2008 Woodie Awards
Campaign would lower drinking age
Teague Duggan
Issue date: 4/27/07 Section: News
- < prev Page 2 of 2
The primary argument for Legal Age 21-that it saves lives by preventing alcohol-related fatalities for 18-29 year olds-is contestable. Choose Responsibility argues that the decline in such fatalities is due principally to the increased safety of motor vehicles, mandatory seatbelt laws, better law enforcement, zero tolerance and the rise of designated drivers.
Choose Responsibility further argues that any benefits of Legal Age 21 are offset by the unintended consequences of the rise of binge-drinking. The 21 year-old drinking age is an abridgement of the age of majority; the 21 year-old drinking age marginalizes the role of parents in the process of teaching and encouraging responsibility pertaining to alcohol; and the 21 year-old drinking age breeds disrespect for the law and ethical compromises.
The proposed solution is not just a move to simply lower the drinking age, but an educational and licensing program to promote responsibility. The program, modeled after Drivers' Education, would consist of a minimum 40-hour course, taught by a certified alcohol instructor and culminating in a final examination. The curriculum would be intended to "Provide accurate, truthful, and unbiased alcohol education... It will seek only to create a basis for responsible choices where alcohol is concerned," according to the CR website.
Licenses would be restricted to those 18-20 year olds who have graduated high school and would be subject to strict regulation to prevent drunk driving and distribution of alcohol to minors. Licensing would be a State policy issue, complete with a scanable card that works only in the state in which it was issued (full-time college students could apply for the state in which they attend school). States in turn would need to present a comprehensive program to Congress detailing its plan to educate and license young adults. If the plan were approved, the State would then obtain a waiver for federal highway-funding.
The CR website states: "If the drinking age were lowered it would give colleges and universities, and foremost parents the opportunity to promote healthy use of alcohol and provide a safe and supervised setting for young adults to consume alcohol... If the drinking age were lowered, it would signal a transformation in the relationship our society has with its young adults."
Whether or not you agree that lowering the drinking age is a viable solution, it is clear that Legal Age 21 is not working-drinking in the U.S. compares poorly with the rest of the world in terms of incidence of both heavy drinking and drunk-driving fatalities. As CR states, "Alcohol is a reality in the lives of young Americans. It cannot be denied, ignored, or legislated away." Whether CR succeeds in implementing its full plan or not, the organization should at least serve to actively promote dialogue about alcohol policy in the U.S.
Choose Responsibility further argues that any benefits of Legal Age 21 are offset by the unintended consequences of the rise of binge-drinking. The 21 year-old drinking age is an abridgement of the age of majority; the 21 year-old drinking age marginalizes the role of parents in the process of teaching and encouraging responsibility pertaining to alcohol; and the 21 year-old drinking age breeds disrespect for the law and ethical compromises.
The proposed solution is not just a move to simply lower the drinking age, but an educational and licensing program to promote responsibility. The program, modeled after Drivers' Education, would consist of a minimum 40-hour course, taught by a certified alcohol instructor and culminating in a final examination. The curriculum would be intended to "Provide accurate, truthful, and unbiased alcohol education... It will seek only to create a basis for responsible choices where alcohol is concerned," according to the CR website.
Licenses would be restricted to those 18-20 year olds who have graduated high school and would be subject to strict regulation to prevent drunk driving and distribution of alcohol to minors. Licensing would be a State policy issue, complete with a scanable card that works only in the state in which it was issued (full-time college students could apply for the state in which they attend school). States in turn would need to present a comprehensive program to Congress detailing its plan to educate and license young adults. If the plan were approved, the State would then obtain a waiver for federal highway-funding.
The CR website states: "If the drinking age were lowered it would give colleges and universities, and foremost parents the opportunity to promote healthy use of alcohol and provide a safe and supervised setting for young adults to consume alcohol... If the drinking age were lowered, it would signal a transformation in the relationship our society has with its young adults."
Whether or not you agree that lowering the drinking age is a viable solution, it is clear that Legal Age 21 is not working-drinking in the U.S. compares poorly with the rest of the world in terms of incidence of both heavy drinking and drunk-driving fatalities. As CR states, "Alcohol is a reality in the lives of young Americans. It cannot be denied, ignored, or legislated away." Whether CR succeeds in implementing its full plan or not, the organization should at least serve to actively promote dialogue about alcohol policy in the U.S.
Be the first to comment on this story