Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Let's look at the age again before we say bye

So here I am, taking a last parting stab at the age issue, even though it's not pertinent to my focus. But many of the readers seem to be pretty invested in it, so I shall address it for the last time. This is in part sentimental, because the age issue is how the blog began, although the blog didn't quite pan out that way. Yet, there is something poetic in ending the blog the way it begins. So here we go.

This post is meant to raise more questions than it answers, so I'm sorry if anyone reading it is looking for answers. I don't have any, especially with regards to the age. All I can say is that my contention with the age debate is with the way it is framed, and not that either age, 21 or 18 is better/worse. I think if the age is going to be changed, it should be changed for reasons better than the ones currently employed in the ongoing debate. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that changing the age is going to fundamentally alter college students and change their drinking patterns.

Quite shockingly, the more I think about the age issue in terms of a specific number, the more I wonder why an age is necessary in the first place. If sufficient education measures are in place, both in the home and in public spheres, and laws against irresponsible drinking and its resultant actions are well crafted and implemented, then is a drinking age needed? I don't know. A proper investigation into such a question will require some delving into the purposes of laws and how they are formed, which I have neither time nor resources for.

But let's stop getting distracted and return to the issue of age. Honestly, it's somewhat of a mess, isn't it? Neither side seems willing to relinquish their positions and keep arguing for either 18 or 21. I suggest that a temporary solution should be to opt for the middle: 19 years and 6 months.

Joking aside, in the current legal paradigm, an age is needed. I don't think American society is ready for drinking to be completely legal, especially given its historical baggage with prohibition. But how to get to that, like I said, I have no good answer. My guess is as good as yours. Or maybe... we should just toss a coin.

At this point, it's time for me to blow my trumpet again. I know I said it'd be nice to end with the age. But truly, my solution to the fracas is for the disputing parties to channel their energy elsewhere and craft alcohol education programmes that work better than the current ones. In this respect, I think John McCardell, one of the motivators of the Amethyst Initiative, is headed in the right direction with his proposal for alcohol education. Now if only he could meet his opponents halfway, abandon the quibbling over the number, and focus on getting that plan on the road.

Self Analysis Post

I have to admit that when I first started writing the blog, I was leaning more strongly in favour of maintaining the drinking age, because lowering it in light of uncontrollable, irresponsible, unruly college students, and couching one’s reasons for doing so as in their (the college students) best interests, just reeked of giving in to bratty children. BUT, right from the start, I KNEW perfectly well that that is just my biased opinion, which is why, I initially didn’t commit to any particular stance on the age issue.

After researching the debate and looking over the arguments of the two main camps, as represented by the Amethyst Initiative and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I was all the more convinced that taking a stance on the issue of age was not the direction to take. As anyone who has read this blog should see, the two opposing sides are arguing over the number of the age in relation to two distinct drinking issues, binge drinking and drunk driving, with each party being concerned with one drinking issue.

Initially, upon reading their arguments, I felt that each side had good reason to argue what they did. It also didn’t help that the CBS video on the recent drinking age debate did a pretty good job at presenting both sides, although admittedly, it did give more time to the Amethyst Initiative as the new kid on the block. The point is, I was fairly confused as to why two completely reasonable arguments could reach diametrically opposed conclusions.

However, even as I was unable to twist my mind round the clash of two seemingly equally valid ideas, it was apparent that there was a problem regarding the issue of drinking. As this article highlights, college binge drinking is on the rise, and more than just newspapers were making the claim, researchers had the same findings as well.

Then the line in Robert Schlesinger’s blog post on the drinking age caught my eye: “There are larger issues we need to address as a society regardless of what happens regarding the drinking age.” That really got me thinking out of the box. What if the crux of the debate lay not in the age, but in the “larger issues” underlying the superficial debate about a number? If society could focus on solving the larger problem of irresponsible alcohol consumption, then the debate surrounding the age, as it is currently framed, would be pretty much moot.

I felt somewhat vindicated when I stumbled across Joshua Sharp’s (a USC student) blog post which holds the same sentiment as I do, that it was the attitudes towards drinking, not the age, that mattered. I view this source as particularly significant as it represents a voice of a student, someone in the midst of college drinking rather than someone standing on the outside and analyzing a detached scenario. Even then, outside researchers reached the same conclusion, as shown by the study on how attractiveness and popularity are associated with binge drinking in young adults.

I trust this sufficiently explains why I am not particularly interested in finding an answer to the current age debate. Instead, I hope that my interrogation of the issue has provided a way through which an answer to the current age debate becomes unnecessary.

