Weigh In on the Drinking Age

Supporters of the national drinking age of 21 believe it prevents adolescents from gaining access to alcohol and saves lives by by preventing alcohol-related traffic fatalities among 18-20 year-olds. Opponents believe the current drinking age is an abridgment of the age of majority, breeds disrespect for law and leads to ethical compromises.

The following comments were posted on the issue. Please add your own comments.

Name:	Dendy Young parent
Date:	Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:08 pm
Comments:	I support reducing the drinking age to 18. Most civilized nations of the world accept this as a reasonable standard. This would reduce the current absurdity where kids drink anyway, just illegally.
Name:	Mary Friend
Date:	Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:24 pm
Comments:	Do not use the British example -- with its lower legal drinking age and importance of 'pub life' -- as an example of how to control binge drinking and other irresponsible behavior with alcohol by bringing it out in the mainstream. With several British relatives (several of whom are in the 16-23 age range), I can safely report that binge drinking is alive and well -- even rampant in many cases -- in Britain today. In fact, amongst our fellow Brit parents, the common agreement is that we are glad we brought up our children in this country rather than in the UK BECAUSE of the dominance of the so-called 'drink culture' there.
Name:	Lisa LaRue Parent of a Senior at Dickinson
Date:	Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:59 pm
Comments:	Open discussion is the right thing to do. Placing an age limit on legal drinking certainly has NOT curbed under-aged or college drinking. Typically maturity and experience raise awareness, not slogans and speeches. It's a good idea to consider all options. In addition, colleges are constantly faced with enforcement of something they can't control - what a waste of effort that could be spent on more important matters.
Name:	Keith Goldstein Parent of Helen Goldstein ('12)
Date:	Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:27 pm
Comments:	I applaud Dickinson for opening the conversation on this controversial subject. I am a member of "Choose Responsibility" and am among those who believe that we should be teaching responsible drinking practices and allow those who can marry, vote and serve in the military to make decisions about, and be accountable for, their alchohol consumption. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Name:	robin parent
Date:	Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:05 pm
Comments:	I believe that if you take away the stigma of the "forbidden fruit", some things don't appear to be as exciting.
Name:	Jim Murtaugh Parent of a Dickinson student
Date:	Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:08 am
Comments:	Unfortunately, changing the drinking age to 18 would move the problem to our high schools. We already struggle with underage drinking in our community. Perhaps we should consider allowing 18 year olds to drink, but not purchase alcohol except for immediate consumption in a restaurant or bar.
Name:	Ben Student Class 2012
Date:	Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:18 am
Comments:	I heard stories from all around the world, from Costa Rica, to Denmark and Turkey to Austria and it all remains the same: guys and girls start with drinking at the age of 13/14. This age doesn't really change, when the legal drinking age is 21, as in the U.S. or 16, as in Belgium, where I come from. I think the best weapon against alcohol abuse is not prohibiting it, until a late age, but informing about the consequences. I even believe letting people drink at a younger age, would make them more responsible with alcohol. I'd be for a 14 year of drinking age, but only if the children would realize the consequences then already.
Name:	Robert Bezilla Student
Date:	Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:22 am
Comments:	The current age limit is not working. The law should be reduced to 18 for liquor, and 16 for beer and wine. The problem with America and alcohol is it so adamantly tries to remove it from the home. In other countries where it is allowed at an early age where parents can guide children, there are less problems. Along with that, the fact an 18 year old can go to another country and shoot someone but isn't seen as responsible enough to drink, is a huge injustice.
Name:	William S. Elliott Parent
Date:	Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:52 pm
Comments:	As a Viet Nam vet who attended College in the 70's..there seemed to be less emphasis on binge drinking..although by the number of my colleagues attending AA..the binges may have developed later..while most states allowed 18 y.o.to drink while in the military.. I welcome the open forum and believe that the current laws are not working..Sorry MADD
Name:	Recent Alumbi Dickinson '06
Date:	Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Comments:	Ah, once again the Dickinson administration takes the cake. Despite having a distinct "We feel that the drinking age of 21 is correct and that it should not be debated under any circumstance" policy when a student (sober, I might add) questions it and asks the college if they might consider pushing for a change, when it becomes the trendy thing to do, all of a sudden we're all for it. Same old, same old from Dickinson.
Name:	Alan Norris alum 78
Date:	Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:25 pm
Comments:	As one of the few alum living in New Zealand, I can offer you a perspective frm here. The drinking age is 16. There are probelms with alocohol both ampongh young and old, but it is due to a culture of binge drinking. Chaging the age will have little impact on how we drink, the how is rooted in a society, but certinaly making something illegal causes more probems as we saw with prohbition.
Name:	Employee Current
Date:	Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:40 pm
Comments:	Let's get a grip on reality. The reason why underage binge drinking happens on campus is because it is tolerated. If Dickinson REALLY chose to enforce state and federal laws, by calling in the Carlisle police when laws are being broken, hauling students down to the Magistrate's office, and having them pay fines and/or go to jail for idiotic dangerous, and illegal behavior, my guess is that the incidences would be reduced REAL QUICK. Instead the campus disciplinary system slaps students on the hand and hushes up the problem. The only place you ever hear about it is in the Dickinsonian's "Campus Blotter." Doing the right thing is probably too hard and I'm sure there is the fear that doing something so drastic would make Dickinson somehow undesirable. I would guess to the contrary that we would attract a higher caliber of student - one who does not want a social life that revolves around how much alcohol one can obtain between Thursday and Sunday.
Name:	Catharine June alumnus '81
Date:	Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:00 pm
Comments:	I would like to know if there are statistics on the number of traffic accidents and fatalities involving 18-21 year olds who were driving drunk, comparing states with drinking ages of 18 with those of 21. Also, is the Choose Responsibility group wanting states who currently have a drinking age of 21 to lower their drinking age? Or is it just that in states that have a drinking age of 18, that they want their students to be able to drink legally? Does bringe drinking stop when students become 21? At first glance, I am surprised that anyone would think that being allowed to drink at a younger age would stop binge drinking. But I guess I'm interested to hear the arguments. I would guess that if the drinking age were lowered, then 18 yr olds would be buying more alcohol for their 16-17 yr old friends. How involved are the alcohol lobbyists in pushing for this debate? Follow the money.
