Let Them Drink

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was sorry to read on page one of The Crimson that "Drinking Age Hike to 21 Gains in Congress," for there is another side to the issue. Let's put the Federal plea to raise the drinking age to 21 into perspective. Because such measures focus on the trouble that some young misusers of alcohol cause, let's start by thinking of things that some under-21 year olds do that cause trouble.

Some of them get married and have a terrible time, including violence. Some under-21 year olds have children and parent them poorly or worse, abuse or kill them. Some go to movies and are unduly influenced by characters in the films or take away had ideas or the wrong impressions about life from them.

Some have driver's licenses and drive recklessly, thoughtlessly, or murderously, even while sober. Some enter college where they are confronted by ideas which challenge their society's and their personal values. Some under-21 year olds live apart from their parents in dormitories or apartments and do not protect themselves or their possessions or their friends. Some enter military service and find themselves ill-equipped to deal with the stresses, or of late, with combat. Some work to make money and botch their jobs totally or nearly so.

And finally--and what started all this--some under-21 year olds drink and drive and kill themselves or others. But so, studies indicate, do over-21-and-under-25 year olds.

Given the logic of the Federal calls to raise the drinking age to 21, there ought to be Federal calls to do the following raise the marrying age to 21; raise the parenting age to 21;raise the movie-going age to 21; raise the driving age to 21; raise the college-starting age to 21; raise the home-leaving age to 21; raise the age for working to 21. Or perhaps raise the drinking age to 25, maybe even the driving age to 25.

What ridiculous suggestions! But so is the suggestion to raise the drinking age to 21, The way to correct trouble is not to penalize all people the vast majority of above are non-troublemakers. The way to correct trouble is to penalize wrongdoers, and to prevent them from their wrong doing.

In the suggestion to raise the drinking age to 21, there seem to be two hidden assumptions, both of which are false: first, that few under 21 can handle liquor in a trouble-free way; and second, that the ability to purchase liquor or to engage in social drinking is of little value to those under 21.

Those who continue to argue for raising the drinking age make a tremendous psychological and legal mistake. Their goal ought to be to discourage irresponsibility and trouble, not to penalize the responsible and trouble-free. If anything, the drinking age ought to be lowered. Then drinking would be less of a challenge and dividing-line. then the focus would be on responsibility--not on age.

In fact, in marrying, parenting, working, studying, leaving home, engaging in combat--as well as in drinking and in driving, the argument ought not to focus on differences among 18,19,20 and 21 year olds. It ought to focus on responsibility among all people.

It is time to focus on real problems and real solutions, not on fake solutions at the expense of many. Let us lower the drinking age and raise the penalties for the irresponsible and the praise for the responsible. Ellsworth A.I,. Fersch, J.D., Ph.D.   Lecturer on Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School