Old Enough to Fight. Old Enough to … Drink?

Published on Friday, October 12, 2007, by nicholassday / Edit Post

At his blog Seen Through a Glass, the excellent beer and spirits writer Lew Bryson has had an intriguing series of posts over the last year on the sense and nonsense of American liquor law.

Specifically, Bryson believes we should lower the legal drinking age (LDA) to 18—and that the current law causes more problems than it prevents. It’s a solution that isn’t considered enough: At a recent Democratic presidential debate, as Bryson notes, everyone but Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich “fell over themselves” to dismiss the idea—but Bryson has kept hitting on it. As he wrote recently, “All those laws do is force them [18- to 21-year-olds] to drink in unsafe places and ways. Lower the age to 18, add education and responsibility to the system, put some new incentives and punishments into the retail chain, make changes in how the whole thing works.”

Earlier this week, Bryson analyzed a Philadelphia Inquirer report on a rash of underage drinking in a wealthy suburb: deaths, serious hospitalizations, tens of thousands of dollars in property damage. It’s a tragic story that other writers might have avoided. But Bryson dived in:

This is one of the main reasons I’m pushing an 18 LDA: so we can focus enforcement efforts on students under 18. The New Drys say an 18 LDA will put more booze in the hands of under 18 students. Reading this story, I don’t hardly see how. I say, an 18 LDA will let us stop wasting time and money trying to get college students to stop drinking, and let us help parents keep an eye on their at-home kids.

This is an idea that might be catching on. Bryson supports the plank of a new pro-LDA-18 organization called Choose Responsibility. It’s not a fly-by-night or beer-industry-sponsored group: It was founded earlier this year by someone who’s had the opportunity to think an awful lot about these issues, a former college president—specifically, the ex-head of Vermont’s Middlebury College. (And for those interested in further reading, here’s Choose Responsibility’s blog.)

ALLFood Media
POST A COMMENT |15 Comments

COMMENT

  • If you are granted the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship at 18, the state has no legal moral right to prohibit you from drinking until 21.

  • Maybe they worry about the 18 year olds still in highschool buying liquor for his friends, the 16, 17 year olds? In the modern day of photoshop, fake ID's, and older siblings... it seems pretty outdated. I guess that since it isn't really "hurting" anyone, no one is in a rush to spend money and time on changing the laws.

  • RI Im with you - how do you tell a returning US BET thanks for your sacrafice - here's a soda!
    I think it is total hypocrisy - and i personally never understood the reasoning for 21 - any suggestions as to why 21 became the lega age anyone?

  • That said, I think it is the height of hypocrisy to tell an 18 year old that he/she can fight and die in Iraq but cannot have a beer when the come home on leave.

  • I agree Dive. The lack of a dining/food culture along with that gawdawful Baptist notion that anything mind-altering is inherently evil has left us with colleges full of binge drinkers. I know, I spent 20+ years as a prof. For the most part, my students were woefully ignorant in matters of food, wine, and basic table etiquette.

  • A simpler proposal than Silverbear's: At 18 you can choose to get an ID that gets you into into bars and clubs, but no driving until you are 21. If you get a driver's license, no liquor until you are 21. This has a better chance of passing than simply lowering the age.

    I actually think the LDA should be 18. It would be much easier to impart the concept of enjoying alcohol without getting stupid...+READ

    A simpler proposal than Silverbear's: At 18 you can choose to get an ID that gets you into into bars and clubs, but no driving until you are 21. If you get a driver's license, no liquor until you are 21. This has a better chance of passing than simply lowering the age.

    I actually think the LDA should be 18. It would be much easier to impart the concept of enjoying alcohol without getting stupid if drinking were not an underground thing from 18 to 21. The worst penalties should be for venues that let the kids get out of hand.-COLLAPSE

  • I agree with most of the above comments. Unfortunately, religious conservatism and lack of food culture in many U.S. households still encourages irresponsible alcohol consumption. Lack of exposure means lack of self control.

