Jay: The problem stems from the secret involved for kids under 21. Rather than having a few beers with friends, these kids are chugging a fifth of vodka in their room. The result is a greater number of alcohol related injuries. The colleges involved probably would rather allow drinking on campus in a more controlled environment (like the college pub) as opposed to the situation as it exists now. In this manner, they control consumption, as well as driving (walk, take the shuttle or drink a few beers in your dorm room). Ms. Shalala lives in "la la land" if she thinks things have changed for the better since she was in college. The same thing happens, or worse, but is simply occurring underground as opposed to being out in the open.

The drinking age should be 18. If you can vote, drive, work as a police officer and fight in a war. You should be allowed to drink.

I said the same thing about the drinking age when I was 18. But, after seeing the 21 and under crowd at Ravens tailgates well I'm having second thoughts. They trash the parking lot area they are in and get falling down drunk. I've seen them causing problems with other tailgaters next to them like taking food off grills, insisting on throwing a football around where there's barely room to stand and moving into other's tailgating space with no reguards to anyone...

As stated above, the problem stems from the secrecy with which kids under 21 are forced to consume alcohol. Obviously, binge drinking won't magically disappear if the drinking age is changed. However, it would be possible for a more open conversation about the dangers of alcohol abuse if the drinking age were lowered. How many times have we heard stories of underage drinkers becoming sick or dying from alcohol poisoning because they or their friends were afraid to seek help because they were drunk illegally? The answer isn't to keep alcohol out of the hands of young people; it's to equip young people with the tools to make good decisions. American culture makes drinking taboo; like the kid who can't have any cookies before dinner, this makes the activity more desirable. An environment that promotes responsibility is much more effective than prohibition. Couple that with tougher drunk driving laws and aggressive enforcement of those laws, and America's alcohol culture would be much healthier.

I agree with Neil B. If you can be tried as an adult in a court of law at the age of 18, vote, drive, own a gun, serve in the military, then you should be able to drink alcohol. Its a hypocrisy the way it is now.

I don't think lowering the legal age will stop binge drinking in college, but it will at least remove a few social milestones that encourage binge drinking. Nothing is going to stop binge drinking in college; its just socially accepted among students as the norm.

When I was 19, we would get alcohol from the shady liquor store in the bad neighborhood downtown. If that didn't work, there were plenty of volunteers walking in/out who would help us out. Point is, the law didn't stop us, and if anything it made drinking more novel. For the safety of the kids and in order to reduce drinking and driving, the drinking age should be reduced.

The problem with underage drinking has to do with enforcement of the laws. Students rarely drink excessively at large off campus parties bc of the large amount of people there. But these parties are almost always busted by the cops and so students are relegated to sneaking hard liquor into dorms and making bad decisions. I'm certain that if police loosened up on breaking up parties where they think underage kids are drinking there would be fewer incidents of alcohol poisening. However its important to think about most kids who are 18 or 19 have friends that are 21 and can buy them booze. If the drinking age were lowered to 18 they would have 15 and 16 year old friends who could easily get alcohol. The government would be running the risk of kids drinking even earlier.

I have the perfect answer to this problem. COCAINE. Legalize that and after too much alcohol you can do a couple of lines and get you right as the mail.

so when I turn 18 I can go run around iraq and afghanistan, killing for this country while risking my own life... but i can't even come home and "legally" drink a bud light afterwards... come on... this country is ridiculous sometimes...

10 years ago when I was in school and too young to drink, I thought it was a ridiculous law then because of some of the war/voting reasons given above.

However, I distinctly remember a decent number of kids turning to other drugs and staying home as opposed to being able to go out to the local bar for a few beers. That is what is much scarier to me.

I went to Loyola College. When I was there, all the campus "security" was concerned with was breaking up parties and busting underage drinkers. The result:

- 5 stolen Jeep Cherokees in a single night when there were 6 parties busted within a block of the parking lot.
- everyone would leave campus (read: drive) to drink away from the security personnel.

I am 36 now. I still believe that the policies of the school and the country are wrong.

Nevermind that the drinking age of 21 was forced upon the states illegally by tying it to the Federal Highway Funding...

I think there should be designated bars on/around college campuses should permit 18-21 drinking. That way the students behavior while intoxicated will be better monitored and occur in a more controlled environment. Rules regarding underage drinking at non-designated establishments should then be more strictly enforced. I agree with the right to vote/fight argument but think lowering it to 18 will transfer the alcohol abuse problems we have today with 18-21 yr olds to those that 14-17, who are even less likely to drink/act responsibly and who do not have the right to vote or fight.

