No to lower drinking age

From the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission:

The Sept. 22 TEXAN noted the Amethyst Initiative, an effort by 100 college and university presidents to lower the legal drinking age to 18. Saying the current law leads to a “culture of dangerous, clandestine ‘binge-drinking,’” the educators suggest that lowering the drinking age to a point where most kids have even less wisdom will result in more responsible drinking habits.

These guys never went to high school, I guess. They don’t remember the culture of dangerous, clandestine (because it was illegal) binge-drinking that I remember. I didn’t hang out in risky places or with wild kids and my parents didn’t keep booze in the house, but I was offered alcohol regularly by the time I was 17—a few times at college parties. I didn’t inhale but I didn’t lack opportunities. Lower the age to 18, and 16-year-olds will be clandestine when they drink, except at college parties where there’ll be little need. And nothing about the change will make anything less dangerous.

Here’s another interpretation of the Amethyst Initiative. As it is, most undergraduates are not legal drinkers. Colleges and universities have a real problem with student alcohol abuse. Some of those problems would go away if nearly all students came to college legal to drink. Sure, some kids would still drink too much but it wouldn’t be illegal. The crime rate on campus would go down and campus security wouldn’t have to card anyone on campus. The proposal is to do away with an unpleasant, difficult task because it’s unpleasant and difficult. Any actual benefit to the students or society is strictly blue sky thinking. If nothing changes except for the end of the campus’ responsibility to enforce the drinking age, it’s a winner to the administration.

The college presidents also trot out the old, “old enough to fight, vote, serve on a jury, etc.” argument. It still doesn’t fly. Just because an 18-year-old can serve on a jury, for example, doesn’t mean he should. It seems unlikely that recent high school grads are often appointed to criminal juries. Officers of the court would not trust their judgment in the way they might trust that of a 21-year-old.

Perhaps the presidents are making a better argument for raising the age of majority in general. Is their intent to argue for fairness, legal practicality, an easier time for the administration, or for the good of the students? The last reason seems the least likely.

Of course, there’s an educational aspect to the Amethyst Initiative. One idea has students who want to drink while enrolled in the university taking an alcohol education course before they could get their “beer card.” So I guess campus security is back to carding people. Certainly the wise young people only drink too much because they haven’t been given the facts. The education course just might solve all the problems, right? Another idea offered at the initiative’s website is that students between 18 and 20 would be allowed to drink only 3 percent alcohol beer and no stronger drinks.

OK, just so we understand—students might have to take a course, get a license, and can only drink lower alcohol beer. This isn’t treating the younger students as though they are less responsible than other adults, it’s not prohibition, and it’s not going to be an absurd enforcement problem? Our academic brain trust is undermining their own argument by trying to make it more palatable to those of us who see nothing but bad news in lowering the legal drinking age. I also think they’re trying to push their problems off on those who try to educate younger students.

It’s a bad idea from every direction at the same time. I don’t believe the best interests of the students enter into it at all.