A Sobering Proposal

Thursday, April 5, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time

John M. McCardell Jr., president emeritus of Middlebury College, recently founded Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit group working to start a grass-roots movement to change drinking-age laws.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Paula Wasley:
    Hello and welcome to this week's live Colloquy. I'm Paula Wasley, a reporter for the Chronicle. I'll be hosting our discussion today with John McCardell about the 21-year old drinking age. It looks like we have a lot of questions for Mr. McCardell, so let's get started.

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    I'm delighted to be joining this chat and I look forward to the next hour. Choose Responsibility is a new, nonprofit organization, and I invite you to visit our brand new web site, www.chooseresponsibility.org. We believe it is time for a serious, informed, and dispassionate public discussion of the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age, and we welcome the opportunity to engage this issue with anyone who wishes to join the discussion, a discussion that is not, if serious, reducible to sound bites, and also a discussion which needs to be grounded in both data and common sense.

Question from Mike Miller, VP for Enrollment and Student Services, The Medical College of Georgia:
    As a college administrator, I have witnessed the changes in the drinking age from 21 to 18 and back to 21 again. During the period when 18 year olds were allowed to purchase and consume alcohol, alcohol related automobile accidents were the leading cause of deatlh for 18 to 24 year olds. Ethical issues that would be raised by a study protocol to investigate this issue aside, is there any research that shows that the drinking license approach would prevent an increase in this statistic?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    There are no data to support predictions of any particular outcome, since ours is still a hypothetical case. What the data DO show is that alcohol-related fatalities, in all age groups, have declined since 1984, when the age was raised; that they had begun to decline BEFORE the age was raised; that the highest fatality rate is now at age 21, followed by 22 and 23; and that there is simply no cause-and-effect relationship between drinking age and alcohol-related fatalities. There are many factors involved in the decline: safer autos, designated drivers, seat belts. It is clear that as a society we are more aware of the risks of drinking and driving. There is no reason to suppose that awareness will vanish if the drinking age is changed.

Question from Anonymous, Emory University:
    I believe that an alcohol education program along with "drinking licenses" would cut irresponsible drinking tremendously. In many European countries, young people are introduced to alcohol at a much younger age than we legally are here. The result is a significant decrease in the abuse of alcohol. My question though is this: how would we go about implementing somthing like this? What would be the steps we would need to take to translate ideas into actions?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    Great question. First, as to costs: alcohol education is now mandatory only after one has been convicted of DUI. This seems a bit late. Why not redirect resources and personnel to an education program when one turns 18? Second, as to implementation: drivers' ed is a good model. States have established processes for issuing permits, then licenses, and there is no reason why the license to drink could not in some way be merged with the process for issuing a drivers license.

Comment from Fred Svoboda, U of Michigan-Flint:
    I agree with the proposal to lower the drinking age. It would get students out of dorm room drinking and back into the bars where they belong--and where owners with a stake in their customers not getting wildly drunk could monitor their consumption. There is such a thing as socially responsible drinking, and we need to encourage it rather than surreptitious binge drinking. It is absurd to say that 18-year-olds are legally adults but not to treat them as adults in this respect.

Question from Richard Naylor, Wm K. Sanford Town Library:
    How do you measure the advantage relative to the disadvantages, noting that in this case we are talking about protecting people from themselves and non-disallowing individual choice?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    A great philosophical question: to what degree can or should we enact legislation to protect people from themselves (and how successful can we ever expect to be?) Here's a practical response, as an illustration: MADD is now advocating mandatory use of an ignition interlock for anyone convicted of DUI. Your car won't start if your BAC is above .08. This seems to me a far more effective way to deal with drunken driving, and protects others from the misbehavior of the individual.

Question from Sherlonda B., Drexel Univ:
    Do you think that there is more binge drinking at schools that allow drinking on campus? Or does the "wet" campus just make it easier for those under 21?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    I can't say for certain whether "wet" campuses have less binge drinking, but I can giggle at the notion that the existence of "wet" campuses shows how well legal age 21 is working. I CAN say that on those campuses that try to be at least "moist," if not dry, the problem is not reduced; it is simply uprooted and transplanted somewhere else.