I find it interesting that the only reason individual states don’t lower their drinking age is because they will lose 10% of their federal highway money. For crying out loud, can’t we raise that money another way? I think parents and college students alone would agree to subsidize the 10% loss for the entire state if we lowered the drinking age to 18. The age limit is an arbitrary number; the real questions are about funding for the state and the government trying to set a standard. If alcohol is classified as a taxable specialized commodity, like cigarettes, then why not 18? The 21 drinking age only encourages people not to go to bars, it doesn't stop drinking.

18 and 21 are only three years apart. Let's not be ageist in thinking that maturity lines beyond the teens. Please.

In Europe, drinking ages range from 16-18 years of age. When I lived there, binge drinking was frowned upon in the culture. I'm sure if we gave this the chance, it would no longer be the forbidden fruit.

Drinking age should drop to 18...there are plenty of binge drinkers older than 21, in universities, after-work events, and homes that can create just as much havoc as someone under 21.

As author correctly points out, the college students are "away from parental supervision for the first time". Why do we have young adults (I'd assume at least 17-18 years old) that do not know what's right or wrong, do not know the dangers of heavy drinking and, judging by other comments and my own experience, have no manners and no clue how to behave in a civilized society?

I grew up in a different country. After school and homework, we played outside without any supervision since we were about 8-9. I consumed alcohol occasionally and, of course, secretly, with my friends since I was 14. When I was 16, my parents left me alone at home for a few weeks when they went on vacation. I was working that summer and, when a pipe burst in our apartment, I called a repairman and took care of everything. When I was out of school (at 16, by the way), I knew the value of money, knew to respect others and knew there would be consequences to anything I'll do. My parents taught me the value and appreciation of good wine. I always knew that alcohol is something that is meant to be high quality and enjoyed in moderation. Why don't we teach the same to our kids?

It's not normal that 18-year olds behave like spoiled toddlers. It might be different times now, but maybe if we stop constantly "babying" the kids and give them a little more freedom with more responsibility, they'll turn out just fine.

All of these points are very valid, the thing is which side has more pull. Honestly, most kids between 16-20 are drinking, and at that very irresponsibly. Lots of people like getting sauced up, what has to be done is more responsibility. I agree with lowering the age to 18, but moderation has to be taught and I absolutely stress more effort on local governments to take more time to help educate people about drinking and give safer environments to drink in Then people can be watched in a safe environment, like a bar, instead of being out somewhere and then have to drive home.I also think it would also lower violence.

Jay, I enjoyed your post of just simply agreeing with MADD and some chick who probably believes that this age limit has any effect other than turning 18-20 year old drinkers into criminals. LEARN THE LEASONS OF PROHIBITION. Jay, news flash: it did not work. Maybe they did not teach American history at your high school or maybe you're a "professional moralist" but if you believe that it's ok that your country can send you to war to kill people and lose limbs and then deny you a drink when you get home, you truly are out of touch. Good post Jay Hancock, you certainly fit in well at the sun paper with the depth and intelligence you display on blogs such as this.

Binge drinking will happen no matter what. If you remove the cachet of getting alcohol illegally, younger people may not go after it so fervently. It is very curious that the US known for having one of the highest rates of alcohol abuse, and also the highest legal drinking age. . . .
Here is a very interesting acticle for further reading http://www.peele.net/lib/antidote.html

Binge drinking will happen no matter what. If you remove the cachet of getting alcohol illegally, younger people may not go after it so fervently. It is very curious that the US known for having one of the highest rates of alcohol abuse, and also the highest legal drinking age. . . .
Here is a very interesting acticle for further reading http://www.peele.net/lib/antidote.html
Also, why don't they just raise the tax on alcohol to make up for the lost highway money?

When I was a fresh faced lad of 16 we would go into known markets and pick up several cases of beer.People still do.
We let the kids drink wine in the house at meals to encourage sensible drinking habits. We try to take away the "Its forbidden thrill and make it clear that there will be no repercussions for a phone call concerning an unsteady driver. Our congress is not solely delusional about wars overseas. Tell them to change the law.

