tap

Opinions vary, but Amethyst Initiative wants discussion on whether 21 should be legal drinking age

By Richard Valenty, valenty@coloradodaily.com

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Thomas B. Coburn

Thomas B. Coburn

Here’s a question to ponder –should the legal drinking age remain at 21?

The question is red-hot right now, since a group called the Amethyst Initiative announced that many U.S. college leaders support revisiting the “21 law.” As of last Friday, 129 college presidents, chancellors or vice chancellors had signed on to an Amethyst statement calling for dialogue.

But the single question could lead to many others. Would decreasing the legal age increase alcohol dependence/addiction, altercations or accidents? Or is the 21 law responsible for increased binge drinking, unregulated drinking, and making otherwise law-abiding 18- to 20-year-olds into criminals?

Thomas Coburn, President of Naropa University in Boulder, is one of several officials in Colorado who has signed the Amethyst statement.

Coburn said he doesn’t necessarily favor changing the legal age one way or another. But he also said that as an educator, his duty and goal is to help young people make mature decisions, which is why he is interested in more public input and discussion.

“The reliance upon a drinking age of 21 is an overly simple solution to a very complex problem, which is the place of alcohol in America,” said Coburn.

On the other hand, University of Colorado President Bruce Benson sent out a brief letter last Friday. He thanked Amethyst for the opportunity to participate, but declined to sign on.

Ken McConnellogue, CU spokesperson, said Benson’s letter should not be taken as a repudiation of discussing the drinking age. He said Benson simply believes the system has more pressing issues to deal with at this time, such as funding, but CU will keep an eye on how the discussion develops.

Ryan Biehle, University of Colorado Student Union (UCSU) Tri-Executive, said Friday that UCSU has not yet taken a position on Amethyst, but it hopes to engage students to learn more about their opinions.

“Everything we can do to foster a safe and positive campus climate is a step in the right direction,” said Biehle via e-mail. “If reducing the legal drinking age is the right answer, then it is a step we’ll need to take. But we’ll also need to consider the potential ramifications to those not in college – those under 21 who may still be in high school.”

Mark Beckner, Boulder’s Police Chief, has told a reporter for the TV show “60 Minutes” that he favors consideration of reducing the legal age, coupled with stronger alcohol education programs. Police spokesperson Sarah Huntley said that the TV piece will air sometime in September.

Beckner wrote a letter to Boulder City Council to explain his rationale. For example, he said CU student binge drinking and “frequent binge drinking” increased between 1993 and 2005 – despite increased city resources and efforts being devoted towards enforcement.

“What we’ve done is helped create an underground culture that encourages binge drinking without any oversight or supervision,” read an excerpt from Beckner’s three-page letter.

But the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving sent out an August release calling Amethyst a “misguided initiative.”

MADD National President Laura Dean-Mooney said it doesn’t make sense to increase legal access to alcohol when there are already alcohol problems. The release also included statements from U.S. congressmen saying the 21 law reduces drunk-driving fatalities.

“As it stands, about 5,000 people under 21 die each year due to underage drinking,” said Dean-Mooney. “This is not to mention the sexual assaults, violence and injuries.”

So, the CU community can expect near-term drinking age discussions – but probably not instant unanimity.

Comments

Posted by rr on August 25, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fire the college Presidents who are in favor of poisoning (enabling alcohol access for) our kids. Expel the rotten apples (students) who are breaking the law on college campuses. Suspend faculty willing to overlook drinking on campus. Have we all gone mentally bankrupt?

Will drinking make kids win Nobel Prizes?
Will drinking make them will Olympic medals?
Will drinking make them healthier?

Will drinking help focus them to compete for global competition? How will drinking help them be at par with the Chinese and Indians who devote all their energy and resource to learning while our children drink alcohol?

Fire the delinquent and misguided sentinels of knowledge and champions of wisdom for abdicating responsibility. Bring on the educators from China and India who are producing students that exceed the best of the best.

Save our children, the global leaders of tomorrow
from the incompetence of some of the academic US leaders.

Rajeev Rawat
Boulder, CO

Posted by wafflesunited on August 25, 2008 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Rajeev Rawat,

To put it simply I think your thoughts on the matter are terrible. While I do agree that there are more pressing concerns right now other then changing the drinking age, your blindness and right winged views blow my mind. Do you really think that these kids aren't drinking already? Regardless of the age, the kids are going to drink. Its college and its what they do. If you have kids, and you treat them like the way you sound from your post, then let me be the first to tell you that your kids are going to cut lose and get hammered more often then you could possibly imagine. Sheltering people does not make them stronger or better people, if anything it makes them more rebellious.

If the drinking age was lower,the youth would get the whole binge drinking out of the way at an early age, if they even went through it at all. In Europe teens are brought up with wine at dinner and a much lower drinking age, and it seems they are doing just fine. We need to teach the youth to be more responsible with drinking from an earlier age, and not tell them you can't until this magic year which has been randomly selected. What happens at 21 that makes you that much more capable or more responsible?