Name:	Katherine Class of 1995
Date:	Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 pm
Comments:	In my opinion, the drinking age of 21 has directly caused "behind closed doors" activities & customs that lead to alcohol poisoning and date rape. College students are going to drink, and I don't see a problem with it as long as they are being responsible. And they won't learn to be responsible if they have to do it furtively and hide it from their elders. Why not foster a civilized and adult social environment where alcohol is simply part of the social fabric rather than the forbidden fruit? Learning how to responsibly manage your alcohol intake is part of becoming an adult. I drank when I was under 21 and I turned out just fine -- but that is probably b/c my parents never demonized alcohol or made it seem like some big mystery. And I still remember the first time I legally bought a good bottle of wine -- it felt so civilized, like at last I could drink like an adult instead of sneaking around. What are we so afraid of? A generation that doesn't have to drink Boone's Farm and Mad Dog?
Name:	George Shore 1977
Date:	Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:59 pm
Comments:	I think that if our society trusts an 18 year old to serve in the armed forces as well as to vote, then it defies logic how we could not trust those same people with decisions around alcohol. In this debate, I think the issue of drunk driving should be separated from that of drinking in general at any age. We could lower deaths by banning alcohol altogether, just as we could reduce highway fatalities by reducting the speed limit to 55 again. But we don't do those because we accept levels of responsibility in our lives and we recognize that we can't legislate complete safety. Drunk driving can be avoided through a combination of tough laws, education, and a change in how we socialize and get home. Other countries have managed it. It doesn't mean that 18 year olds shouldnt be able to drink. State by state laws create the issue of going to other states; those of us who lived in Penna. and drove across the Delaware to NJ can attest how ugly that situation was 35 years ago. Yet, states should be able to find solutions that work best for themselves in advance of mandated rules from Washington and in the absence of a national consensus.
Name:	Patricia Grady Alum '80
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:00 am
Comments:	I feel that if a person can serve on the front line of a war zone, is able to vote, drive and marry, then why should they not be allowed to drink at 18. All of these require tremendous responsibility. My experience with young people (having been one myself) is that if something is perceived as a challenge, then it becomes exciting to overcome it. With the drinking age currently set at 21, that makes it so much more rewarding to try to get away with it at 18, 19 and 20. Of course there are always two sides to every story... if the legal age is lowered to 18, then it becomes very exciting to try to drink at 15, 16 and 17.
Name:	Nancy Thorson Dickinson Alum. '73
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:31 am
Comments:	I was a local student, who drank socially in high school, but never to excess. I drank at frat parties on campus. My not drinking to excess I attribute to my British parents who allowed me to learn how to drink responsibly at home. I drank beer in London at the age of 16. Recently I returned to teaching high school, and I have to say that I must agree with the Dickinson student who sees it my way. Raise the legal age for everything to 19. That way alcohol would be legally out of reach of high school seniors, but then so would serving in a war that maims the same older teens. Young corporate wizards could stand to wait that extra year to form their own companies, while youth would be able to spend that extra year maturing before marching to a miitary cadence.
Name:	Dan Rogers Class of 1960
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:47 am
Comments:	I had never had a drink of alcohol until my freshman year at Dickinson. During fraternity rush, which was at the beginning of the first semester, I was treated to a couple of beers at The Diner by one of the upper classmen from one of the fraternities, and it was marvelous! I wasn't drunk, exactly, but the feeling was very pleasant. I think a couple of supervised drinking parties would be appropriate for incoming freshmen so that those (few?) who have never had alcohol before could become acquainted with it in a controlled and supervised environment. Of course, parental consent would be required. I know that is not a very "Methodist" suggestion, but I think it is practical.
Name:	Marion Mourning Hirseman Dickinson Class of 1973
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:55 am
Comments:	I support the wish to reconsider the current drinking age. Prohibition has seldom been the answer to abuse. Europe offers a much better model; personally I would raise the driving age to 21 and drop drinking to 18. It makes much more sense to treat alcohol as an ordinary component of life with the need for responsible use and appreciation like so many of life's pleasures. Please don't let the backlash keep you from pursuing what seems to me to be in the very spirit of a liberal education, a considered review of the facts!
Name:	Matthew J Creme Jr Class of 1977 and parent, Class of 2008
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:35 am
Comments:	As parents my wife and I have always believed that the responsible use of alcohol is a social skill for which we had primary responsibility. Age is a poor indicator of readiness. Our parents shared that opinion. Having grown up in the immigrant communities of Pennsylvania's Northeast Hard Coal Region I came to Dickinson in 1973 and access to alcoholic beverages was not the new and exotic and thrilling experience it otherwsie might have been
Name:	cynthia anderson alum 77
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:40 am
Comments:	I drank alot on campus when the drinking age was 21. I drank more before I was 21 than when I was older.I grew up in Europe, where there is less of a stigma. I have since lived in NYC, where people do not drink and drive, which, to be honest, is really my concern. It is really difficult to keep an 18 year old from doing something stupid. Their frontal lobes arent fully formed and they are very influenced by their peers. But, letting them drive, is different. I do not mean to imply that they dont do harmful things without car keys as all the incidents of campus rape and abuse in fraternities, etc would support. What is the solution? Its the same as with sex, drugs and anything else. Education, supervison, consequences commensurate to the infraction. If there are adults ( 21) on campus, they can buy and servce alcohol to minors, thats how I got it. So, you have to make the punishment for serving alcohol to minors serious enough to stop it. If they cant buy it and no one will serve it to them, then you dont have the problem. National drinking age, whats the difference if you dont enforce it, but I have to say, if someone is old enought to drive and to be in the military and marry, buy a home ,etc, then they are old enough to purchase and imbibe. They are also old enough to have the consequences. BTW, they are alos old enough to help pay for their education, which would give them less time to drink and screw off. My opinion, thanks for the opportunity
Name:	Jim Bloom Dickinson alum, class of 1961
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:51 am
Comments:	When I attended Dickinson the age limit was 18 iirc, so one could usually obtain alcholic beverages legally through most of the college years. I don't see that the 21 year limit has changed the prevalent culture of competitive binge drinking. The fraternity system abetted this culture by competitive drinking among the various frats and sorrorities. I believe that this culture and mind-set is the problem not whether or not one can put one over on the authorities via fake ID's. The fake ID route, as I see it, does not inspire the binge drinking. So reducing the limit would have little if any effect on this behavior as long as it is considered cool to drink until you puke and nerdy to abstain or just have a few social drinks. This attitude must be addressed through a campus wide educational program such as those public service announcements by MADD. When I was in the military service, we were shown films on the horrible affects of drunk driving. These films, shown just before holiday furloughs had a "sobering" effect. I think such educational efforts should be included in the mandatory curriculum and speakers should be invited to share their horror stories about this fad. Only when students can understant that excessive drinking is not only "uncool" but terribly destructive and unhealthy can this culture be changed. Lowering the age limit is not a viable remedy.
