The recently released results of the Office of Institutional Research's Alcohol and Drug Use report should be shocking to no one outside Ballou. The vast majority of Tufts students drink: less than 20 percent of underage students abstain and roughly 10 percent of legally-aged Jumbos decline the bottle. The real question is not how to enforce burdensome and arbitrary consumption and possession laws on underage students but rather how to make sure students on The Hill know when to say when.
Having the good sense to put down the bottle would save a lot of trouble on campus, for students, administrators, and community members. Students who drink too much risk hurting themselves and their friends; many nights that have not ended in an ambulance have ended with broken friendships. Even more importantly, students who drink heavily are much more likely to be sexually victimized - limiting consumption keeps one alert and more able to summon help.
As for the administration and the neighbors, their drinking-related headaches are rarely related to hangovers. Drinkers become destructive and keep the campus judiciary booked with cases of drunken students who unleashed their inner Mr. Hyde, much to the dismay of the authorities. Most students realize that parties in the densely-packed neighborhoods are likely to bother neighbors, but many fail to consider that loud conversation, public urination, and beer-induced vomiting are just as bothersome to local residents and embarrassing to Tufts.
Part of the issue, as Dean of Students Bruce Reitman notes, is the fact that the legal drinking age is so high: most undergraduates will be legal for less than half of their time here. This inevitably leads to problems because the University cannot sanction drinking by most of the student body, ergo the underage go underground, where the booze is plentiful, supervision is minimal, and disaster readily awaits.
There are very few Western nations that have as restrictive drinking laws as America, as most students who studied in Europe or down under could verify. Many of these more permissive countries also have a more responsible attitude towards alcohol, because it is not the "forbidden fruit" that it has become in the United States.
Proponents of the current drinking laws argue that they are necessary to prevent young and inexperienced drivers from hurting themselves or others after a drink or two (which most of-age drivers could have and legally drive). Perhaps a more sensible alternative would be to lower the drinking age to 19 but leave a zero tolerance (BAC of .01) policy in place for drivers until they turn 21. The money no longer used on alcohol enforcement could be used to enforce DWI laws, and a substantial portion of the market for false identification would be deflated, thus serving national security interests.
Of course, few realistic thinkers expect the drinking age to change any time soon. In the mean time, Jumbos will continue to drink, but one would hope that they would first do what they were brought here for: thinking.
