Should the Drinking age be set back to 18?

[red-beard]

Straight Talk: Time to Rethink the Drinking Age
Tuesday, April 10, 2007

By Radley Balko

It's been 20 years that America has had a minimum federal drinking age. The policy began to gain momentum in the early 1980s, when the increasingly influential Mothers Against Drunk Driving added the federal minimum drinking age to its legislative agenda. By 1984, it had won over a majority of the Congress.

President Reagan initially opposed the law on federalism grounds but eventually was persuaded by his transportation secretary at the time, now-Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

Over the next three years every state had to choose between adopting the standard or forgoing federal highway funding; most complied. A few held out until the deadline, including Vermont, which fought the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (and lost).

Twenty years later, the drawbacks of the legislation are the same as they were when it was passed.

The first is that the age set by the legislation is basically arbitrary. The U.S. has the highest drinking age in the world (a title it shares with Indonesia, Mongolia, Palau). The vast majority of the rest of the world sets the minimum age at 17 or 16 or has no minimum age at all.

Supporters of the federal minimum argue that the human brain continues developing until at least the age of 21.

Alcohol expert Dr. David Hanson of the State University of New York at Potsdam argues such
assertions reek of junk science. They're extrapolated from a study on lab mice, he explains, as well as from a small sample of actual humans already dependent on alcohol or drugs. Neither is enough to make broad proclamations about the entire population.

If the research on brain development is true, the U.S. seems to be the only country to have caught on to it.

Oddly enough, high school students in much of the rest of the developed world — where lower drinking ages and laxer enforcement reign — do considerably better than U.S. students on standardized tests.

The second drawback of the federal drinking age is that it set the stage for tying federal mandates to highway funds, enabling Congress to meddle in all sorts of state and local affairs it has no business attempting to regulate — so long as it can make a tortured argument about highway safety.

Efforts to set national speed limits, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws and set a national blood-alcohol standard for DWI cases have rested on the premise that the federal government can blackmail the states with threats to cut off funding.

The final drawback is pretty straightforward: It makes little sense that America considers an 18-year-old mature enough to marry, to sign a contract, to vote and to fight and die for his country, but not mature enough to decide whether or not to have a beer.

So for all of those drawbacks, has the law worked? Supporters seem to think so. Their primary argument is the dramatic drop in the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities since the minimum age first passed Congress in 1984. They also cite relative drops in the percentage of
underage drinkers before and after the law went into effect.

But a new chorus is emerging to challenge the conventional wisdom. The most vocal of these critics is John McCardell Jr., the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont. McCardell's experience in higher education showed him that the federal age simply wasn't working.

It may have negligible reduced total underage consumption, but those who did consume were much more likely to do so behind closed doors and to drink to excess in the short time they had access to alcohol. McCardell recently started the organization Choose Responsibility, which advocates moving the drinking age back to 18.

McCardell explains that the drop in highway fatalities often cited by supporters of the 21 minimum age actually began in the late 1970s, well before the federal drinking age set in.

What's more, McCardell recently explained in an online chat for the "Chronicle of Higher Education," the drop is better explained by safer and better built cars, increased seat belt use and increasing awareness of the dangers of drunken driving than in a federal standard.

The age at highest risk for an alcohol-related auto fatality is 21, followed by 22 and 23, an indication that delaying first exposure to alcohol until young adults are away from home may not be the best way to introduce them to drink.

McCardell isn't alone. Kenyon College President S. Georgia Nugent has expressed frustration with the law, particularly in 2005 after the alcohol-related death of a Kenyon student.

Former Time magazine editor and higher ed reporter Barrett Seaman echoed McCardell's concerns in 2005.

The period since the 21 minimum drinking age took effect has been "marked by a shift from beer to hard liquor," Seaman wrote in Time, "consumed not in large social settings, since that was now illegal, but furtively and dangerously in students' residences. In my reporting at colleges around the country, I did not meet any presidents or deans who felt the 21-year age minimum helps their efforts to curb the abuse of alcohol on their campuses."

The federal drinking age has become somewhat sacrosanct among public health activists, who've consistently relied on the accident data to quickly quell debate over the law's merits.

They've moved on to other battles, such as scolding parents for giving their own kids a taste of alcohol before the age of 21 or attacking the alcohol industry for advertising during sporting events or in magazines aimed at adults that are sometimes read by people under the age of 21.

But after 20 years, perhaps it's time to take a second look — a sound, sober (pardon the pun), science-based look — at the law's costs and benefits.

McCardell provides a welcome voice in a debate too often dominated by hysterics. But beyond McCardell, Congress should really consider abandoning the federal minimum altogether or at least the federal funding blackmail that gives it teeth.

State and local governments are far better at passing laws that reflect the values, morals and habits of their communities than Washington is.

Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.

[VincentVega]

I dont think there should be one, but that will never happen.

[stomachmonkey]

How can you say our young men and woman can give their lives in defense of our country but can not drink?

[Porschephile944]

The law is ineffective, very few people wait till 21 to begin drinking. A lot of people I know began to drink in high school around 10 and 11th grade, and most people who didn't start then have started since then (before turning 21).

There were some interesting comments made about the over 21 age not helping colleges fight abuse of alcohol on campuses. Having worked as an Resident Assistant recently one thing I found discouraging was the way discipline was handed out. The penalties were mostly slaps on the wrist and the people who showed signs of worrisome behavior didn't get the attention that they needed from the drug an alcohol center on campus. If the student was having a party in there room most of the time a letter would be sent home to there parents stating that there was situation and they child had four 30 racks and two handles of vodka in there room, or something similar. The student would be put on housing probation and that would be the end of the situation. The students who had drunk to much would be sent to the hospital and then have a required meeting with a drug and alcohol consular on campus but there was no significant follow up beyond that. I would be very interested to see what the presidents of these colleges that this guy talked to had in place to circumvent drinking and how they responded when there was a situation that arises because of it.

[snbush67]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
How can you say our young men and woman can give their lives in defense of our country but can not drink?

Exactly...thats why all men and woman in the Armed Services should be able to legally drink at 18, but everyone else should abstain until 21, as a byproduct it might help with recruiting .

[Tobra]

I could legally drink on base when I was 18.

If they drop it to 18 for the general population, it would definitely thing out the population of 18 year olds

[Hugh R]

I'm of the age (53) when I could drink at 18 in the USMC and in college at 23 when they changed it from 18 to 21. I'm amazed that I'm still alive. I have two kids (18 & 21) and I think a large part of the fact that they're still alive is the 21 drinking law. While I agree with the concept that if your old enough to die for the country, your old enough to drink, the fact is that I should be absolutely, positively, without a doubt....dead from my drinking and driving as a teenager. We don't need to make it any easier, speaking as a parent.

[rammstein]

21 or 18 is of no difference to me. Its all or nothing. IMO, there should be NO age. Having an age tied to it adds an allure to it. Its 'cool' to drink' in high school, but if Nerdlinger could get a beer after school legally, it would relieve this (somewhat). I drank a few times in high school. Got in horrible trouble with my parents for it. But I did my learning about drinking in a controlled environment, where I had to be able to walk past my parents when I got home. When I got to college, I saw firsthand what happens when inexperienced kids go to their first party and try alcohol. Saw some seriously poisoned people, and luckily they all lived. I think the law might actually cause more harm than good (not to mention the federal govt telling the states what to do).

[rammstein]

Just want to add that nothing will cure the problems associated with young kids drinking too much, or driving afterwards, but if the law makes it worse, should it be kept around just to make people feel like they are trying?

[thinkfloyd14]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
How can you say our young men and woman can give their lives in defense of our country but can not drink?

Ill always stand by this argument. To me this is all thats needed to be said about the subject.

[gprsh924]

I am in college right now and the fact that it is illegal for 70% of the campus to drink does zero to curb it. It just puts us behind closed doors and pounding hard liquor to get drunk quicker.

At my school the punishments are pretty severe. One alcohol violation, nothing happens, the second one before you are 21 gets you suspended for a semester.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by rammstein
21 or 18 is of no difference to me. Its all or nothing. IMO, there should be NO age. Having an age tied to it adds an allure to it. Its 'cool' to drink' in high school, but if Nerdlinger could get a beer after school legally, it would relieve this (somewhat). I drank a few times in high school. Got in horrible trouble with my parents for it. But I did my learning about drinking in a controlled environment, where I had to be able to walk past my parents when I got home. When I got to college, I saw firsthand what happens when inexperienced kids go to their first party and try alcohol. Saw some seriously poisoned people, and luckily they all lived. I think the law might actually cause more harm than good (not to mention the federal govt telling the states what to do).

Agree 100%.

I spent a lot of my early years growing up in Germany.

As young as I can remember, 4-5 yrs old, I drank "beer" at dinner. It was non-alcoholic beer.

As a teen we were allowed to drink real beer and wine.

Even stateside I was allowed to have real beer at home.

It was never taboo and I never abused it cause I did not perceive it as something cool to do. It was normal.

[red-beard]

A law that "tries" to do something but does not accomplish it's goals is not a worthy law. That is "feel good" legislation. Like a "restraining order". It does nothing to prevent a determined attacker.

This is one of the reasons I believe that every law should have a sunset provision. If the law is worthy, it can be re-authorized.

[Porsche virgin]

18 to drink
21 to drive

Yes, I know it'll never happen.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by Porsche virgin
18 to drink
21 to drive

Yes, I know it'll never happen.

