So basically your only reasoning for not exploring the possibilities is because "the law is the law" or something of the sort. There have been plenty of laws in this country that have been wrong, that people have challenged or questioned for the better (i.e. slavery, jim crow laws, prohibition, women's sufferage, etc). Just because it is the law, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be questioned.

Secondly, have you ever been to Europe, or heard about the drinking laws there. When you're 18, and classified as an adult for all other purposes, you're deemed responsible enough to have a beer. Yet somehow, by giving 18 year olds the responsibility they deserve, binge drinking isn't nearly the problem as it is on most college campuses in the U.S. Obviously the law is not working the way it is set up. If you think that enforcement is the solution, then we're just going to end up giving a lot of kids MIP's and hurt their chances of getting a job or into grad school. They aren't going to stop drinking simply because they might get in trouble. Give 18 year olds the credit they deserve!!

Am I the only one who remembers when the minimum drinking age was lower (19 in Idaho, 18 in Hawaii) and the minimum age was put back to 21 to curb drunk driving deaths. By the way, drunk driving deaths went down age the drinking age went up.

Can we all agree that 21 is an arbitrary age limit? I can think of arguments for lowering the age, I can think of arguments for raising the age. But if we're going to have an age-based system, we have to pick an age and we (or at least the feds) have picked 21. With that in mind, militating to change an arbitrary number up or down hardly seems like an attack on the rule of law. (And, I might add, there is no intrinsic reason that we need an age-based system; age just happens to be a convenient and ascertainable proxy for maturity.)

This seems like another classic battle between the "black and white, law and order" folks and the "reality-based community."

A drug enforcement officer spoke at my school and gave a powerful anti-drug message. When asked about legal drugs such as alcohol, he said they should be legal "from the womb to the tomb." Too bad we forget that personal responsibilty and free agency are the foundation of education. At Mr. Bensen's college, it must be football.

You call it a crime for an adult to consume alcohol if they are under 21. I call it blackmail. A state is forced to set the drinking age at 21 or loose 10% of their federal highway funds. If the 21 year old minimum drinking age has merit then let the individual states decide it on the merits and sever the tie to federal highway funds. The citizens of Utah may find merit in the 21 year old minimum age but some other states may not.

Lee Benson you didn't address one of the main questions in your piece: You can be in the military at 18 and kill for you country but can't have a beer. Why did you avoid one of the most pertinent issues. 18 is the age of adulthood. Lets give it to them.

I agree with with Mr. Benson's views, but I would add the following:

I didn't know that Westminster College had severe alcohol problems on campus. Otherwise, why would its President put his name on the petition? Perhaps parents should think twice before encouraging their children to consider Westminster.

The law does more than just catch and punish bad people. It serves to set standards for proper behavior, even if enforcing those standards is difficult. If speed limits of 65 or 70 MPH are difficult to enforce, we don't raise the limits to 90 MPH. It's too dangerous to drive that fast. The solution is to enforce the slower limits and save lives, even if that is not easy to do.

The truth is that educators don't lead when it comes to binge drinking. They don't want to deal with it. If they did -- if they stood up and told the students that underage drinking limits would be strictly enforced on campus -- and they cultivated an alcohol-free culture on campus, they would find the problems would diminish considerably. But that's a lot of trouble, and sadly, too many educators believe they have all the trouble they can handle.

I checked out recent arrests (prior to this initiative)in the county where I live and two girls that my teenage daughter graduated with from High School were posted their with photos and charges. One with DUI, false ID, open alcohol containers, unlawful possession, consumption, etc. Fines up to $3,800. Guess which college these girls attended last year? Westminster. (Posted on their Facebook profile). I wasn't surprised since I have heard about the binge drinking at Westminster, prior to this. According to my daughter, these girls are good kids and she felt terrible for them. Now that they are over 18 these arrests will follow them the rest of their lives. And, how much is the cost of car insurance after this? Lee, you are so on target here. The teenagers who want to drink at this age want to binge, and have no idea the longterm harm they can cause to both themselves and others. Obviously, the problem isn't just teens, but any irresponsible adults who drink and drive.

