You are here: Home » News

Speakers debate drinking age issues

By Andrew Slade, Gavel Media Team, on March 11, 2010 10:16 PM

By Andrew Slade, News Editor -

Among college students nationwide, the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 21 is perhaps the law most frequently broken. According to internal studies at Boston College, just 25 percent of incoming freshmen describe themselves as non-drinkers. While some point to numbers like these as evidence that current drinking laws are ineffective and drive students to drink behind closed doors, others argue that lowering the MLDA would lead to adolescents beginning to drink at younger ages.

On Wednesday, the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy and the College Democrats of Boston College brought to campus two men at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue to debate the virtues of lowering the drinking age in an event entitled “The Drinking Age: Should it Be Lowered?” organized by James Sasso, A&S ’12.

Arguing the affirmative was Dr. John McCardell, Jr., President Emeritus of Middlebury College and founding president of Choose Responsibility, a Washington, DC-based non-profit organization advocating for reform of laws regarding the use of alcohol. McCardell explained that while the drinking age of 21 is technically established by each state individually, the federal government in 1984 established a policy under which any state that sets its MLDA below 21 would lose ten percent of its highway funding.

McCardell takes issue with this policy in part because 60 percent of underage drinking deaths occur off of highways. More importantly, McCardell cited a 56 percent increase in binge drinking between 1993 and 2001, explaining that young adults – the large majority of whom drink regularly – who are not able to consume alcohol in bars, restaurants or at public gatherings find themselves forced to drink in private where binges are much more likely to occur.

Believing that the current MLDA is highly ineffective, McCardell has suggested what he sees as being realistic ways to make a difference and protect young people. Among his ideas are mandatory alcohol education courses, enhanced parental involvement and mandatory ignition interlock devices on the cars of first-time DUI offenders of all ages.

On the negative side of the debate was James Fell, Senior Program Director at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, who focused his argument on the positive changes he has seen since the adoption of 21 as the MLDA in every state. Since this time, there has, for instance, been a 16 percent decrease in fatal automobile accidents relating to drunk driving. Between 1982 and 2004, Fell noted a 62 percent decrease in fatal crashes among those under 21.

Fell went on to mention that the common argument that Europeans, who typically begin drinking legally earlier than Americans, drink in a safer manner is unfounded. 26 countries in Europe show higher rates of regular intoxication among adolescents than we see in the United States, while only nine European nations have lower rates.

Additionally, Fell brought up the fact that many scientific studies indicate that human brain development continues until around the age of 25. As such, Fell suggested that he would consider supporting raising the drinking age, if he believed doing so were politically feasible.

Conceding the fact that a large number of people do, in fact, drink underage in the United States, Fell suggested several actions he believes would make current laws more effective, rather than repeal or loosen them – tactics he believes would simply lead to more young people drinking and getting involved in potentially dangerous situations. The keys to reducing underage drinking, Fell believes, are to better educate parents about the effects of alcohol, delay the age of onset of drinking and to de-normalize binge drinking.

Following their presentations, the panelists opened the floor to audience questions. At the conclusion of the event, both emphasized the fact that while they disagree on the means, their end goals are the same: to protect young people and society as a whole from the dangers of alcohol.