  • Well, I sure wish it would come in! Not that I don't want to welcome university students from Boston and other Northeastern US cities, but they'd be more fun if they came up to Montréal to appreciate our fine food - and yes, of course have a beer or three - rather than feeling they have to get hammered simply because they can.

    Yes, drink driving is a serious crime, and should be enforced...+READ

    Well, I sure wish it would come in! Not that I don't want to welcome university students from Boston and other Northeastern US cities, but they'd be more fun if they came up to Montréal to appreciate our fine food - and yes, of course have a beer or three - rather than feeling they have to get hammered simply because they can.

    Yes, drink driving is a serious crime, and should be enforced stringently, But the US drinking-age laws are puritanical nonsense.

    Now as panini guy rightly said, no law and no lecture will force young adults to drink responsibly, any more than abstain from sex or whatever, but the silly law also makes it impossible to organise events promoting civilised consumption of wine or craft beers with foods on campus.

    I was definitely allowed a bit of vino as a teen. Why the hell not?-COLLAPSE

  • Like feelingpeckish, I too am old enough to remember the NY state laws being 18 while CT (where I lived) was 21. We used to drive from Stamford to Port Chester to drink our brains out at a dump called Mollicas which existed solely for us out-of-state younguns. At that age one is invincible and indestructible so no amount of "education" would've stopped us from doing so because it was proverbial...+READ

    Like feelingpeckish, I too am old enough to remember the NY state laws being 18 while CT (where I lived) was 21. We used to drive from Stamford to Port Chester to drink our brains out at a dump called Mollicas which existed solely for us out-of-state younguns. At that age one is invincible and indestructible so no amount of "education" would've stopped us from doing so because it was proverbial forbidden fruit, much as sex education might get us to think about wearing a condom, but had no chance of converting us to abstinence. Therefore, if this passes, it would ideally be national, not state by state, otherwise we'd have same situation.

    Much as I'm for this because it does work all over the world, I don't think it'll work because even a line at 18 is silly if parents are going to be prosecuted for serving wine to their 16 year old at dinner (which happens). We're become such a nation of extremes that "everything in moderation" has been forgotten and common sense is actually uncommon. Nobody is suggesting giving tequila shooters to a seven year old, but teaching appreciation for wine to teens of any age isn't exactly the world's worst idea.

    I for one would gladly trade off silly checkpoints for seatbelt enforcement for more enforcement to stop drunk driving. If people KNOW drunk driving isn't tolerated, it'll happen much less - like in Scandanavia.-COLLAPSE

  • I grew up in Hong Kong, where the Legal drinking age is 18. While we did party at the bars and had our share of drunken teenage evenings since I was about 16, I've never seen that level of drinking that went on in my university dorm in Boston. It's like a rite of passage - you go to university, you drink underaged becasue you're not supposed to - and no-one can stop that. I think it's just...+READ

    I grew up in Hong Kong, where the Legal drinking age is 18. While we did party at the bars and had our share of drunken teenage evenings since I was about 16, I've never seen that level of drinking that went on in my university dorm in Boston. It's like a rite of passage - you go to university, you drink underaged becasue you're not supposed to - and no-one can stop that. I think it's just irresponsible not to teach teens about alcohol and just let them fend for themselves when they get to University. It's what landed my roommate in the hospital after she thinks she ( a peitie 5"2, 115 pounds) can out drink our neighbour - a 6'2, 300 pound linebacker, simply because she's Texan. It also got her kicked out of dorm. How silly is that when someone could have taught her some responsibility with alcohol? Hell, how silly is it that she got kick out of dorm and the school and her parents think that's an appropriate punishment when 6 months later she landed in the hospital doing the SAME THING in her apartment, except this time she wasn't discovered until she didn't show up to class one day?!-COLLAPSE

  • I totally agree with Mr. Bryson. At 18, you are considered an adult. You can sign a contract, live independently, get married, fight in a war, but you supposedly don't have the maturity to have a beer. There a lot of young adults that are acquiring criminal records for an activity they should legally be allowed to do.