In addition, my research into this topic also disabused me of some common misconceptions such as other European countries having less of a youth drinking problem compared to America, which this study debunks. Finding out instances where my preconceived opinions were erroneous is important to my development as a thinker as it helps to ensure that my opinions are grounded in fact rather than rumour.

As for my development as a thinker in terms of making arguments, a productive learning experience from this project would be the exercise in focusing an argument and at the same time demonstrating a consideration for other aspects of the topic. For this reason, I had two posts on adulthood, which many see as pertinent to the age debate, in which I explained why I did not see an argument on adulthood as being all that significant to the alcohol issues at hand as per the way the current age debate is framed. After demonstrating a consideration of that issue, I then began on my overall argument that the problems of binge drinking and drunk driving, as well as the attitudes towards alcohol, were the fundamentals of the current age debate and should be considered in their own right.

Ultimately, with regard to the issue of drinking in America, I learnt that alcohol is one of the big controversies in the US. As this chapter in a book on Controversies introduces the issue of drinking, "Drinking [in America] has been blessed and cursed, has been held the cause of economic catastrophe and the hope for prosperity, the major cause of crime, disease and military defeat, depravity and a sign of high prestige, mature personality, and a refined civilization.” This is new to me as a foreigner because back home, we give way less thought to alcohol on the whole. Consequently, it can be said that in some ways, writing this blog has been a process of discovery of not only an intellectual nature, but also a cultural one.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Implications Post

So what are the implications if the issue is never resolved? That really depends on what the issue is.

If the issue is about the age in itself, then my answer is that it is, as a matter of fact, already “resolved” insofar as there IS an existing drinking age. Whether people are happy about it is another matter entirely. And even then, if the age were to be changed, I don’t think one can consider that to be “resolved” as there will be others around who think that the age settled upon is not entirely appropriate. As this article states, the proposed prohibition of alcohol in America has “provoked strong controversy and conflict.”

But the age, as I have repeatedly said, but which tends to be forgotten in a discussion about drinking, is not the issue. The issue which needs to be resolved is the issue of college students’ attitudes toward alcohol. Behavioural studies such as this show that attitude is one main component that influences one’s action.

If unhealthy drinking attitudes are not revised, there is likely to be a continued alcohol problem amongst college students. As it is, we see an increasing trend of college students binge drinking. The effects of such attitudes towards alcohol among college students are potentially horrific because these are the people who will become parents and future leaders. One can only hope that they will eventually learn and “grow up,” and most eventually do, but that just means that they grow up, have their own children, and the cycle repeats itself with more than 1000 alcohol-related college student deaths per year. Admittedly, in a country the size of the US what is 1000 deaths? Just 1000 children belonging to at least 2000 parents.

So the question is, can we change attitudes, and if so, how?

Monday, November 2, 2009

Annotated Links Post

Report on the drinking age debate on ABC online:
This article presents a fairly comprehensive overview of the ongoing debate and the different groups involved: the Amethyst Initiative and its opponents in MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and Support 21. However, the focus of the article is clearly more on those who propose lowering the age, since they are, after all, the ones who have breathed new life into the drinking age debate.

Higher Drinking Age Leads To Less Binge Drinking – Except In College Students
This article from Science Daily gives an account of a study which shows a correlation between the raising of the drinking age to 21 in 1984 and the overall decline of binge drinking, even as binge drinking in male college students remained unchanged and increased in female college students. It presents an interesting conclusion that even as “There may be good, philosophical arguments about why the drinking age should be lower than 21, but our study demonstrates the higher minimum drinking age has been good for public health.” While the statistics are interesting, my contention with the article is that a correlation does not necessarily mean a casual correlation. In that respect, I think the article makes a logical leap which may not be wholly justified.

Alcohol Advertising and Youth: A Measured Approach
This study recognizes the influence the media has, in the form of advertising, on youth attitudes towards alcohol. It points out that there is an excess of youth exposure to alcohol advertising and suggests a 15% cap on youth audience composition for alcohol advertising. This study presents a practical way to address the alcohol issue without running into the age issue, thus showing that we need not quibble about age in order to do something about alcohol.

Theory of Planned Behavior/ Reasoned Action
:
A summary of a theory in behavioral psychology that could be potentially useful in alcohol education.
It may seem de-humanizing to suggest that behavior can be planned, as though human agency and control is wrest from the individual. However, that is exactly what the theory seems to suggest, that behavior can be planned and conditioned. What is interesting is that it expands the model beyond one’s attitudes (which is what I’ve proposed throughout the blog, that behavior is influenced by attitude) to include one’s beliefs regarding others’ response to a particular behavior and their “perceptions of their ability to perform a given behavior.”

