August 20, 2008
Repeal prohibition!
The movement to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 has gained a rather unusual group of supporters.
College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.
[...]
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.
[...]
The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.
But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."
This may well be the one and only time I find myself nodding in agreement at anything supported by university presidents, but then again the 21 age limit on alcohol consumption is perhaps the single-most egregious example of nanny-state control and muddled thinking around.
What are the arguments we hear from the prohibitionists?
Americans under the age of 18:
Can't be trusted to use alcohol responsibly.
Can't be trusted to have the keys to a car when drinking.
Can't be trusted to behave responsibly around members of the opposite sex when consuming alcohol.
Just can't be trusted.
Of course, all that magically changes -- Presto! Change-o! -- when those teens turn 21, which certainly comports with my own experience with everyone over the age of 21 who drinks "responsibly."
On the other hand, we passed a Constitutional Amendment giving the vote to 18-year-old Americans, at a time when the drinking age was almost uniformly -- wait for it -- 18.
Hmmm.
And we also say that teenage girls -- who may have gotten in the family way, thanks to demon rum -- have the maturity to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion without requiring them to consult with older, wiser parents, who are presumably over the age of 21.
Which of course means that we believe that those who don't have the maturity to use booze have the maturity to decide how to use their bodies to create or end life.
As Mr. Spock often said, "... Interesting."
Then we have the death penalty, presumed appropriate for murderers who committed their crimes when 18.
Or the right to marry without the permission of a parent at 18.
Or the right to enlist in the military, carry a gun in defense of you and your neighbors, drive a tank, pilot a multi-billion dollar submarine, all at the age of 18.
Or fight and die for this country -- but not have a beer.
Folks, I don't care where you're from, that's not funny. But it is profoundly condescending. And stupid.
At the age of 18, Americans are either adults with the full panoply of rights that adults enjoy, or they're not.
The federal government ought to allow states to decide for themselves what the legal age is for alcohol, and end the fiscal bullying that induced governments from sea to shining sea to treat millions of young men and women like children.
Posted by Mike Lief at August 20, 2008 07:27 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
Have to weigh in on this. Dr. Jay Geidd of the National Institute of Mental Health, completed a 20-year study of adolescents and their brains. In it he found that the accepted theory of brain development was wrong. It was thought that all brain development ended by age 3. He found that there is a new wave of brain development starting at age 10 that built up the frontal lobe producing billions of neural synapses in that part of the brain. This is the executive function portion of the brain. These synapses operate under the use it or lose it process. Those synapses that are utilized grow strong, those that are not whither and die. This process begins around age 13 or so, and ends about age 22. Alcohol and drugs (including nicotine) short circuit the process, in effect causing more of the synapses to whither and die.
It reminds me of the old tale of chicken soup making you feel better when you are sick. That's what mom always told me. Turns out she was right.
21 is the correct age for drinking.
Posted by: Brent Smiley at August 20, 2008 09:16 AM
This law is yet another underlying reason why many men today remain in an infant-like state into their 30's. I bristle at a grown man strutting around dressed like a 12-year-old. Many of these "adult children" still live with their parents and rely on mommy and daddy to wipe their noses and tell them that they are special and incapable of taking care off themselves. The law seems to agree since it denies them the right to drink an adult beverage despite their adult obligations under the law.
This prohibitionist law is just foolish. If an 18-year-old MAN can join the Marine Corps and wield a rifle in defense of his country then he sure as hell ought to be able to drink a beer.
I don't mind the paternalistic argument about the human brain of 18 year olds. Alcohol is generally bad for any brain of any age. It can lead to memory, heart, and other health problems. Brent Smiley, I don't know who you are or how old you are but you will be a healthier man by drinking grape juice instead of wine and apple juice instead of beer.
Viagra can be dangerous for someone in their 60's. Should we outlaw viagra for 60-year-olds? That's only a few years away for me so I say heck no!
I'm with Mike Lief on this one.
Posted by: Ed Zugent at August 20, 2008 11:59 PM