The Drinking Age – What’s Next?
AMERICA’S COLLEGE LEADERS WANT TO PASS EPIDEMIC ON DOWN
FITSNews – August 20, 2008 – When they’re not busy jacking tuition costs, modeling new tweed looks or liberalizing America’s youth with their socialist, anally-PC world view, America’s college leaders can typically be found inveighing against anything that forces them to take actual responsibility for the lives of their students.
Take the so-called college drinking epidemic, which these ivory tower idiots now want to pass down to America’s high schools by lowering the national drinking age.
We’ve always thought the federal government had no business establishing a drinking age (that power should be reserved to the states), but the crassness and self-serving misology of these leadership-averse bureaucrats is truly mind-blowing.
College leaders are smart enough to recognize that lowering America’s drinking age from 21 to 18 won’t change anyone’s behavior. They just don’t want to deal with the issue, preferring to let high school principals inherit that obligation.
Kids are going to drink, people. They’re also going to smoke, experiment with drugs and have as much sex as humanly possible. Local governments can erect whatever laws they wish to try and stop these hormonal and societal tidal waves, but we’re deluding ourselves if we think they’re going to have any effect.
Of course leave it to academia to take the lead in abdicating its share of the responsibility …
Comments
By Connor Peterson on August 20th, 2008 at 8:01 am
What a knee-jerk reaction. College “liberals” say we should repeal an ill-conceived law, and you push back. I’m sure if Howard Rich endorsed it and called it “booze choice” or something like that you’d run a weekly support piece.
By Natasha on August 20th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Isn’t most of Europe’s legal drinking age 16? And the perception, whether real or unreal, is that they have less issues with alcoholism and drinking…
I’m for changing that stupid must be 21 to drink law period. If you can be 18 to purchase cancer sticks, why not be 18 to buy alcohol. Makes zero sense and seems inconsistent…
And, for the record, I don’t really drink (maybe a glass of wine once a month). So, I’m not abdicating something I do on a regular basis. Just pointing out the sillyness of a must be 21 to drink law. And I’ve had a friend killed by a drunk driver, so I know all about the problems alcohol brings to the table. Our problem is a cultural one, teaching people of all ages it is downright STUPID to drink and operate a vehicle.
By fitsnews on August 20th, 2008 at 8:36 am
#1-
We agree it’s ill-conceived, we just think it’s telling that colleges want increasing gobs of money but decreasing amounts of responsibility.
-FITSNews
By sid on August 20th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Sorry, but the only “responsibility” colleges should have is to educate in a reasonably safe environment. Parents are the ones trying to pass on “responsibility” when they send their binge-drinking spawn off to school and complain when they kill themselves doing some stupid stunt in a drunken stupor. BTW, at 18, these “kids” are “responsible” for their own actions. If they screw up once direct parental controls are removed, it’s on them, and a little bit their parents for not raising the punks any better.
Also, high school principals are not going to “inherit” any additional obligation. The problem is already present at the high school level, and has been for decades. And again, it’s not the job of high school principals to teach kids to be responsible. That duty remains in the hands of parents.
By Connor Peterson on August 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am
@ #3
Colleges are taking on more responsibility than ever – for themselves. Look at the massive marketing budgets, the offices devoted solely to development, the massive semi-pro athletic programs.
You’re right that colleges have been taking less responsibility for their students – in loco parentis ended in the 60s. Do you really want house mothers and proctors in the dorms again? Same sex dorms? Visiting hours?
Colleges need to be focusing on adding value to their increasingly worthless degrees, not policing parties and promoting sports teams.
BTW, had I to do it over again, I would not have gone to college if I had to pay for it.
By Reader on August 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I hope the Woosie-kins got paid well for this shot, Sickest One!!!!!!!!!
Glenn Beck thinks the whole thing is about avoiding the big L’s.
Liability.
Lawsuit.
[Par for the course for these overpaid, spineless admini-libs.]
By Stroker Ace on August 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
This should have never been altered in the first place. 18 you can vote, 18 you can buy cigs, 18 you buy a gun, 18 you can fight a war, 18 you can buy porn, 18 you’re expected to get a job or go to school, 18 you can enter into contracts, 18 credit card companies can lock you down now…..but God forbid the repsonsibility police want you to start drinking at 21 b/c you’re not mature enough yet.
By Brandon on August 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Vote on http://www.wcsc.com to voice your opinion. Change it back. Too late for my college age kids, they missed alot of fun. I just wish Regan hadn’t listened to Nancy on this and left it to the states.
By Stunned on August 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The last attempt to lower the drinking age came from a Wisconsin REPUBLICAN Congressman…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950117/ai_n10181434
By reggie on August 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
i say we DO drop the drinking age. that means that more stupid young’ns can just drink themselves to death while their stupid friends dont learn from their mistakes.
i mean, apparently Dutch Fork hasnt learned from the mistakes of a (cough) few classmates. if we let them drink, then we let them live with the consequences.
By Scott H. on August 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
On principle, I was completely against this, too. But about 5 months ago, a friend of mine with an expertise in policy laid out an argument for “18 to buy beer”…still 21 for liquor.
The argument was something like:
REAL research shows college kids binge drink less than people think (oh they DO binge drink….but less than people think)
Stiffen the penalties for giving alcohol to the under aged
…and you would see 18 year olds drinking in bars where 14 dollars will buy them 5 or 6 so beers (including tax) rather than a case and they won’t be sitting around sharing it with their 17 and 16 year old high school classmates.
Further, on college campuses, 18 – 20 year olds would be more likely to go to the bar rather than the frat party…(or, perhaps —more accurately—, while they would still swing by the frat party….they wouldn’t be staying for the all night drunkfest) and while you can drink yourself to death at both…it seems to happen to 18-20 year olds with greater frequency at one of those places
again, his point was more about high school drinking, but the argument included: currently an 18 year old gets beer…he has already broken the law….why not get a few younger high school buddies drunk!….under a lowered drinking age it becomes, “awesome, I’ve got beer and I won’t get in trouble for drinking it….I’m sure not going to put myself in a position to get in trouble by spreading it around to kids!”
would it END the problem…OF COURSE NOT
…could it curb the problem?, my friend (who is also a Libertarian candidate for office in his state) laid out a convincing argument
….granted….I can’t remember the whole argument….I was legally drinking in a bar that excluded all those under 21 at the time :)
Seriously though….I would need some hard evidence….kids and alcohol is just a bad combo….
By Strom on August 21st, 2008 at 4:41 am
Drinking should begin at conception. Abortion should be legal until the child turns 18.