Understanding binge drinking among young people: an application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour:
A study that relates behavioral psychology specifically to the problem of binge drinking.
This follows from the earlier link explaining the theory. The study stresses the need to alter the current social environment of young people in “full-time education” to one that downplays alcohol in order to curb the incidence of binge drinking among young people. Some suggestions include both formal alcohol education and using the media to reshape social attitudes towards alcohol consumption.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Effects of Attitudes towards Drinking

In the previous post on attitudes, it was established that attitudes towards alcohol amongst college students are shaped by more than just the fact that the legal drinking age is 21. More importantly, it is evident that there is a glorification of drinking and losing control in the media that is targeted at college students. Apart from that, it would not be too far of a stretch to say that the notion that drinking is cool is perpetuated by college students among college students. As a matter of fact, this article suggests that contrary to national trends, the number of college binge drinkers is rising.

The point of this post is to point out that such an attitude towards drinking directly affects both the incidence of binge drinking and drunk driving. If college students do not treat drinking with proper respect and caution, but instead view “getting wasted” as being the “norm” and being part of the “college experience,” they are more likely to make the wrong decisions that result in drunk driving and binge drinking. However, if they are aware of the dangers of drinking and have a healthy attitude towards alcohol, they are less likely to make the wrong decisions that result in the tragedies of drunk driving and binge drinking.

Thus, we see that the underlying concerns of both those for the 21 age and those for the 18 age can be addressed if we focus on alcohol education rather than quibbling about an arbitrary number.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Theory Post

As with most polarized debates, part of the reason why the issue becomes so starkly bifurcated is because people take sides to which they are personally attached. This is equivalent to the formation of “pet hypotheses” in scientific discourse. Consequently, both sides are deeply convicted of the validity of their stance, and are blindsided to other possible solutions to the issue.

Bringing the idea of the pet hypothesis – a position to which one is personally attached – to the drinking age debate, we can easily see that such is the case within the debate. Amongst those who argue fervently for the age to be maintained, is the organization MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). With such a name, the appeal to pathos is hard to miss. Even more, when one is aware of the history of the organization, it is easy to understand why the founders and the current members are passionately attached to their cause (many of them have lost a child to drunk driving). This emotional attachment, put alongside the statistical success of the 21 drinking age in reducing drunk driving incidents since its inception, further cements proponents’ belief in the legitimacy of their solution.

On the other side, supporters of lowering the drinking age include parents such as Leslie and Michael Lanahan, parents of Lynn Gordon Bailey, who died from alcohol poisoning after binge drinking at a fraternity gathering. They are recorded on the CBS 60 Minutes program on the drinking age debate as supporting the lowering of the drinking to 18, because it might have made a difference in their son’s case – the difference being that the underage fraternity “kids” would have called for help if what they had been doing had not been illegal. Other supporters such as the college presidents heading the Amethyst Initiative find their personal attachment to the 18 age in that a lower drinking age will have significant implications on the way colleges are run. As it is, with the age of 21 and so much illegal drinking going on at college, presidents and college administrators are at a loss as to how to handle the situation. While many claim to have the interests of the students at heart, which is not untrue, there is no denying that with the legalization of alcohol for 18 year olds, that is one less headache for college administrators.

Both sides view their drinking ages as instrumental to solving their pet problems of drunk driving and college binge drinking. However, the two ages are mutually exclusive, thus they cannot agree on the age issue. Yet, it can be said that neither side wishes to see more teenagers/college students making irresponsible drinking choices. Hence, I propose that both sides step away from the issue about age and focus instead on the problems of drunk driving and college binge drinking as problems in their own right. As for the age, it should not be conflated with other drinking problems, but decided upon separately (how this should be done is another matter for another blog).

At the heart of both problems of drunk driving and binge drinking are the attitudes towards drinking and one’s ability to make good, responsible decisions. If both sides in the drinking age debate can come together to devise a system apart from the restrictive method of the law that encourages a healthy attitude towards drinking and good decision making among teenagers and college students, that will go further in addressing both problems. In other words, what is more important is a fundamental revision of attitudes, as opposed to simply slapping on a law, which may restrict, if effectively enforced, but fails to revise underlying attitudes towards drinking. It is also of little use if the age is lowered in a vague hope that doing so will address the problem of binge drinking.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

I gotta feeling... that drinking and binge drinking is cool because of way more than just the age limit

Alright, I can't embed the video for your convenience, so please click on the link to watch it. Thanks!

