John M. Cardell, Jr., president emeritus as Middlebury College, proposes a change in the nation’s drinking age. He wants the age lowered from 21 to 18. He argues that the idea of a dry campus is a farce. Students purchase and consume drink alcohol regardless of law (minor in possession) or regulations (dry campus). (Good coverage from the Middlebury paper). Society in general, and colleges specifically, Cardell believes, would be better off with a lower drinking age. Current Middlebury president Ronald D. Liebowitz does not appreciate his predecessor’s comments. Pity.
Although the law is uniform, regulations are not. Texas Tech bans all alcohol on campus unless you give enough money to the athletics department, and then purchase a luxury box. If you did, then you and yours can imbibe alcohol during a Red Raiders football game. At Iowa, the c-stores located in the residence halls sold beer by the case. And, yes, you could charge it to your student account. Thanks for the Bud, mom and dad.
At Vassar, the hot spot was the on campus pub that sold alcohol to students who are 21 or older. It would be difficult to show that those campuses have fewer or more problems than Tech. Would we be better off following Cardell’s suggestion? Should we focus on consumption issues and less on purchase issues?
45 responses so far ↓
allisonw2 // February 18, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
Most people who are not 21 would like for the drinking age to be lowered, I know I would. However, there are a lot of reasons why the drinking age shouldn’t be lowered. In the case of this blog, the people who purchase the alcohol are obviously 21, but the people who are consuming it are of all ages. Lowering the drinking age would prevent MIP’s being handed out like candy on this campus. Open the DT to the police blotter, 9 out of 10 of the listings are for MIP’s, DUI’s, etc. Texas Tech could definitely make some money off of selling beer in Sam’s Place in the dorms. Who knows, it might keep more people off the street and in their dorm rooms or their apartments.
jonas427 // February 18, 2007 at 5:10 pm |
I don’t think the drinking age should be changed. I think the government should continue to spend a majority of its recourses on consumption issues, and let the retailer concern themselves with enforcing purchasing laws. That’s just where the money is. I bet a lot of revenue is generated by giving out MIP’s. By only allowing people 21 years of age or older to legally buy alcohol, the government will in turn make more money. I say don’t lower the age to buy alcohol. I doubt alcohol sales will go up much if you do. Under age people will get a hold of alcohol. It’s not really a challenge. 18 year olds are going to drink, why wouldn’t the government exploit that, and make a few more bucks? Allowing 18 year olds to legally drink would be like not putting up red light cameras.
maryc1 // February 18, 2007 at 7:03 pm |
I think that having the drinking age so high makes people that are under 21 want to drink more because it is like a forbidden thing that seems more appealing because they can’t do it. It is even worse on college campuses because about half can drink and half cant. It is also easy for the ones who can’t to find some one to buy it. So I think that it is obvious that people underage are going to drink and the focus needs to be on having kids drink responsibly rather than making it seem like this forbidden things that you will have to wait till you are 21 for.
lexib2 // February 18, 2007 at 10:54 pm |
After reading the “dry campus” article, I think the issue at hand here is not lowering the drinking age nessacerily, but finding a way to get information about alcohol to people under 21. I see it kind of like a sex ed class in middle school. Some will argue that this should not be allowed because it is almost condoning safe sex at a young age. The other half will agree that sex does happen in early teens, however sad, and that if there’s that chance out there, then they should at least be informed of the dangers from it, and how to prevent them. I see alcohol in the same light. Underage drinking happens all the time. Uninformed minors do stupid things with alcohol daily. The point I think Mr. Cardell is stating, is how do we get backing from universities to start up an alcohol awareness type program to minors without making the university look bad? I think the answer will come in time. As with any new wave of “frowned upon behavior,” slowly people will agree that no matter the impression given, saving people’s lives through awareness is the safer bet to make.
laurab1 // February 19, 2007 at 12:19 am |
Why not lower the legal age to 18? We’re considered adults who can go to war, buy tobacco, and be considered independent of our parents. If we are allowed such responsibilities as these and others, why shouldn’t we be allowed this? Underage people are going to drink no matter what because it is somewhat of an untouchable. Young people are going to do stupid things so the government should focus on allowing us responsibilities and educating us more on safety of drinking rather than punishing so often. In Europe and other countries the drinking age is much lower and they are doing just fine so we should take to their example.
