Letter to the Editor
Standards
Published Monday, September 8, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Sept. 4, 2008
To the editor:
Recent articles about lowering the drinking age to 18 are intriguing. Academic leaders justify this request by insisting such a change would reduce the number of criminals, (i.e., minors in possession of alcohol). It’s hard to say that ain’t so. This problem solving could be extended. If lowering the drinking age will result in fewer minors in possession arrests, then a reduction in contributing to delinquency of minors also would be reduced.
The same philosophy applied to lowering the age of consent could lower the incidence of statutory rape. The academic “bar” also could be lowered. Placement exams could be “dumbed down” so all high school graduates could enter at college level. No more remedial learning classes would mean more room for lower-level colleges. Production efficiency? Students wouldn’t have to cope with social stigmatism or other psychological stresses that could drive some into the criminal folds.
We can drive at 16 but can’t operate dangerous power tools. Perhaps we can change laws to fix this problem. We could lower credit requirements for college graduates. The end result would be, more graduates. Quantity first, quality be darned.
The philosopher in me wants to consider all the possibilities. Without regulations and laws, we could have good statistics and empty prisons. There may be no need for judges or attorneys. Not even police officers! Our probability drive could power up!
Seriously, the last time I knew, active duty military can legally drink on base. We need a different argument here. Administrators of our colleges and universities should revisit, re-evaluate their arguments and return to some degree of reality. Raise the bar, don’t diminish the value of a college degree. Insist on standards being met in conduct and academics.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
One slight error: Alcohol consumption regulations on U.S. military installations comply with host country or state laws. If state law says an active duty person is too young to drink, then they can't drink on or off post.
It's also worth noting your comment regarding military is extraneous to your main argument.
Mr. Saylor, if I remember the recent articles correctly, those more than 100 college presidents, who were calling for a national discussion on the merits of lowering the drinking age to the current voting age, were interested in more than reducing the number of arrests. You've attacked and defeated a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
Those college presidents were interested in the overall health of their students. Their observations -- what they were asking us, as a nation, to consider -- were:
(1) Students under the age of twenty-one intended to drink anyway. Out of fear of being caught, they had to keep their drinking in more clandestine locations, where there were fewer people around to watch their safety, they were in greater danger of being assaulted, and they were less likely to have safe rides home. AND...
(2) Because of the covert, sporadic nature of under-21 drinking, the drinkers were more likely to engage in binge drinking and suffer the damage of repeated hangovers, blackouts, and alcohol poisoning.
At the moment, I don't know which side to take.
No, no, nix that; I do know. I'll take the side of greater public debate and more facts.
the philosopher in me wonders how many more laws we need to protect us from ourselves. i can think of one more... no one from Healy named Chuck is qualified for public office.
Paul, you point out the arguments presented by the university presidents exactly. While it would be interesting to see statistics regarding behaviors and incidents involving underage drinkers, my short stints abroad have convinced me that it is desirable to have a lower drinking age. The benefit is that use (versus abuse) of alcohol becomes socialized at an earlier age. That is to say that young people, having been exposed to and possibly consumed alcoholic beverages prior to the unsupervised experience of college or military life tend to make better decisions regarding alcohol as young adults.
If marijuana prohibition is any indication, the statistics brought forth during such a debate are likely to be unreliable since they will be provided mainly by National Institute for Drug Abuse, Office of National Drug Control Policy, and numerous addiction treatment centers eager to increase their revenues. If the government were more honest regarding their sources of information, they would have regarded the La Guardia committee (1944), the Schafer Commission (1972) and the Marijuana and Health in 1982 report sponsored by both the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences as valuable sources of knowledge with which to guide policy decisions. In fact, these reports were dismissed out of hand by the shrill voices of the day (Anslinger, Nixon, Reagan) and policy was continued based on hyperbole and baseless conjecture.
I agree the national drinking age should be lowered, and believe that reducing the number of criminals is a positive benefit. This will increase opportunities for young people who otherwise now have a criminal record for youthful indiscretion. Both Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin have admitted to past drug use, but they have gone on to prolific careers and are looked up to by many people. Regardless of who gets in office, this is an important matter that warrants our attention.
Let's legalize marijuana while we're at it. That would greatly reduce the amount of criminals too, and bring our prison population to a manageable level.
Ever hear of the Raven case?
Actually, it's Ravin (1975), and that only applies in Alaska. The issue of lowering the drinking age is a nationwide debate.
With regard to Alaskan pot legality, it remains illegal under federal law, making Palin a lying hypocrite if she fails to address the issue since she maintains it was legal when she tried it. Currently, a decision by the AK Supreme Court is pending regarding Murkowski's obsession with pot and his decision to attempt to overturn the more recent Noy and Thomas cases (both 2003) via legislative action. Unsurprisingly, Murkowski's lead "expert" in the case was Assitant Attorney General Dean Guanelli, a prosecutor whose success in life relies on the number of convictions he can secure. Meanwhile, the ONDCP and office of the Drug Czar (thanks, Biden) were actively campaigning against the court decisions and the ballot initiative in 2004 that would have unambiguously legalized pot in Alaska. Their actions, and failure to disclose finance reports during the time in question have been the subject of several lawsuits.
brassmonkey and Paul-
I am completely with you on this. brassmonkey, especially you. As far as I've read and experienced, which is plenty, the evidence is in.
Further, while the names of minors are left out of the paper, their records are available for all on the state court site.
I don't get that.
Yes, I've had kids get into minor trouble, and they were told if they did what they were supposed to, re punishment, their youth "records" would be erased or sealed (not the word, but something like that).
Not true!
Minors' records--every stupid thing they have ever been charged with, regardless of whether it was true, dropped, found not guilty, whatever--or not, remains public.
How do the courts et al. get away with those lies?
Most people really dont care what someone else does behind closed doors as long as it does not affect their lives, what most social problems with drugs arrive from is drug searching behavior. That is where the criminal element comes from; the cost of course comes from the potential rise in health care costs due to the side affects of some drugs. So that brings me to the question, where in all of the research performed by these highly educated folks is that information, the health issue of these youth and the cost with it? I heard somewhere that there are three types of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics.
I have a few friends who experience daily a persistent criminal record. When I pressed a couple of them for details following a rant about a lying judge, it came out that it was the DA who made the false offer. Therein, I believe is the problem in that the DA is allowed to lie in order to get a defendant to sign a plea agreement. Alaska has no provision for expungement of criminal records short of petitioning the Office of the Governor. Additionally, those with a criminal record make a minority population with less rights than the rest of us (and less credibility) so they are convenient to exploit (as low-wage workers), and there is no political will to represent their interests.
ONE MORE THOUGHT: if you are old enough to vote,join the military you are old enough to drink.
JB, unlike the typical statistics-based spew from the ONDCP, DARE, NIDA, the various bodies I cited above relied on actual scientific research with regard to harm to personal health as well as society at large to reach their conclusions. In the years since the Shafer Commission (particularly during the 80s and 90s), much research has been carried out in order to prove harmful effects rather than objectively considering the results. The wrong results would mean the research should be carried out longer or it would be canceled altogether.
One particularly obnoxious study involved chimps who were forced to inhale the equivalent of 20 joints per day. The researchers concluded that ingestion of marijuana caused brain damage. Later it was discovered that the researchers were administering the daily marijuana smoke in a single dose that lasted over 5 minutes. The chimps brain damage was consistent with what is observed during prolonged hypoxia (low oxygen), and the research discredited. Unfortunately, the statement that "marijuana causes brain damage" remains a part of the anti-drug literature today. Other obnoxious claims that have been discredited or called into question are the gateway drug theory, the idea that marijauna damages the reproductive system, and that marijuana today is more potent than in the past (the pivotal argument made recently by Guanelli).
I'll try to be brief, but I just can't help adding:
In 1988 a DEA administrative judge ruled in response to a petition asking that marijuana be rescheduled. His ruling, based on voluminous scientific evidence held that marijuana did indeed have therapeutic benefits and that "...it would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record." Additionally, he concluded that law did not just permit rescheduling of cannabis, but in fact, required it (from schedule I to schedule II).
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine released a report in response to a request by the federal government to investigate the legitimacy of claims made by states that were permitting marijuana to be recommended for use by physicians. Among their conclusions were that marijuana does in fact have therapeutic benefits. The IOM report went on to make recommendations for best managing medicinal marijuana under federal jurisdiction noting that "...there is a broad social concern that sanctioning the medical use of marijuana might increase its use among the general population. At this point there are no convincing data to support this concern. The existing data are consistent with the idea that this would not be a problem if the medical use of marijuana were as closely regulated as other medications with abuse potential."
I didn't realize there was discussion to reduce the legal drinking age. If I recall, the reason for the law is to reduce the number of MVAs caused by impaired drivers?
I'm in my 40s now and so am not affected by age limit privileges. I have always been skeptical of drinking age limits. When I was 17, the car I was in wast struck by a drunk driver, he was 25...
Mind you, this is just my opinion, but I've always felt a better deterrent to driving under the influence is more stringent penalties. Perminantly loosing one's license, coupled with required jail-time should be a better deterrent. Until it is socially unacceptable to drive while impaird, regardless of age, there will always be a problem.
-RK
brassmonkey, I am not even talking about criminal records of adults.
I'm talking about juvenile, minor alleged (or not) criminal acts, being public record after everyone involved said they won't be.
What is this myth that juvenile records are not public?