Name:	Iris Helfrich alum
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:41 am
Comments:	Raising the age will not eliviate the problem, merely inhance it. When I was 18, I would drive to Maryland to buy alcohol. As long as something is out of reach, it is more alluring. Education helps, by leading by example is the key. Parents are the influence that predict a person's drinking habits. College drinking is out of hand, but I think more steps should be taken to regulate than restrain. Fraternities are reknowned for promoting bingeing, especially during rush season. Perhaps RA's should be faculty members or some other adult in a supervisory position to help control the alcohol that is consumed.
Name:	Peter Jacobson Alumnus '67
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:01 am
Comments:	As a faculty member at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, and as the parent of a current college sophomore, I fully support President Durden's involvement in reducing the drinking age to 18. The current age restrictions are not working. Reducing the drinking age to 18 better reflects reality and will ultimately result in less binge drinking and lower DUI rates. I should add that I'm currently involved in a research project to test a DUI intervention following a second DUI arrest in Sacramento County, California. In sum, I fully support President Durden's efforts. I'm glad that Dickinson is at the forefront of this issue.
Name:	Sheldon Stept 1985
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:01 am
Comments:	As a parent and alumnus of Dickinson College, I am concerned that we are aligned with this effort, albeit, as a source of dialogue. I am sure there are many instances of current laws that are not working and we can have a discussion with lawmakers and other concerned citizens in a manner that provides dialogue but not necessarily in such a formal effort as this one. How will future parents of Dickinsonians feel about sending their child to a school that has signed this petition? What are the other options to this issue to resolving this issue? As it is not clearly articulated that there are any other options besides lowering the drinking age - and what proof do we have that such a change would help remedy the situation? I think perception is very important in today's society and we need to be careful how we align ourselves in this debate as not to soil our great reputation as an institution of higher learning.
Name:	Jennfier Miller Alumna
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 pm
Comments:	I have read some articles, though not all you link to. I think this is an important debate and some thought should go into how we approach alcohol use. I believe that if parents shared some alcohol with their children in a responsible and limited way as they grow up it would not be such a big deal when they are older. I still believe that there will be excesses, but perhaps less so. I also think that there should be some way to limit alcohol use/purchase between a younger age and 21 so that is not an "all or nothing" thing. It is a little silly to think that alcohol can be eliminated one day and completely allowed the next day; that young people will learn how to use it responsibly when they can only use it secretly and with their peers rather than adults before they reach 21; and naive to think that they don't use and have access before they are 21. Clearly, the prohibition does NOT prevent the alcohol use, abuse or tragedies. Therefore, a dialogue and responsible analysis of the issue and potential solutions should be addressed.
Name:	Anon Alum
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:39 pm
Comments:	I have a niece and a nephew college age and from what I can see from their Facebook profiles and photos, their lives are filled with binge drinking. It saddened me to see a self-posted photo of one of them sitting on the floor in front of the dorm bathroom with friends all around laughing. And too, a "bumper sticker" post saying, "Enjoy now because after college, they call it alcoholism." It's clear that drinking has become a terrible problem and perhaps it is a positive step to examine the issue according to legal age requirements. May, too, this lobby of college presidents implement other initiative per campus to help relieve the pressure and create other non-drinking cultures in the colleges' life of the mind.
Name:	Wayne Watkinson Dickinson Alum and Parent
Date:	Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:42 pm
Comments:	I attended the outstanding forum on campus last year, and I applaud the college for a worthy presentation and the students for their intelligent participation. The presentations by the two panelists ably set forth the positions of their organizations. Madd's objection to the lowering the age was based, almost exclusively, on its contention that it saved lives. However, there appeared no evidence of this, except the fact that drunk driving deaths have been reduced since the age was lowered. It was unclear whether this result was due to the change in the drinking age, or whether it was caused by other factors such as increased prosecution of drunk driving and the cultural change in the way drinking and driving is now viewed. Choose Responsibility provided evidence that binge drinking, and deaths resulting from such conduct, have increased since the change in the drinking age. Another negative of the current law is that it places our institutions of higher education in an adversarial position with its students. After listening to the arguments presented, I support Dickinson's position in favor of continued study and discussion of this issue. Personally, I object to the national approach taken by The 1984 Act and would prefer that each state legislature be given the freedom to craft a solution which best fits its state. The 1984 Act is another unfortunate example of Washington believing that one solution works nationwide. I think I know how the college's founders would have viewed this approach.
Name:	Harvey Wallbanger Dickinson '89
Date:	Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:13 am
Comments:	I remember when the drinking age was 18 in new Jersey and 21 in Pennsylvania. This caused 15, 16 and 17 year olds to pile into cars with their fake IDs so they could drink in New Jersey. Was this healthy or safe? Also, in my travels to Europe, I have seen plenty of binge drinking, so I don't see the relationship between a lower drinking age and more responsible consumption.
Name:	Bruce Bertholon Class of 61
Date:	Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:29 am
Comments:	I went through a period when my state NJ had a drinking age of 18. Now I supported that age when it passed. However, one of my extra activities was to run the life guard system ay my ocean beach community. Here is what became very evident. 18 year olds WILL buy beer for their younger friends and siblings in some cases even as young as 13. Our communities along the Jersey Shore found that we now had a serious problem with very young children drinking. NJ raised the age back to 21. The problem did not go away but it was greatly reduced.