lynsmith // February 19, 2007 at 9:05 am |
Honestly, I am completely split on this issue. I feel that if we can fight for our country, vote for our governmental officials, and even be charged as an adult if we commit a crime, then why not let us drink? I studied abroad this past summer in Europe and let me tell you, it was an eye opening experience. I was under 21 when I went there and it was so nice to be treated like an adult. I could go to a restaurant or bars, order a drink, and never was I questioned about my age. There is also something to be said about never seeing a drunk European running around like the Americans. Because this is a privilege that they have had for so long, there is never an issue with irrational behavior. It’s like telling a kid that they can’t have a cookie and when we aren’t looking they sneak one anyway. It all comes back to having something that isn’t allowed yet. On that same note, I think that if it was lowered to 18 there would be less college drinking, but more high school. There is going to be pros and cons regardless the situation. I feel it is better for the college experience to have the drinking age at 18. Now that I am 21, I find myself drinking a lot less and having more social drinking in moderation. It’s just not as much fun as it use to be when it wasn’t allowed!
christopherf2 // February 19, 2007 at 10:55 am |
In an ideal society the drinking age could be practically non-existent. However as Americans we live in a society that doesn’t seem to grasp certain concepts of civil liberties and constitutional rights. In regards to the drinking age being lowered and alcohol purchases on campus, nothing should be changed. I am fully aware that people in Europe can drink at practically any age; however they have always held that law constant. If the drinking age in America was changed from 21 to 18 tomorrow, there would be a riot of immature “adults” running hysterically over every college campus in America. It is sad to say, but young people in America are not mature enough to handle alcohol at a reasonable level. Therefore we should focus on both consumption issues and purchase issues.
hunterh1 // February 19, 2007 at 1:20 pm |
I believe that the drinking age should be lowered back to 18. I am not aware of the reasons that it was raised to 21, but I dont think it was a wise idea. Yes I think that 21 year olds could possibly be more responsible with their alcohol consumption than an 18 year old, but if you are allowed to fight and die for your country at the age of 18, you should be able to buy a drink at the bar. I honestly dont think that allowing 18 year olds to drink would cause any more of an uproar than when the law was passed to bump the age up to 21.
stacys2 // February 19, 2007 at 2:29 pm |
No matter the law, people that are underage are going to drink and we cannot stop them in all reality. So I say, why not lower the drinking age to 18. Not only could Texas Tech make money off this, but the amount of tickets given out for alcohol violations would decrease drastically. I see it as a win-win situation. Texas Tech would make money, and student’s records would stay clear of alcohol charges. Also, I know this a continuing argument, but if people at 18 can go fight for our country and perhaps die for it, they should be able to have a drink in order to celebrate when they win the fight for our country. Also at 18, people can vote for who will run the country or buy tobacco, why can’t they decide if they are ready to drink? Europe is able to have a lower drinking age without the economy falling apart so why can’t the U.S.?
jakeg2 // February 20, 2007 at 9:45 am |
The drinking age could be lowered back to 18 and that population affected would greatly appreciate it, but that may never happen because voter turnout is so low in younger voters. This may be an issue that is actually important enough to voters to come to the polls or it may not be. If we can not come together on this act then other smaller bills and policies that ill affect our generation will walk all over us. It is obviously a bad idea as everyone has mentioned, we just have to ask ourselves why not do it. Maybe it is because there has not been a leader strong enough yet to come out and realize our voting potential? More likely we are just too apathetic to care. Life is hard enough without the government telling you what vices you can and cannot have, maybe if they tried to take away my morning pot of coffee the Texan might come out and do something about it. Wrong is wrong its just a question of how long we are going to take it.
taylorj2 // February 20, 2007 at 2:25 pm |
I work at a liquor store on the strip, and it is outrageous the number of minors that try to purchase alcohol. The sad part is, most of them end up getting it anyway with a fake ID or simply having someone else make the purchase. It makes me think that we might as well lower the drinking age if they are going to use illegal means to get it anyway. We could, however, make drinkers more responsible at the same time. I think a good way to get the drinking age changed to 18 would be to have some sort of drinking license required to purchase alcohol, with training similar to getting a driver’s license. This would eliminate people simply using someone else’s ID to buy their alcohol. Drinking licenses could be suspended for different periods of time depending on the citation. I think in order to actually get the drinking age changed; a compromise such as this would have to accompany the change.
julianneb1 // February 20, 2007 at 3:07 pm |
I don’t think that the drinking age should be changed to 18 because most people turn 18 in HS, which would mean that those that turned 18 while in HS would probably start drinking and thus supplying their underage friends with alcohol. Once in college it’s different b/c it’s harder to control and almost anyone can get an ID or find a party that serves to minors. I think there’s a level of responsibility that comes with age, and that by lowering the drinking age they’d be giving people a privilage that they have a hard time controlling. That’s not to say just b/c your 21 you’re going to be a responsible drinker.
troutknoxville // February 20, 2007 at 3:26 pm |
I would just like you to imagine your freshmen year of college right now if you could drink. If we were able to drink senior year of highschool and your whole college career, just think of the added crazy that would have happened. I just turned 21 this last weekend, and I know I went out and got wild but, I believe that I am mature enough now to know my limits and when to stop. Didn’t one time they changed the drinking age to 18 for our parent’s generation and so many kids died because of it. Don’t you think the same would happen?
davidh2 // February 20, 2007 at 9:27 pm |
I am not really for or against the drinking age being changed, but I do feel that if you are old enough to go to war you are old enough to go out and buy you a drink. It wouldn’t bother me if the drinking age was lowered to 18 because most of the people under 21 who drink can either buy it themselves or get someone to buy it for them. So the law right now isn’t really stopping anyone who wants to drink from drinking. If you think about it, if the drinking age was lowered to 18 we wouldn’t have much a police blotter in the TD
patrickm2 // February 20, 2007 at 10:16 pm |
I believe that most people would agree that it is not difficult for college students to obtain alcohol. I do not believe this law is intended to be a “buzz kill” for all those college students looking for some extracurricular fun. Scientist have concluded that at 19 years old the average person is strong enough mental and physical capacities to adequately deal with the effects of alcohol. Before that age, people are more susceptible (I’ve had heard up to 6 times) to encounter problems like alcohol abuse, alcohol poisoning and other related toxicities. We had recently heard a couple of people use the argument “Well, it’s too easy to for college student to get alcohol. They can use fake id’s or get friend to buy it for them.” I believe this concept to use social networks is a reason why they can never lower the drinking age. Just like college sophomores ask their senior friends to buy them alcohol, so will High School sophomores will inturn ask their senior colleagues to supply them with alcohol. We solved one problem but now are open to many more high school problems.
nicolec1 // February 21, 2007 at 10:37 am |
Im not positive in what the drinking age should be. Although I think the main problem is now that turning 21 is soo hyped up and being able to drink legally is such a big deal, that the 18 year olds and people still in high school just drink simply because they “can’t”. Almost to rebel in a way. If society didnt put such a huge emphasis on turning 21 and being able to drink legally, it wouldnt be sought after the way it is. Minors are going to drink if they want to, there are countless ways to get alcohol now days. So why is this even such a big issue? Maybe they should change the law so that when you turn 18 you are able to drink…our parents generation could legally drink at 18 and they turned out just fine.
milevin // February 21, 2007 at 10:59 am |
Is the problem with binge drinking a result of the law or our culture?
Based on the comments posted thus far, no current high school student drinks alcohol or that high school students do not attend parties with alcohol present. Really?
Based on the logic presented in several comments, if the legal age for purchase of alcohol is lowered from 21 to 18, then 16 years old will be able to purchase alcohol or at least get someone to buy it for him or her. In other words, it would be easier for the 16 year old to gain access to alcohol then if the law remained at the present 21 age limit.
Today’s 16-year-old person lacks the ability to find someone to purchase alcohol, or otherwise gain access to alcohol. Really?
Finally, some of the arguments presented confuse purchase with consumption. I argue the law affects purchase but culture affects consumption. Is that the problem with the debate in this country regarding the drinking age?
kkovacic // February 21, 2007 at 12:44 pm |
I agree with the argument that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I come from a country where the drinking age is 18 and quite frankly one can drink if they are 16; the regulations are not as strict. I think having the drinking age as 21 creates this big deal about it and everybody get even more wild and out of control when they finally reach their legal drinking age. If a person can go to war for the country, vote, drive a car… and not have an alcoholic drink—it makes no sense! If someone wants to drink- if they are 17 or 25- they probably will find a way to do it. I think consumption probably depends on one’s culture and upbringing and on the personal risks one may encounter afterwards.
kyleb2 // February 22, 2007 at 5:32 pm |
I am in complete favor for lower the drinking age. I think the age should be changed to 18 for numerous reasons. The main points are obviously that you can already do mostly everything, buy tobacco, go to war, and vote. So why not be able to drink? The law mandates that no one under the age of 21 to buy or consume alcohol, but kids always find a way around it. Either, they find someone to buy alcohol for them or they have a fake id. I don’t think that lowering the drinking age would have that much of an impact. Lowering the drinking age would increase revenues for all alcohol retailers. I don’t understand why they don’t push the issue harder. There would also be consequences if the age limit was lowered. Lowering the age could influence drinking and driving at a younger age. Cities could set up a safe ride system, like the one Tech offers, to help prevent this issue. Overall, I believe the age limit should be lowered to 18. Minors will always find a way to consume alcohol no matter what the age is.
