College Presidents Get Smart

So, in this article from Yahoo!, a group of college presidents is beginning the process to try and lower the drinking age from 21 down to 18. (In other words, making sure that almost all college students are legal to drink.)

Of course, this article comes down on the side of MADD and keeping the status quo. Here is one example of a statistic listed in the article.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Hmm... 157 students in 6, 7 years? Must be an epidemic. In a nation of how many millions of students, 20 people die in each year? Wow. Has to be bad. (Unfortunately, I don't have the link to the John Stossel report where he mentions death statistics of other, more ridiculous items.) Of course, I picked the most defined statistic. Another statistic was an estimate of half a million students are injured; that has to be true cause it is so scientific. (Hint: read the sarcasm in that response!)

Now, you know what would be really nice? I would love to know what the breakdown in injuries/death is between legal, over-21 drinking and underage drinking. Because if those 20 people a year are 23 and 24, lowering the drinking age won't help. But if they are underage? Obviously the current law doesn't work and we definitely should consider lowering it.

What little space this article gives to the college presidents' arguments are instantly negated by some comment from MADD, unsubstantiated comments at that. For example, the presidents argue that by having underage be illegal, students are more likely to drink irresponsibly. In my experiences, I can attest to this. Out of all my friends who drank, only one person over 21 drank to excess. (Unfortunately, when I met him, he was already over 21 so I couldn't his compare underage to legal drinking.) But my other friends? Once they turned 21, drinking wasn't as much fun. Can anyone think of a reason why? Oh yeah, cause it was LEGAL! Part of the fun of underage drinking is breaking the law. Once alcohol is legal to drink, it can be had anytime, not just at the Friday night party so students don't HAVE to drink to excess. Sure, they can, but so what? They could also smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day and that is totally legal.

Now supposedly studies have shown raising the drinking age has lowered drunk driving. But, I have one problem with this. Have they specifically looked at college students? For example, I attended a small school where the parties were on one part of campus and people just walked to them. How often do students drive to parties when in college? (For those who can't figure this out, a bar is not the same as a college party. A bar has tons of free parking and obnoxious drinkers get thrown out. A party on the other hand has limited parking and anyone who has the ability to get a drink can get one.)

Now, I will put one caveat on this posting. I don't drink. I don't go to parties. However, that does not mean I don't understand what happens at parties. I have seen people who have done stupid things when they aren't drunk. (The stories I could tell and not just the one really embarrassing one.) College students are going to be stupid and do dumb things. That is a given. But if MADD wants to stop drunk driving as their name suggests, wouldn't it be better to focus on teaching kids to drink responsibly? I say lower the age to 16, or lower. Let the excitement of alcohol and drinking become a right of passage at a young age when parents are around and most of the idiocy of drinking will disappear. (Don't believe me? Then how come the driving age isn't 21? I mean, really, cars are a helluva lot more dangerous than alcohol. Everyone uses a vehicle; nobody points a gun at you to make you drink.)

Remember, just because something doesn't seem obvious doesn't make it not true. In other words, hehe, without the triple negatives, something true doesn't have to obvious. Just because MADD feels strongly about something, doesn't mean they are right. They are a lobbying group, just like any other. They can say what they want but they have to prove it. I just don't see the research supporting their positions. General studies of random people cannot, CANNOT be applied to a specific subgroup. Simple statistics.

Support the college presidents on this one. For once, they actual are on the correct side. Why should somebody be allowed to join the military, help pretend to "pick" the President, but go to open a beer and time to throw an MIP at that. So logical eh? No, no way in hell.