College presidents want the drinking age lowered. From the Wall Street Journal’s Scott Hensley:

But now more than 100 college presidents and chancellors have signed a statement calling for politicians to consider lowering the drinking age in the face of widespread flouting of the law and a wave of dangerous binge drinking on campuses around the country.

The college officials liken the effect of the current drinking age to the failed experiment to ban alcohol for all during Prohibition. But supporters of the restrictions on alcohol say any loosening would lead to more deaths on the roads.

Color me cynical, but this strikes me as a way for colleges to avoid liability since it is their role to protect students–en loco parentis. If the drinking age is 18, then a kid can legally drink. It’s not the college’s fault or the frat’s fault that a student, abiding by the law, goes overboard. But when there is drinking and it’s illegal, the colleges and fraternities are not only condoning excessive behavior they are condoning illegal behavior.

This doesn’t mean that the drinking age shouldn’t be lowered, because it should be. The reason it should be lowered is simple: if a person can vote, enlist and get married, a person should be able to drink a beer which is a much smaller responsibility. People will cite brain research saying that 18 year olds are immature. If that’s the case, then why are they allowed to make other life-changing decisions.

There is a slight problem with this: 18 year olds (as I was) can be high school seniors which could encourage underage drinking in high school. I know more than one kid who spent his high school years drunk even with the 21 age limit, so that argument seems unjustified.

A kid who can make adult decisions should be able to have a drink.

Cross-posted at MelissaClouthier.com

0

Comments are closed.