The Drinking Age Debate: Time to Go From 21 to 18, But It's Not an Easy Call

February 23, 2009 RSS Feed Print

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

60 Minutes had an interesting piece last night looking at the debate over whether or not to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. I guess I must be getting old as I viewed the scenes of college students trying to drink themselves to death with bemusement rather than the enthusiasm I would have undoubtedly exhibited at their age (and for several years thereafter).

You can watch the full piece here:

 

 

The debate has special resonance for me because the leading proponent of lowering the drinking age is John McCardell, who was president of Middlebury College when I was an undergrad there—I like to joke with my undergrad buddies that we are in some small way responsible for his view that the current drinking age has promoted a culture of secret, binge drinking.

McCardell and Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, squared off on this topic in our pages last fall. Both sides make strong arguments, but I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to this objection to the 21 law: How can we as a society say that 18-year-olds are old enough to kill or die in the armed forces, participate in the course of the nation in the voting booth, judge their peers in a jury, and, yes, operate automobiles ... but that they are insufficiently mature to take a drink. (I wonder, by the way, if the driving age shouldn't be increased from 16ish depending on state to 18.)

McCardell makes an interesting suggestion in the 60 Minutes piece that I hadn't heard before: Teenagers should be educated about booze and its effects before they can legally take a drink.

There are larger issues we need to address as a society regardless of what happens regarding the drinking age. First, alcohol education starts at home: Parents are the first line of education when it comes to liquor and how teens deal with alcohol will reflect at least in part how it is regarded at home. More broadly, as Maureen Ogle, author of a history of beer, wrote in this space in December, this country still has a prohibition hangover. We repealed the prohibition laws but still treat booze like it ought to be illegal.

On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.

Tags:
food and drink

Reader Comments Read all comments (110)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

want to help lower the legal drinking age? visit http://t.co/XZwt5saS to sign the petition I made on www.whitehouse.gov . it takes less than 5 minutes. let's use the right given to us in the 1st amendment

Parker of FL 9:26AM April 16, 2012

The legal drinking age is irrelevant. The problem in this country is the attitude we have towards alcohol, the attitude parents are instilling in their children. I'm under 21 and I've never drank alcohol - I made this choice because I know it is illegal to drink, but I know I'm one of very, very, very few people who do. Like most other illegal things, people who want it badly enough are going to do it no matter the consequences or difficulties.

The only friend I have who I know will never, ever become an alcoholic, has been drinking since she was ten. Her family has wine with dinner on occasion, or champagne on a holiday. She grew up with it, so her attitude towards alcohol is how most people should view sugar - it's great, in very small doses, but too much will make you sick.

Alcohol - makes you act differently (drunk); makes you sick if you have too much (hangover); can cause health problems if you do so regularly (alcoholism, liver problems, etc)

Sugar - makes you act differently (hyper/sugar high); makes you sick if you have too much (stomach ache); can cause health problems if you do so regularly (obesity, diabetes, etc)

And don't even think that someone should put an age limit on eating sugar - that's just inane.

Mya of OH 11:35PM June 25, 2011

i agree with the above topic because smokin is worse then drinking but on the other hand both can be abused and have consequences..but if the drinking age should be 21 due to maturity. then what bout gun licenses, hunting licenses(people at 16 can legally hunt game and handle a gun..drive a car..and work in some places...then buy ciggarettes at 18 and vote and go to war...why is the drinking age so high?) i say lower it to 18..also people probably start experiencing alcohol around 16-18 anyway...let the cops save their time writing tickets on under-age drinking or those who contribute to minors that are mostly 18-20 anyway...because kids will drink if they want to illegal or not...just the only difference some do it soo much out of spite and it being illegal they don't make it to 21

kathlene of MS 6:34PM February 25, 2011

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters. E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement