The answer to underage drinking may just be to let minors decide for themselves when they are ready for alcohol.
Or at least that's what Ken Krawchuck, the Libertarian candidate for Pennsylvania governor, suggested at last night's PennForum discussion on the drinking age.
PennForum, a student-run debating society, organized the event, which took place in the Logan Hall Terrace Room and had an attendance of around 25 people.
"My personal opinion is, you should be able to drink at the point when you show the maturity to handle alcohol," Krawchuck said. "It's your life, your way, as long as you don't harm someone."
Krawchuck's opinion is not surprising considering his party's emphasis on moral self-responsibility, and he used the forum to plug his campaign.
While Krawchuck stressed that a person's drinking habits are that person's own affair, Wharton senior Randall Kessler argued along the same lines, speaking of irrationality in the nature of the minimum age law.
"It's illogical and unfair to have multiple ages for adulthood," Kessler said. He added that while an 18-year-old could vote and get married, "you can't even enjoy a glass of champagne at your own wedding."
Wharton freshman Doug Scherrets -- arguing against lowering the drinking age -- insisted the 21-and-over restriction was safer for society.
"The 21-year-old age limit has saved 20,000 lives," he said, claiming that before 1987, when the legal age was 18 in many states, fatalities due to drunk driving accidents rose tremendously. "We have the moral obligation to save hundreds of lives every year."
Stephanie Ives, the director of Alcohol Policy Initiatives, agreed with Scherrets and cited a large number of statistics to demonstrate the adverse affects of alcohol, and the benefits of the age law.
"I'd like to point out that the U.S. has become a more sober nation," she said. "Drinking is not a moral issue... there are health issues that are at risk depending on age."
Krawchuck and Kessler both argued that adolescents who had grown up accustomed to alcohol were less likely to engage in high-risk drinking.
Krawchuck said that he allowed his three daughters to drink when they liked, on the condition that they stayed in control of themselves.
"Parents should be in control of their families," he said. "By raising my kids responsibly, I have broken the law, and I'll do it again."
However, Scherrets said that insisting parents take responsibility places too much burden on them to monitor the distribution of alcohol.
Kessler spoke of what he argued was the University's seeming hypocrisy concerning alcohol consumption, referring to the official posters that claim most Penn students have four drinks or less when partying.
"Our university has basically admitted there is nothing [they] can do about it," he said. "The deterrent effect is not there, [the University] does not care if cops do not come down hard."
Krawchuck echoed this argument, saying neither students nor police respected the drinking law.
"If they don't enforce it, it doesn't matter what the drinking age is," he said.
Ives insisted that the University's aim was to create "as incredible and enjoyable an atmosphere as is possible for students," and for that reason the administration does not crack down on parties.
"If there is no respect for law... we would have to be hardliners," Scherrets added.
Both sides agreed on one thing -- that punishments for alcohol related crimes, particularly drunk driving, should be harsher.
"The U.S. is more lenient [on drunk driving] than Europe," Ives said, adding that in Europe a drunk driving offense results in a heavy fine or jail.
"Yes, if they are drunk driving, throw them in jail," Krawchuck said.
PennForum members were pleased with the high level of the debate and floor questions.
"I really enjoyed it, I thought both sides made very good points," said PennForum Chairman Bret Sanner, a Wharton sophomore.
"I thought it was an excellent debate," said College sophomore Rob Flanigan. "We were able to blend... statistical research and the philosophical approach."
"I was really happy with the panelists... especially compared to other debates," College junior Dan Asen said.
There was only one negative aspect to the debate as far as members were concerned.
"It was a lower turnout than expected," Flanigan said.
"It wasn't what we usually get," Sanner, a Wharton sophomore, added.
Asen said he felt the audience made up for low numbers with enthusiasm.
"I spent the last five months planning this," he said. "I'm really not disappointed."
