To the Editor:
While I agree with Ben Selznick '07 that the drinking age should be lowered to the age of 18, I cannot agree with his arguments to do so ("Make it 18" April 30).
Selznick wrote "When it comes to colleges, our law simply doesn't reflect reality. It must therefore be changed." The fact that few follow a law does not provide a good reason to change it.
Why does a drinking age of 21 prevent "America from having an open and honest conception of alcohol"?
As a 21-year-old, I understand that alcohol can be a complement to a meal, albeit a meal that a 21-year-old is enjoying. My inability to drink legally at the age of 18
in no way affected this.
Those who counter the MADD statistics say that a lowered drinking age combined with an "honest ... alcohol education programs in schools" would "perhaps over time" change our approach to alcohol. They miss the point. Twice.
First, is that really a risk we want to take? How many additional lives would need to be taken before we decided that our culture hadn't changed?
Second, how would an "honest alcohol education program" counter these stats? We are already told repeatedly that drunk driving kills. How much more honest can we get?
The drinking age at 21 should be lowered. However, we need to base our arguments on solid logic, if we ever want to see that happen.
For example, how do we justify entrusting 18-year-olds with national
defense, but not beer?