How would all the oh-so-perfect, never-did-anything-dumb-as-a-teenager crowd who blogs here; the cops-never-lie ignoramuses really feel if there whole life as a kid were exposed? Especially after being told--by the law and justice system--that it wouldn't be?
JB, here is one starting point
http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStoss...
Interesting. I too was under the impression that records of juveniles were sealed. Not having any first-hand knowledge of underage offenders, I don't feel I can comment intelligently. I only feel that we should complete the rehabilitation process by reinstating rights and privileges following completion of one's sentence. Doing otherwise I think probably compounds the recidivism rate of various offenses.
Back to the point of this article, the group MADD has already weighed in on the issue and predictably, is against any reform. What politician, or indeed how many citizens will want to publicly speak against a group named Mothers Against Drunk Driving?
I have pointed out before that politicians won't get involved in the realities of this kind of stuff.
(Most recently in the first article about Coghill asking Hollis to step away from heading the investigative group. I challenge Coghill to go farther:
get a citizens' review type investigation of the troopers).
I also point out some of the reasons for I believe people don't do anything.
Go to that site I linked to above. It has links to MADD and a bunch of stuff.
You too Rhonda.
i always have to take any view from college professors with a grain of salt. because of employment i have had or wanted i have completed 8 years of college. i have only two undergraduate degrees and no graduate degrees from this. but i have been exposed to a lot of different professors in the course of this study. my experience is that, while they have a lot of book learning, they are no different from the mainstream when it comes to common sense. and you know that old saying: "those who can't, teach. those who can't teach, teach college". sometimes i think the average joe out on the street has more common sense than those up in those ivory towers.
so when a professor comes out and states that he thinks the drinking age should be lowered so that they won't have criminal records when they get caught i just have to shake my head. when i was a young college student i loved my keg parties and drank with the best of them there. i was too young to handle alcohol then. however, i didn't know it then. that is why i, one who is usually against excessive laws, are for the one that maintains the legal age at 21. shoot, even as a 21 year old i wasn't emotionally mature enough to handle alcohol. we should RAISE the age, not lower it. this all is the same argument that we should give as much sex education and hand out free condoms to kids as we can because they are going to do it anyway. this is a view i don't agree with. i refuse to surrender to this defeatist mentality.
Polarmark,
What I'm hearing is that you advocate for strong governmental control of the citizens. People shouldn't be allowed to make personal decisions since the government will make it for them. Are you sure this is the position you want to take? Did you ever turn yourself in for violating liquor laws at the keg parties you loved so much? I think at some point, you have to live and let live.
Besides, that link links to studies of the "wine" cultures, and the problems they aren't having in them because of a responsible use, it's not such a big deal societal attitudes.
Check it out, polarmark.
Can't hurt. And it's not just U. profs.
We are not talking about people (as a society) who have been exposed to RESPONSIBLE alcohol use and participated in alcohol consumption as part of a meal or social gathering since birth. Many European cultures allow (mandate? encourage?) participants of ALL ages (including young children) to "share the wine". This is true in many religions as well.
I speak in VERY GENERAL terms...Our (American) society does not lend its self to children drinking alcohol at family meals either in the home or at eateries. Young people here do not see others (both adults and peers) RESPONSIBLY consuming alcohol on a regular basis. Most young people's exposure to alcohol is in a party type atmosphere where they witness lewd/rude conduct and/or violence, as over-consumption is the norm in these settings.
Americans have very few "rites of passage". Most are based on a number representing an average (norm) for when we expect a kid to be able to be responsible enough to handle the given task/responsibility. We do not require that individuals "prove" (that will get more letters!) themselves worthy of the responsibility. We need to stop removing the responsibility from young people and making everything OK. The decisions a young person makes greatly affect their future decisions. If we allow them to make a bad decision which has no bad result, we encourage them to continue to make bad decisions.
Without guidance and experience, allowing young adults(?) to just start drinking is somewhat like teaching a young child to ride a bike by pushing them down a steep hill with no training wheels or brakes.
Fishdancer, that is true, but it is only because we have set this scenario up for ourselves. The longer we put it off, the more difficult this road will be.
Well, the laws we have now keeping the drinking age at 21 are so effective, raising or lowering the age would surely be the right answer. All those laws against pot are certainly just as potent as the ones we have for alcohol. I suppose as long as someone is looking at making legislation, someone might call it progress...
The more you tell someone they CAN'T have something, the more of that something they will get and the harder they will work to get it, just to prove you wrong.
I would never advocate abandoning law enforcement, but it must be tempered by realistic expectation too. Pot and alcohol are hardly a threat when you compare it to prescription narcotics abuse and how easy that is to come by and that's legal.
A good use by the writer of Frederic Bastiat like thinking; demonstrating abs