Black Eyed Peas - I Got A Feeling
I gotta feeling that tonight’s gonna be a good night
that tonight’s gonna be a good night
that tonight’s gonna be a good good night (x4)
Tonight’s the night night
Let’s live it up
I got my money
Let’s spend it up
Go out and smash it
like Oh My God
Jump off that sofa
Let’s get get OFF
I know that we’ll have a ball
if we get down
and go out
and just loose it all
I feel stressed out
I wanna let it go
Lets go way out spaced out
and losing all control
Fill up my cup
Mazal tov
Look at her dancing
just take it off
Lets paint the town
We’ll shut it down
Let’s burn the roof
and then we’ll do it again
Lets Do it (x3)
and live it up
i gotta feeling that tonight’s gonna be a good night
that tonight’s gonna be a good night
that tonight’s gonna be a good good night (x2)
Tonight’s the night
let’s live it up
I got my money
Lets spend it up
Go out and smash it
Like Oh My God
Jump off that sofa
Lets get get OFF
Fill up my cup (Drink)
Mazal Tov (L’chaim)
Look at her dancing (Move it Move it)
Just take it off
Lets paint the town
We’ll shut it down
Lets burn the roof
and then we’ll do it again
lets do it (x3)
let’s live it up
Here we come
here we go
we gotta rock
Easy come
easy go
now we on top
Feel the shot
body rock
Rock it don’t stop
Round and round
up and down
around the clock
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday
Friday, Saturday, Saturday and Sunday
we keep keep keep keep on going
we know what we say
party everyday
party everyday
got a feeling
that tonight’s gonna be a good night
that tonight’s gonna be a good night
that tonight’s gonna be a good good night

Notice anything interesting about this song? If you like it, you’re not alone. In fact, I concede that it’s got a highly addictive tune. But what does it say? And for those who don’t quite listen/pay attention to lyrics, what does the music video convey? I’m willing to go out on a limb here and say that anyone listening to the song and watching the music video will associate the idea of “good night” with whatever is being portrayed in the song/video.

It is for this reason, that I argue that the cool factor regarding drinking and binge drinking has to do with way more than the illegality of the activity. Consequently, it is questionable whether lowering the drinking age will have the desired effect of curbing binge drinking, as proponents of the lower age argue.

Even then, some may argue that one’s actions are not dictated by the pop culture one consumes. One would hope that such is the case. However, studies suggest otherwise. For instance, this study on the “Association of Attractiveness and Popularity with Binge Drinking in Young Adults” suggests that “binge drinking can be used as a means to attain social acceptance. High social status is usually accompanied by socially conventional behavior, and much of the young adult culture in the US sees binge drinking as an activity partaken by attractive and popular individuals.”

I have to say that Joshua Sharp’s observation that “there remains a powerful subculture at college in which binge drinking is socially acceptable.” You don’t have to look very far. Just count the number of unauthorized liquor bottles smuggled in, consumed, and disposed of indiscriminately in the student seating section of a college football game.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Class Links Post

Cheers!:
This blog is worth a visit by virtue of its relation to my topic. It speaks from the invested viewpoint of a college student and outlines many of the arguments the common college student is likely to make in favour of lowering the drinking age. Visit it for a different take on the same issue.

Nonlinearperspectives:
This blog is an interrogation of the drug legalization issue that argues the somewhat radical stance for legalizing marijuana. Despite its seemingly radical viewpoint, the blogger successfully articulates a cogent argument for the legalization of marijuana, without coming off sounding petulant and unreasonably anti-establishment for the sake of being so.

The media told me to do it
:
This blog explores the influencing capability of the media, an issue highly pertinent to anyone who is a part of the modern world. Its tone is entirely different from the previous two blogs highlighted. While the first (Cheers!) is conversational, and the second (Nonlinearperspectives) is academic, this blogger is enthusiastically entertaining, almost like what one would expect from someone making a sales pitch. Reading this blog will definitely give you a different experience of the blog medium.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Binge Drinking

After the brief discussion of the first problem of drunk driving (the concern of those strongly for maintaining the 21 age), let us explore the issue of binge drinking that is the concern of those arguing for a lowering of the age. As with the drunk driving issue, I hope to present ways problem can be addressed apart from a debate regarding the drinking age.