Question from Lowell Dunlap, Big Ten School:
    As a parent, safety of my two young male students at a Big Ten school is paramount. But the town in which the university exists looks at ticketing drinking students as a money maker forcing even more covert behavior. How do we get at this issue?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    You have identified one of the many unintended consequences of legal age 21 that, like it or not, does have its dark underside, of the sort you describe. I believe such behavior as you allege needs to be brought to light, and the public officials either authorizing it or overlooking it asked to explain themselves. That said, law enforcement officials seeking to do their jobs face the same impossible dilemma as that faced by parents and by universities: either look the other way, and acknowledge that a law is being routinely violated (what message does THAT send?) or crack down, thus simply forcing the behavior into darker corners and more remote locations. It is time to recognize this situation, which is typical on many campuses, as evidence that legal age 21 is simply not working and is breeding disrespect for law in general.

Question from Kim Martin Long, Shippensburg University, 4-year public university:
    What data exist from other countries, especially in Europe, where the drinking age is even lower? Do these data support your lowering of our drinking age?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    This is very complicated, and a brief answer is difficult. However, in general there is less binge drinking and less drunk driving in Europe (let me hear from you off-line after the chat is over, and I'll give you much more information. Only 4 countries in the world have a drinking age as high as 21: Indonesia, Mongolia, Palau, and the United States. It is impossible to argue from international evidence that a lower drinking age poses higher risks, either to individuals or to those operating, or in the path of, an automobile. I would direct you to a 1999 study by the European Study on Alcohol (ESAPD) for much more on this subject.

Question from Sebastien Deridder, VCU:
    What kind of regulations and guidelines would you suggest to curb the use of inappropriate activities such as drinking alcohol and parties used in the process of recruiting high school minors in order to influence their decisions?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    On college campuses? Zero tolerance. One is an adult at 18, but not at 17, and enforcing a consistent age of majority is necessary -- and would, I think, be recognized as legitimate by both those over, and those under, 18.

Question from Jim Mello, University of Hartford:
    If the drinking age was set at 18, how would you treat 16 or 17 year olds on campus? How would it be any different than today? Aren't you neglecting the developmental aspects of young adults and how alcohol can clearly cloud that development?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    See an earlier answer. Part of our proposal is that any young person who violates the alcohol laws of a state before turning 18 forfeits eligibility for the license. It is hard to argue, as we continue to hear that underage drinking is worse than ever before, that the current system is working very effectively. So we either stay content with more of the same, or we try something different. The incentive of the license may help reduce underage drinking. I have not yet heard of a serious epidemic of underage driving -- could that have to do with the incentive of a license?

Question from Alison Hayford, University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada:
    Have any researchers compared the US and Canada when looking at drinking in this age group? In Canada, some provinces set the legal drinking age at 18, others at 19. It would be interesting to know if rates of binge drinking, alcohol related violence, and other problems differ to any significant extent between the two countries. For the most part, there wouldn't be major cultural differences that might make comparisons unmeaningful.

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    I think I lost some of my answer earlier. I wish I could say more about this specifically. Anecdotally, on such things as emergency room visits from college campuses, there is some evidence to suggest a much lower level of binge drinking in Canada. I'd welcome the chance to explore this further with you off-line, and invite anyone "out there" with peer-reviewed data on this subject to contribute.

Question from Warren Lauer, Trustee, University of Wyoming:
    At a time when construction costs for highways have become astronomical, how would you propose to convince Congress and MADD to eliminate the forfeiture provision in federal highway funds?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    No state will revisit the drinking age unless Congress decouples the highway fund "incentive" from what the Supreme Court has said unequivocally is a state's constitutional right. Choose Responsibility does not favor simply lowering the age. But we do think that a combination of a Congressional waiver for a period of time, in response to a state's coming forward with a plan of the sort we are advocating, ought to allow states once again to become little "laboratories of progressivism." This is the genius of federalism, which the 1984 act effectively obliterated.