The drinking age laws are a crock that results in selective enforcement and disrespect for the law. Finally, someone has the guts to stand up and do what's right. Now they should consider doing what some European countries do... one drinking age for beer, another for hard liquor. I was in college when the drinking age was 18, and just after I reached 21, it was raised to 21. It sure made a lot of sense to have a college pub, The Texas Union, where we could have a pitcher of cheap beer and walk home to the dorm. Cheers

Learning how to use drugs is an important fact of life. The "Just say No" approach doesn't work. It is often those who have no experience with drugs who, when they finally take them (and there are very few people who never, ever touch alcohol in their entire life) fail to realize their own limits.

If Americans are allowed to have their beloved guns, should they not also be allowed to take socially accepted drugs ? If you trust people not to use lethal weaponry inappropriately, why not trust them not to abuse alcohol ?

College kids will drink. It's part of the whole college experience. Get drunk, have sex with strangers, take drugs. Do stupid things. Of course, it would be better if they did stupid things on campus where they can stumble into bed and wake up with a headache, rather than far away, where they wake up in unpleasant, painful or dangerous situations, or the hospital (after having been in one of those situations).

It is a question of how much you are willing to trust your own people. I personally am very much in favor of teaching young people responsible use of drugs. If you know how a drug works, and what it does to you, you will treat it with respect.

And yes, alcohol is a drug, and a lot worse than, for example, cannabis or magic mushrooms. The physical effects, the addiction and the neurological damage is far, far more intensive.

I'd rather see college kids get stoned. It would be safer for everyone involved. But failing that, let them drink in peace, legally. They will be grown-ups at some point.

This discussion got started in 2004 when the past president,John McCardell Jr, of Middlebury College wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times.
Here is an excerpt:
To lawmakers: the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law. It is astonishing that college students have thus far acquiesced in so egregious an abridgment of the age of majority. Unfortunately, this acquiescence has taken the form of binge drinking. Campuses have become, depending on the enthusiasm of local law enforcement, either arms of the law or havens from the law.

Neither state is desirable. State legislators, many of whom will admit the law is bad, are held hostage by the denial of federal highway funds if they reduce the drinking age. Our latter-day prohibitionists have driven drinking behind closed doors and underground. This is the hard lesson of prohibition that each generation must relearn. No college president will say that drinking has become less of a problem in the years since the age was raised. Would we expect a student who has been denied access to oil paint to graduate with an ability to paint a portrait in oil? Colleges should be given the chance to educate students, who in all other respects are adults, in the appropriate use of alcohol, within campus boundaries and out in the open.

And please - hold your fire about drunken driving. I am a charter member of Presidents Against Drunk Driving. This has nothing to do with drunken driving. If it did, we'd raise the driving age to 21. That would surely solve the problem.

I hope the public, and the higher education community, will be willing to engage these issues seriously and respectfully. My head is now well above the parapet. Gaudeamus igitur!

True, the drinking age is an arbitrary number, as is the age for driving. Those of you advocating for a lowering of the drinking age, would you also advocate to lower or increase the driving age?

Statistics show the vast drop-off in driving accidents and fatalities as drivers age and become more mature on the road. More mature drivers would take less risks with regard to speed and aggressiveness, and be more focused on driving than talking to the friends in the car or changing the radio.

it just doesn't make any sense. I started drinking at 17, four years before 21. I'm now 22 and over the bar scene, but if the drinking age was 18, you'd just have 14 year olds bingers who are too young and too small to handle that much alcohol in their bodies. I think the age should stay at 21. Do you really was 13 or 14 year olds walking around with fake ID's?

i have a better idea..how about raising the drivng age to 21..there are more 16-21 year olds in car accidents than there are young adult binge drinking accidents. 16 year olds are too young to drive responsibly and obviously, 18 year olds are too young to drink responsibly.

The law should be rewritten to say: States that don't raise the penalty for drinking and driving (defined at xx.xx BAC) to (x days/months/years - whatever is deemed socially acceptable - maybe depending on amount/recklessness/lives involved) lose 10% of highway money.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving seems to imply that it is drunk driving among young people that they are trying to prevent; drinking altogether is banned for 18-21 yr olds, yet the penalty for drinking and driving is the same regardless of age (what's that part of the constitution about age discrimination?).

Drinking and Driving should be held to the taboo that it already is, not drinking (if you wanted that to be, go back to prohibition). Put the incentive on not drinking and driving. If you don't want your kids to drink or drink more responsibly, maybe you should sit down with them and talk like you advertise in those commercials on tv ...