Name:	Dale Zeigler Dickinson Class of 1977, Parent 08
Date:	Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:31 pm
Comments:	The debate on the correct drinking age and more importantly the needed wisdom to minimize alcohol related tragedy needs to go forward. Europeans have a much lower drinking age and for the most part maintain a better sense of responsibility than Americans.(Perhaps this is due to the fact that their legal systems exact severe penalties for drinking and driving.) Reaching the age of 21 does not magically bestow individuals with wisdom or social values.
Name:	x
Date:	Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:23 pm
Comments:	test
Name:	Anne Shannon Thompson Class of 1990, Dickinson College
Date:	Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:57 am
Comments:	As a member of the class of 1990, I was one of the many 18 year olds who, in 1986 during our freshman year, sat watching the news waiting to hear the official word about the drinking age in DC. The drinking age in the District of Columbia was 18 until my freshman year of college and I grew up in a house where the subject wasnt taboo. In Pennsylvania the drinking age was 21, and my freshman year the college began cracking down on that law - not in any small part to our actions (Kegs were not outlawed in dorms until that Spring). What I witnessed that freshman year were classmates who came from much more restrictive environments lash out with their new found freedom, many with destructive consequences. The more the administration tightened its policies, the worse the 'underground' drinking got for those students to whom drinking was still a new and taboo activity. I urge the administration to continue this discussion. An environment where students have adult-level responsibilities yet where they are still treated like children in terms of drinking is a recipe for continual abuse to those not equipped to handle it.
Name:	Charlie Barnes Alum
Date:	Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:31 am
Comments:	The Twenty sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) of the United States Constitution, ratified on July 1, 1971, standardized the voting age to 18. In my mind, this is the line of demarcation from foot-loose and fancy-free to adulthood. We can ask an 18 year-old to go to war and possibly be killed for his country. It seems rather absurd that we will place a gun in an 18 year old's hands and ask them to act responsibly and then in the same breath tell them they cannot legally purchase alcohol. I respect MADD and Chuck Hurley with whom I enjoyed some pretty wild parties with at the Phi Kap house in the 60's. I recall Chuck always acted responsibly. I would opine that most of this arguement starts in the home and has more to do with parental coaching than anything else. Making good decisions is part of growing up. Drunken driving reflects poor decision-making. Perhaps we need to be better teachers and place more emphasis on guiding our children than on making rules that excuse lack of guidance. I am not learned on this subject but I am disturbed that in the course of dumbing ourselves down in this country we seem to have overlooked the fact that young people who are inclined to bingedrink and drive may not be too worried about the challenge of securing alcohol in a country where the drinking age is 21. If they want it, they'll get it.
Name:	Richard A Kreamer Dickinson '62
Date:	Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:27 am
Comments:	This will not address the issue - only enforcement by the schools and parents will reduce the problem. Society is much to soft at the moment as are the colleges and universities. Be firm - punish - like it was in the 50's.
Name:	G. Tyler Rumph Dickinson '05
Date:	Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:32 am
Comments:	Once again Dickinson College has taken an act first, ask later policy with respect to a hot button issue. While I agree that being at the forefront of emerging debate is a healthy and admirable goal Dickinson, in this case, has chosen to be at the forefront of one side of that emerging debate. By joining the Amethyst Initiativ "these higher education leaders have signed their names to a public statement that the 21 year-old drinking age is not working." Dickinson has closed the debate on "should 21 remain the national drinking age?" and has opened the debate on "why 21 should be repealed as the national drinking age." What is there to debate, the public already knows where Dickinson stands.
Name:	G. Tyler Rumph Dickinson '05
Date:	Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:53 pm
Comments:	Ignoring for the moment my contention that Dickinson has chosen a side and is merely playing lip service to the institution of dispassionate debate I would like to address the broad category of people who rely on an argument based in allowances afforded to 18 year olds being disproportionate. This is not directed at any particular poster but the point generally. It seems to me those that adhere to this position have overlooked a fundamental part of growing up. That is, at different points in your life you are more responsible or prepared to take on and handle different challenges. Physiological development aside, do people who advance this position really think that simply because you have signed up for selected service and can personally choose to serve in your nations military or because you can vote you should be afforded the opportunity to put a dangerous substance in your body? What I mean is, since when does ability to engage in one activity automatically qualify an individual to engage in a completely different and unrelated activity? For example, if fitness for military service is a proxy for fitness to consume alcohol shouldn?t we disallow the elderly and others from both activities equally? All kidding aside, I am simply unconvinced that voting, military service, or any other activity allowed at 18 should used as a measure for ones fitness to drink. I suppose what this boils down to is I believe that it IS consistent to allow a person to engage in these activities but not be allowed to drink! Is it irrational to think that persons can take on different responsibilities at different points in their adolescent life? Furthermore, under this flawed logic why do we have age-stratified or personal freedom laws at all? If allowing our country?s fresh-faced teens to don a M-16 and kill or be killed is the essential measure of adulthood why not have a no holds barred after 18 policy? You can join the military, well heck, you seem to be grown up enough to choose for yourself whether you want to be a heroin addict or not! This seems to me to be the approach of proponents of the soldier/adult theory, and simply stating that joining the military complex at age 18 makes one an adult does not convince me. In addition to making a mockery of what actually constitutes military service (these is much more involved than just guns and killing folks!) statements like these reflect a gross misunderstanding of geopolitical and other realities that facilitate and 18-year-old age limit for active duty, not to mention being allowed to vote and other freedoms. The fact of the matter is people who believe an 18 year old is responsible would call that 18 year old an adult and draw the line there. I am suggesting this simplistic view is lacking, and there is nothing wrong with drawing more than one line.