Once again, this article continues to perpetuate the misinformed and misguided views of the media and public. However Lee Benson “wants to spin it,” serious problems can never be solved without some intelligent discussion about what works and what doesn’t, which is exactly what the Amethyst Initiative is about. It does NOT prescribe to a certain policy change (i.e., dropping the drinking age). Oh, and slamming on liberal arts colleges for actually provoking debates and ideas that go against the status quo is just another example how small-minded this so-called "journalist" is.

Additionally, to presume that Michael Bassis plans to “look the other way” when it comes to underage drinking and enforcing the laws is absurd. Apparently Mr. Benson missed all of the interviews with Bassis where he clearly stated Westminster “vigorously upholds the drinking laws of the state” no matter what. Westminster does NOT have a drinking problem (check out the stats), but maybe it's actually concerned with those schools that do.

Benson shouldn’t be so quick to spout off his misguided views at college presidents, who by the way, are probably a lot more educated than he is.

Keep the drinking age the same and raise the voting and military service ages.

Robert brings up an interesting point about speed limits--true enough, we don't change them to accommodate people's actual driving habits. But we also don't enforce or even attempt to enforce these laws with "zero tolerance." Everyone knows you can drive "5 over" with little chance of being stopped or ticketed. Why then should it be a big deal if a minor buys or uses alcohol while being "5 (days or even months) under"?

If we're going to think about changing something, let's look at the zero-tolerance mindset and go to something that makes a little more sense, like the way we handle speeding.

It may be a good idea to not let 18 year olds drink for safety reasons. Although in reality there are 18 year olds who can handle it and 21 year olds who can not.

But is seems hypocrital that George W. Bush can send 18 year olds to a war based on lies. How many 18, 19, and 20 year old Americans has George W. Bush sent to their deaths in Iraq based on lies?

Beer bad / war good for 18 year olds? That does not pass the logic test.

We DO change speed limits based on how people drive. Our city engineer said when they do traffic studies, they’ll set the limit to whatever x% of drivers are driving. I can't recall the percentage.

I don't see how we can have two ages for adulthood, or "age of majority." At 18, a person is considered an adult for nearly every purpose, at least by federal law. (eg: Voting, military service) In some states, the age of majority is 19, while for others it is 21. (State limits do not trump federal constitution/statute.) If we're insistent on raising the drinking age to 21, we should raise the age for *all* other conditions of adulthood.

Don't cite stats about deaths or drunk driving. Explain to me with a rational argument why a person is allowed to enlist/fight/die/kill in the military and can't buy a beer. Explain why a person can contract to buy a home, car, business, etc, but cannot buy a beer. While I realize that lower drinking age *may* lead to more drunk driving, the REAL answer is to enforce laws against drunk driving and penalize those who violate them (regardless of age). Stop inequitable age differentiations.

"Explain to me with a rational argument why a person is allowed to enlist/fight/die/kill in the military and can't buy a beer. Explain why a person can contract to buy a home, car, business, etc, but cannot buy a beer."

I'll try.

Many age limits have nothing to do with time spent on the planet, but rather the experience needed to handle responsibilities. Just because an 18-year old can wear a uniform and fight for his country doesn't mean he has the maturity necessary for everything in life. How many 18-20 year old soldiers are generals or admirals? How many are college presidents?

The U.S. Constitution contains many age limitations. For example, one must be at least 30 years old in order to be a U.S. Senator. Below that age, a citizen can serve in the military, fight and die for his country, buy and sell a house, but may not serve in the U.S. Senate. The limitation has nothing to do with age, but rather experience and good judgement.

It's sad but true: too many young people, although able to carry a weapon and use it while under close supervision, lack the maturity and good judgement to drink alcohol.

Nice try Roger.

Your explanation makes more sense than many of the emotional "because it's bad" reasons typically given on this issue.