It gives police officers something to do if the drinking age prohibits most college students from drinking. I am an underage college student and I lived in Ocean City this past summer. Having the uneasy feeling of walking past a cop car every night seeing them stare at me as if walking is some sort of crime is unbelieveable. I felt discriminated against for looking underage. Cops would slow down and stare at anyone who looks like they are flirting with 21. The government cant be serious when they think they are helping people by keeping the legal drinking age at 21. All underage kids are going to experiment. I conclude that it is hard to go to an underage get together anymore and be a part of something that is legal.

How about colleges talk about responsible drinking with incoming freshmen anyway. Why do the students have to be 21 before they are lectured. You lower the drinking age to 18 and all of a sudden entire high schools will be drinking and the 14 to 17 year olds will be the problem. High School students hanging out with other high school students is going to happen, and the alcohol will follow if the age is 18. But college students hanging out with High School Students does not happen as much because those 18 year olds are out with the 21 year olds drinking, not hanging out with 15 and 16 year olds.

I can't think of a more valid argument than this: On his 18th birthday, a high school graduate enlists in the armed services. This person gets trained, is promoted, has responsibility for other human lives and is trained in any number of weapons, explosives, firearms, tactics, etc. At some point, he or she might decide to start a family.

Unless they're on leave, this solider, sailor or Marine is on active duty. They're not out drinking and driving on public roads; they're piloting tanks and convoys through minefields and IEDs.

The first time they're legally permitted to consume any alcoholic beverages comes three years after the day they sign their life over to the U.S. Dept of Defense.

Does this make any sense? I can decide who belongs in public office, and I can die for my country, but if I so much as crack a beer, then I'm breaking the law?

We can do better than this, America.

And - come on, speed limit laws? This REALLY? How often do people obey THOSE laws? What a joke. This isn't about speed limit laws, or MADD, it's about states siphoning away dollars from the U.S. Govt by doing nothing.

Does that make any sense?

So I guess everyone is opposed to the whole legalizing cocaine thing?

The consequences of drinking under the age of 21:

Emerging research suggests that different portions of the brain (the brain is still developing until the age of 21 and for some as late as 25) and its neurotransmitter systems are affected negatively by alcohol with both short and long term consequences. These impacts range from damage to the brain centers for thinking, planning and learning, to changes in the structures of the brain that mediate pleasure and predispose youth to depression, addiction or alcoholism later on.

A person who begins drinking as a young teen is four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence than someone who waits until adulthood to use alcohol.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among youth ages 15 to 20, and the rate of fatal crashes among alcohol-involved drivers between 16 and 20 years old is more than twice the rate for alcohol-involved drivers 21 and older.

Alcohol use also is linked to youthful deaths by drowning, suicide, and homicide.

Alcohol use is associated with many adolescent risk behaviors, including other drug use and delinquency, weapon carrying and fighting, and perpetrating or being the victim of date rape.

Just a few facts we all should think about....

The consequences of drinking under the age of 21:

Emerging research suggests that different portions of the brain (the brain is still developing until the age of 21 and for some as late as 25) and its neurotransmitter systems are affected negatively by alcohol with both short and long term consequences. These impacts range from damage to the brain centers for thinking, planning and learning, to changes in the structures of the brain that mediate pleasure and predispose youth to depression, addiction or alcoholism later on.

A person who begins drinking as a young teen is four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence than someone who waits until adulthood to use alcohol.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among youth ages 15 to 20, and the rate of fatal crashes among alcohol-involved drivers between 16 and 20 years old is more than twice the rate for alcohol-involved drivers 21 and older.

Alcohol use also is linked to youthful deaths by drowning, suicide, and homicide.

Alcohol use is associated with many adolescent risk behaviors, including other drug use and delinquency, weapon carrying and fighting, and perpetrating or being the victim of date rape.

Just a few facts we all should think about....

I remember well me and my friends drinking ourselves into oblivion when we were underage and in college. The law didn't stop us, or anybody else. We learned about responsibility with alcohol by ourselves and on our own terms, which is to say not at all. I can't say if it would have been different if my dad sat down with me and taught me how to drink the same way he taught me how to use a gun, but maybe it would have.

The 21 age limit simply doesn't work. For that reason alone it should be time to try something new.

What about 18 for beer and wine and 21 for the hard stuff? Isn't that what it was when we were coming up in the '70's?

Kids should stick to beer, anyway. If they can drink beer socially, in plain sight, there would be no need for binge drinking, no need for sucking down vodka. Drinking themselves silly takes a lot longer with beer. Peer pressure would be down, too. They could sip a beer all night long if they wanted to and no one would know the difference.

