21

The Mn Legislature is apparently considering a bill to lower the drinking age back to 18, and the Strib came out against it today with an editorial for keeping the drinking age at 21 that surprised me a little. They seem to be relying heavily on "research" that isn't cited. I don't like reading about "studies" and "evidence" with no names, dates & details attached.

I do like the assertion that if it's ridiculous to have kids serve in the armed forces but not be able to drink, then maybe the age for serving should be raised too. We could add marriage to that too & call it a day. But I hesitate to believe it can be wrapped up so neatly.

I have one striking experience with the subject that has informed my thinking for years. When I was in high school, I went on a school-sponsored trip to Spain for a couple weeks. Drinking was considered part of the "cultural experience" and our parents signed a form giving us permission to drink alcohol on the trip. Accordingly, we drank every single chance we got. But the 16-year-old Spanish girl whose family I lived with did not. The first night I was with them, we went out to dinner, and wine was offered. I happily accepted. Chiqui declined. I turned to her in surprise and asked why she wasn't having any, and she said "it's a school night." He parents would have allowed it; she just didn't want any.

The experience has stayed with me ever since. All the American kids on the trip - jocks, geeks, etc - drank. The Spanish kids, who had ready access with no legal drinking age, did not. Do the math, people.

Someone pointed out recently that if the drinking age was 18, most kids would turn "of age" while still living with their parents, and thus have parental influence on learning to drink. Logical.

The Strib says that the rate of drunk driving among 18-21 year olds has apparently dropped significantly since the drinking age changed. Also logical.

But is there another way to address that, besides the law?