micheller2 // February 23, 2007 at 12:35 am |
I think the drinking age should remain at 21. I don’t really see how lowering the age will increase profits for retailers, it will be the same money just a different buyer. I don’t know anyone who buys alcohol for minors without getting the money to buy the alcohol from the minors. I think there should be more education on the effects of drinking, and not just the once a year assembly where they show a bunch of pictures of mangled cars, and say don’t drink, you’ll die. Personally, I do not drink (I’m 23) and I did not drink when I was in high school. Drinking is a personal choice. Whether its 18 or 21, minors will find a way to get alcohol if they want to drink.
jalderson2 // February 25, 2007 at 2:06 pm |
I am torn on which side I am on; 18 or 21. both sides have really good arguments. If the drinking age was lowered to 18 I think that would be like raising the speed limit somewhere 5 miles an hour. People who drive 65 in a 60 would now just drive 70 in a 65. Regulations on society can never fully work. People make their own choices and are in a sense free to do what they want, knowing the consequences. Now if the drinking age was lowered to 18, kids in Amercia would start younger. As sex is mislead in schools, drinking would be the same. Our schools should teach and educate kids to help them be safer and make bigger coices while drinking. another argument for the drinking age to be lowered is, ids can die for their country but cannot have drink in it. When we have wars or conflicts, 18-21 year olds are many of the casualties. I believe that if a country will make you pay the ultimate price, you should be able to do anything anyone else can that lives in it. My stance though would be to keep the drinking age at 21. Our society has built this law into its system and it would only cause minor insanity if one day kids of 18 could jus go out and buy beer. They need education abotu drinking so they will not abuse and make wise choices. Overall I think this “president” knows that his cry for the drinking age to be lowered would not accomplish anything, only get people around the country foolishly taking thier minds off of real issues we face and talk about his ideas. Give him his 5 minutes of fame and move on. We are still throwing away billions for a war we should never have been in. Thanks for the focus change.
codyj002 // February 25, 2007 at 8:00 pm |
I believe that if we are old enough to fight then we should be old enough to drink. There are so many loopholes in this law. Did you know that if you are under 21 and married to a man that is 21 you can purchase alcohol? In addition, if you are with you parents and are at least 18 you can purchase alcohol. What is the difference in these situations? Arguments can be made on both sides. In the state of Texas, you cannot purchase liquor in convienice stores. If you travel up to New Mexico, you can enjoy a bottle of Grey Goose at you local gas station. What blows my mind is that people can graduate from high school have a job, are drafted and not be able to drink alcohol. However, I do not believe that they should sell beer on campus. This is a place of learning not a place of boozing.
rossc1 // February 26, 2007 at 9:57 am |
Like every argument, there are two sides. I do not think it is fair to let the more “wealthy” to be able to purchase a box and consume alcohol. It should be all or none, not something in between. Drinking for students above 21 at football games should be completely legitimate. On the other hand, I do not think that selling alcohol on campus is a good idea, especially in dorms. Not only are almost all students that live in dorms under 21, but many of them have academic problems and are not able to effectively manage their time just yet. I am now 21, and looking back I do not think I would have been mature enough at 18 to be able to handle the responsibilities that drinking alcohol entail. I disagree with Mr. Cardell about changing the law as I think it would encourage many more people to drink and become more carefree with their actions.
rachelh1 // February 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm |
I do not think the drinking age should be lowered although I would not protest, or be very opposed to the change in the law. Mr. Cardell raises the point that the drinking age really doesn’t do anything right now anyways. People drink underage regardless, people drink and drive regardless or age or law. I do believe in a dry campus and leaving the drinking age at 21 because I don’t think that alcohol has to be everywhere. I do not agree with Lubbock’s continued prohibition of alcohol sales within city limits(unless a bar, restaurant), because this law most certainly causes the drunk driving rate to climb. Students drive to the strip, buy alcohol to suffice for the weekend, night, whatever; they get drunk, run out of alcohol, need more, drive to the strip! This is incredibly obvious and I cannot believe the narrow-minded, stubborn, EXTREMELY conservative city councils members cannot see that. It is truly a shame! What Mr. Cardell is trying to say is that, if it doesn’t matter the age, why not lower it; or rather, why not take another approach to controlling underage drinking and drunk driving. The age limit is not working and no matter, up or down, changing it will not affect those who want to drink. In this way, I do agree with Mr. Cardell and I believe that is the true change he is calling upon society for. Let’s think in a new direction. If this means, a different approach to alcohol education, so be it; but, where and when, do not seem to make a difference in alcohol consumption.
