McCardell’s proposal gets Middlebury thinking

In 1984, the U.S. Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 after a rise in both binge drinking and highway accidents related to alcohol served as evidence that legitimate reform was necessary.

In accordance with this change, Congress enacted a provision to deny federal highway funding to states that did not comply with the new drinking age.

Twenty-six years later, Vermont has become an unlikely leader in the national debate over the effectiveness of the higher drinking age due to the presence of local nonprofit organization Choose Responsibility, which was founded by President Emeritus of the College and Vice Chancellor Elect of Sewanee: the University of the South John M. McCardell, Jr.

In response to the Choose Responsibiltiy Initiative, Vermont’s State Congress is currently considering a bill that would lower the drinking age back to 18, and another to request a waiver from the federal government that would grant it all highway funding, even if the age is changed.

“Vermont is a small, relatively isolated state, with elected representatives who grasp that ours is a state that can do things, try things, learn from things, that larger and more diverse states may not dare to consider,” wrote McCardell in an e-mail.

“Mightn’t we learn better, even best, practices if we are allowed to try something different and measure the results?”

McCardell predicts that by lowering the legal age to what it once was, minors will respect alcohol and binge drinking will be reduced, but the topic is complex and controversial. Many Middlebury business owners are now thinking about what it would mean for them, their town and the state of Vermont if the legal drinking age were lowered to 18.

Middlebury Chief of Police Tom Hanley believes nothing good will come of lowering the drinking age. As a policeman, Hanley has firsthand experience dealing with underage drinking, and he sees neither how a lower drinking age will reduce binge drinking nor how the highways will be safer. He argues that Congress’ motivation to pass a law with a higher drinking age was to curtail drunk driving among inexperienced drivers,

something he believes has been a success.

“I would be hard-pressed to find a policeman anywhere who supports something so dangerous,” said Hanley. “I need someone to show me how accidents that occur while someone is under the influence will go away.”

Middlebury Town Planner Fred Dunnington has followed McCardell’s plan closely. Dunnington has been the town planner since 1981, when the drinking age in Vermont was 18, and he believes when minors could drink in public, they drank less because they were in a communal setting.

He argues that today, those who choose to drink underage are forced to do so secretly in a friend’s home or a dorm room where they will likely drink more.

Accordingly, Dunnington applauds McCardell’s efforts, but he believes groups that oppose the proposition, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, are too strong and vocal for the law to change.

“There needs to be a uniform, nationwide movement to change the age,” said Dunnington.

If the age does change, Dunnington believes it will take time before any significant reduction in binge drinking occurs. People will need exposure to the new law, he explained. Once they are educated and society accepts the lower drinking age, Dunnington predicted that individuals will drink socially and for pleasure, rather than to get drunk.

In addition, Dunnington thinks if Vermont were to change the drinking age, the rest of the U.S. would view the state as even more liberal, but that Vermont’s name would not be tainted.

“Some states legalized medical marijuana, and nothing happened to their reputation,” Dunnington said.

Carol’s Hungry Mind Café owner John Melanson is also an advocate of lowering the drinking age for many of the same reasons. He thinks that doing so will reduce binge drinking, and drinking alcohol will become a social, not a secluded, activity.

“The sin factor will be eliminated,” Melanson said.

“People know they aren’t supposed to drink, so they want to defy their parents or the law by doing so.”

Tod Murphy, co-owner of the Farmers Diner, agrees with Melanson.

The Farmers Diner hosts many events for or open to college students, and Murphy said he loves to support the College because the students are respectful, but dividing up his patrons by age frustrates him.

“I wish we could have student events where all could participate and responsibly drink,” he said.

“Instead I have to act as a parent or a cop the entire time and police the space to ensure no one underage is drinking.”

Economically, it is probable that lowering the drinking age would result in an increase in revenue for many local establishments. However, whatever the legal drinking age, Two Brothers Tavern’s co-owner Holmes Jacobs said the restaurant does not in any way “feel the potential increase in financial income ever outweighs our responsibility to dispense alcohol responsibly and in accordance to the law.” Holmes made it clear that the tavern would, as always, “welcome all responsible drinkers.”

“Ultimately, however, it is difficult for anyone to rationalize to me how it is that we can say to an 18-year-old that they are responsible enough to vote for public office and die for their country on the battlefield, but that they are not responsible enough to consume a glass of wine,” Jacobs said.

As expressed by local business owners, there are several issues to confront before a decision can be reached, and Vermont lawmakers first must convince Congress that the movement does not merit the loss of full federal highway funding.

McCardell believes it is impossible to know the exact effect of his proposition on Vermont. He said that as long as the current law is in place, there will never be sufficient evidence that his plan will work. His point is that he wants Vermont to try.

“Let’s find out,” McCardell said.