Name:	gary s. yannone 76 alumni
Date:	Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:02 pm
Comments:	Dear Bill: I appreciate you giving all of us an opportunity to discuss these different topics. Many of the projects I have been successful in both in the military and civilian worlds are due in part to the skills I developed at Dickinson in dialogue and analysis. To search for the ?truth? and provide the most beneficial options. That wasn?t easy especially in dealing with the genius of George Friedman. What an inspiring professor he was. The issue of lowering the drinking age appears to revolve around the issues of safety, responsibility, and education. I have read many of the comments from Alumni and Staff and they are well done with stimulating ideas and passion. Being a part of the Class of 76, I don?t know that I would have any great insights. Society itself has changed dramatically since then, for better or worse. It seems I always end up telling my students each semester about my share of the ?animal house? caper we perpetrated on Dr. Friedman. But, I also qualify it to say, if it was today?s world I would still be in jail. Certainly, an issue like this may be eventually decided through the institutions of our Commonwealth and representational democracy. Lately, I have been in discussion with colleagues about what appears to be an intellectual bankruptcy in solving many of our issues. It seems that our decisions continue to make the same mistakes time and again. The first time I saw your posting, I was wondering if again, we miss the forest for the trees. Especially, for those that are 21 years old. Why? There are other issues of being 21 that may have a more significant impact for our society. In Article II of our PA State Constitution we are told ?all political powers is inherent in the people,--?. At the same time we disenfranchise approximately one and a half million citizens. When you are 21, you may have your BA, I know, I was there. You may be an officer leading men or women in war. I was an officer in the USAF. You may even die for your country. If you screw up, you will be tried as an adult. You may own a home and be financially responsible for it. You may be married, have a family, and yes drink alcohol legally. But, you can not be a full participant in the system you will pay taxes for and may die for. You can run for the PA House of Representatives at 21. But, by some crystal ball diagnosis you have to be 25 to run for our Senate. What makes being a House Member less of a responsible position then a member of the PA Senate? And of course to participate in the PA Executive Branch, you need to be 30 years of age.. God forbid, I am not saying that we should ever do anything as drastic as elect an unseasoned (or unpoisoned) inexperienced person of 21. We all know the sky would fall in right? The Communist Hordes are poised to attack. All I am suggesting is to give these citizens, their equal due by giving them the freedom of having the right to fully participate in our government. That freedom in representational democracy. I have been blessed to have the opportunity to train some of our young people coming out of the Military Academies. What tremendous, energetic leadership they have. New ideas, a determination to succeed without having been soiled by ?careerism.? The same type of determination came to mind my when I saw the dedication at the Olympics for young athletes like Michael Phelps. Actually, I guess what really pisses me off (and should you too) is that I never get to vote for any of these people as a possible candidate. And thus, I lose over a million possible choices for my self-centered self. And no I won?t touch the 21 year-old question of the fifty million plus candidates on a National Election. I might then drift into the subject of calling a Second US Constitutional Convention. Who knows, doing that may end me up in jail or just never heard of again. Quite frankly, it appears that fear has replaced insight and creativity. Ignorance has replaced wisdom. I apologize, Bill, I am not in any fashion saying that lowering the drinking age is a lower priority than providing political enfranchisement to all those of age 21, at least in PA. It appears no one cares anyway. And it may not make a difference, but then again. And I am not putting this in any type of category of grave human suffering. The ultimate ?incarceration of the mind? actually involved you, the College, and the citizens of Carlisle. Mistakes in these issues, pales in comparison with losing the Lost Valley Archeological Site nearby. It is rare anywhere in the world to get just a glimpse into what Jim Adovasio says is the greatest archeological mystery of the world. The beginnings of man reaching out beyond himself to spirituality and art. That distant magical world of the Pale Artist. Just like a shorting star, just a quick brilliant glimpse. Not just a possible revolutionary find for Anthropology and Archeology, but also for the Political Philosophers. To possibly put a piece of the puzzle together of man in a ?natural state,? different than we may have ever expected. A time of possibly the true inherent rights of mankind existing (PA Constitution Article 1). A connection from the ancient North American Cultures to those of Eurasia. No, the largest disgrace to humanity I have ever witnessed in my life was your community failing to save one of the most precious gifts ever given to us as human being. At least my conscience remains clear. I gave it my all in the best traditions of the Dickinson I use to know. Gary S. Yannone, MS Class of 76
Name:	Jane Howland Grim Dickinson alum 1964
Date:	Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:22 pm
Comments:	I have long felt that the drinking age of 21 does not work. Adult supervision is denied to all drinking because it is illegal. Drinking and driving becomes much more of a problem because drinking is often off campus. Enforcing an unrealistic policy breeds disrespect for our laws. I think that the present situation is an insult to our young adults that fight for our country and are considered adults in every other capacity. One way to experiment with changing the drinking age would be to take away the federal penalty and allow the states to experiment to find a good solution that would also better solve the problem of drinking and driving.
Name:	Helen Mercer Witt Class of 1955
Date:	Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:04 pm
Comments:	The question before the house is whether there should be a discussion aobut the legal drinking age. The answer can only be "Yes" as there is such diversity of opinion that a discussion is needed to help us thread our minds through the maze. Discussion does not mean decision. It invites critical thinking as well as the expression of opinion. I say Go For It!
Name:	Parent
Date:	Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:13 am
Comments:	I like the idea of a discussion about the pros and cons of the drinking age. Students can finally inform parents and adults about what is truly going on. As a member of a Community of Concern at our local high school, I have found that parents really do not know- or really want to know- what their students are doing at parties or at friends homes or the woods or wherever have you! I do like the comment from one parent about raising the age to 19 for drinking and voting and serving your country.
Name:	Alum Class of 2006
Date:	Tue Sep 2, 2008 9:04 am
Comments:	While I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 16 for beer and 18 for liquor, such a change would need to be accompanied by other policy modifications such as: 1. Drastically more severe penalties for drunk driving and public intoxication. 2. Creation of "safe drinking zones" where those 16-18 years of age could consume alcohol without the threat of being manipulated by adults. 3. Use of smart card technology on drivers licenses that could track the number of drinks consumed at a bar/restaurant and possibly limit public consumption for minors. The argument that a lowered drinking age would shift the problem to the high schools is based on a faulty premise. Drinking is already a problem in most high schools, but not the primary issue. In many cases, it is easier for kids to get drugs than it is to get alcohol.
Name:	Ryan Sanders 1998
Date:	Tue Sep 2, 2008 1:58 pm
Comments:	Thank you Dickinson for being on the open and honest side of the debate. I can't think of too many times when prohibition has ever worked in a country that claims freedom to be the most important reason it exists. Fascists, communists and dictators ban things. The supposedly FREE USA should debate and regulate.
