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….

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.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950117/ai_n10181434

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.]

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.

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.

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