December 11th, 2008 by admin

Fed up with their inability to prevent students from under-age drinking spree at the campus, 120 U.S. college presidents proposed this last summer to open a national debate about the legal drinking age. “21 does not work,” the president opined. Students young flouting the law.

However, in the law increase the likelihood that lower may be due to age-18-low as the president met with the din of protest.

Experts in law enforcement and highway safety cried foul. Leaders in the field of education, substance abuse, and neurology-not to mention parents, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving-blew their collective order. Still more children will start drinking at school, they are charged. And, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about 900 more young people will die in alcohol-related crashes each year.

Many protesters, including op-ed writers at the New York Times and Washington Post, have been developed to support their argument of the father-of-all-drinking studies: the Harvard School of Public Health’s College Alcohol Study (CAS). According to the CAS Director Henry Wechsler, “such as lowering the drinking age will be using gasoline to put the fire out.”

His 14-year study shows that the major difference between the alcohol-steeped, “wet,” a so-called “party schools” and “dry” school concept boils down to is simple: the environment. Student drinking habits that are very dependent on the level of alcohol availability and access to them there. Both variables are affected by many universities, community and state policies.

“College presidents do not need help,” said Wechsler. “But instead of giving up, they must join forces with the community. They have got to strengthen the existing policy and to limit easy access to alcohol.”