Name:	Bob Boyd Theta Chi 68
Date:	Wed Sep 3, 2008 7:42 pm
Comments:	Whether the drinking age is 18 or 21, there will be those who go too far. I liked the keg parties before I became of age. At 18, a person can drive, vote, and kill (in the military). Those choices can result in poor driving, idiotic voting, and wrong killing. We cannot legislate away inappropriate drinking, so let's trust the great majority to do it responsibly. Will we lose some? Of course, but we do anyhow. Young people 18-21 today seem to me much more mature than I and my friends were. Let them make the choice.
Name:	Mark Hammond Alumni, 67
Date:	Wed Sep 3, 2008 8:00 pm
Comments:	The problem is not so much the drinking age but rather the attitude toward drinking. When I was an undergraduate, it seemed like Dickinson was like in the film "Animal House" which starred the late John Belushi. Drinking was done not so much as a social outlet, but rather for the sole purpose of getting drunk. College students will always be able to secure the possession of alcohol, and I know even high school students who do. However, we need to take a more enlightened attitude. Under 21 drinking is happening now, but it is covert. Engage in the dialogue, change attitudes, accept alcohol as something that can be a part of life not merely as a way to get high. Take the binge drinking aspect away from alcohol. Develop a more **European** attitude. At the same time, don't turn a blind eye. Offer counseling, intervention, and other help to people who have an alcohol problem.
Name:	William Adna Crawford
Date:	Wed Sep 3, 2008 8:33 pm
Comments:	Lowering the drinking age makes as much sense as allowing 18 year olds to buy guns. Well, they're going to do it anyway so let's make it legal! I think your bottom line is if they're legally able to drink, we don't have to worry about them.... we won't be liable for anything. Why don't you just lower the drinking age to 12? It makes just as much sense. The College simply wants to lower the drinking age in order to avoid liability for an activity they choose not to regulate or police. How shameful.
Name:	Shawn Stelow Alum--class of 1988
Date:	Wed Sep 3, 2008 9:07 pm
Comments:	Kudos to President Durden for encouraging debate on this issue. Public discourse, debate, and discussion is sadly absent from everyday life.
Name:	Jo Strohbehn Dickinson College '81
Date:	Wed Sep 3, 2008 9:53 pm
Comments:	I was a freshman when the drinking age was 21 in Pennsylvania when I entered school at Dickinson in 1977, although the drinking age was 18 in my home state of Vermont. Since I turned 18 at college, I had no benefit of being exposed to legal drinking before entering college. There were welcoming parties at various fraternities for the freshmen where the alcohol flowed. It didn't matter what the drinking age was; you could get a drink. In many cases kids didn't know what was being served was alcohol because it tasted like punch. Many kids did get drunk that first week and throughout my freshman year. I was not one of them. The most memorable was one weekend night second term when my roommate was away, and someone knocked on my door at 2AM. When I opened it, a very drunk freshman opened it, came in, slurred on and on about how she thought I was a wonderful person and how much she like me, and then passed out on my roommate's bed for the night. Luckily, she didn't throw up on my roommate's bed, nor had she drunk to the point of alcohol poisoning. When she awoke the next morning, she swore loudly and demanded to know how she had gotten there. She had no memory of the night before; no memory of telling me what a great person I was, and how close a friend she thought I was. She was simply angry at not being in her room. In the 30 years since my freshman year, I'm sure there is increased local and campus police presence to crack down on those who choose to imbibe at such parties, so that those who do choose to drink may face going to court and a misdemeanor? I'm not sure of the punishment for underage drinking. However, how would decreasing the drinking age have helped the woman who came to my room at 2AM? How would changing the laws have made her more responsible? She was 18, the drinking age was 21, and she still was so drunk she didn't know where her room was, and couldn't remember the next morning why she was in my room. However, I do know there was a good reason for increasing the drinking age nationally from 18 to 21: to keep it out of the high school population in as prevalent a way as had been seen in the '70s. From what I remember in high school, there were parties with beer kegs every weekend with high school kids drinking and driving with kids who were drinking. My kids have finished with high school now, and while I know there were kids who found parents' alcohol, and there are kids who do drink to excess, these kids did not have the opportunity to buy it themselves to sponsor a party for the entire high school. And that is the difference between 18 and 21. Simply decreasing the drinking age neither increases responsibility nor maturity in dealing with alcohol. All it does is expose one to it at an earlier age, and, if the drinking age is decreased to 18, it exposes high school students to availability again. While I agree that exposure to alcohol in social settings may help teach maturing adults how to drink responsibly, I do not think the answer lies in simply lowering the drinking age.
Name:	Martin Molloy Alum 1994
Date:	Wed Sep 3, 2008 10:08 pm
Comments:	I'm glad to see Dickinson support this initiative. It's time that 18 year olds who are old enough to drive, vote, go to war, be tried as an adult, are allowed to drink as well.
Name:	Mary Rosenbaum Dickinson '76, faculty spouse 1970-1998
Date:	Thu Sep 4, 2008 8:11 am
Comments:	Theoretical advantages to lowering the drinking age are obviated by the hard statistics showing that deaths from DUI dropped when it was raised. During my time at Dickinson, two students almost died and one did die from binge drinking--but they didn't take anyone else with them. Those incidents, by the way, were all fraternity related. The solution is standing up to fraternity-affiliated alumni who think that alcohol abuse is some sort of manly rite of passage. Lowering the drinking age to prevent illegal binge drinking is like raising the speed limit to 150 MPH so no one will be tempted to exceed it. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
Name:	Heidi Miller Kushlan 1984
Date:	Thu Sep 4, 2008 9:22 am
Comments:	At 18, if you commit a crime you are treated as an adult. You have the ability to sign legally binding contracts, can vote, and can serve in our armed forces. We trust 18-year-olds with lethal weapons. Yet so many young people need time to develop judgement, especially regarding social drinking. Why not step-in the legal drinking age, starting with the more dilute spirits like beer and wine at 18. Hard liquor at 21. This should help young people learn their limits in a safer way, and take away some of the mystique. Drinking and driving is against the law at any age, is not a debate, should not be the major part of this debate. More education, enforcement of existing laws, and perhaps the use of alcohol-detection ignition technology may be the solution to this part of the problem. I don't claim to have the answers in this debate, but think this is a reasonable proposal.