Hope all is well in the world of Rawat, but when you decide to join the rest of us open your eyes a bit. :)

Dr. Craig
Elon, NC

Posted by bapinney on August 25, 2008 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it so hard to believe that someone who is 18-years-old can be responsible? Our laws invest so much trust into 18-years-olds that they are able to apply for credit, be legally bound to contracts, lease a car, vote in elections that shape how our country and governing bodies are run, make the decision to enlist in the military, and even gamble.

Do you know how many people ruin their lives by getting in too far in-debt? So why do we let 18-year-olds apply for credit cards so they can go on a spending binge? Because, a lot of 18-year-olds will indeed be responsible, pay the bill, and be on the road to establishing creditworthiness. Some, however, will abuse this privilege and spend to the limit. However, 20, 30, and 40-year-olds abuse that same privilege too.

You don't blacklist an entire age bracket because there are a few people who abuse the privilege. There are 18-year-olds that can just sit down and enjoy a beer or two. By the way, Alcoholism is something that affects drinkers later on in life. Perhaps we should enact a maximum age limit for drinking, right? I think so. Based on the median age of the attendees at AA meetings, older adults just can't handle alcohol. The same point being made against young adults can apply to older adults, sometimes even more so.

Age is irrelevant. It is discrimination, to say the least. The laws don't affect the people who are bound to abuse alcohol anyways (it doesn't stop them in their endeavors), it only hurts and criminalizes those who could handle the responsibility. If you're worried about the choices these no-longer-kids-,but-adults are going to make, you're too late. Responsibility, isn't something that 'magically' happens at a certain age, its something that gets born and raised like the person itself.

Posted by Finger2212 on August 25, 2008 at 1:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I saw this article pop up on my newsfeed and felt compelled to offer an outside perspective. I am 19 years old and live in Canada, and therefore I am able to legally drink.

I think that the American drinking age is ridiculous. Personally I think that binge drinking at any age is unnecessary and should be frowned upon, but that is not to say that this applies to all teenagers.

Now I know of dozens of kids who only lived for the weekend so that they could shed all of their responsibilities, get drunk with friends and then call in sick for work. I always thought that it would serve them right to get busted for underage drinking, but then I saw something interesting.

After witnessing this for a few years, and when we all turned 19, it seemed to stop. Alcohol was easy to access, and not just that, but there was no thrill or sense of urgency. If you wanted a drink, there it was, just a few dollars away whenever you want. I think that the novelty wore off for them. They seemed more responsible and mature. Now this is not to say that I don't see idiots misbehaving or doing stupid things, but people will do that regardless.

From the opposite spectrum, I never had more than a couple of drinks before I was 19, and have started drinking ever since it became legal. But I can count the number of times that I actually had enough to have any effect on me during this past year on one hand, and so I would like to defend the fact that a 19 year old is quite capable of making their own decisions wisely. And if they don't, they will learn soon enough from their mistakes.

Kids will drink regardless of laws. Look at the problems with drugs which carry far more heavy consequences for using them illegally, and yet they are still rampant.

It's just ignorant to think that by dangling the carrot above kid's heads for 21 years will magically make them more responsible people. It is learned through trial and error. I'm sure that there would be 19 year olds who would abuse the new laws, and yet, they would probably do so anyways.

In short, from what I have witnessed here in Canada, the novelty wears off when you can just walk into a store and grab what you want. That doesn't stop social drinking, but it does help stop binging.

Anyone who thinks that lowering the drinking age will make alcohol easier to get at colleges are naive and need to take a walk through a Residence on a Friday night.

Posted by jlayneca on August 25, 2008 at 2:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rajeev Rawat wrote: "How will drinking help them be at par with the Chinese and Indians who devote all their energy and resource to learning while our children drink alcohol?"

Ummm... someone needs to tell Mr. Rawat that China doesn't even have a minimum drinking age! And they have the fastest growing economy in the world. So it may be best to pick another example.

I think the drinking age should be lowered, and I even think that alcohol should be MORE common in homes. That which is prohibited (e.g. sex and alcohol) is often very pleasurable, and kids know this. What they don't know is the proper use of these things and how to have them in moderation. THAT is what parents ought to be teaching kids. Sex is for marriage. Alcohol is for social purposes... for enjoyment and not drunkenness. If kids grew up with some wine, for example with their meals, they might not be so rebellious and ready to "try what they've been missing" when they get out of the parents' control.

Raising the drinking age to 21 was a feel good measure. It makes society feel as if it has done something to help kids, while the real goal ought to be to teach kids how to use good things in moderation and not to condemn them altogether. The 21 drinking age contributes to reckless behavior and binge drinking, and I've seen these things with my own eyes. It's time that a serious discussion come about on the issue rather than sweeping it into the dustbin of prohibited topics that offend the practitioners of political correctness in our society today.

