Time to rethink the age to drink

Imagine your son or daughter joining the U.S. military at age 18.

Imagine yourself, friends and family issuing parting toasts to your brave offspring with hearty beer, fine wine or smooth whiskey (or for those who eschew demon rum, iced tea, orange juice or lemonade).

Imagine the absurdity of your young warrior being barred from legally choosing among all of those celebratory libations.

Imagine presidents and chancellors of more than 120 U.S. institutions of higher learning (including Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, Tufts, and Washington and Lee, but none in our state — yet) calling for 'an informed and dispassionate public debate' over the nationwide drinking-age minimum of 21.

Just don't imagine that we can lower that age anytime soon. The United States is now even more of a Nanny State than in 1984, when Congress warned states that hadn't already raised the drinking age to 21 to do so or lose 10 percent of their highway funding. South Carolina quickly succumbed to that virtual extortion.

We weren't alone. By 1988, all 50 states had outlawed drinking for anyone under 21.

The case for the ban, from the National Highway Traffic Association: It saves roughly 900 lives per year.

The case against it, from Rep. Fletcher Smith, R-Greenville early this year: "If you can have a shot on the battlefield, you should be able to return home and have a shot at a bar as well."

However, Smith's bid to legalize drinking in our state for military members under 21 had no shot.

Neither does this "Amethyst Initiative" ("amethyst" means "not intoxicated" in ancient Greek) pitch, from those college big shots last week, for a reconsideration of the ban:

"A culture of dangerous, clandestine ‘binge-drinking' — often conducted off-campus — has developed. Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students. ... By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

That common-sense appeal made Mothers Against Drunk Driving mad. MADD President Laura Dean-Mooney told The Wall Street Journal she wouldn't want her daughter, now 17, to attend a college led by anybody sending the message that "it's OK to drink underage."

But it's already nearly always OK to drink underage, if by OK you mean that you're highly likely to get away with it. Harsh consequences for the unlucky few who don't can include the loss of scholarships and, for a big-name college quarterback in our state, a dismissal from school this spring after being caught with alcohol on campus — though he's now back in school and on the team.

Meanwhile, our mixed-message society indoctrinates young Americans, especially males who watch sports on TV, with the notion that drinking beer is a grand rite of passage.

In simpler old days, lots of late-teen kids in these parts drank slowly in taverns, nursing both the contents of their containers and their money.

These confusing days, lots of late-teen kids in these parts rapidly guzzle their way to drunken oblivion in surreptitious venues, including the woods.

This former 18-year-old is glad he was a child when he was — and not just because we were allowed to legally drink sooner.

We still-spoiled Baby Boomers, who so loudly rejected rules as kids, now impose too many on our own kids, relentlessly scrutinizing, categorizing and marginalizing them. We not only deprive our children of legal access to beer at age 18. We increasingly deprive them of school recess at age 8.

In some ways, we demand that they grow up too soon. In others, we don't let them grow up soon enough.

Let's hope these stifled, sheltered kids are mature enough to vote wisely. Polls show they heavily favor one presidential candidate. The 18-20 voting bloc could decide a close White House race a mere 72 days from now.

Yes, they could.

And yes, raising the drinking age to 21 apparently has saved lives. So why not save more by raising it to 25? Why not ban drinking at any age?

Here's why: In 1920, we tried the latter idea, bankrolling organized crime in the foolish process.

In 1933, recognizing that Prohibition hadn't worked, we ended it.

In 2008, we have long let 18-year-olds serve in the military, get married and vote — but not lawfully drink alcohol.

That isn't working, either.

Frank Wooten is associate editor of The Post and Courier. His e-mail is wooten@postandcourier.com.