rachelc1 // February 26, 2007 at 9:16 pm |
I think that lowering the drinking age would not solve anything. The drinking age has been changed numerous times back in the day and that did not help. In the long run, people decided it was only helpful to increase the drinking age to 21 years old. No matter if the drinking age is 18 or 19, we as a community are not going to be able to abolish underage drinking. Underage drinkers will always find a way to get alcohol and drink in public. The amount of MIP’s and MIC’s that are given out to high school and college students is ridiculous. If an individual wants something bad enough they are going to get it no matter if the law says it’s wrong. I think one major problem with Lubbock is that it is dry. Having a bunch of college students driving miles out to the strip at night is dangerous. I realize that moving alcohol into town will not prevent drunk driving; I just think that it is silly to have the strip out of town. I agree with the comment above about selling beer on campus. I think that selling beer and wine on campus would prevent a lot of students from drinking and driving. I also think that Texas Tech University would make a huge profit off the sale of alcohol. Most college students are lazy and convenience is everything. I feel that lowering the drinking age would do nothing for the community. I fully agree with Lynsmith that once you are 21 you lose the motivation to want to drink as much. Once the forbidden fruit is taken away, a person loses the drive to constantly want to go to a bar and drink. I think a huge part of drinking is maturity and once you are 21 you realize it is not that big of a deal anymore. I believe it is important to keep the age at 21 years, because moving it to 18 would not make a positive difference in society.
brookea2 // February 27, 2007 at 11:20 am |
Surprisingly, I agree with many people that the drinking is fine as it is. However, I believe there should be some exceptions. Once you are 18, you should be able to go out to dinner with your parents and order a drink. I think this will introduce minors to alcohol, so when they eventually turn of age, drinking doesn’t feel like such a privilege. I think this whole argument would not be an issue, had our parents not been able to drink when they were 18. When our generation has children, I’m sure many of us will be avid supporters of the drinking age being 21. With that in mind, I believe the age you should be able to fight in war should also be changed to 21. If the government can justify 20 year olds not being mature enough to drink, then they are certainly not mature enough to be handed a gun and told, “Fight (and maybe die) for your country”.
If the law was altered to allow 18 year olds to drink in the accompaniment of their parents, I think that binge drinking would not be that great of an issue. What’s the point of sneaking around, and binge drinking when you can just be at home and drink with your parents? Sure it takes some of the fun out, but I think for many it would take the danger out.
malloryg2 // February 27, 2007 at 2:37 pm |
Of course the law is going to affect the purchasing of alcohol, but at the same time it also affects the consumption. To legally purchase alcohol you must be 21, but who are these “of age” people supplying the alcohol that THEY buy to? I guarantee it is a wide age gap that consume alcohol. If buying alcohol was legal at 18, i can only imagine the havoc that would bring on our society. We already hear too many cases of drunken incidents. I cannot thing of one good reason to lower the drinking age. The amount of revenue that might be made cannot come close to outweighing the increase in drinking related tragedies that might follow.
iana1 // February 27, 2007 at 2:46 pm |
I think at should be the drinking age in America. If almost every other country can do it why can’t we? Canada has 18 as the drinking age in many places, while some are set at 19. Mexico is around 18. Europe is if you can reach the bar you can buy a drink. But what makes us so different? I don’t know. Our country has gone into some weird mode where our government is trying to protect us from everything. Here is a tricky thing, cigarettes can be bought at age 18. From day one they start to fill your lungs with black disgusting tar. Doesn’t that go on roads? Alcohol can’t be purchased until 21. Doesn’t leave any permanent damage unless you over do it. In which case you shouldn’t be drinking anyways. If it’s 10 in the morning and your holding a beer and reading this I’m talking to you.
I think if campus had a night life here at Tech and had alcohol consumption/sale drunk driving would go down. More students would be inclined to living on or more near campus if that’s where the nightly activities were. I know most people don’t stay on campus because its inconvenient and is also illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage. But if there were bars and clubs on campus there would be a greater demand for on campus living but with an on campus feel. They could build a high rise on campus if the IT place to be were on campus. It would sell out.