Binge drinking is defined as “a pattern of drinking that brings a person’s blood alcohol concentration to 0.08 grams percent or above.” An approximation of this is 5 or more drinks for men and 4 or more drinks for women. According to the website on Alcohol and Public Health that is referenced above, binge drinking is a national problem: “Although college students commonly binge drink, 70% of binge drinking episodes involve adults over age 25 years.” Consequently, the issue merits attention in and of itself, rather than simply being a tangent of the drinking age debate. The same website lists ways by which the issue of binge drinking may be targeted, namely:
•Increasing alcoholic beverage costs and excise taxes.
•Limiting the number of retail alcohol outlets that sell alcoholic beverages in a given area.
•Consistent enforcement of laws against underage drinking and alcohol-impaired driving.
•Screening and counselling for alcohol misuse. These methods are all good and have been proven to work (the studies of which are referenced on the website).
However, they all approach the issue from a restrictive perspective. In this respect, I think the framework of alcohol education as proposed by John McCardell, former president of and current Emeritus Professor at Middlebury College, as well as a fervent supporter of the Amethyst Initiative, has immense merit and potential. In short, his call to lower the drinking age comes along with an alcohol education programme, summarised here. Setting the age issue aside, there is no reason why the education programme cannot be implemented on its own. In fact, given that binge drinking extends to all ages, it would be a worthwhile experiment to implement the alcohol education for all ages.

I think the key idea is to educate people about the dangers of consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, which is completely separate from the issue of the drinking age. Choosing to binge drink is one thing, choosing to knowingly break the law, another. To say that the law induces one to break it and to binge drink is to form a fallacious causal relationship between the law and one’s act of civil disobedience and between the law and one’s lack of judgement in binge drinking. Since they are separate issues, they should be treated as such.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Analysis Post

This is the situation in which the big debate on underage drinking takes place. The recent discussion last year (2008) on lowering the drinking age to 18 was mooted by the Amethyst Initiative (AI for short), a group comprising chancellors and presidents of university colleges in the United States, which asserts that “Twenty-one is not working” due to the development of a “culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking””. The AI is careful not to suggest outright that drinking age be lowered. Instead, they seek to promote “an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.” Nonetheless, many supporters of the lowering of the drinking age see the AI as a vindication of their argument (even college presidents and chancellors agree!), thus breathing new life into a debate that was once thought over when the law changed in 1984. Although, I suspect it will never end…

A brief legal history of the drinking age:

Prohibition:
The term refers specifically to the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1919 which banned the “sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol for consumption.” The history behind prohibition however, is somewhat older. It was prompted by the offense saloons (retail outlets that sold beer and whiskey and promoted other activities such as prostitution and gambling) posed to the general American community in the 1890s. This cultivated protest groups such as the Anti-Saloon League, and eventually culminated in the Prohibition of the 1920s. Prohibition was repealed in 1933 amidst growing problems of illegal sale and consumption of alcohol and related gang activity.

Modern developments with regard to the drinking age:
For a long while, 40 years, according to this site, many states in the US set their minimum drinking age at 21. It was only in the 1970s, when the military enlistment and voting age was lowered in the midst of the Vietnam War, that “29 states began lowering their drinking age to more closely align” with the new age limit for enlistment and voting.
The drinking age was raised back to 21 in most states with a federal ruling in 1984. This move came amidst “an increase in alcohol traffic fatalities and injuries.” However, since the drinking age is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the federal government utilised a separate act in which it would cut “10% of annual highway funding from states that chose an age below 21.” At the same time, it is worthwhile noting that by 1983, 16 states had “voluntarily” raised the drinking age to 21 from the earlier 18.

The current debate outlined:

Those for lowering the age:
The AI argues that the 21 drinking age has given rise to another problem of clandestine binge drinking. Currently, the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimate that 39% of college students binge drink, and “80 percent of American youth consume alcohol before their 21st birthday.” In addition, “out of the 5000 lives lost to alcohol each year by those under 21, more than 60 percent are lost OFF the roadways.
Another argument articulated by supporters of the lower age is that the legal barrier presents a “thrill and incentive for drinking.” Hence, supporters of lowering the age assert that doing so will reduce binge drinking among college students. Moreover, they claim that with drinking made legal for college students, more can be done to regulate drinking. The AI also points out that the constant flouting of the 21 limit “[erodes] respect for the law.” Those in favour of lowering the drinking age are also fond of comparing the 21 age in the US with the lower age limits in other countries, especially European ones, and claiming that this contributes more responsible drinking, as exemplified by the YES section in this site that poses the question “Does having a drinking age of 21 contribute to binge drinking and alcohol abuse among college students, as claimed recently by a group of university presidents?”

