Chief's alcohol talk stirs it up
On TV, he could suggest lowering the drinking age
John C. Ensslin
Published March 6, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated March 6, 2008 at 12:32 p.m.
Beckner called raising drinking age to 21 "not a wise decision."
Local activists against drunken driving are concerned about Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner's appearance on an upcoming 60 Minutes segment they say features a debate over lowering the drinking age.
A spokeswoman for the Boulder Police Department confirmed Wednesday that Beckner agreed to an interview with the CBS news magazine for a segment that deals with alcohol.
Police spokeswoman Sarah Huntley said it's supposed to air this spring. She said Beckner had informed City Manager Frank Bruno of the interview and was in the process of notifying the mayor and City Council.
Beckner declined a request Wednesday to discuss his views on the legal drinking age until after the 60 Minutes segment airs.
But in a letter sent Monday to Boulder City Council members, Beckner detailed his opinion that raising the drinking limit to 21 years was "not a wise decision."
Beckner explained that the 60 Minutes reporter questioned him about the 2004 death of Lynn "Gordie" Bailey Jr. and the problems of underage drinking. Bailey, a 19-year-old University of Colorado freshman, was found dead of alcohol poisoning after a fraternity initiation.
"While I cannot go into all the detailed reasons why and address all the research in a memo format, I can say in summary that in addition to personal philosophical arguments (they are considered adults in every other way), I believe that the level of drinking between the ages of 18 to 21 has actually increased over the last 20 years," Beckner wrote.
"All of the efforts we have tried to implement over the years, including education, awareness programs, heavy enforcement, etc., have had little effect on preventing 18- to 20-year-old adults from drinking.
"What we've done is helped create an underground culture that encourages binge drinking without any oversight or supervision."
Beckner's position is not new, according to Bill Marine, a physician and retired professor of Preventive Medicine at the CU Health Sciences Center. Marine recalled serving on a policy committee with Beckner several years ago when the topic of the legal drinking age came up.
"He thought it was ineffective," Marine said. At the time, Marine said he didn't think to challenge the comment until he learned of the 60 Minutes segment about two weeks ago.
A generation ago, the legal drinking age varied from state to state between 18 and 21 years old. But in July 1984, President Reagan signed the National Minimum Age Drinking Act, which withheld federal highway funds from states that failed to set the legal limit to 21 years old. Eventually, the limit became the law in all 50 states.
Marine's understanding is that the 60 Minutes segment also deals with the work of John M. McCardell Jr., a former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who now heads a foundation that advocates lowering the drinking age.
Marine believes lowering the drinking age would be a mistake. "I think it would be a step in the wrong direction."
He cited the example of New Zealand, where a decision to lower the age to 18 resulted in increased traffic fatalities.
"Why do we need to learn that again? It took years to get the drinking age to 18."
Another local expert echoed Marine's stance. "The evidence I've seen certainly doesn't favor lowering the drinking age," said David Trinken, director of the Center for Impaired Driving Research and Evaluation.
"It certainly doesn't seem like a good idea, given the problems we've had with DUI and young people."
ensslinj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5291
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
March 6, 2008
3:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
forwhatitis writes:
Of course he would disagree. It means more enforcement for him and his lazy force.
March 6, 2008
4:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Enforcement is a discretionary issue and can be placed in a low priority status just like Denver did with marijuana possession. It has nothing to do with laziness. MADD and other do-gooder groups of a similar nature created an underground culture of drinking where bad drinking social habits are formed. Go to any nightclub in Europe - where young adults have been drinking far longer, and in supervised situations, than our young adults - and you will rarely find people drinking to get drunk like you do here. Appropriate socialization of alcohol consumption is more the norm there - not saying abuse doesn't happen, it's just a better situation.
March 6, 2008
5:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
BirdonaWire writes:
I agree. Making something unobtainable for a few more years simply makes it more desirable.
March 6, 2008
6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
politwriter writes:
Is MADD trying to stop him from presenting his views in this public debate?
At my all-boys Prep school some years back, underage drinking was the norm and much of it was driven by the thrill of partaking of "forbidden fruit."
I suspect that the stricter enforcement of smoking bans for minors is one of the reasons why smoking is increasing among teens today-- a Marlboro is now "forbidden fruit."
Kids are naturally rebellious at that age and what is taboo is exciting.
March 6, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
seems like if you are old enough to go to war that you should be allowed to have a drink
March 6, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowbelly writes:
Let me see,one can vote at 18.A person can join the army and wage war at 18.But now these same people do not have the maturity do control their drinking.Maybe the real mistake was recruikting children for war and greedy politicians who want the vote of the easily influenced.Nobody starts drinking at 18. It usually starts much younger.
March 6, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
climber4life writes:
I think the only problem with lowering the age to 18 would be the fact that alcohol would become that much more accessible in high school, where most Seniors are 18. Yes, its already easily accessible, but this would make it much more so. But I definitely agree that lowering the age is not a bad thing. What about 19? By then, most people are out of high school and either in college or working.
March 6, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Kids are going to drink no matter what the drinking age.
March 6, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
The only reason the 21 age limit cut traffic problems is that it made all areas uniform. When 18 was legal in many areas, every state had different laws and ages, encouraging people to drive from state to state. Many young people routinly drove 50 miles or more to legally drink. If the draft is reinstated, whatever age it is should match the drinking age and be MANDATORY in ALL states. I still don't understand why we allow "immature minors" to join the military.
March 6, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
The only reason it was raised to 21 was that Congress threatened to withhold funds if states did not comply. I agree with the Chief - it has created its own problems. 19 would be a more reasonable age.
March 6, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Any age limit is arbitrary. We are trying to find the point at which the majority of drinkers will do it in a reasonable and safe manner, understanding that there will always be persons that abuse alcohol no matter what the age. MADD and the other neo-prohibition groups like to act like 21 is some magic number and as they have here try very hard to even prevent any debate about the age.
College age kids drink, they have since colleges were established. I agree with the chief that we should at least have a rational discussion about whether forcing that drinking underground has actually created more of a problem. Unfortunately MADD and the institutionalized alcohol opposition industry does not want rationality in the discussion. They would rather put up pictures of people killed by drunk drivers and try to get anyone who disagrees with them muzzled.
March 6, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
Wow, I am surprised to see all of the agreement, minus the few teach 'em the law entries.
The point about Europe is true in many cases. When you start teaching your kids about responsible alcohol consumption at 7 years old, they will learn to be responsible with it for the rest of their lives. If you rope it off, and tell them 'no no' then they will still be learning to drink, just without you to say that they have had too much.
I like the idea of a 19 year line, as it would help prevent the 'buy me a six pack after french class' situation.
MADD mothers have unwittingly created a culture of parasitic police departments hunting for buzzed drivers in the name of avenging their children's tragic deaths. The parasitic police departments provide officers with bonuses for their DUI tally, and the legal limit just keeps getting lower and lower. Someday soon we may see a zero tolerance policy, then maybe the bars and restaurants will finally push for realism in DUI policy, maybe not.
It would be funny to see all of the booze heads have to start hanging around their houses to enjoy their drug, just like pot heads have to.
March 6, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Tough one actually ... Maybe the kiddie beer at age 18 would be better than an all out suddenly everything is available at 21.
Maybe we just expect too much from young adults once they reache some magic # in age?
As I recall when I was that age and we had many "3.2" clubs around Denver - Drinking and driving by teens did not seem to be the problem it is today. These clubs had to close at mid-night, and most did not open until 7 ( I can only think of one that opened earlier) - so it limited the time frame. Drinking a large volume of 3.2 beer in that short time frame would tend to make most at that age sick about the time they got really seroiusly drunk - an unplealsant "learning" expereince to be sure. Most at the age of 19 - 21 were being suippervised to an extend more than they would be today - either at home with a job or in college. Maybe it was like "alcohol training" and it cut the number of people who at 21 would go out and get stupid drunk or seek to drink underage.
I do agree with like KatyM above that those who are inclined to drink are going to get their hands on it and drink one way or another.