amandaj1 // February 27, 2007 at 2:55 pm |
There has been a long standing debate over this topic for as long as I can remember, and as for my opinion, I believe the drinking age should be lowered. The US needs to be consistent. By allowing 18 year olds to vote and to die for their country, and not allowing them to drink alcohol is not consistent. The government should either increase the age to vote or decrease the age to drink. Take Europe for example, is there an obvious different in their death rate compared to ours? I understand safety is a concern, but it is true that minors will consume alcohol no matter what. Instead, the government should enfore a test or probation system for those under 21. Therefore, I do believe we should lower the drinking age and begin focusing more on consumption factors rather than purchase. It is so much harder to enforce purchase laws because there are soo many who cheat the system. By allowing 18 year olds to drink, this decreases its temptation, and might even drink less. If there is no risk or danger to cheat the system, it becomes less appealing.
carlym2 // February 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm |
In my opinion I think that the age should be lowered to 18. My family’s attitude toward alcohol is very relaxed. No one is what you call an alcoholic, however; during any family get-together there has and will always be alcohol involved. If you look at my family we are all very successful; doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, and engineers I am the youngest in my family and I think of alcohol as a thing that you must learn and be mature about. In my opinion, I think that being able to drink when you turn 18, when you are still at home might be valuable. Having you first drinks with your parents around, you will become familiar with the effects of alcohol. I’m not saying that you should just get hammered around your parents, but they are there to supervise you. I believe that having the age lowered will allow students to become familiar with alcohol at home around adults instead of unleashing when they get to college. Today, many students are asked to leave their university after one year due to alcohol. No matter what the laws states, there is a high percentage of students that drink before they turn 21, and if it was lowed to 18 students might think of alcohol as a “relaxed” subject, rather than “Oh I have to drink to get drunk because I am a rebel and my parents aren’t around!”
ashleyh1 // February 27, 2007 at 10:47 pm |
I honestly don’t think it is going to make that big of an impact whether the legal drinking age is changed or not. Kids younger than 21 have always and will always find ways to get alcohol. Politicians can argue that kids at that age are not responsible enough to legally consume, but they can also own/rent a house, go to jail and several other things. So it seems silly to me that they think the kids are not mature enough. Honestly? I think it might be a better idea to have the age set at 18 just for the sake of kids going to extremes to get/ consume the alcohol out of rebellion. Either way, it stands though that lowering the drinking age is not going to change the amount of DUI’s, DWI’s, or any other arrests except maybe MIP’s or MIC’s. Lowering the age is not going to change the amount of people drinking and driving. I think there is no winner in this decision.
noparatchock // March 1, 2007 at 2:00 am |
I don’t think people who are 18 years old have enough responsibility to drink. I don’t think we can compare our drinking age to other countries. For example, in Europe, they have no minimum legal drinking age, and they don’t have many that drink and drive nor do they have that many crash problems!! I know why… because no one drives in Europe. Europe people are dependent on public transportation. Also, in the U.S. so many people die nowadays because of irresponsible drinking, why would we want to increases the odds?
P.S. Another thing that I think is important is our brain which doesn’t finish developing until we’re 25.
kellis1 // March 1, 2007 at 3:02 pm |
In my opinion the drinking age should not be lowered to 18. People of the age of 18 are not responsible enough to drink in my opinion. I know almost all college students drink whether they are 21 or not, but making it legal is a whole different ballpark. As soon as its lowered then people under the age of 18 are going to start drinking earlier. In regards to the university i feel that this will only create more problems. If drinking is legal at 18, students will only begin to spend more time doing it. This will in time take away from their classes, as it does already. I feel that it also creates more of a reckless mindstate at this age. Like i said people at the age of 18 dont typically make the best decisions. Making it legal to drink at this age probably isnt the best idea.
kendallk1 // March 1, 2007 at 7:50 pm |
I think that the drinking age should stay at 21. It was changed from 18 for a reason. First of all, if high school seniors were able to buy alcohol we would have a much larger problem on our hands. Yes, high school drinking is a problem now, but I think it’s obvious that drinking in high school would grow exponentially into a very serious problem if getting a bottle of Jack for your 15 year old friend was as easy as driving to the nearest grocery store (or the strip). I’m afraid of new drivers as it is without them driving drunk. Many people are arguing that the drinking age in other countries is much lower than ours and wondering why America is so different. Our culture is very different than other countries. With our overflow of media exposure telling us what is “cool” and what isn’t, it is hard for underage people to not feel pressured into doing something that is probably not a good idea. I think that most people would agree that they are more mature now than they were when they were 18. Three years is quite a bit of time to grow up when a person is still in the adolescent years. Think about how much more mature you were as an 18 year old than as a 15 year old (also a three year difference). We have enough drinking and driving issues in America now with the numbers of legal drinkers that we have. I don’t really see how it would be better to add more legal drinkers (and potential drunk drivers) to our already bad problem if people drink illegally anyway. If the drinking age were lowered, the 16-20 year olds that drink illegally now would change to an even younger group of people under the age of 18 drinking illegally. Add that to legal drinkers and you basically just get a larger group of drinkers than we had before, and adding numbers to the group of drinkers in America just adds to the numbers of people that drink irresponsibly. Overall, I think changing the drinking age is a bad idea.