    I would love to see the 21 lda laws repealed, but I realistically don't see...+READ

    I totally agree with Mr. Bryson. At 18, you are considered an adult. You can sign a contract, live independently, get married, fight in a war, but you supposedly don't have the maturity to have a beer. There a lot of young adults that are acquiring criminal records for an activity they should legally be allowed to do.

    I would love to see the 21 lda laws repealed, but I realistically don't see it happening any time soon.-COLLAPSE

  • Silverbear, that is an excellent solution. Here in Québec, where the drinking age is 18, it has not caused havoc or mayhem on the roads or elsewhere - a lot of road deaths of youths nowadays involve speed (I mean velocity, not the drug) rather than alcohol consumption. Our graduated driving policy does not involve the driver's age, but applies to all new drivers. If I, a middle-aged women without...+READ

    Silverbear, that is an excellent solution. Here in Québec, where the drinking age is 18, it has not caused havoc or mayhem on the roads or elsewhere - a lot of road deaths of youths nowadays involve speed (I mean velocity, not the drug) rather than alcohol consumption. Our graduated driving policy does not involve the driver's age, but applies to all new drivers. If I, a middle-aged women without a driving licence - I live five minutes' walk from a métro station and one minute from three different bus lines- were to earn a driving licence, I would be subject to something like .01 for a year - that is, even have to be careful the day after imbibing in the evening.

    I'm old enough to remember when drunk driving was practically socially-acceptable and certainly a matter of mirth: "I couldn't walk home, so I drove" and I am very glad that society (at least in North America and Western Europe) has been taking vehicular homicide more seriously, but denying ADULTS who have the right to serve in the army, vote and get married the right to legally have a beer or glass of wine (whether or not they even have a car or driving licence) is not only hypocritical, it is highly discriminatory.

    MADD, having won important battles against drunk driving, has to justify its existence, so it keeps pushing on for a more prohibitionist society, a model that has never proven its worth in eliminating misuse of either alcoholic beverages or of motor vehicles.-COLLAPSE

  • The hypocrisy of allowing 18-20 year olds to vote and fight in wars while prohibiting them from drinking was justified as a means of reducing deaths from drunk driving.

    To eliminate this hypocrisy while keeping our roads safe, a better solution is graduated DUI laws: Drivers older than 21 should continue to be subject to the .08 standard used in most of the U.S.; Drivers between 18 and 21...+READ

    The hypocrisy of allowing 18-20 year olds to vote and fight in wars while prohibiting them from drinking was justified as a means of reducing deaths from drunk driving.

    To eliminate this hypocrisy while keeping our roads safe, a better solution is graduated DUI laws: Drivers older than 21 should continue to be subject to the .08 standard used in most of the U.S.; Drivers between 18 and 21 could be held to a lower standard of .04 or .02 18-20 year olds could drink legally, but would have virtually no abilty to drink, even in moderation, when driving.-COLLAPSE

  • I was just in Switzerland, where 16 year olds can buy beer and wine, and 18 year olds can buy hard liquor. That place hasn't descended into anarchy yet.

  • I agree 100%. Age 18 was the legal age during my growing up years. Public and/or private drunkeness was no more common and in fact maybe less. The emphasis on drunkeness and associated driving drunk has been pushed out of reasonable discourse. Almost all police forces enforce having had "a" drink with drunkeness and prosecute it as such. Having had a drink does not make one drunk. No more...+READ

    I agree 100%. Age 18 was the legal age during my growing up years. Public and/or private drunkeness was no more common and in fact maybe less. The emphasis on drunkeness and associated driving drunk has been pushed out of reasonable discourse. Almost all police forces enforce having had "a" drink with drunkeness and prosecute it as such. Having had a drink does not make one drunk. No more reasonable behavior can be assumed because one is 21 vs 18. It is an issue solely pursured by MADD.-COLLAPSE