My high school graduation party was a kegger with a live band. My grandparents were there. My girlfriend's parents were there. In fact nearly as many adults were there as kids. I have nothing but fond memories of that day.
But, if I had tried something similar for for any of my own now college aged children I would have been sued before the keg was dead.
Unfortunately, good judgement doesn't just come when you reach a birthday. It comes from learning and guidance. How can one teach responsible alcohol consumption when they aren't allowed to do it legally until they are out of the house?

I posted a comment on the Denver post a little while ago regarding this (general) topic:

http://www.denverpost.com/voices/ci_10132485
(David J, August 13th)

This jist of the comment is that parents need to teach their children respect for authority otherwise no matter how hard society tries to communicate danger children will ignore the warnings are injure themselves and/or others. If the children cannot accept authority and ignores their warnings then there are often consequences, of which death is one.

Anyway, to what degree do we as a society want to outlaw actions that only "could" have consequences for others? Yes, alcohol (can?) lead to a degradation in one's judgement but the actions that are taken (driving, rape, etc.) are already illegal are punished as such. Maybe if we tacked on additional years if alcohol was involved (just as a killing occurring during the commission of a felony is automatically considered first-degree murder) that would recognize the link between drinking and criminal actions while leaving those that do drink responsibly to live in peace. As for the dangers to ones health due to binge drinking; society has communicated the possible dangers and if people choose to act irresponsibly then they do so knowing and accepting the consequences of their actions and only have themselves to blame if those consequences come to be.

The only reason I feel to restrict drinking to an age would be to communicate that in fact there is physical danger to the individual who drinks under a certain age. However, an FDA warning is probably more appropriate as opposed to a law prohibiting the action since the consequences of drinking in that situation are purely individual in nature. Consider how we have handled smoking and prohibition and our society seems to prefer outlawing those actions that harm others while regulating (read: warning) those actions that harm only oneself. Drinking itself only harms oneself directly (as opposed to smoking whose immediate effect are felt by others in proximity).

Lower the age and do something about the binge drinking. My fear is that we are raising a generation of alcoholics. High numbers of college students are engaging in improper drinking regimens and those with tendencies toward alcoholism are more likely to develop it eventually with this behavior. I favor the European approach as well. Jeez, its just alcohol, not the Holy Grail. Get it in perspective.
And if you can go to war, you can have a beer.

Why would lowering the drinking age aid in stopping binge drinking? It's simple. I'm 20 and I know that when my friends and I are able to get a hold of some alcohol it's an occasion we don't want to pass up because it doesn't happen very often, and so we take advantage of the situation and drink as heartily as we like (some go further then "heartily" and binge). If it was possible to have alcohol any time we liked, it wouldn't be a once in a while deal to get alcohol and we wouldn't feel compelled to take advantage of the situation.

If you never ever get the chance to have a piece of cake and you suddenly are presented with a whole cake, you're certainly going to eat more then if you have the opportunity to eat cake each and ever day. That's all. It's simple.

You are STUPID. The fact that there are more accidents at age 16-21 isn't because of a lack of maturity, its a lack of experience. If you raise the age to 21, the highest class of accidents will be age 21-25. If you raise the age to 25, then the highest class of accidents will be 25-30. This game goes on forever.

Secondly, regardless of what the age limit is, mot people start drinking when they are 16. The law stops no one. There are already young people who do start drinking at ages 12-15 - and plenty of them. Its not a good thing, but lowering the drinking age would not increase the number of young adults drinking. Any high school freshman (age 13-15) can get alcohol now if they want, its way to easy. So dropping the age to 18 wouldn't have any effect - people this young who dont drink do it because they choose, just as people this young who do drink do it because they choose.

why is not everyone up in arms that 18 rear old boys and girls can go away to war and die or have their arms and legs blown off, but they are so up in arms that an 18 year old will drink a beer or 2. . I am not really for the drinking age to be 18, but how about changing to 21 the age you can die for your country just so some fat cat in the oval office can stroke his ego and flex our children's muscles, IT IS WRONG! If you can die for your country you should be able to buy a beer without it being a crime!

How about you lower the drinking age to 12 that way by the time kids are 16 and driving they are done w/ the alcohol :)

The problem is not the drinking age. I am 23 and didn't drink until I was 20 years old. Teens think that drinking is so forbidden, that is why they drink so heavily and act irresponsible. Maybe you shouldn't look at the drinking age, which i agree should be lowered to 18, it's that they should taught to drink in low risk amounts. If an 18 year old can serve in our armed forces and risk their lives for our country, they shoud at least be able to legally order a beer when they get home.