Name:	Sue Rubino '85
Date:	Thu Sep 4, 2008 10:32 am
Comments:	I feel a drinking age of 21 should be illegal. How can we send our 18 year olds to war, offer them the right to vote, then say they can't have a beer? I think the issues have become confused. Yes, we must be very strict about drinking and driving. We want to keep our young people alive and our citizens safe. What we have actually done was force college students to go off campus to find places where they can drink--thus endangering more people. Furthermore, it is ofen easier to find drugs, illegal or perscription drugs. I believe we have inadvertantly encouraged an increase in drug abuse in our society with the increase in drinking age. We must change the law now!
Name:	Edward "Ted" Eppel alum 54
Date:	Thu Sep 4, 2008 2:55 pm
Comments:	We will never stop those who want to drink. At 18 you can at least know what is happening legally. You are between the devil and the deep blue sea. You can serve in the military and carry a gun, why not allow those to partake legally.
Name:	Sean Class of 2007
Date:	Thu Sep 4, 2008 4:47 pm
Comments:	If a person can drink responsibly their age should not be an issue. If you can buy cigarettes at 18 or a gun at 18, you should be able to drink at 18. By the same token, if someone is irresponsible, they should be held accountable. Personal responsibility is stronger than arbitrary laws.
Name:	Judith McKee Alum Class of '63
Date:	Fri Sep 5, 2008 10:30 am
Comments:	I think an honest discussion is appropriate, but I also believe it is naive to think that, because the drinking age is lowered, there will cease to be binge drinking. I also wonder whether the various colleges took this approach because they do not want to be responsible or monitor under-age drinking. The drinking age was 21 when I was in college; there was very little binge drinking. This is a cultural change. And the argument that 18 is old enough to fight and not old enough to drink is specious. The 18 year-olds that fight have been well trained and are led by well trained NCOs and officers. Will the 18 year olds that can now drink undergo similar training and have similar oversight? I think not. Judy McKee
Name:	Robert Moran Class of '90
Date:	Fri Sep 5, 2008 11:54 pm
Comments:	I think it is wonderful that this debate is occurring, but the problem is starting well before the college years. It is truly starting in HS. HS drinking is kept mostly behind the veil of the doors compared to the freer and less personal restricted lifestyle of college. Having said that, this issue is NOT about whether we should lower the drinking age. It is about MONEY. Stringent state liability laws result in large insurance payments for colleges and universities. One incident on a college campus will not only potentially result in large penalties or a law suit, but will also increase insurance rates even further. As campus expenses rise in nearly all categories and the pressure to maintain or slow the cost of attendance at institutions battle, campuses are looking for ways to reduce costs - this effort is a veiled attempt to achieve one such savings. As I said, I applaud open dialogue, but dialogue does not result in responsible behavior.
Name:	Phyllis Golden Andrews alum, class of '75
Date:	Sat Sep 6, 2008 1:49 pm
Comments:	I have read all the comments. I think most of use feel that our biggest concern is to prevent serious accidents associated with drinking, particularly those that injure innocent victims. The approaches that look the most promising to me are: 1) using technology (like ignition locks) to prevent drunk driving; 2) increasing availability and awareness of alternatives to drunk driving, like use of taxis and shuttles; 3) start a dialog about raising the driving age. I think efforts would be better used on these things than on enforcement of a legal drinking age, whatever that age is. Does anyone know of any initiatives on these ideas that I can join?
Name:	Art Amundsen '60
Date:	Mon Sep 8, 2008 1:13 am
Comments:	I strongly object to D'son's caving in to students's desire to drink alcohol w/ approbation. The fact that others are caving in also under the guise of debating the failure of colleges to ad-equately enforce the legal age of 21 doesn't change the situation. Unfortu-nately colleges have bought the alcohol industry's pitch that you can't really relax or have a good time unless you have a chemically altered state w/ elevated blood alcohol level. It's too easy a cop-out to duck the effort to restrain student misbehavior. Blaming binge drinking on the legal age of 21 is absurd. There's just too little com-mittment to fighting the notion that "alcohol belongs." Self dis-cipline seems to be an alien concept.
Name:	Wm Nast alumni "56/7
Date:	Mon Sep 8, 2008 11:16 am
Comments:	You don't stop "binge drinking by enlarging the number of [legal] drinkers" !
Name:	john gorman parent
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 1:49 pm
Comments:	about time someone broached the subject. The emperor wears no clothes in this matter. Drinking at 21 is wrong - it is almost ludricous. Because it is so wrong, no one follows it, which leads to the disrepect of law and rules and regulations. It harkens back to prohibition. It also definitely leads to bringe drinking and makes drinking between 18 and 21 more "fun" and more of a challenge and thrill to those between the age of 18 and 21. If drunk driving is the issue - MADD - deal with the driving, but not by irrationally regulating the drinking!
Name:	Ann Brobst Dickinson parent 2012
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 4:00 pm
Comments:	The 21 year drinking age is counter productive. It encourages otherwise law-abiding teens to break the law, and causes them to learn about drinking when they are already away from their families, usually only with peers. I don't know a single teen who reached the age of 21 without ever having an illegal drink. Thank you.
Name:	Christopher R. Vaccaro Parent of a Dickinson freshman
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 5:00 pm
Comments:	The Amethyst Initiative encourages a "re-thinking" of the 21 drinking age. "Rethinking" suggests a change of the drinking age. The drinking age can either be raised or lowered. There is no political support at this time to raise the drinking age. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Amethyst Initiative seeks to lower the drinking age. Binge drinking on campuses, and elsewhere, is indeed a problem that too often results in death or serious injury. I do not see how lowering the drinking age will reduce binge drinking. I believe that it will probably increase binge drinking among teenagers instead. It seems that the motivation behind the Amethyst Initiative relates to university and college liability. If there is binge drinking in the dorms by underage students, the colleges may be held legally responsible for any resulting death, personal injury or property damage. However, if the drinking age is lower, the students would not be breaking any laws, and the possiblity of the college being legally responsible is reduced. If the colleges are serious about this problem, then rather than lowering the drinking age, they should ban alocohol on campus and in dorms altogether(similar to what can be done for smoking). Unfortunately, this will make colleges imposing the ban less desireable to prospective students. The problem is a real challenge and needs to be addressed, but a lower drinking age can only move the problem down the ladder to teenagers. Perhaps Wisconsin, which allows underaged people to drink with parental supervision, even in bars, is on to something.