Those for maintaining the 21 age limit:
One of the strong supporters of the 21 limit is the very organisation that helped put the law back in place in 1984: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Their argument for maintaining the age at 21 largely relates to their concern with alcohol related traffic accidents among teenagers. They have studies showing a decreasing trend of alcohol traffic fatalities following the raising of the age to 21 in 1984.
Apart from the statistical argument related to alcohol traffic fatalities, those against lowering the age also point to physiological arguments. Here, it is asserted that “The 21 law is predicated on the fact that drinking is more dangerous for youth because they are not yet fully developed mentally and physically.” On its website, MADD provides a detailed account of the physiological argument.
There are also those who meet the arguments of the AI head on. Once such individual, Bernie Machen, president of the University of Florida points out that lowering the drinking age is unlikely to affect college students’ attitudes towards binge drinking because it does little to reduce the social desirability of binge-drinking. Here, Robert Voas, a researcher of drinking and driving, debunks the notion that European countries have fewer youth drinking problems. His assertion is supported by a comparative study of countries and their youth drinking problems.

My analysis:
I can see where each party is coming from. In addition, I acknowledge that both sides make valid arguments for their case, whether it is to lower the drinking age or keep it at 21. However, my contention with the debate is that it chooses to focus on the legal instrument of age minimums in order to address drinking problems among college students, whether it is drunk driving or binge drinking. In this respect, the debate fails to most effectively and directly confront the underlying problem of college students’ attitudes towards drinking, focusing instead on the mechanism of the age limit. In a sense, the concern of both sides is well-meaning but somewhat misplaced. I think this USC student, Joshua Sharp, articulates my solution insofar as he pinpoints changing the attitudes of students towards binge drinking rather than changing the law. Likewise, Robert Schlesinger echoes my thoughts when he concludes his commentary on the debate by saying “There are larger issues we need to address as a society regardless of what happens regarding the drinking age.” In the same way, attempting to target drunk driving through controlling the drinking age seems needlessly removed from the issue of drunk driving itself.
Hence, in this blog, I will attempt to investigate the particular problems of drunk driving and binge drinking and what can be done to address them. In so doing, I hope to show how the concerns of both parties can be met without getting into a deadlock over the age issue.
This is not to say that there is no place for a discussion over the drinking age, although this is not what I will be focusing on. An age is necessary for legal arbitration. Yet, how one arrives at the age should be determined more by the needs and attitudes of the whole of society (not just college students), and less by a reaction to circumstances (simply because too many people are breaking the law). However, as the poll on this website suggests, public opinion is somewhat even. So, why not split the age down the middle and settle for 19.5 years of age, then get on to discuss the more pertinent problems of drunk driving and binge drinking, which in turn are influenced by attitudes towards drinking as a whole.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Drunk Driving: A Comparison

I hope the previous posts have sufficiently explained why I do not see a discussion over the specific drinking age as all that significant to the problems at hand. Consequently, I will use this post to discuss the issue of drink driving specifically. In addition, this discussion will take place in the form of a comparison between the US and other countries.

Drunk driving is defined differently in different countries. In the U.S. the legal limit for driving under the influence (of alcohol) is 0.08mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood (Blood Alcohol Concentration). This is high compared to many other countries around the world. For instance, in Japan, the legal definition of DUI is 0.03%, El Salvador: 0.05%, Chile: 0.045%, Denmark: 0.05%, 0% if one is involved in an accident, Netherlands: 0.05%, 0.02% for drivers with less than 5 years of experience. The majority of countries in the world appear to have stricter definitions of DUI as compared to the U.S.

But more than simply a definition of DUI, what is important is to compare DUI penalties. For this purpose, I will compare the U.S. and Singapore, as both countries have the legal definition of drunk driving set at 0.08% BAC. Owing to different state legislation in the U.S., it is difficult and messy to pinpoint exact penalties. However, the site of public opinion, Wikipedia, has this to say “Compared to many other countries penalties for drunk driving in the United States are light, unless drink is involved in an incident causing injury or death of others, in which case they are very heavy compared to other nations…Some states, such as Wisconsin, do not revoke driving permits even if the offender is convicted multiple times.” The observation about Wisconsin is true, as listed on the official website for DUI penalties. Singapore too does not revoke one’s license, according to the Traffic Police Website. However, all offenders, first time or otherwise, will have their license suspended for “at least year”. Moreover, the penalties for multiple convictions of drunk driving are harsher, with a year’s imprisonment and a fine, once one receives a second conviction. On top of that, offenders involved in an accident are liable for corporal punishment.

