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.