Question from anonymous:
    If this is to be implemented state by state, how do you deal with the old problem of "blood borders?"

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    This question should be properly directed to James Madison. I believe we are much more aware now than we once were to the perils of drinking and driving. I also think that, unless we are prepared to insist upon uniformity of all laws from one state to the next, we need to deal with the untidiness of federalism and recognize that through it we may in the long run save more lives and enact sounder policies. Remember, not all lives lost to alcohol are lost on the highways. And more and more lives are being put at risk NOT on the highways as legal age 21's unintended consequences continue to unfold.

Question from :
    You didn't answer Mr. Mello's question about the developmental aspects of people aged 18-21. How do you address the serious research findings on the effects of alcohol on the developing brains of people in this age group?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    Researchers have pretty clearly shown that the "adolescent" brain is not fully developed until age 25 (not 21). Public policy based solely on these data would support raising the age to 25. But the public would never support that. Policy thus needs to be based on common sense. Furthermore, this research is based upon rat experimentation, and a rat's adolescence is amazingly brief. Calibrating the rat equivalent to age 14, or 15, or 20 is not easy. Finally, there is simply no evidence to support the claim of brain impairment among those who choose to drink before turning 25. Excessive and reckless behavior has negative physiological and neurological effects at ANY age. The researchers with whom I have spoken will say that our time would be much better spent educating young people about alcohol and its effects than by trying to enforce and entirely arbitrary age of 21.

Question from C.R., U. Oklahoma:
    Evidence that I have come across shows that an increasing size of the population is abstaining from alcohol altogether. Might this also be an effect of the current drinking age?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    Your evidence is sound. Fewer young people are choosing to drink. But those who DO choose to drink are drinking irresponsibly. Every time we hear about binge drinking or alcohol poisoning, we need to ask two questions: 1. Is this proof that legal age 21 is working? 2. Where do we suppose this behavior is taking place, and why?

Question from A. Guram, Wisconsin:
    I am also delighted to be a part of this discussion. I am wondering how the educational component of this program would be a collaboration with partners in K-12 education and/or parents and community members. If the age were lowered to 18, and potentially having many of our students come to college already at that age, would the education occur prior to college in order to meet all young adults, regardless of college attendance?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    Our proposal suggests that, upon turning 18, a young adult would be legally permitted to consume alcohol at home, in parental presence. Upon completing high school the young adult could enroll in the education course. Upon completing the course the young adult would receive a license. We recognize the problems you note and believe our proposal will more effectively address them than the status quo.

Question from B. Seaman, Hamilton College trustee:
    How does a politician frame this issue in terms that can be persuasive in the face of a barrage of data from MADD and others resisting change?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    By looking at the evidence. First, young adults ARE considered mature enough to vote, to sign contracts, to serve on juries, to serve in the military, in short, to do everything expected of adults, except .... Infantilize someone, but then don't be surprised by infantile behavior. Second, insist upon responsible analysis of data: where IS the cause-and-effect relationship between legal age 21 and traffic fatalities, and how deny all other cause-and-effect relationships? Where is the evidence of actual brain impairment in those instances where an individual drinks before turning 21? Third, ask what policies are pro- and what are anti- family? Legal age 21 pretty effectively marginalizes, even disenfranchises, parents. Finally, ask the simplest, most basic question: what is the case, what is the arguments, where is the hard evidence, that legal age 21 has worked. Choose Responsibility is based on 2 assumptions: 1. alcohol is a reality in the lives of 18-20 years olds. 2. Prohibition doesn't work, has never worked. Deny these, and there's little to discuss. Accept them and the goal of policy becomes clear: how to create the safest possible environment for this reality?