Perhaps one of the ways by which the U.S. can address the drunk driving problem, apart from tussling over the drinking age, is to implement stricter and harsher punishments for offenders. It appears that lawmakers are aware of this, having passed new laws earlier this year.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

What Makes An Adult? (Part ii)

So let’s step back for a moment and consider what constitutes adulthood. We’ve already named some. Responsibility. Good decision making. Accountability for oneself. These are some of the big ones I can think of now. And really, they all seem to point back to the idea of responsibility (if you’re responsible, your decisions will be dictated by your sense of responsibility; likewise, a responsible person is also accountable). Hence, let us establish responsibility as a more accurate indicator of adulthood than a legal age.

Yet, some will argue that coming of age legally is society’s recognition of an individual as an adult, and that recognition is vital for the individual to live a fully adult life. But, being an adult legally does not necessarily translate into being an adult practically. Moreover, becoming an adult isn’t about waking up on your 18th or 21st or 25th birthday and having an epiphany that “I am now an adult. From the earlier post on adulthood, the inconsistencies in age limits seem to capture the real complexity that becoming an adult is a process.

Back to the idea of responsibility, its manifestation is not uniform across all aspects of an individual’s life. This means that just because someone is responsible in dealing with school, it does not necessarily follow that the same person would be responsible with taking care of himself/herself. Relating this back to the drinking issue, just because individuals behave responsibly when it comes to college (one would hope) or driving, or voting, or enlisting with the army, or signing contracts, it does not necessarily mean that they are equally adult in their behaviour when it comes to drinking. In fact, one could argue that the growing number of binge drinking incidences amongst college students suggests that students are not “adult” in that respect.

But, how does one measure responsibility? It is not a practical standard by which one enacts a law. Even then, a law is necessary to arbitrate something such as alcohol, given that alcohol is highly susceptible to abuse, and alcohol abuse is highly likely to bring about various social problems. Hence, while many see the idea of adulthood as being central to the debate on drinking, I venture to suggest that it is really not that relevant. This is because becoming an adult is a process with fuzzy limits. Yet the law and arbitration require specificities which cannot capture the nuances of growing up. Thus, having a high drinking age is not so much related to society not recognising individuals as adults as it is about the concerns surrounding the enactment of that particular law.

Besides, a truly adult response to the limitations of the law in fully capturing the processing of growing up would be to respect the law and obey it. It’s not that one will never become a legal adult. It’s simply a question of when, and not drinking alcohol for a couple more years never killed anyone, but drinking too much of it irresponsibly certainly has.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

What Makes An Adult? (Part i)

Many see this as one of the big issues that lie at the heart of the debate about changing the drinking age. Everyone on the side of lowering it to 18 raise the apparent inconsistency that people are allowed to die for country and vote at 18, so why are they only allowed to drink at 21? I think this “double standard” in the law illustrates my contention that the age itself is arbitrary. I could very well say why permit people to drive at 16 when they can die for country and vote only at 18? Or, for that matter, why not lower all ages to 16, or raise all ages to 21? Will having a uniform age limit eliminate the problem of binge drinking amongst college students? I think not.


In this post, I will show why I consider the absolute age as a poor indicator of adulthood. I will also provide an argument for why the age limits are necessary and a possible reason as to why they differ. In the following post I will outline what I deem to be a better estimation of one having reached adulthood.


The fact that there exist inconsistencies in the various age limits is already an indication that the age is an arbitrary number. Sure, there are assumptions behind assigning a particular age. The idea is that at that age, whatever it may be, the majority of the population is deemed as having the ability to behave responsibly. Thus, society grants these of-age individuals the permission to make their own decisions. But, society is a collection of disparate individuals with disparate personalities. To expect that all don “responsibility” at a particular age is unreasonable. Yet, as a group, society cannot function without laws. Hence, there needs to be some sort limit in place, and that limit simply happens to be whatever age is chosen. What I am saying here is that the age is in place more for the practicality of implementing the law than for anything else.


The next question on most minds is probably, “why that age in particular?” I think the age at which society deems one “adult” enough is largely conventional. Sure, there are certain physiological considerations; no one would consider a five year old an adult. But after one has developed the outward appearance of being full-grown, I think what comes after that is dependent on how society is ordered. In today’s developed world, one’s life stage is very much shaped by the process of education. Hence, in many countries, the “coming-of-age” coincides with when the individual graduates from basic education (which I define as high school).