I also think the 'forbiden fruit" thing has some merit. (Used to be in Germany if you could see over the bar you could get served. They did not have the drinking problems we have now)
But like all things with our children and young adults it comes down to what they were taught by their parents at home first and what society teachers them as well - it's to a large degree cultural and we seem to be on a down hill slide in that
department.
Seems to be we are just giving teens more freedom and expecting more maturity than they are truly ready for.
March 6, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Diff got me thinking more about my long ago college days. At that time they sold 3.2 beer on campus and at many places just off campus. We certainly could get drunk if we tried hard, but we were also within walking distance of the dorms. And it is really hard to get drunk enough on 3.2 to hit the deadly range. As silly as the idea of lower alcohol beer seems, maybe Diff is correct that it acts as kind of a training ground for learning the negatives of drinking. Now, if you are under 21, any alcohol is illegal and therefore why not just drink the hard stuff. We use transitions in driving permits to get kids the skills they need. Maybe that would help with drinking as well.
March 6, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
xeeian writes:
raise the driving age to 21 and lower the drinking age.
and watch the tragedy on the state's highways decrease.
March 6, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
In this case, enforcement is most certainly NOT a discretionary issue for the police. If cops ignore underage drinking, and one of the little drunken darlings gets hurt or hurts somebody, the lawyers will get all excited about the cops' "negligence" and then guess who will pay? The City and it's taxpayers.
Regardless, I'm for lowering the drinking age, at least for beer, like the European model.
March 6, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
PeterNKrause writes:
Raising the drinking age to 21 was a mistake. College age kids (who used to be young adults) are going to drink somewhere. I think that is a given. By raising the drinking age they are not allowed to be in bars - by being in bar there is a bar tender who is not going to serve some one already intoxicated, drinks cost money so they are not unlimited, there are bouncers in case of a fight. At a house party people can drink all they want from a keg, no supervision, rapes happen, fights happen, people drink themselves to death.
March 6, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
DDMervin writes:
My guess is that we're a long ways from seeing the drinking age decrease in the US from 21. I totally agree that it's ridiculous that at 18 a person can vote for their president, and be sent to war, but cannot legally buy alcohol. However, unfortunatately, we cannot compare our issue with that in Europe. That is because, here in the U.S., we do not buy into public transporation. We outfit our 16-year old kids with vehicles instead of bus passes. Most Europeans don't own cars until they are much older, and have learned to respect them.
Until the U.S. decides to put more value in public transit ($4 gas may help), it would be dangerous to lower the drinking age from 21.
March 6, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
I would not yet advocate lowering the drinking age but it certainly is something to think about - maybe 19 - with some tighter controls on the hours of operation than bars have now.(6-night only?)
xeeian - I don't think raising the driving age to 21 is a viable idea - first it would drive the parents nuts - and at some point these teen/young adults need to test their independence and their freedom. I tend to agree with what we have done recently for drivers under the age of 18 -
Those who are going to get drunk and be stupid are going to do it no mater what laws are in force -
One thing more - these are not the majority of your adults 18-22. I have had the opportunity to work with some very fine, hard working and responsible students and interns in recent years - I have to say I was truly impressed, and a bit surprised actually, by these young people - their ability, work ethic and mature level There are many fine and promising young people in our community.
March 6, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
After being in the military, I have to say that it's absolutely ridiculous that an 18-yr old is old enough to shoot an M-16 and die for his/her country, but not have a drink??
March 6, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
I've never understood how we as a country can send 18 year olds to war and ask them to kill or be killed for thier country but they cant have a sip of beer legally.
March 6, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
mareksvatos writes:
I saw lower the drinking age to 14-16. This way we can give parents the chance to exercise Family Values. Kids will get the chance to learn about responsible drinking before they are on their own. Families can go out to eat and have a beer with Junior. Junior can learn responsible drinking around adults - the current situation doesn't allow this.
March 6, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Theoldguy writes:
Squatch
In a vertical society such as ours....that's the way the cookie crumbles. Beside that it's a known fact that 18 year olds are not intellectually mature and can me coerced into killing another human. Follow orders and don't question anything.