16,17 or 18 is OK to drive.

What needs to change is how young drivers are educated.

Enough of this Drivers Ed in HS crap.

Require them to attend a real driving school that costs REAL money same as they do in Germany. Stiff penalties for driving under the influence and other infractions. It's gotta hurt. Heavy fines, lose of privileges for minimum 1 year. A year of community service.

Driving is perceived as a right that they are entitled to. BS, it's a privilege that will be bestowed upon you once you have proven that you are not a threat to the rest of us.

I know, I know, you can't impose economic hardship on people because our Mass Transit system sucks.

So make it easier to get one at age 21. You want it sooner? Then you pay for the education. Need it for work? You get a limited license that allows for it. Get caught outside the limits. Say bye bye to the license for a year right there on the spot, no questions ask, no second chance. Deems da rulz. Either abide or don't, your choice but there will be consequences.

[RallyJon]

Laws that are routinely broken by ordinary people undermine respect for the legal system and should not exist.

What's more harmful to society: kids drinking beer, or kids learning at a young age that "It's the cops, RUN!" is the rational and healthy response to seeing police?

[KFC911]

Originally posted by gprsh924
I am in college right now and the fact that it is illegal for 70% of the campus to drink does zero to curb it....

I think that same statement would have applied to my HS back when the legal age was 18 (I'm 46). I'm not condoning it, but teens are going to experiment with all kinds of stuff (most go on to be successful, some don't), and these arbitrary laws will never change this imo. I've got plenty of friends with teens (and a bit older), and the 21 age limit is just as much of a joke as 18 was way back when...

ps: I didn't have my first beer until I was 16, but based upon the studies I've seen, today, I would have been "tardy"....does anyone really think these laws work?

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by RallyJon
Laws that are routinely broken by ordinary people undermine respect for the legal system and should not exist.

What's more harmful to society: kids drinking beer, or kids learning at a young age that "It's the cops, RUN!" is the rational and healthy response to seeing police?

Never understood that one.

Moved to a new area in my late teens.

The friends I made would run at the 1st sign of cops.

I remember once sitting on the steps of the neighborhood elementary school with a bag of McDonalds and a bag of beer.

Cops roll up and although no one has done anything wrong every one starts to run. The guy sitting next to me starts to get up and I tell him to sit back down. He's shaking like a leaf.

Cop asks what we're doing. Said eatin a burger. He asks why the other guys ran. Said, I don't know, you should ask them. He asks what's in the other bag? (Think my buddy pissed himself at this point) I said beer. He looks in, grabs one for himself and one for his partner and says "make sure you clean up when you leave". I said of course we will, have a great night.

My friend can't believe what just happened. Told him cops are people with a job to do. Treat them with respect, be upfront, NEVER make them chase you for no reason and most of them will cut you a lot of slack.

[Aerkuld]

Originally posted by red-beard
...
Alcohol expert Dr. David Hanson...

I think I should be an alcohol expert, I think I'm fairly well qualified.
How do I go about getting that title officially do you suppose?

I have to agree with others that lowering the drinking age and raising the driving age would appear to be a productive exercise. In addition I would think that effective driver education and more stringent testing would have a much more significant effect on road safety.
I have never understood why you would want to have kids driving BEFORE their first legal introduction to alcohol. I imagine that this is somewhat of a moot point anyway, as I suspect a ridiculously small percentage of people have not consumed several alcoholic drinks before reaching 21.
As for the drinking age being used as a tool by colleges to help fight alcohol abuse, can't they just enforce a rule of no alcohol on campus?
I know there are a lot of strong feelings in this country regarding alcohol and I think that anyone trying to be less stringent with laws regarding alcohol will have an uphill battle with these moralists. But I would like to see some real proof - hard data - that shows that a drinking age of 21 is better than setting it lower.

[gprsh924]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
Never understood that one.

Moved to a new area in my late teens.

The friends I made would run at the 1st sign of cops.

I remember once sitting on the steps of the neighborhood elementary school with a bag of McDonalds and a bag of beer.

Cops roll up and although no one has done anything wrong every one starts to run. The guy sitting next to me starts to get up and I tell him to sit back down. He's shaking like a leaf.

Cop asks what we're doing. Said eatin a burger. He asks why the other guys ran. Said, I don't know, you should ask them. He asks what's in the other bag? (Think my buddy pissed himself at this point) I said beer. He looks in, grabs one for himself and one for his partner and says "make sure you clean up when you leave". I said of course we will, have a great night.

My friend can't believe what just happened. Told him cops are people with a job to do. Treat them with respect, be upfront, NEVER make them chase you for no reason and most of them will cut you a lot of slack.

In my hometown, you would've gotten arrested. Simple as that. Thats why people run