The reason why it won't happen is that the only people who care enough to vote for it are between the ages of 18 and 20, which isn't enough votes for it to pass.

Drinking At A Younger Age

I have comment on this subject a few times on NPR radio when the Dean from a Vermont college (I believe he was from Middlebury College) approached this subject a few years ago.

I believe that the best way to handle the lowering of the drinking age would be to place some restrictions on the young adults starting at the age of 18 to to perhaps 24 years of age. Perhaps limiting consumption of a 1 liter bottle of either beer or wine, not both, on a daily basis via use of a monthly issued punch card at a state or local government agency or by a liquor store itself could be a possibility. It may sound a little complicated and/or unnecessary but protection to abuse is important. Other means of monitoring are open but a method to limit access and stress its importance can be a teaching aid to young adults. Kegs of beer and hard liquor would not be accessible to age group that venerable to abuse. the daily limit to beer and wine could be change to perhaps a daily six pack of beer and/or daily bottle of wine at the age of 20 or 21 while maintaining a restriction to kegs and hard liquor until the age of 23, 24 or 25. Most people of this age are out of the colleges and/or of an age where they are more mature thus limiting the contact with the younger less mature college students and being more mature, would understand the perils of over indulgence better than an 18, 19 or 20 year old.

A young person joining the military and willing to lay down their lives for our freedom and security should be exempt from all restrictions and able to drink at their peril!

After years of lousy business reporting, I'm glad hancock has finally decided to write about something else.

Anecdotally, I recall hearing many cases of adults ~50 years old now, telling stories of when they were 18 and drinking, if the cops stopped them they would told them to be careful and go home. The point is, now, police are always on the lookout for kids drinking under age, forcing teens and young adults to hide it as best they can. It creates a culture where the police can't trust the teens and the teens don't trust the cops. Ms Shalala does indeed live in LALA land if she thinks things have gotten better. The kids are just better at hiding it from her.

One thing that was brought up was that if it is made legal to drink at 18, the teens will have a few drinks with their friends rather than binge drinking. That is not true at all. I have a friend who was underage and drank occasionally, but not often because she was afraid she would get caught. Now that she's old enough, she will drink 10-15 drinks in a night and party a lot more. Why? Because she's old enough to drink and nobody says anything about how much she drinks, so she can get away with it. I think the problem lies not within the age, but the authorities no being strict enough and cracking down on the issue. Where I am at, you can only buy a 6 pack of beer or a bottle of hard liquor. The club however does not have limitations. It would be better to show no mercy for them breaking the law than to give in to what they want so they don't get into trouble and "cut down". Lowering the drinking age will not help cut down on the binge drinking issue. It will only give them more of a reason to. I know plenty of 18 and 19 year olds that refuse to drink because it's illegal. Maybe if these teens who this article is referring to had a little more integrity, we wouldn't have this issue. Another issue is that a lot of people are not fully developed by the time they are 18. Some of them are still growing. Alcohol is a bad thing for and body, more so a growing body. If we lower the drinking age, then sooner or later it will be that way with high school where they are almost 18 so they start drinking. Eventually they will want to lower the drinking age to 16.

A lot of the arguments offered here and elsewhere are that you can vote, serve on a jury, sign a contract, or join the military at age 18, but you can't drink.

Historically, most people don't vote, avoid jury duty, look for loopholes in every contract, and avoid military service.

At age 18, if you've been drinking, you're also much more likely to have taken a chance on becoming a parent while intoxicated, or to have driven while under the influence, offering yourself the opportunity to go to adult jail for DWI or worse.

Come to think of it, instead of lowering the drinking age, let's talk about the benefits of RAISING the minimum age for voting, serving on juries, signing contracts, and joining the military to 21, instead. We might find ourselves with more responsible adults, if that was the case.

Don't like that one? How about making serving in the military MANDATORY for the three years between 18 and 21 (similar to what young adults in Israel must perform), raise the voting age to 21, and require that each person serve on at least one jury during that time (I'll let you decide for yourself whether to sign a contract). Once you've satisfied those requirements, then come talk to me about why you want to have a drink.

If you're actually going to do all of those things you say you're allowed to do at age 18, fine. Go ahead and do them. You'll make this world a better place.

If you're not going to do those things, make this world a better place by remaining silent. As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought unintelligent than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

When I went to college, the drinking age was 18. Then MD raised it to 19 the following year, and so on. I was able for one year to drink beer and hard liquor, and the next year, beer only. (This was in the early 80s).