Name:	Jayne Vespa current parent ( Matthew '11)
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 5:25 pm
Comments:	I applaud Dickinson's attempts to open a discussion regarding the current drinking age. As responsible parents, my husband and I have tried to instill in our children a respect for the current laws regarding alcohol. At the same time, we are keenly aware that alcohol consumption in high school and college is a real issue. Our personal mantra has been "later is better", hoping that by delaying the first drink, perhaps it will be a smarter drink. Is 18 the magic number? We don't know - but the discussion is important because the current magic number of "21" is not working and doesn't seem to be in keeping with other age related responsibilities and priviledges.
Name:	Eileen parent
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:37 pm
Comments:	In the USA, you can vote, elect officials, marry, have children, have 10 children,buy a house, buy stock, have surgery, have an abortion, have ten abortions, become a Mayor, join the military and carry dangerous weapons, kill in the course of battle, be the executor of an estate, buy a car, drive--perhaps as early as 15 years plus,and all others at 18, but not drink a beer. THAT we cannot trust their good judgment with determining to be appropriate. What is wrong with this picture? If we view an 18 year old as mature enough to vote or elect to have surgery, or fly a military aircraft, what is it that then makes them too immature to choose to drink wisely? It makes no sense--either they should be able to do none of those things or all, including smoking or drinking--whether we believe those to be good or bad. The current imposition of "rule" by depriving states of funds is "legislating" through funding--so no politician has to stand up and vote, and face repercussions from her/his electorate. This is not how the Founders would have envisioned "laws" to take effect. It has criminalized a generation --misdemeanors, felonies (fake IDs)--and wrongly so. It dimishes their ability to qulaify for law schools, and many other jobs. Ironic as having been passsed by a generation of lawmakers who likely used far worse--hard drugs, alcohol plus drugs--and then succumbed to pressure and lobbying by theoretical self-proclaimed do-gooders. Try to envision an 18 year old soldier fighting in Afghanistan who with her/his friends opts to have a beer after grueling hours and stress. How is that wrong? Making alcohol a forbidden fruit has worsened the issue, and the people who cry out about improvements in decreased numbers of alcohol related deaths amongst teens are playing with statistics. Staistics can say whatever you choose for them to say, and energized age-discriminators are flirting with statistical lies and the rights of those ages 18-21. I haven't seen any MADD groups prohibiting elders from drinking, which also would likley decrease accidental deaths, whether on the highway or in the home--hmm..I wonder why? Oh, right, because those groups tend to vote more often and have groups like AARP on their side. Perhaps 18-21 year olds need a AAYA--association of young adults--to lobby on their behalf and remove this blatant age discrimination from "federal funding" projects? I believe that Pres. Durden is absolutely correct, and amazingly brave in taking a stand. Bravo.
Name:	Denise Parker Parent
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 6:55 pm
Comments:	I support lowering the drinking age to 18 limiting the availability to wine & beer. I would also like to see on campus bars. I believe they would keep students on campus in a semi supervised environment as well as ecouraging fraternization between students of all grades and interests.
Name:	Mike Mitchell Father of a Dickinson Student
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:40 pm
Comments:	I am against lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. That would create other problems which I believe would be more serious and harmful. However, I understand the Amethyst Initiative to be something other than changing the legal drinking age. In fact, I think the debate / disccussion on the issues would be healthy. Perhaps our intelligent college administrators, which live with and deal with young adults all the time can come up with an educatiuon process that will eliminate some of the binge drinking problem. Abstinence is not realistic in the college environment. Let's not condone it but also let's not pretend that it doesn't exist. Let's give our college administrators some legal leeway to find a solution.
Name:	Bob Woodcock Father
Date:	Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:41 pm
Comments:	I could not disagree more. This certainly may help the college by transferring responsibility and reducing the burden of managing to the problem. This would bring the age at which kids are exposed to decision making around alcohol to a point where they are less prepared to make good decisions. Yes, this shifts that burden more to the parents and the high school and away from the colleges but is this really good for society as a whole?
Name:	Paulette Goerig Katzenbach Class of 1968
Date:	Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:33 pm
Comments:	I do not support lowering the drinking age to 18 because it appears that the current drinking age of 21 is not being followed and binge drinking is on the rise. Having raised 3 daughters what I DO know is that the emotional development of an 18 year old falls within certain parameters in spite of the perceptions of the maturity of that person. When one states that if a person is old enough to vote and fight for our country, one is old enough to drink, there is part of me that thinks that we may be better served if all those privileges and/or responsibilities should be offered at age 21. What I really fear are the unintended consequences of lowering the drinking age. Granted, it would relieve the administration of any college and university of enforcement responsibilities for most of its "clients". I would imagine that would be a great relief to all institutions. However, since many elementary schools now encourage/demand that students be older than 5 when they enter kindergarten, there will be the majority of high school students who could legally drink during Junior and certainly Senior year. I can envision the Senior prom with an open bar and it makes me shudder. Lowering the legal drinking age to 18 does not have an impact on the basic instincts that every teenager has. It simply makes it easier to feed those desires and put the enforcement burden on high schools rather than colleges and universities. Only maturity can temper those instincts, followed by strong parenting.
Name:	Suzanne Roberts parent of an undergrad
Date:	Sat Oct 4, 2008 7:53 pm
Comments:	Yes, 21 should remain national drinking age. Problem starts at home with lack of strong, positive role modeling from parents. Schools need to step in an act as "buffer bridge" because kids' judgment is immature;alcohol further clouds it. A suggestion: Make every student enrolled in a 4-year program do community service for a semester in a hospital ER or a military hospital with returning vets, helping those who are impaired. Maybe this experience will touch a heartstring and have a lasting impact. Suzanne Roberts

Add Your Comments