If this concept eludes you....then learn everything you can about civilization and when you have a better grasp of it...........vote!
March 6, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Theoldguy - Can you define the term "vertical society" for me please?
- could you compare and contrast that to a Horizontal society?
Isn't the US considered to be more of a horizontal societal structure?
March 6, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
I agree wholeheartedly with the running theme of these posts. bluffsblg, as usual, says it best. jibbons too. MADD and other prohibition type groups are no different from right wing religious groups - they simply want to impose their values on everyone else -and tell adults what to do. they are shrill and prone to hysterics - and that is how they have obtained their legislative objectives all these years. They have way too much power with our decision-makers - they do not speak for the majority in any way, shape or form. Their crusade has has prevailed over common sense - common sense says that 21 is no magic age.
There is no difference, maturity-wise, between a 19 year old and a 21 year old. anyone who believes different is fooling themselves. let's not make it 18 b/c we don't want to make it too easy for high school kids to access alcohol (even tho' yes, i know, they already are). but for the love of god - push it back to 19 where we can have these folks drinking in public establishments and at public events where law enforcement and vendors can have much more oversight and control. the number of drinking-related deaths WILL go down, people.
and shame on MADD for trying to silence the police chief - who do they think they are??? the chief knows more about this issue than they ever will - he's out there on the streets enforcing these ill-conceived laws. he has every right to speak his mind - but i guess MADD believes they are the only ones qualified to speak on this issue. bull.
March 6, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
Since I am old enough to remember when Colorado allowed 18 YO's to drink 3.2 beer. Gasp !! Ther was even 3.2 bars & nightclubs I think it was a good idea and a good solution. Kids would load up on 3.2 , but stay away from the hard stuff. I am sure that crime , accidents, alcoholism and all that was not any worse in the 60's than it is now. It is a good Idea to bring back 3.2 beer
March 6, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
"pornified" - I have learned a new word today. I can now go home happy.
March 6, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsjunkie writes:
I just finished reading the Chief's memo. it is outstanding. well reasoned and he is clearly speaking from years of experience. good for him for having the courage to stand up to the special interest groups and others a part of the nanny state. the Chief stands for common sense. how dare MADD try to shut him up. they are proving his point by this latest attempt at public shaming of someone who does not agree with you - the Chief says in his memo that many who think like he does are afraid to speak up because of the backlash they will get from MADD and the other anti-alcohol activists. he was spot on on that point. here's to you Chief for saying what many of us have known for years and for standing up to those MADD bullies.
March 6, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
DDMervin writes:
I still think the issue here revolves around an increase in drunk driving as a result of lowering the age, and so I'm not sure M.A.D.D. is necessarily in the wrong. Maybe in Boulder, or other college towns, or big cities, increased drunk driving wouldn't come into play. When you're in college, it's easy to stumble home when drunk b/c you don't live far from the bars and clubs. Same applies if you live in a big city, like NYC. These students and city dwellers don't rely on vehicles to get from place to place. The problem is that this is the minority in the US. All across rural American and the ever increasing suburban American, kids (and kids' parents) rely on being able to drive by 17. They just don't have better (or any other) options from getting from points A to B. So if Parker kids want to get all their friends together for a night in downtown Denver, drinking legally, I doubt the likelyhood of them designating a driver. So instead you have a drunk driver with only two years, at most, of unsupervised driving experience.
I'd only be for decreasing the drinking age, if the driving age is raised.
March 6, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
BirdonaWire writes:
Hey Q,
don't forget about egotistic, selfrighteous and condescending!!!
douchebag.
March 6, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Lowering the Drinking age or raising the driving age - neither one is likely to happen anytime soon. I would bet that the % of those 18-21 who drink now is actually up from what is was 40 years ago. But it has more to do about parental involvement and expectations and the degree of un supervised freedom these young adults have now. That together with what they where taught and the values they learned at home. Once again when it comes to kids and young adults, it comes down to parenting!
