No Student is dead wrong. The middle east and India don’t even enforce child marriage laws and child working ages, both are relatively common. Minors don’t go to jail in those countries for drinking. It is illegal for Muslims to drink in many Islamic countries regardless.
Most people in Asia, Latin America and Africa don’t even have driver’s licenses they simply drive without a license in case you didn’t know. In Eastern Europe, especially now the drinking age is even looser than in Western Europe

This is hilarious most countries don’t enforce their drinking ages or treat their minors like children, they are expected to behave like other biological adults. In Asia many minors are working or are married anyway, they don’t actually enforce their minimum ages, this is complete propaganda, disregard what Student is saying. In Latin America and Africa forget about drinking ages to, no one goes to jail for drinking, only Muslims REGARDLESS of age go to jail for drinking if it is illegal in their respective countries.

Don’t believe what Mothers against Drinking tells you, Most of these Non-Western and Non-Anglo countries don’t even have child welfare or social services as we in the US are spoiled to have, so by no means do they enforce their drinking ages by that same token

Here are some news articles proving my point:
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/80-pubgoers-under-25-average-drinking-age-down-to-19-survey/417730/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=c24e0f61-152c-46a3-b04f-f989333a77d9&Headline=‘Reduce+drinking+age+to+control+drunken+driving’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4478550.stm

http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Drinking%20Age%20Limits.pdf

Have you ever even been to a non-Western especially non Anglo-Saxon country Student?

Regarding the statistics about drunk driving deaths and the implementation of the 21 age requirement: MADD and others will often cite this statistic, which is true, to keep the drinking age 21. However, what they don’t tell you is that at the same time the drinking age was increased, drunk driving laws, DWI enforcement and social norms against DWI increased. Personally I think the drinking age should be reduced to 18 and penalties for DWI should be increased. An 18 year old driving on the capital beltway sober is lot more dangerous than an 18 year old drinking on a college campus. Maybe the driving age should be increased.

This is a really interesting argument, Ed, and I find your premise really convincing — that because students will never really respect the underage drinking law, we will always associatively lack respect for laws in general on campus, and that this will in turn discredit the student-police relationship in the eyes of both students and police. I think that’s a really great point.

But I’m not sure you’ve totally fleshed out what should be done about it. You seem to be challenging the police (“those who enforce the restrictions”) to get rid of underage drinking legislation. But of course we all know that separation of powers means that police, from the executive branch of government, have no power over what the law is, as that comes from the legislative branch. Right? So what are police supposed to do? They can’t really selectively enforce laws without risking their jobs and the well-being of their families. And I don’t think anyone would let their kids go hungry so some frat boys can have Natty Light.

Nor do I think that any change in the drinking age can be reasonably expected of our legislatures. Technically, drinking age is set by the state legislatures, but in practice it’s really set by Congress, which has a longstanding declaration that any state which deviates from 21 as the drinking age will lose its federal highway funding. Losing highway funding would kill commerce in any state and spell economic disaster. So if the drinking age is going to change, it can only happen at the federal level. But, realistically, this isn’t going to happen, as anyone who follows Congressional politics can tell you. Everyone is convinced that a lower drinking age leads to an unacceptable increase in drunk driving deaths. I can’t speak personally to whether or not this perception or the statistics it is anchored on are accurate (they look convincing to me, but I’m no statistician), but that doesn’t change the political truth that no one on the hill is going to take on something so risky.

(A quick note — it is NOT true that Canada and the US are the only countries that enforce drinking age. This is a misconception among college students, spread by people who go abroad to major Western European cities, where it isn’t enforced. But go out to the countryside, or to India, or to the Middle East, or to Asia, or really any number of place and you’ll find it very much enforced.)

So what to do, then? As you’ve done such a great job explaining, Ed, we’re locked in a Catch 22. Students will continue to drink, police will continue to have to enforce drinking age laws, and the damage from that enforcement ultimately hurts everyone. But some colleges have found ways around this, especially in New England where students have access to alcohol in “safe” environments. Let’s be honest, people in college drink heavily (I know I do), and are also young, and thus prone to sometimes doing some stupid shit. It’s just not in our interest to have unfettered access to alcohol when we’re 18 years old. As someone who’s had family nearly killed by an 18 year old drunk driver, I can attest that the risks are significant*. But we’re going to drink anyway, so institutions like college administrations might as well set up opportunities for students to drink in a way that mitigates the risks. Say, allowing people to drink at a college-sponsored party where instead of kegs there are bartenders, so that the fall-down-wasted alkies can’t kill themselves with overconsuming. Or requiring everyone at the door to show student ID certifying they live near enough by that they could walk home.

Of course, even this comes with a caveat: insurance prices. Universities pay a LOT for insurance (they house and feed thousands of young people — there are going to be some accidents, and insurance companies know it). Supervising safe drinking opportunities would no doubt raise the college’s already-sky-high insurance tab even higher. Given the severity of the College’s current budget crisis, I just don’t know if we can take that hit right now.

Bottom line: Yes, you’re absolutely right, Ed. But unless I’m missing something there’s not really a viable way to fix this problem without introducing even bigger problems. Sucks, but that’s life.

*—I know what you’re thinking. “I would never drive drunk, so why should I pay for someone else’s mistakes?” Well, sure, but it doesn’t take hundreds of people driving wasted to result in a drunk driving death. All it requires is one person driving buzzed, once. The poor kid who almost killed my family member had a perfect driving record and was a model student. All it takes is once.

The country is on the verge of bankruptcy once it goes bankrupt don’t expect it to be enforced.

Most countries don’t enforce their drinking ages except the US and Canada.
The drinking age is a bread and circuses issue while the bankers and politicians are robbing the treasury.
Plus there is always the fact that biological adults drink anyway.