21 million is the number of students enrolled in all degree-granting postsecondary institutions. I assume the NIAAA figure only counts full-time undergraduates rather than all “college students”.
Yes, statistically, it’s not a large number. But those 1,800 students are dying very early in their lives from something that can be prevented. And one way to do that is for students not to be afraid to bring their friends to the infirmary or the hospital when they’re in trouble due to over consumption. If schools adopt a strict no-underage drinking policy, the students will still drink but it will be driven underground and they will be afraid to seek treatment when it can help.
My undergrad (a small liberal arts college) basically looked the other way she I arrived there in 1991. Stores in town would deliver cases, kegs, hard alcohol to campus - and by the time they dragged it up to the top floor of the dorm (no elevators), do you think they were going to take it back down?
After some major incidents, the college started cracking down on the big parties. At the time, we protested a lot -though I was over 21 by that point, so i generally wasn’t affected. Now, though there’s never no underage drinking, my understanding is that it’s less pervasive, and those students who don’t drink are happier.
Do I think the drinking age should be lowered and that 21 is a false line? Yes, but right now it’s the law of the land in the US, so I support colleges enforcing it appropriately.
FWIW my son’s college has a no prosecution or write-up policy if someone is brought in for medical help. Aparently no problem getting people brought in for help with that in place.
Also I note The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989 (Public Law 101-226; Final Regulations published on August 16, 1990) which obligates colleges certified by the U.S. Dept of Education to adopt and implement programs to prevent the illicit use of drugs and the abuse of alcohol by their students and employees.
Since this is the Straight Dope Message Board, I suppose someone should point to the (still developing) research into late teen/early 20’sbrain development:
So reasearch points to a teen brain with a fully developed pleasure center but an incomplete risk measurement center - not a good combination. Perhaps a legal drinking age of 21 is supported by science.
If the language of that act really refers to “illicit drug use” and “abuse of alcohol” it seems an admission that alcohol is going to be consumed by students (even underage ones) but the idea is to prevent binge drinking and alcoholism.
If it actually inhibited drinking, it might be.
I think the point is that adults, even those with “incomplete risk measurement centers,” get to make their own decisions and --unfortunately–sometimes suffer the consequences of bad choices. The other point, although I suppose debatable one, is that 18 to 20 year olds will engage in more dangerous drinking behavior if alcohol is not legally available to them.
Just because something is a “good idea,” doesn’t mean it should be enforced through the criminal law system.
Actual wording (my other link does not go through):
So no.
Are you really arguing that laws stating that drinking under 21 is illegal (if not just winked at by those in charge of enforcement) are completely ineffectual? That the same amount of binge drinking would occur on a campus that attempted to enforce those laws as on one that explicitly ignored them?
the argument I’ve heard is that binge drinking is worse when alcohol bans are enforced. I guess the theory is that these young people will think they have to take “full advantage” of the opportunity to drink when they do score some booze and therefore drink way too much. In know that’s a reasonable assumption based on my behavior before I turmed 18.
Any evidence to support the assertion?
What I observe is the opposite. Schools that turn a blind eye have more problems with binge drinking behaviors than schools that seriously attempt to enforce. In schools that overtly turn a blind eye virtually the only social activity is centered around getting plastered and completely shitfaced.
Looking for actual data what I can find reinforces my impression.
1) College level enforcement has an impact.
2) State level laws have an impact.
So it may be a nice theory but the facts argue against it.
By “schools that seriously attempt to enforce”, are we talking about strictly religious schools like Oral Roberts University, Liberty University or Brigham Young University? Because obviously those schools have a self-selecting population.
Actually, whether or not a law is effectual has nothing to do with whether it is supported by scientific research. FTR, I don’t believe drinking age laws were drafted in light of brain research. That I chalk up to coincidence.
The point is that the law defines not only age of adulthood but also the age when some rights and privileges commence. Driving is one example, ususally set younger than “adulthood”. OTOH, one must be 35 to run for POTUS. Age set by law is very common and often arbitrary. Colleges must enforce existing laws or potentially be held civilly and/or criminally responsible for the results. Asking if a college should enforce established drinking laws is a silly question. Asking if the law is justified/sensible/enforceable on a practical basis makes much more sense.
Have you looked at what it takes to pass/enforce a law? “Good idea” doesn’t even have to be a factor.
I mean, slightly: I’m having some fun at the expense of Pakistan and India both. I’m sure AK84 agrees that Pakistani drinking laws are dumb.
It’s true that there only three dry states today, but there were a bunch more in the past (including some large ones).
Our brain isn’t completed developing by 21, either. Regardless, I don’t think ‘not having a fully developed risk measurement center’ is a good reason for young adults not to be allowed to drink. There are late teens/young adults who can drink responsibly, and whose quality of life (like that of older adults) would be much improved by having access to alcohol, and they shouldn’t have their rights restricted by the fact that some other people in their age cohort make bad decisions. I’m not comfortable with the tendency in this country to infantilize young adults.
I’ll point out again, that most countries in the world have a drinking age of 18, some even lower.
I stand properly corrected. My observations are that drinking enforcement leads to binge drinking, but unless I’m missing something in your cites (such as what Dewey suggested) empirical evidence says the opposite.
Certainly not if we allow young adults to enlist in the armed services or drive a car. What’s riskier than that?
No, these sem to be schools that changed policies and then had a change in student reported binge drinking behviors as a result.
Risks are only part of a rational analysis (imagining that laws are made on a rational basis, as if!). The other part is benefit and the for laws the prime focus of benefit is to society.
Young adults being able to commute to and from employment and help participate in the family responsibilities that require driving is a benefit that as a society we believe offsets the substantial risk.
Young adults in the military, the argument would go, provide a sizable benefit to society as well that society considers worth the sizable risks to the individuals involved.
What offsetting benefit to society is served by allowing young adults to get shitfaced?
As for the debate about what the laws should be, my bias is to believe that the legal age should be lowered and do believe that exposure to moderate drinking in the home with meals (a glass of wine or beer here or there, as I have done in my own household with my own kids). That said when I last actually tried to find data to suppport my belief I found it lacking and more on the other side. The story that countries with lower age restrictions have less binge drinking seems to be a myth than reality.
Yes, well, the entire USA, every single state, was dry in the past.
People clearly get pleasure from drinking and have a more fulfilling social and personal life, would be the benefit.
We could outlaw drinking entirely as many Muslim states do, and then we’d have none of the problems associated with drinking, so why don’t you want to do that?