WILX Home ·  Station Info
     
News  ·   Sports  ·   Weather  ·   Downloads  ·   Apartment Guide  ·   Job Search  ·   Breakroom  ·   Blogs  ·   Contests  ·   Car Soup
Seen On 10 · Picture & Video Galleries · Recipes · Restaurants · Community · School Closings · Lottery · Entertainment · Money · Classifieds · Gas Prices
WILX Snapshot:
Share, View, & Vote
The Binge Drinking Debate Save Email Print
Posted: 9:02 PM Aug 19, 2008
Last Updated: 2:04 PM Aug 20, 2008
Reporter: Jamie Edmonds
Email Address: jamie.edmonds@wilx.com

A | A | A

These days it seems binge drinking has become just another part of the college experience.

"You get to campus and it's like you're put in this whole new environment, everyone's getting so drunk," MSU Senior Matt Doyle said.

An epidemic, some say, which is why about a hundred presidents from across the country are are taking a stand... asking lawmakers to lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18.

"Eighteen, 19 and 20-year-olds need to act like adults and we need to start treating them as adults," The Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee said.

The Amethyst Initiative --- started about a year ago -- was meant to spark debate.

The idea? Lower the drinking age and suddenly it's less attractive for students to binge on alcohol.

"I think they would be less likely to drink," Freshman Jason Lintjer said.

"I think people are going to drink anyways, drinking happens in college," Alum Erin Brooks said.

MSU's president Lou Anna K Simon did not sign the initiative. The university said they're focus is on education.

"We have a very aggressive education and prevention program," Dennis Martel said.

Martel, director of MSU Health Education, said it's not so much about age, but about activity.

"Instead of focusing on consumption and necessarily stopping people from drinking underage, we focus on high risk behaviors and activities," Martel said.

MADD is against the initiative saying lowering the drinking age will only increase the number of drunk driving accidents.

Captain Kim Johnson of the East Lansing Police Department has to agree.

"Having alcohol at 18 to 20-years-old would only increase our workload," Johnson said.

Clearly this debate will continue far beyond the start of classes.

More Stories
Firefighters Save Church, But Damage is Extensive

Fill A Cop Car

Fire Breaks out in Church

Some Say a GM Bankruptcy Is Not an Option

Charlotte On Edge After Escape

Shoppers Line Up for Savings

Black Friday Deals

Food Prices Up for Holidays

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Kelly Location: Lansing on Aug 20, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Academics -- the smartest people in the world! How about the laziest people in the world? What they're really saying is, "OOOooooo, it's toooooo hard to teach young people about the problems associated with drinking, so let's just give up and give in." Again, the dummying down of America at the hands of so-called educators. Be reminded that these morons receive their very large salaries, benefits and pensions from us, the taxpayers!

Posted by: lost brother in drunk driving accident Location: michigan on Aug 20, 2008 at 08:00 AM
Lower the age?Are they crazy.Raise the age to 25 and maybe some of there stupidity will be out of their system?Crack down on who buys underage people booze.kick out of school the ones in college that choose to do this drinking ect.Don't be responsible for letting kids drink.They party,drive ect.Many turn in alocholics later down the road.Many end up in serious car accidents ect.Rather stupid on anyones part to even think of lowering age.Must have to do with sales and profits in the market.It won't stop them from drinking just add to many problems they don't need.Big profits will be gained by the sellers and get them off the hook for selling to minors if caught.It has nothing to do with age of drinking,just stupidity of thoes allowing it and buying for kids under age.Like smoking,get them hooked then make sales.Drugs included.

Posted by: teacher Location: lansing on Aug 20, 2008 at 05:39 AM
lowering the drinking age also brings more alcohol into the high schools, since the 18 year old students can legally purchase booze, they can also leave at lunch, drink and come back to school. They also provide it to their younger friends, which brings binge drinking even further down in age. I think the colleges are focusing on their issues and their unwillingness to enforce the law and not caring about who else this impacts.

Posted by: Jens Dynenloefter Location: Copenhagen on Aug 20, 2008 at 02:49 AM
Alcohol is just too serious to let people start drinking without parental supervision. In Denmark youth start drink at aged 15 when parents introduce alcohol to them at their confirmation. So binge drinking are never an issue because parents accept drinking and can intervene because the youth drink in their presence. We also have adult supervised bag-parties where youth only can drink from their own tagged bag. Slower drinking means longer partying, because the party is over once the bag is empty. All restrictions only result in secret lives by the teens and introduction to drugs because it is often the same people who provide both alcohol and drugs.

Posted by: Akok Location: Lansing on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Teen drinking is already PROBLEM in this Nation. Lowering that age standard will only increases the number cases that the law officers are already dealing with, and it's going to put more inoccence people at risk even more. I believe whoever came up with this notion is not really making scense at all.I think some people do not get the idea of going to college. it is not their job to lower the drinking age. but it is their responsibility to educate those students so they can do something productive with their lives after graduating from college. also, i believe that it should be upto those students who are 21- years of age or younger to decide what to do with their lives: continue educating themselves OR DRINK? I already know how crazy it can be sometimes at MSU's campus.So i am glad that the MSU's President decided not to sign the initiative.