I agree that 21 is too late. At the same time, I'm a parent, so I'm concerned.

I was going to bars at 16, and many did not card back then.

At my college orientation, the advisors actually took a group of us to the campus pub and bought us all the beer we could drink. (Now as a parent, that horrifies me, but back then, I found no fault with it!)

You can lower the age and instill a different culture. I don't think it has to be a free-for-all the way it used to be, with kegs in the dorms any night of the week.

By the time I got to college, however, I actually drank less frequently and really focused on my academics, unlike kids whose parents had them under their thumbs during high school.

The odd thing that no one has mentioned here is that on most campuses in this country (all the ones I've been to and I've visited quite a few and attended a top-tiered university, is that the 21 law really does not exist on campuses. It's the 18 law the minute you step on campus as a freshman. Maybe the parents and incoming students are "told" what the rules about alcohol are (the 21 law), but these rules aren't enforced. Students aren't forced off-campus to drink. Where is that coming from? Students drink wherever they want and parents and other adults in the country deserve to know that. Students are running wild because they want to and the administration rarely holds anyone accountable. The level of substance abuse for many has become very dangerous but it's not because students aren't "allowed" to drink. It seems the admins don't want to deal with the real problems; they don't want to bother. This seems to come down to that (not wanting to bother) and also a concern about liability. If they don't have to bother about student conduct then they don't have to worry about lawsuits. Don't believe that no drinking on campus occurs. It's everywhere and it's out in the open. You can be underage and drink while talking with a campus cop (who are told by most admins to leave students alone unless of course they get alcohol poisoning and then they must be rescued. That's what the cops seem to be for. Calling 911 for ambulances. So what happens when the drinking age is lowered and the exact same problems exist on campuses? It will give the administrators every reason to just shrug all the more and turn away, feeling they are now free from liability so they don't have to "worry."

We should be teaching our kids to drink responsibly. Drinking has become so taboo that parents fear arrest for letting their kids have a beer. A drink or two with dinner will teach them to drink more responsibly. Once they get to college the excitement of drinking isn't so great because they could already have been drinking responisbly for a couple of years. These t-totallers are totally clueless.

I was a Maryland Law Enforcement Professional the last time Maryland lowered the drinking age to 18 and remember the major problems it created for high school and middle school students with 18 year old friends buying them alcohol. We need to leave the law alone and deal with alcohol abuse by college students.

Once again our higher educators show their arrogant, inward focus. Their discourse pertains to college students. What does their statement say about non college students within that age group? Also, I would like to know if the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins has stated anything on this?

For several reasons, I believe the college presidents are correct. Because consequences for rule and or law-breaking are so extreme now (suspensions remain on record permanently, public intoxication conviction is on the computer record forever unless expunged, often a difficult process) I think we need to lower the age to 18. College is a time for experimentation, but experimentation doesn't need to mean binge drinking or even drinking. A college that offers social alternatives can reduce alcohol consumption. I know that prohibition didn't work in the '20s and doesn't work well now. If you have to suffer the consequences of being an adult, war, indebtedness, (the cost of college these days and the 30 year loans necessary to pay for it would drive me to alcohol abuse), and of course liability for accidents. then you might as well reap a reward or two.

I see I'm not the only one who got a big laugh out of the people who say that high school kids will be able to get alcohol if we lower the drinking age. News flash, folks, they already do! I'm 40 and grew up with the drinking age at 21. Many, many, many of my classmates drank all through high school (some starting in Jr. High), so the age clearly isn't much of a deterrent. And because they had to sneak around to drink, most of them drove drunk. (I didn't drink but didn't have a car and remember some times when I had a hard time getting home from parties because there was no one I trusted to drive me in their condition.) Years later, when I was teaching freshman writing at a major state university that required students to write a personal narrative, I was stunned to see how many of the college freshmen chose to write about their DUI arrests - and I don't remember a single narrative about anyone who was seriously punished for it. The courts were letting these kids off with a slap on the wrist, providing no deterrent at all. Clearly, what we're doing now isn't working.

