Many factors can explain the failure of colleges to implement NIAAA recommendations to control underage drinking on campus: a lack of university funding, a lack of time, a perceived lack of authority or jurisdiction within the community, or even a lack of interest on the part of the university. Many universities even consider the program a waste of resources. Whatever the reasons, a variety of options are available, colleges should implement programs to reduce underage drinking on campus. These options include, but are not limited to, alcohol education programs, social norms campaigns, substance-free housing, individual interventions, parental notification policies, disciplinary procedures for alcohol-related offences, and amnesty policies to protect the health and safety of students. [15] Several studies, including a 2011 review, have provided evidence against the idea that raising the drinking age to 21 actually saves lives in the long term. [17] [18] [19] [20] For example, Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) found that when federal and unforced states have been separated, any life-saving effect in forced states is statistically or virtually no longer significant, and even in states that voluntarily adopt, the effect does not appear to last beyond the first year or two. They also note that age 21 appears to have little impact on adolescent alcohol use. [21] There is also evidence that road deaths only moved from the 18-20 age group to the 21-24 age group and were not prevented. [22] [23] [20] In addition, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and several other countries have experienced similar or faster declines in road fatalities than the United States since the early 1980s, although they have not increased the drinking age to 21. [24] In contrast, the Institute of Medicine has reviewed a large number of studies on the legal drinking age, including peer-reviewed academic journals,[25][26][27] and widely regarded the policy as a success[28] – so much so that they have advocated for similar restrictions on tobacco. For example, they cite a study by Kypri and colleagues that states: « No road safety policy, with the possible exception of motorcycle helmet laws, has more evidence of its effectiveness than minimum legal laws for alcohol consumption. » [29] From the end of prohibition until 1984, the drinking age was set by the states; Many of them were 21, while some lowered the age to buy beer to 18.

That changed with the baby boom generation and the Vietnam War. Between 1970 and 1975, nearly every state lowered its legal adult age, including thirty, which also lowered its legal drinking age, generally from 21 to 18. If people were to fight and die in a foreign war, then they should have the privilege of drinking alcohol. This generation has exerted unprecedented influence and political force, and thanks to years of protest and many valid arguments, this generation of young people has regained some lost freedom. After this period, however, the mood of the public changed. Baby boomers grew older and the freedoms they fought for themselves no longer seemed to matter when they involved someone else. However, these changes were soon followed by studies showing an increase in road crash deaths due to the decrease in MLDA. In response to these findings, many states have raised the legal drinking age to 19 (and sometimes to 20 or 21). [5] In 1984, the National Minimum Legal Drinking Act, drafted by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and influenced by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), required all states to set their minimum purchasing age at 21.

Any state that chooses not to comply with the law would withhold up to 10 percent of its federal highway funding. In the 1960s, Congress and state legislatures came under increasing pressure to lower the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. This was largely due to the Vietnam War, in which many young men who were not allowed to vote (or drink legally) were conscripted into the war and therefore had no way of influencing the people they sent to risk their lives. « Old enough to fight, old enough to vote » was a slogan commonly used by proponents of lowering the voting age. The slogan dates back to World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the military age to 18. With the lowering of the voting age to 18, the legal drinking age (MLDA) has also been lowered, as the ability to vote (and for men to be unwittingly conscripted into the military) should also allow for the legal consumption of alcoholic beverages. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 [23 U.S.C.

§ 158] requires states to prohibit persons under the age of 21 from publicly purchasing or possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving state highway funds. A federal ordinance interpreting the law excludes possession « for established religious purposes » from the definition of « public property »; accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian who is at least 21 years of age; for medical purposes, if prescribed or administered by a physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or authorized medical facility; in clubs or private institutions; or for the sale, handling, transportation, or supply of liquor by reason of the lawful employment of a person under twenty-one years of age by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of liquor » [23 C.F.R. § 1208.3]. While this is not the only contributing factor to student alcohol consumption, the status of bootlegging alcohol seems to fill it with mysticism. Therefore, alcohol consumption and abuse are considered and should be demanding. [16] « Young drivers are involved in one in five fatal car accidents. In nearly 60% of fatally injured adolescents, alcohol was found in the blood; 43% of them were legally intoxicated.

Les commentaires sont fermés.