codyh2 // March 1, 2007 at 8:36 pm |
The drinking age should stay the same. The law right now is only punishing people who drink underage, IF THEY’RE EVEN CAUGHT!! Lubbock police, i think, helps out the average student who is under 21 by just sending people home or to other parties where they can drink underage again, so in some instances there’s an ethical discussion behind the law of drinking illegally underage here in Lubbock, but as for now all the police are doing is ticketing people for driving intoxicated. Also maturity is a big factor if the drinking age should ever be lowered. One reason is students in college have more at risk in their futures than do high school students and the college students consequences if they are caught are also weighed more when they’re caught because ifyou get a MIP in high school and your under 18 allyou really have to do is wait until your 18 and your excused for your actions, while if you are caught while in college, you are more than likely over eighteen and your actions stick with you through your career life. I dont even have enough fingers to count with when it comes to gas stations or restaurants that dont even card minors for purchasing alcohol, so in some instances it’s a matter of ethics because the law or the motivation for businesses to control the purchasing and consumption of alcohol is scarce right now, so right now its whether or not you want to be associated with GIVING minors alcohol illegally.
eriny2 // March 1, 2007 at 9:32 pm |
The situation about drinking age is always a controversial one. Personally, I believe that no matter what the age the law is set at people will continue to drink at a lower age than that. Even though I just turned 21 this month and couldn’t wait for this day to come, I would not follow Cardell’s suggestion. Teenagers are starting to drink at younger and younger ages and mostly start when they enter high school. In recent years, there have been many issues concerning 21st birthday celebrations. It is known that on the night of one’s 21st birthday they go out and drink too much causing them to suffer from alcohol poisoning or even worse. I think that if this age is lowered to 18 that it will only make these problems worse. I know that the argument is to decrease the age because kids are already drinking at a younger age, but my argument is that they will not be mature enough. Underage drinking is almost inevitable these days, so I think that changing the law will only harm society. By a 21st birthday almost everyone has had a least one drink and several already know what they can handle. I believe that if the age was moved to 18 people would not be as mature or experienced with alcohol, legal or not and could cause even more cases of alcohol poisoning or worse.
ashleyho1 // March 1, 2007 at 10:07 pm |
I do not see the problem in lowering the drinking age to 18 because the majority of students who are in college do consume alcohol. I think that by lowering the age to 18 society would be able to cut down on accidents that are caused by binge drinking. I do agree that 18 year olds are less mature than 21 year olds, but I still think that they have the maturity to handle the responsiblity of drinking alcohol, especially since they do it anyways.
jessicac2 // March 1, 2007 at 10:24 pm |
I personally do not think we should have a local pub on campus for “everyone” to hang out at. It is a student’s choice to drink and encouraging that is not the universities responsibility. If the student wishes to drink, she or he is going to get the alcohol and go out of their way to get it if they want it that badly. Why try to make it easier on them to consume. Let them find it on their own and be free from the liability if the situation becomes out of control. I may be naive and old fashioned in this subject matter, but I believe that making it just a little more difficult for the students to get the alcohol can possibly keep them from making mistakes they may regret for years to come. If someone plans a head of time, the alcohol may not be a problem to have, but once it’s gone, it’s gone, and it’s very difficult to drive a long ways to get more, especially if you’re already drunk. I think Tech and Lubbock have a very brave statement when it comes to alcohol and I know they’re ridiculed a lot for it. Even though the challenge maybe difficult to face, many Lubbock citizens, especially those with children, appreciate the rules and regulations currently set. It may put some parents at ease when they know it’s extremely difficult for their kid to purchase or find alcohol.
meascott // March 2, 2007 at 11:50 am |
I think first instead of lowering the age to 18, we must first make Lubbock wet. Can we honestly say that the drinking age will be 18 before Lubbock is wet, and the long drive to the strip is eliminated. In regards to the question of whether or not to lower the drinking age, I personally believe that it is a long awaited change. Aside from the possible problems it will cause (i.e.- easier availibility to 16 year old’s) this decision is something that the US is behind the world in changing. Most other countries the drinking age is either 18 or nonexistent, and it seems to work fine for their country. I think that it would be a very good change. For one, when students get into college it might eliminate the need to be so rebellious against your parents and government, in turn lowering the need to binge drink. In many countries, like Europe, alcohol is seen as just another drink at dinner. If the US is able to say you can fight for your country at 18 then why can’t you have a drink too? If the government implemented this decision I believe that they would see less problems with people breaking the laws.
