I have to say I agree with Amy Peet, in her Oct. 22 column, “Drinking taboos create, not prevent, problems,” that alcohol cannot be blamed for its overuse.

However, I can’t say I agree with Ms. Peet’s theory that lowering the drinking age will decrease the amount of excessive drinking that goes on in this country. In fact, I can’t think of a time when I have heard such backward logic.

It is true there are many 18-year-olds who are much more mature than many 21-year-olds. However, there are even more immature 18-year-olds than there are mature ones. By lowering the drinking age, we not only have a bunch of immature 21-year-olds drinking legally, we also have a bunch of immature 18-year-olds drinking legally.

As with drinking and driving penalties, the underage drinking penalties are not nearly strict enough. Perhaps if the penalties for underage drinking and supplying alcohol to minors were more severe, there would be fewer problems.

As for drinking and driving penalties, I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Peet. People caught drinking and driving should not only lose their license, pay fines and serve significant jail time, they should also have their car taken away, sold and have the money used to hire more law enforcement officers to patrol for other drunk drivers.

The opportunity to amass three strikes is three too many for drunken drivers.

One strike is sufficient, preferably to the back of the head.

George Wormley

Senior

Dairy Science