Posted by: Charles Location: Unadilla on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I disagree with MADD, if younger people are legally allowed to drink there will be no issues with parties getting "Busted", therefore the problem of drunk people fleeing in vehicles will be eliminated

Posted by: phillip Location: lansing,mi on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:20 PM
i agree with the ohio state university president.

WILX Poll
Should The Government Have A Stake In The Big 3?

Yes
No


Expert: Big 3 Failure Would Be Disaster
Expert: Big 3 Failure Would Be Disaster
  • Posted By: craigIf anyone in power was really concerned with helping people of lesser means we would be talking about bring jobs back to the USA where we can prosper and be proud of hard work again. how about a bailout for the countless unemployed AMERICANS, or parents on the brink of disaster that will last a lifetime.
  • Posted By: craiggovernment should help automakers at this point, however to say they (auto makers) are not responsible for the recession is absurd. how many more jobs can they push overseas before there will be no one left to purchase their products anyhow?
  • Posted By: BuzzWhy should the Big 3 be bailed out? GM wants to sell off our discontinue the Saturn, which is affordable but has made no mention of discontinuing the Corvette and other less affordable models. If GM wants help have them pick one particular model in each of its lines, i.e. the Lacrosse for Buick, Impala for Chevrolet and the Aura for Saturn. GM is about as impervious as the out-going President is - they just don't get it! I read and sympathize with the line workers who say they can't even afford to buy a new car from the company that they work for - that's pretty sad and certainly doesn't promote company solidarity. Like I've said before, make the Big 3 sell what's sitting at all the dealerships even if they have to take a loss before making another automobile. Why keep making what nobody wants at prices nobody wants to pay?
  • Posted By: BethThe Big 3 failure would be a major disaster - I agree. However, I don't feel that the government or tax payers should bail them out until they have made the same kinds of concessions that citizens, small business, and union members have already made. Begin by severely downsizing the execs and their benefits i.e. luxuries. Times are tough and they should share in the "recession life style" is part of the reason for decreased car sales. I need a newer car badly, but it's not on my shopping list any time soon. They are flying and driving nice cars. Get real! The union members have suffered considerable cuts already including loss of workers, benefits and wages. Make equal cuts in management, wages, and benefits, then look at union members' additional concessions, and financial aide from the government.
  • Posted By: jonlike i said we the workers will and are getting hurt.they gain we lose
  • Posted By: METhank you UAW, if the union would not have barganed until the big 3 couldn't afford it any more we would all be able to afford nice cars. I was in the union before and it definently isnt all peaches and cream. Sure they will fight to get you more but look what it has done.. Workers recieved more then the company could afford and now more may lose everything. Thanks again UAW. It is flat out B.S. that the government will bail out huge corporations but only give the autos a loan. Its all for the politicians gain, main street America has been hurting alot longer then wall street, but wall street affected the politicians pocket so they did something about it. Mr & Mrs politician help us out, cut your pay & benefits.......quit cutting ours.
  • Posted By: LegallyRadTo Explain: If the banks were not bailed out, that would have affected the big 3, and every other business that deals with the banks (show me one that doesn't). This has nothing to do with Bush. Big 3 are very poorly run, and concede too much to organized labor. The bail out will first be essentially worthless since it will amount to a drop in a bucket, and the companies just blow cash. They need to fail to preserve our American capitalistic economy. Chances are only one or two of them will go out of business, but if they properly restructure then they could be saved... restructuring means cutting labor costs and consolidating products. If you want to blame something, it's mostly due to the mortgage crisis which began with Carter and Clinton who refused to allow banks to ensure that people could actually pay for their loans because they felt it might be discrimination. Look where that policy got us. Bush just happens to be in office when their poorly built floor calapsed.
  • Posted By: MicheleI cannot believe that they are not going to bail out the Big 3.Ford is not even sure it is going to need the money. And why do the banks get bailouts with no questions asked but they make the Big 3 jump through hoops of fire and all they want to do is borrow the money...... Reid is an idiot, and doesn't have a clue of how manufacturing works and what the ramifications down the road will be. Including restraurant, stores, and other service industries closing and going out of business due to lack of business. Let's keep America working!
  • Posted By: George Bush did not run our country in the ditch. He crash it stright into the wall at 100/mph.
  • Posted By: patthis is one more reason we need to thank George Bush for running our country into the ditch!

Instant Alert
Download Free To Your Computer
WILX E-News
News Weather & Sports Delivered Daily
News 10 Mobile
News Sports & Weather On Your Phone
WILX Snapshot
Share, View, & Vote
Weather Source
Your 24 Hour Local Weather Channel
RSS
Get Your RSS Feeds Here
AP Videos
Sponsored Headlines