Then people are sure to ask, so why is there the disparity between the 18 age limits and the 21 limit for drinking? (Once again, why does no one ever ask about the driving limit?) For one, I think the 21 limit on drinking has a particular history behind it, that of teenage deaths from drunk driving accidents. And as for the 16 driving limit, I’m not so sure, but perhaps in a country as car reliant as the US, it makes sense to have children who can get themselves to school without having to bother their parents. Then why is it one can go to war at 18 and vote at 18 but not drink at 18? I think the reason is in part due to the nature of the activity. An individual is likely to consider going to war more seriously than drinking. Hence, a serious, considered thought process seems to be inbuilt in the decision to sign on with the army, more so than for drinking, anyway. And as for voting, the number of “youngsters” voting relative to the entire electorate is minimal, hence, perhaps, society is not too concerned if people vote irresponsibly owing to immaturity.


These are just some possible reasons why the ages are different. Nonetheless what is clear is that adulthood isn’t a magic number. Rather, the different ages suggest that entering adulthood is a process that spans time.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

The heart of the matter revisited

Perhaps I should devote another post to reiterating my stance concerning underage drinking. I am not as concerned with the age as I am with the attitudes towards and practices of drinking amongst college students. According to this article, “nearly half of America’s 5.4 million full-time college students abuse drugs or drink alcohol on binges at least once a month.” In addition, “the study found that college students have higher rates of alcohol or drug addiction than the general public.” Clearly there is a particular attitude concerning alcohol amongst college students that needs to be addressed. What is it about alcohol and binge drinking that is so attractive to college students?


At this juncture, supporters of lowering the age are likely to jump in and say, the fact that it is illegal makes it more exciting and glamorous for underage college students to drink. As I have pointed out in comments to the earlier post, this is an argument with poor logic because, if individuals break the law for popularity, and popularity is supposedly sought after by college students, shouldn’t college students be breaking more laws? Why just the drinking age law? Moreover, the argument also assumes that the “badness” of drinking is purely tied to its legality, or in this case, illegality. This is entirely untrue. In a significant majority of the United States, communities exhibit a strong aversion to alcohol. This is undeniable, whether or not one thinks it is reasonable. Consequently, part of the “badness” of drinking comes from social, and not just legal, censure. This also means that lowering the drinking age will not eliminate the “badness” of drinking. As a result, even if the syllogism of bad=cool, drinking=bad, therefore drinking=cool were valid, lowering the drinking age will have little effect on drinking attitudes and practices, because in the larger court of society, drinking would still be “bad”.


So, if college students cannot be said to have been induced to drink in excess because of the drinking age law, then, what drives them in this matter, and what can be done to address this issue? It is attitudes towards and practices of drinking amongst college students that is the problem, not law behind it. The law is merely one mechanism which can be used to tackle the situation. However, if changing the law is the focus of the debate on underage drinking and nothing is said about changing the drinking attitudes and practices of college students, then changing the age alone may only serve to deteriorate the state of affairs in college drinking.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Students, not age, that matter

Drinking seems to be a big thing amongst college students in this country (USA). Consequently, the drinking age is likewise a hot topic, especially considering that the drinking age in most states is 21, and at 21 most college students are upperclassmen even though (let’s admit it) they start drinking waaaay earlier. Ever since the drinking age was raised to 21 in 1984, there have been calls to lower the age. In 2008, college presidents from top universities in the country “called on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.” On the opposite side of the field are organizations such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), which was instrumental in bringing about the change of the law in 1984).

Both proponents and opponents of the current age of 21 have strong arguments for their positions. However, I suggest that the issue is more than just a matter of a drinking age. In fact, the drinking age alone has little to do with the more serious underlying problem of alcohol abuse amongst college students.

Even then, the problem of college students binge drinking is just ONE of the reasons why this issue is important. Those for lowering the age argue that with students being able to drink legally, they will drink less recklessly and will no longer need to “make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.” Yet, to lower the age for these reasons rings of succumbing to the tyranny of a spoilt generation. Is it not akin to saying, in an academic context, if students cannot meet the standard due to their own fault, let us lower the standard to accommodate them.

Thus, I think the problem lies with the attitudes and culture of college students towards alcohol, themselves and the law in general. Simply changing the drinking age will do little to address that.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The inspiration

Hello blogosphere. So here am I, blogging. Imagine that.

Well, I think the video and the blog title speak for themselves. It's in part due to this song that I settled on the topic of drinking amongst college students, underage drinking in particular. So, well, we'll see how it goes.