I need to pose a few questions. #1 - Across Europe most of the drinking age is very low, and they don't have any problems. I am guessing it is because a "drinking age" isn't something they have to reach for, it is just there and thus doesn't become a big deal anymore, but I could be wrong. #2 - In Germany if you get caught drunk driving you lose your license pretty much forever, if the USA really cared about people being harmed from drunk driving that would be the law, but our country is infused with alcohol. #3 Here is what I learned from college. As long as you pass your classes you can do whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want to and have the best 4-5 years of your life and still get a very good job when you graduate as long as you have your head on your shoulders. If your child is an idiot and wants to drink a 5th of Vodka then your child has a problem, not the Vodka.

Thought-man - You posed a few questions about Europe. Whether they have "drinking ages" or not is not the real issue. The claim is that they don't have problems with alcohol like the US because they don't set rules/laws. Guess what? The number of people in their late teens and early 20s being treated for alcohol-related illnesses is growing in Europe. Read this indepth news report about the problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7093143.stm

And then an educational research alliance has lots of info on the history of alcohol in the European countries, meaning in the past, laws were for public safety and now are moving towards for the good of public health-the real issue. Here are some stats about teen age drinkers: Nearly all 15-16 year old students (>90%) have drunk alcohol at some point in their life, on average beginning to drink at 12 years of age, and getting drunk for the first time at 14 years. The average amount drunk on a single occasion by 15-16 year olds is over 60g of alcohol, and reaches nearly 40g even in the lower-consuming (for 15-16 year olds) south of Europe. Over 1 in 8 (13%) of 15-16 year olds have been drunk more than 20 times in their life, and more than 1 in 6 (18%) have ‘binged’ (5+ drinks on a single occasion) three or more times in the last month. http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe200602/gl200602_p3.html
So for people like me and Donna Shalala, the real issue is for the health and well being of the developing brain of those under the age of 21, who are our future leaders. See my post above.

@DrugFreeHighlands

I recognize your desire to communicate to young persons that drinking under the age of 21 (which itself is arbitrary since physiologically we develop at different rates so not everyone under 21 has the same risk factors when consuming alcohol) but as a society we allow adults (generally defined at 18 years of age) to smoke - an activity that is damaging at any age. We do our best to regulate and make visible the dangers of smoking and ultimately as a society we recognize that adults who smoke (for the most part) are harming themselves but we let them have that choice.

As for "our future leaders" - I would prefer someone who does not need a law to tell them that binge drinking is dangerous as well as someone who will stand-up against peer pressure and act according to their best interests (and the interests of those around them - i.e. not drinking and driving). If "Joe 6-pack" causes himself brain damage from binge drinking then he is unlikely to fall into the category of "future leader". I may despise the fact that he becomes are welfare candidate but that is whole other issue.

The health and well-being of children is the responsibility of those children and the parents that brought them into the world. Generally, instead of being a stick that attempts to make the "C" and "D" children into "B" children government is better served to focus on trying to be a carrot that turns existing "B" children into "A" children who then can become effective and forceful leaders. Those same programs (e.g., education) can often serve the "C" and "D" children in the same capacity if they avail themselves of it.

Many have mentioned that we are allowed to enlist in the military at 18. Actually you can enlist at 17. We had a lot of 17 year old in our division in basic. They have actually been trying to allow active duty military to drink at any age. The difference between fighting for your country and drinking is that when you turn 21, you can drink straight up. You aren't required to go through courses or training. With the military, you don't just sign on the dotted line and jump on a plane to Iraq. You go through a lot of training. You go through basic training, FMF training, field training, and any other training they feel you need. You can spend your first year in the military learning about the field. All this training forces us to grow up. I went to basic when I was 18 and I know I still had some growing up to do. Just going through basic training forces you to grow up. I didn't go through they extra field training, but I can only imagine what I would be like if I did. Being in the military forces you to be independent and think for yourself.

Many have mentioned that we are allowed to enlist in the military at 18. Actually you can enlist at 17. We had a lot of 17 year old in our division in basic. They have actually been trying to allow active duty military to drink at any age. The difference between fighting for your country and drinking is that when you turn 21, you can drink straight up. You aren't required to go through courses or training. With the military, you don't just sign on the dotted line and jump on a plane to Iraq. You go through a lot of training. You go through basic training, FMF training, field training, and any other training they feel you need. You can spend your first year in the military learning about the field. All this training forces us to grow up. I went to basic when I was 18 and I know I still had some growing up to do. Just going through basic training forces you to grow up. I didn't go through they extra field training, but I can only imagine what I would be like if I did. Being in the military forces you to be independent and think for yourself.

Right now 21 year olds buy beer for the 18-20 crowd... if we lower the age, then 18 year olds will be buying for the 15-17 crowd. Think about it.