Question from Chuck Hurley, MADD CEO:
    Prof. McCardell is entitled to his own views, but not his own facts, as former professor and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said. We very much share his concerns about the severity of the college drinking scene, but disagree on the causes and solutions. Is there an opportunity to present our views and correct his misstatements regarding the scientific studies on the effectiveness of the drinking age laws?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    I'm not sure how to answer this one! But the Chronicle article made a reference "accusing" me of "cherry-picking" my evidence. That means there must be cherries to be picked, which means not all the data are on one side of this question. I welcome an honest, critical, and full discussion of the data. perhaps we should start with what is meant by "losing 10% of your brain power." I still can't find a citation in peer-reviewed literature for that one, which is on the MADD web page.

Paula Wasley (Moderator):
    Thanks for joining us today, Mr. Hurley. We encourage you to post further comments to today's Colloquy if there are specific points or data that you would like to present.

Question from Micah Daigle, Students for Sensible Drug Policy:
    Dr. McCardell, thank you for taking a bold step in the direction of curbing substance abuse by treating it as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. Your sensible proposal recognizes that students are currently using and abusing alcohol and that tough underage drinking laws only push this abuse behind closed doors, making it harder for campus communities to help those who need medical assistance. As field director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, I work with students across the country who are trying to make their own campus drug (and alcohol) policies more sensible. What can students do right now to assist you with this campaign?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    Well, at the risk of offending, I would distinguish between drugs, which are off limits to all, and alcohol, which is permitted to all over 21. That said, however, Choose Responsibility welcomes to our ranks all those who believe the time has come for this sort of public debate. We are a tiny, under-funded organization; one room in Vermont and three paid staff. We lack clout and name recognition. But we have the data on our side, and we believe that, given the opportunity to have a serious debate, our views will prevail. Please do check out www.chooseresponsibility.org, and sign up! And tell your friends.

Question from Allison St. Germain, Alpha Epsilon Phi Sorority:
    What if an 18-20 year old does not complete the alcohol-education program? How would campuses separate who has passed such programs and who has not? Would students who pass the program be allowed to purchase alcohol and if so how does it solve the problem of them providing alcohol to others who have not passed and been granted permission?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    It would seem to me no different from students who possess a drivers' license and those who don't. And I would never assert that the problem of supplying others would be fully solved by our proposal. But things are from from perfect on that score now. Perhaps, however, if law enforcement no longer had to try enforcing a law so widely violated and disrespected, it could redirect its resources and personnel to enforcing a law that IS widely respected, and that is the law prohibiting supplying alcohol to minors.

Comment from Chuck Hurley, MADD CEO:
    MADD welcomes an honest debate about the drinking age or any other issue. But as former professor and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once stated, Prof. McCardell is entitled to his own views, but not his own facts. His statements discrediting the more than 40 peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of the drinking age (CDC meta-analysis) are just that: his views. The inconvenient truth that Prof. McCardell avoids is that the 21 drinking age has and is continuing to save lives. His views on binge drinking in Europe are also not supported by peer-reviewed research. Having said that, we look forward to sitting down with John next week.

Comment from Scott, Middlebury College:
    Comment: For an excellent study comparing American and Canadian college drinking behaviors click here: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Documents/Canadian1/CanadaPaper.pdf

The study shows American students are more likely to binge than Canadian students despite the fact alcohol is illegal for many to purchase, possess, and consume.

Question from Howard Mount, Seattle Pacific University (emeritus):
    What's magic about 18? Why is an 18 year old more responsible than a 21 year old? Why not 16? An education program and "license" hasn't kept young drivers from killing people on the highways at an alarming rate so why would it do anything for drinking?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    There is nothing "magic" about 18. But 18 is the age our laws have established as the age of majority, the age at which one is deemed capable of exercising adult responsibility. Your first 2 questions might be posed as well about voting, signing contracts, etc. Yes, traffic fatalities persist, but in all agree groups, and at the same time, in all age groups they have come down over time.

