Lauren RabainoMore than 100 students and community members assembled in Chumash Auditorium last Thursday to hear a debate that involved each and every one of them: The Drinking Age Debate. John McCardell and James Fell spoke about the pros and cons a lowered drinking age would have on society.
McCardell, former president of Middlebury College and founder of the group “Choose Responsibility,” believes that 18-year-olds are able to make responsible decisions about alcohol and spoke in favor of lowering the drinking age.
Fell, Senior Program Director of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation and an expert on the societal effects of underage drinking, spoke in opposition.
The debaters initially spoke for 10 minutes each, then the floor was opened for audience questions. Finally, the speakers had five minutes to give their concluding statements.
Fell aimed to educate the audience about the history of the legal drinking age and explained the 1984 law that set the age at 21. He summarized research on the legislation, talked about how the issue relates to binge drinking and tried to disprove the so-called “European myth” that says that alcohol is less of a problem for young people in Europe where the legal drinking age is lower.
Fell said that there were two major results from setting the drinking age at 21.
“There has been a reduction in alcohol consumption by those under 21, and there has also been a reduction in drinking and driving related fatal crashes by those under 21,” he said. “Overall, raising the drinking age saves lives.”
McCardell opened with a number of alleged misconceptions about the drinking age.
“First, the drinking age is not a settled question,” McCardell said. “Second, not all the data are on one side of the question. Third, the public wants and needs to have this debate, and finally, it’s not just about drunken driving.”
He said that though the law has banned minors from drinking alcohol in public places, it has been ineffective in preventing minors from consuming alcohol in places such as a locked dorm room or an off-campus apartment, where much of college drinking takes place. He said that it is in these kind of secret places that a person’s health is at risk.
“The change in minimum age has not stopped student drinking, it has only displaced it,” McCardell said.
Afterward, several students asked questions about the issue. One student asked why people drink in the first place. McCardell said the reasons people drink now are different from those who came of age when the law was passed, and that the policy needs to be reviewed. Fell responded by citing studies that have found, in general, college students drink for reasons such as stress relief, relaxation, peer pressure and to have fun, and these reasons have not changed.
Both speakers said that they were impressed with the caliber of questions from the audience.
“I thought the questions were terrific from the students,” Fell said. “Some of them were ones that we’ve heard before, but the questions like ‘Why do students get drunk?’ and ‘Why do they drink alcohol?’ were very perceptive.”
“I thought the questions generally were excellent and I think that they allowed us to talk about some things that we didn’t get a chance to cover in our presentations,” McCardell said.
Audience members had differing opinions on the issue.
“I think they should lower the drinking age because it would create a lot less problems, binge drinking would be less frequent and the cops could go worry about other issues and be more efficient with stopping crime,” biomedical engineering freshman Adam Altman said.
“I’m sort of up in the air about it,” wine and viticulture freshman Michael Swadener said.
“I’d like it if I were able to drink even though I’m not 21, but I don’t know if it would be a good idea for all minors to be able to drink.”
Liberal studies freshman Jocelyn Allen said the debate was informative and helped her to better understand both sides of the argument.
“I pretty much came in not having a side, but probably leaning more on the 21 side,” Allen said.
“Leaving, I feel like I’m a lot more educated on both sides of the argument.”