Posted by BigZach89 on August 25, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I figured this would be as good a time as any to support the lowering of the drinking age. As an eighteen year old in America, I can tell you first hand that, with alcohol not readily available, teenagers go out of their way to get wrecked. whenever they can, even on school nights. This isn't because they are alcoholics, but teenagers experimenting with prohibitted substances. My brother got wasted often during high school. Upon turning twenty one, the excitement of drinking left him. No longer did he feel the thrill of knowing he was breaking the law or feel rebellious because he was going against the grain. He now has a beer or two with dinner with his roommate, all the while working and interacting with people socially without feeling the need to get drunk.

I have smoked cigarettes for about five months. When I turned eighteen, I lost that thrill of knowing that because of my looks I could buy rettes without being carded. I haven't smoked in some time. Once people gain the right to legally purchase certain substances, there is less of an allure toward these substances. Plenty of my friends have been completely wasted and driven home. If alcohol was readily available to them, they would not feel the need to drink in excess.

Lower the drinking age. It is the safer solution to this growing problem. And Rajeev, you'll pardon me I hope, but when an Indian person tries to convince Americans that India is pumping out prodigious students while American kids get sloshed, you send a troublesome message. If you think keeping the drinking age where it is will create a new Utopia for education, you fail to see that underage kids drink a lot more than legal people, impeeding their growth of knowledge. Get a clue!!!

Zach Dean
St. Louis, MO

P.S. I have had alcohol before and never been drunk and always been responsible about my drinking habits. It is very possible for teens to be responsible. I mean, I pay car insurance and my cell phone bill, give voice lessons, and act in local theater. I could not do all of that and not be responsible.

Posted by rr on August 31, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Dr. Craig,

Honorable Sir, we simply disagree. In my view, the Deans are entrusted with the development, education, and well being of college students. We need role models of educators who motivate students to become role models of health, education, charity, and excellence. Isn’t that the role educators are chartered with?

If educators must engage in any other aspect than education, it must be to remake their colleges into communities which eliminate the need for drinking to fill-in sociological or psychological gaps. Has drinking shown any evidence of strengthening students' character or moral standing?

Is drinking compatible with building a strong body for endurance or strength, does alcohol improve concentration or memory, does intoxication improve the quality of sleep or restful revitalization of the cells? Isn’t then the deans' march to open access to alcohol at colleges misguided and wrong!

What redeeming quality does drinking contribute to the mission of a student on campus? Drunk kids intimidate and fight, cause damage to property and life, and distract others from studying. How does this behavior belong on campus? Is drinking also not expensive? Who other than rich brats can really afford it?

We do have children in our lives. Those in college earn on work-study programs, hold lab jobs, and work as resident-advisors to pay their bills. With what's left-over time, they get to the gym or go for a run, or take in a show or a movie, or volunteer. They have just enough money to dress clean, eat healthy meals, and keep peanut butter for a snack. Alcohol?

Yes, there are millions living this student ethic and even fewer resources - here and abroad.

Honorable sir, it is not me who needs to open his eyes. If the deans can not show good judgment they should be replaced by those who can do better. This is not a right wing or a left wing consideration, the deans are simply on the wrong wing - and so are you.

Rajeev Rawat
Boulder, CO

Posted by rr on August 31, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To jlayneca

Ummm... someone needs to tell Mr. Rawat that China doesn't even have a minimum drinking age! And they have the fastest growing economy in the world. So it may be best to pick another example.

You are right. China does not see a need for even establishing a drinking age. Most have no money to afford alcohol. And their average and outstanding students, who compete with our MIT, CalTech grads are researching new papers, collaborating with industry, caring for family, and tutoring younger siblings - not drinking.

Moreover, China and India are simply two examples of large populations of poor highly focused and motivated students. Our students will be competing on their ground. Good students everywhere are guided by their teachers to make the best of their learning years. Alcohol is not on the list of priorities.

Bad deans should surrender the charge of leading our youth, or they should emulate the leaders in China and India who have no money but can eject out students who are increasingly leading global multinational companies (Pepsi, Citibank, AccelorMittal, Reliance).

Drinking advocates in deans is a sad state for educators. Alcohol and education, or alcohol and health, or alcohol and character can simply not be compatible with college goals.

Rajeev Rawat
Boulder, CO

Posted by jinka on September 1, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey every one...
I am 18... and we are having a g.d. on the legal drinking age...in our college.. so thought should add some things of what i thought on this issue...
I feel that any government of a country has a right to make laws in view of the safety of its people.... a few may say that it is against our funadamental rights, but the point to be noted is that laws are made by keeping consideration of all the section of the society... if a guy from a economically unsound family is legalized to drink... he might tend to drink considering all the ordeals he has to come across... alcohol can give him a momentry pleasure... but what happens to his future???...
and in the long run, a man into drinking at an early age suffers, causing suffer to every one in his family...
so what happens those family members??...
we cann't make laws to ensure safety for them right??
loius pastur said," prevention is better than cure"..
so i feel it is right to have the legal to remain at 21..