meascott // March 2, 2007 at 11:50 am |
I think first instead of lowering the age to 18, we must first make Lubbock wet. Can we honestly say that the drinking age will be 18 before Lubbock is wet, and the long drive to the strip is eliminated. In regards to the question of whether or not to lower the drinking age, I personally believe that it is a long awaited change. Aside from the possible problems it will cause (i.e.- easier availibility to 16 year old’s) this decision is something that the US is behind the world in changing. Most other countries the drinking age is either 18 or nonexistent, and it seems to work fine for their country. I think that it would be a very good change. For one, when students get into college it might eliminate the need to be so rebellious against your parents and government, in turn lowering the need to binge drink. In many countries, like Europe, alcohol is seen as just another drink at dinner. If the US is able to say you can fight for your country at 18 then why can’t you have a drink too? If the government implemented this decision I believe that they would see less problems with people breaking the laws.
jvasquez2 // March 2, 2007 at 1:59 pm |
I agree with Cardell that the age should be lowered, based on the fact that has been brought up by others, that if you are old enough to fight for your country you should be able to buy and consume a drink where you please. But I also think there should be some limits to what you can by under the age of 21, for instance if you are younger than 21 you should only be able to by a six or twelve pack of beer, and no liquor at all. It is to my understanding that Tech could sell alcohol on its campus, if is Lubbock isn’t a wet county. So it should have no berring on the situation if Lubbock is wet or not. Also I believe that the sell of alcohol on campus would generate more revenue and could prolong the process of raising tuition because they should make enough money each year to cover other expenses, that they raise tution each year to pay for.
ashleyd2 // March 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm |
If you were to ask me this question when I was 18 or even at 20, I would say “Heck Yes it needs to be changed!”, but now that I am 21 I do understand that you do need to be a little older to induldge in drinking. There are just somethings you learn when you grow up, and I don’t think you are as responsible as you think you think you would be. I think Lubbock should not be a dry county. Whenever I tell my friends back at home that I have to drive 20 minutes just to go pick up alcohol, they all laugh. I am sorry you know people are going to drink, and it would make it a lot easier to just run to United or Seven 11 and just pick up a six pack, not to mention it would help Lubbock’s economy A LOT!!! Because everyone knows Lubbock knows how to drink!! I really don’t think Texas Tech should have alcohol sales on campus, that just spells BAD NEWS!! I just see a lot of problems coming from doing that, regardless if the drinking age is changed or not.
lesleyh1 // March 2, 2007 at 4:39 pm |
I dont think the drinking age should be lowered here at Tech or in Texas. I think your twenty-first birthday is a major milestone in ones life. I think the drinking age being set at a higher age is good for the community. For the most part, 21 year olds are a little more responsible than an 18 year old. The laws are set to hopefully keep the streets safer and everyone else safe. I know there are many 18 year olds that would love the drinking age to be changed, but I think it only spells for disaster. I think the lawmakers know what they are doing when they make these laws. Like I said earlier, hopefully the older you are the more responsible you are. Eventhough there are a lot of drunk driving accidents and barroom brawls, lowering the drinking age would only increase that stupidity.
monicag1 // March 2, 2007 at 8:20 pm |
There are so many responsibilities given to you at 18…why not add one more? Like mentioned in earlier blogs, I believe that the bigger concern here is to raise the awareness level of alcohol among younger adults. The earlier this is done, the sooner they will “get it out of their system”. Once you hit the college life it becomes a 4 year party. Regardless of one’s age, people are still going to drink if they are determined to. Lowering the age will lessen the thousands of MIP’s given each year, boost sales and revenues (especially if Tech decides to sell it on campus), and create younger responsible drinkers…for the most part.
lpatman // April 1, 2007 at 6:57 pm |
I think that the drinking age should stay at 21. Even before I was 21 I still thought the drinking age should be 21. Most kids who are 18 aren’t mature enough or responsible enough to be able to drink. Also there would be a lot more drinking and driving accidents. Young adults are already at the top in DWI tickets, so adding to this wouldn’t be wise. Kids are also more prone to become addicted and have lifetime issues of alcoholism. I know people who argue that if your able to fight for our country you should be able to drink alcohol. I do agree with this, but I think you should only be aloud to drink at the base. This would cut out the DWI’s and deaths caused when driving.
You must be logged in to post a comment.