As an example: when I was 17-18 19, I was still at home - I was expected to be home by a certain time, even though I was out of high school and working. I had to inform my parents where I was going and with whom. If I violated the rules or the expectations - I was held accountable - try that today with a 16 or 17 year old!
Further actually I would never have cussed or used any level of foul language in front of my mother, and had I - I would have got a fist from the old man. It's called respect!
I have heard some terrible foul mouthed and disrespectful teens these days - but again like I said earlier it is not all of them.
like they say - "some people and some peoples kids"
March 6, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
I grew up when 3.2 clubs were open for 18-21 year olds. The penalty for serving an under-18 was significantly higher for serving and under 21 "the good stuff".
The household I grew up in, on special occasions (like my parents 20th anniversary) each of us kids (all under 21) was given a half glass of wine to toast their day. When we visited my maternal grandparent's home (immigrants from Hungary in the 1920s), we had the option of wine with Christmas dinner. Wine/beer with permission was acceptable - AS LONG AS WE WERE AT HOME. If we went out, the folks' comment was if you drink underage & get caught, we won't bail you out.
As far as the comments about drinking in Europe - which has much more lenient laws about drinking age but doesn't have these drunk driving issues. Could it be because their anti-drinking & driving laws actually have some teeth? For instance, in many parts of Europe, the FIRST DUI is accompanied by a 1 year sentence on a prison farm! Heck - that would kill 2 birds with one stone here, solving the problem of the shortage of farm/ranch workers so the agribusiness doesn't have to rely on illegal workers and getting the drunks off the road.
March 6, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Slowpoke writes:
The best way to have someone really want something is to tell them they can’t have it. This holds true for alcohol, smoking, drugs, and sex. I certainly don’t advocate the last 3 for young adults, but that comes down to proper education, parenting, and responsibility. The fact is, if they want to drink or smoke they are going to do it anyway. Why go to all the expense of not allowing it when enforcement is virtually nil? The police have more important things to do BUT I am not advocating drunk driving. I am old enough to remember the good old days of the 3.2% bars, bands, and dance halls. It gave us an opportunity and places in various towns to meet other folks, have a great time, and show we could be responsible or we got disciplined harshly. There are more problems now days with the laws denying young adults the opportunity to have those places to go and get off the streets and the drug traffic. As others have mentioned, if they are old enough to vote and join the military, they are old enough to drink, at a minimum 3.2% beer until age 21. Give them a chance to have a goal and be responsible about it.
March 6, 2008
9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
romboweb writes:
Maybe I'm missing something but I recall that the driving age in Europe is 21. Is that true? If so, it explains a lot.
March 7, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
rich823 writes:
I grew up in upstate New York when the drinking age was 18. It was near Connecticut. There were alcohol related accidents and deaths on the highway going into Connecticut. So that state was always in a snit over N.Y. and it's 18 yr legal age. For years N.Y. (and Gov Rockefeller) said if they are old enough to go to Vietnam and die for their country, they are old enough to drink. One of the cool things I remember about him. Nothing new under the sun. If they are old enough to go to Iraq, they are darn well old enough to drink. We have a double standard of what is an "adult" in this country. In many European countries THERE IS NO LEGAL AGE! AT ALL!
And they don't have any more or less problems with alcohol/youth than we do; some have less. Binge drinking seems to be an American Youth phenomenon.....The "forbidden fruit" idea ia a valid one, perpetuated by our over-zealous religious inspired puritanical culture. If you can't have it, you want it. Especially if somebody else CAN have it. Prohibition simply does not work. This country never drank so much as it did during the Volstead act(prohibition) kids drink because they aren't supposed to. At the VERY LEAST anyone with an active military I.D. card should be allowed to drink. How anyone in their right mind can deny that is beyond me.
March 7, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
rich823 writes:
I also think that MADD is totally out of control and think the Chief is pretty cool to stand up to that Nazi crowd. They think they are the be-all-end-all solution to all the worlds problems. A bunch of self-righteous blankety blanks that have absolutely no right to try to censor somebody with obviously first hand "expert" knowledge of the situation. GO CHIEF! (hope he reads this)