"...too many young people, although able to carry a weapon and use it while under close supervision, lack the maturity and good judgment to drink alcohol."

How many is too many? The USA does not typically operate on the idea that we should deprive everyone because a few can't handle something. I for instance, was a very responsible drinker (read not much at all) when I was 18-21. I'm still only an occasional and always responsible drinker. We let people in this country do MANY things that "far too many" people can't do safely. Why do we treat alcohol differently?

Thank you. My turn.

I agree that we often let people do things that a few can't do safely. Even so, in many cases, and especially in cases where maturity is a factor, age limitations are still appropriate.

For example, a driver's license. We don't stop everyone from driving just because some are not safe. However, younger drivers, safe or unsafe, pay higher insurance premiums for the privilege. Is that unfair? No, because they fit into an age bracket that -- according to statistics -- has more accidents, and therefore they, as a group, are a higher risk for insurance companies. It may not seem fair, but those are the facts.

The law has an awkward hand. Often it has to categorize people, and put them in pigeon holes, in order to keep everyone safe.

Alcohol, when used to excess, dulls the brain and removes inhibitions. Many young people are sensible when using it, but all too many are not. Consequently, when there is a probability that many young people cannot handle alcohol with maturity, society rightly sets limits on alcohol use by all younger people.

Assuming you can or must legislate morality is challenged by alcohol laws. In many societies, children may possess and consume alcohol largely at will and GUESS WHAT? They have low rates of child alcohol abuse. France's teenage drinking became much worse when the EU forced it to adopt an 18 year drinking age. Drunk kids don't last long except when they are hidden in hypocritical places such as Mormon, upper-class neighborhoods. Then their problems last lifetimes. The college presidents are calling for more dialogue and research on a problem Utah has. How anti-Utah! Go Lee Bensen. Show 'em how small minds attain high places and cover for hypocrisy!

"I agree that we often let people do things that a few can't do safely. Even so, in many cases, and especially in cases where maturity is a factor, age limitations are still appropriate."

If I understand the argument for the folks that want to keep the drinking age at 21 then they are saying that if a group of people can statistically be classified as having a higher proportion of 'oops' moments, then it is okay to design laws against those invididuals?

This theory can go beyond drinking and age into any statistically classified bucket of people. If you really want to save lives, then it is your duty to push to legislate anything that exceeds a certian threshhold within a group of people.

"How many 18-20 year old soldiers are generals or admirals? How many are college presidents?"

How many people between the ages 21-100 years old will ever become or have been generals and admirals? How many will become or have been college presidents?

I will take a wild guess, .000000000000000000000001% of the population. Eh, better luck another time with that point.

Rather than legislation (and indeed, it was a backdoor form of federal blackmail - withholding federal highway tax dollars - that created the new drinking age - NOT really a public debate or mandate), how about if we put some of the burden back on mothers and fathers to teach and role model responsible consumption of alcohol. Rather than colleges handling thousands of young adults alone, how about if Moma and Dad started teaching responsiblity before their children leave for a college campus. The "law" has taken parents off the hook...many look the other way and don't get involved here. Many colleges have worked very hard to address this problem....but when it is underground and out-of-sight, you can do one of two things: (1) ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist; or (2) honestly open the topic up for discussion.

Too bad MADD and the author focus on name calling and bullying tactics...I guess they recognize an open and honest debate on this topic would be scary for them.

Another nice try, Roger.

But...

There is a HUGE difference between insurance companies -- private companies -- charging more for younger drivers and the GOVERNMENT setting an age limit to drink.

As an aside: I find it inexcusable that the government mandates seat belts. I always wear a seat belt when in a car, and I would, even if there were no law. I'd support insurance companies refusing claims by people who were not wearing seat belts, but I cannot support government mandating seat belts.

You're coming close to a rational, logical argument, but you haven't made the case yet. It still seems to me that we need ONE age of majority.

contol freaks continue to try to control.