College presidents representing several well-respected universities have recently banded together in an attempt to lower the minimum drinking age from 21 to 18. Their claim is that current alcohol age-restriction laws actually encourage clandestine binge drinking among underage students.
As a student who was, at one time or another, under the age of 21, it is difficult to suppress the still-present miscreant in me who grunts "Mmmm, beer legal at 18!" Then the mature adult in me reminds the miscreant that I'm now well over 21 and this won't really affect me anymore. Unlike most arguments between my inner adult and child, in this case the child is right.
To no one's surprise, the well-intentioned group Mothers Against Drunk Driving has stepped in and voiced its disagreement with the college presidents who raised the issue. MADD representatives have also taken it to another level by suggesting under their breath that perhaps the colleges represented (including Duke, Dartmouth, and Virginia institutions Hollins, Washington and Lee, Sweet Briar, Hampden-Sydney and Randolph Macon) won't enforce current drinking laws and should, therefore, be avoided by parents of up-and-coming college students.
According to MADD, lowering the drinking age will lead to more DUI deaths, and it cites statistics that indicated lower numbers of DUI-related deaths in the time span after the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age took effect in 1984. They estimate that the MLDA of 21 has saved over 25,000 lives so far.
I'm not a math major, but 1984 was 24 years ago. Time has an effect on everything. The 1984 to 2008 time span has seen two space shuttles destroyed, the fall of communism, a Heisman Trophy winner committing two gruesome murders, a president who enjoys cigars in a very different way, and other events and atrocities that have changed the world. As the song goes: "Times have changed, times are strange, here I come but I ain't the same."
If increasing the MLDA is what has saved these 25,000-plus lives, why does MADD cite significantly fewer fatal car crashes since 1984 among the 21 to 24 age group as well? Raising the legal drinking age has nothing to do with this. It is the evolution of events and the climate of the times - not more restrictive laws - that have lowered these awful statistics.
Pre-1980s, if you were busted while driving drunk, perhaps very drunk, you were just as likely to get a free ride home from the would-be arresting officer. Your biggest problem was getting a ride back the next day to pick up your car. In recent years, it doesn't matter if your Blood Alcohol Content is .09 or .39: if you're driving above the limit, you are generally arrested and charged with DUI, thus attaching a nearly unshakeable stigma to yourself that will haunt you long after the difficult and expensive court proceedings are over.
There are actually people out there, most of them just as well-intentioned as those representing MADD, who have even suggested counting DUI as "attempted murder." Clearly, there is a seriousness attached to the act of drunk driving that just did not exist "back in the day."
Drunk driving is still going to happen no matter what the legal drinking age is, because drinking will still occur.
This is a serious problem that deserves great attention and effort to correct. The stigma of DUI awaits both the law-spurning idiots and those who make one sincerely accidental mistake of driving after a beer too many and just happen upon a sobriety checkpoint.
Leave a comment 3 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I think the rebellion is less about drinking secretively and more about being able to drink freely without fear of parents busting up the big party. Let's face it: many begin binge drinking far before ever stepping onto a college campus, but it becomes a much simpler proposition for all when the presence of your parents is replaced by that friend-of-a-friend who's 21 and can get you a case of Natty for the weekend.
Reply to this Top
This op-ed has a lot of generalizations. "I was no longer doing anything that could possibly result in trouble." Really? Just because you're 21 does not mean you can't get in trouble. DUI, drunk in public, getting kicked out of the bar, etc, etc. And just because the drinking age is lowered it will not reduce binge drinking. What about all those case races, beer pong tournies, bar golf, and other drinking activities. They encourage very heavy drinking and last time I checked 18 year olds weren't the only ones involved in those drinking activities. In fact, bar golf is for the 21 and up crowd (and those w/ fake IDs).
Reply to this Top
It's always difficult to tell whether an image has been manipulated. However, site <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> makes things easy. By submit an image URL you can see if the image has been altered. Altered image will get a red flag while original image gets a white flag.
Reply to this Top