College Students and alcohol have historically gone together like mac ‘n cheese, Abbot and Costello, and livers and cirrhosis. Stories about binge drinking seem to imply that this is something new. Nonsense. In the 20’s it was bathtub gin and speakeasies. Back when I was in school (late 70’s, for the record) it was beer by the pitcher at our local pizza parlour, or the infamous Jungle parties at the KA house. Drinking is nothing new. Neither are its effects. Recently, a number of college presidents have opined that lowering the drinking age (back) down to 18 would cut down on drinking. I have a few thoughts about that.
When I was a kid, my Dad would routinely offer me a sip of whatever he was having. This effectively took away the mystery of what alcohol tasted like, and removed the “forbidden fruit” temptation of drinking. As a result, when friends would want to get into their parent’s liquor cabinet, it held no fascination for me. The truth is, I’ve just never seen the point of tying one on. Oh, sure, I have a drink now and then, but (believe it or not) I’ve never been drunk. Never got stoned either – I just never saw the need. As far as mind- or body-altering drugs, my biggest vice is Classic Coca-Cola. So there is something to be said for removing the “you can’t have any until you’re 21” temptation at school. However…
Banning drinking under the age of 21 doesn’t seem to have slowed anybody down. If you’re gonna drink, you’re gonna drink, and I don’t really think a policy that says “drinking is okay at 18” is a good idea, if for no better reason that the drunk driving rates will go back up to where they were before the drinking age was lowered several years back.
Drunk driving is far too often NOT a victimless crime, and statistics show that oftentimes it is those that get hit by a drunk driver that die, where the drunk driver walks away, free to live and drive another day.
As a group, 18 to 20-year-olds seem to have a disproportionately large number of wrecks (just ask an insurance actuary). That’s why they really stick it to young drivers on both rates and penalties. That would almost certainly drive rates up through the roof – for everybody.
When I was in school, the KA frat house painted a large “DRUNK X-ING” across the pavement on the road that seperated their house with the campus. They had a working cannon on their front lawn. After one party, they loaded it with shrapnel, and fired it, blowing out the windows in the music building across the street. These are not the kind of people you want to entrust with the discipline to drink responsibly.
For safety and insurance costs alone, I think lowering the drinking age is a bad idea, for all but one group. You’ve probably heard the argument that “if 18-year-olds are old enough to vote and serve in the military…” I would argue that many 18-year-olds are clueless, uniformed idiots, who vote with the herd – hardly a ringing endorsement for suffrage. However, the argument about serving our country in the miltary has resonance to me. So here’s the deal – if you’re in the military, you get to drink at 18. Your military ID is your pass to the world of liquor stores and bars. No ID, no drinking until your 21.
This idea has a lot of advantages – first, it acknowledges that serving our country can be stressful, and our troops deserve to be treated like the adults they are, in every respect. Second, if some 18-year-old is so hot to drink, encouraging military service is a win-win for both them and our country. Lastly, it obliterates the arguement about the military and drinking – those that show enough maturity to enlist have effectively proven they can handle the responsibilities of drinking.
So I’m all for lowering the drinking age – for our troops. Everyone else – let ’em wait.
Leave a Reply