Question from :
    I think your idea is worthy of serious discussion. Have you identified any specific learning outcomes that would be accomplished as part of the alcohol education program that a student would complete to be given a "drinking license" ?

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    1. The number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities, in all age cohorts, will continue to decline. 2. The number of alcohol-related violations of the law will decline. 3. College campuses will again become places where responsible choices about drinking can be taught and modeled, and young adults can then be prepared to behave maturely and responsibly 4. Binge drinking will diminish. 5. The role of parents and families will be enhanced and respected. the role of adults in general in preparing young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol will be enhanced and respected. 6. Underage drinking will diminish and, with it, all forms of alcohol-related juvenile violations of the law. In addition, since lives lost to alcohol off the highways are no less precious, the number of alcohol-related non-traffic fatalities will also diminish.

Question from Micah Daigle, Students for Sensible Drug Policy:
    As a young person who attended a "dry campus," I saw firsthand the harms caused by criminalizing underage drinking. When I'd visit friends at "wet campuses," students generally tended to drink more responsibly and were never afraid to call for help if their peers were in trouble. Have you collected data on alcohol abuse at "dry campuses" versus "wet campuses?"

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    We have not, and this is just the sort of open-minded research Choose Responsibility hopes to support, perhaps even some day commission. We DID make a comparison between Wisconsin (which has all the permitted exceptions to the current law, including the right to drink with one's parents at age 18) and Missouri (which has no exceptions) and found no evidence that a more liberal environment was any more dangerous.

Question from Al Grant, Ivy League University:
    As an alumnus that is active with current undergraduates, I totally agree with your position on this subject, with one exception. I do not think that you/we should encumber this proposal with the concept of 'drinking licenses'. Simply, the age needs to be changed back to 18. Then colleges and universities can fulfill their responsibilities to educate students and provide more safe environments. Binge drinking is a really unsafe practice. It exists primarily because the legal age is 21. Under age students drink excessively in a short period of time before going out to 'dry' parties or gatherings. Then it hits them, either while they are driving to some off-campus location, or before they are able to return. College administrators a squeezed between trying to educate students and avoiding legal liability. This is not a fair position to place our educational institutions in and hinders them from being effective in saving lives and educating students. How can we help further your cause? It is one well worth supporting. Most knowledgeable administrators and Trustees will support you.

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    Well, politics is the art of the possible!

Question from Dr. David Milstone, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, University of 9000 students:
    Dear John, Some of my colleagues and I have been discussing the same topic because we believe this change would allow our educational efforts to teach "responsible drinking" would be enhanced and a great deal of time would be traded from holding judicial meetings to educating students more effectively. Please let us all know how we can support the effort you have initiated at the local and national level. Thank you for taking the lead on a long-overdue challenge.

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    Thank you David. Check out our web site www.chooseresponsibility.org, and then let us know in what way(s) you'd like to get involved. By the way, are you in Ivy league America or Blue Collar America?

Comment from Chuck Hurley, MADD CEO:
    Regarding Prof. McCardell's question about the "10% loss of brain function," that is a citation from the American Medical Association.

Paula Wasley (Moderator):
    We're coming to the end of our hour. Thanks to all who sent in questions and comments. And thank you, Mr. McCardell, for joining us today. A transcript of today's discussion will be available shortly at the Chronicle's website.

John M. McCardell Jr.:
    I have been immensely heartened by this last hour. One may make of the discussion we have just had what one will. What I make of it is that we are not as a society of one mind on this subject, and we are prepared to engage in a hard debate and ask some hard questions. I welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion, out in the open and with all the data we can muster, and, also a dollop of common sense. I'm both a former administrator and a parent of college-age young people. I know the impossible dilemma posed by the current law. is this really the best we can do? Do the data all around us convince us that we simply mustn't change anything? Choose Responsibility believes we can do better, and the place to start is by treating young adults as what they are. I am confident in the current generation of young adults, and Choose Responsibility believes that, given the opportunity the law now denies them, they will make responsible decisions.