Straight Talk: Time to Rethink the Drinking Age

[Washington Hunter]

I think I agree with this. What do you guys think? (except Jose)

Straight Talk: Time to Rethink the Drinking Age

Wednesday, April 11, 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.

 

[Moosie]

I was in Switzerland at 16-17, Got drunk several times. It wasn't a big deal. I had my fill and when I went to "collage" parties I would be the Designated Driver alot of the times. It wasn't this "CRAZY SNEAKY" thing to do. Beenthere, done that, And it was easier to pick up the chicks when all the other guys were passed out I am one thats not against lowering the drinking age.

 

[MarvB]

I kind of understand the "logic" of those who say "if you're old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to have a beer" that being said, most teenagers heads are rectally implanted and I already pay enough for insurance as it stands now....

 

[Washington Hunter]

I say if a person isn't old enough to drink at 18, then they also aren't old enough to vote, get married, or join the military. So raise the age limit for all of those things to 21. If not that, then ban alcohol altogether. That may be the better option. Other drugs are illegal, why marijuana and not alchohol?

 

[Cathunt MT]

I say if a person isn't old enough to drink at 18, then they also aren't old enough to vote, get married, or join the military. So raise the age limit for all of those things to 21. If not that, then ban alcohol altogether. That may be the better option. Other drugs are illegal, why marijuana and not alchohol?

"Are you a pot head focker"

 

[Washington Hunter]

"Are you a pot head focker"

LOL I love that movie!

 

[MattK]

My question is how many people wait until they are 21 to take their first drink? Not many...That being said, the minimum age of 21 is more likely to keep it out of high schools as someone 21 years old is less likely to hang around with a high school student. I really don't care what the age is, I believe it should be above the highschool level as having a beer with your teacher just wouldn't be very good. Why change it now and add more beauracracy and complaining...just leave it alone.

 

[2fastnaz]

If your old enough to Die for this Country then you should be old enough to Drink in it. That's how I feel.

I did considerable drinking as a teenager, by the time I was 21 ( leagal age in AZ at the time was 19) it was no big deal.

 

[cjcj]

When I was 18 you could drink... they changed it later... I agree old enough to serve in the military.. old enough to drink... you fugg up you suffer the consequences.

 

[snake river rufus]

If you are rational enough to cast a vote, you are rational enough to choose to ( or choose not to) drink. Change the Constitution again.
I agree with the the "old enough to get drafted- old enough to drink" idea. So if you want to drink while you're under 21, join the service.
The truth is that most 18 yr. olds are not responsible enough to drink, vote, or go to war.
Of course, if you choose to put a poison into your body,,,

 

[Ultrahunter]

Should lower the drinking age to 18 only for those with the nads to join the military.

 

[A Guy Out West]

You can’t compare the rest of the world to the US. It takes an awefully long time to grow up in the US. As far as I remember, if you are In The military, you can drink on post, even if your under 21. This may have changed, I’m not sure. Your average 18 year old kid from Europe is usually equal to a 21year old kid here, maturity wise. If you lower the age back to 18, your really empowering 16 and 17 year olds to drink. I grew up in the era of 18 year old drinking, sure did create a lot of young alcoholics.

 

[Sytes]

Same boat as several mentioned... however @MarvB really hit the nail on the head...

There are a good qty of retards under 21 that could work fug up my insurance or someone's life.

My belief, show your military creds... I'll buy you a round, regardless age.

 

[SFC B]

I am another vote for a "unified age of maturity". If you can do the most important things in life (marry, be drafted/enlist, drive with a full license, vote and enter legally binding contracts) at 18 there is absolutely zero reason not to allow that person to decide whether of not to drink. It was a hypocritical and reactionary construct by middle aged (at the time) who did not have the same limitation. As for the military itself, the legal drinking age of soldiers locations are now controlling as opposed to the previous "18 on base" rule.

As for the Europe comparison, it is really apples and oranges. I have lived in Italy, Germany and the UK (both as military and civilian) and anyone who has been out to clubs or pubs (or when these folks show up at Oktoberfest) in the UK and Italy should be able to tell you there is definitely ZERO "more maturity" there. British and Italian partiers on a weekend night (largely young folks) binge drink to extremes-as well as consuming copious amounts of party/designer drugs with nearly zero consequences. Germany is a different matter because of culture. Drinking to excess for ANYONE in Germany is simply not acceptable. This is engrained in folks......as it was to a degree by my German Oma. Losing control of yourself is a horrible thing.


BTW, plenty of folks MY age- 51- that will NEVER be able to handle their liquour

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

I am also a believer that if you are old enough to fight (and possibly die) in foreign wars, pay taxes, get married, vote, or otherwise have all the "privledges" of being an adult; you should be able to drink responsibly.

 

[Shangobango]

I say if a person isn't old enough to drink at 18, then they also aren't old enough to vote, get married, or join the military. So raise the age limit for all of those things to 21. If not that, then ban alcohol altogether. That may be the better option. Other drugs are illegal, why marijuana and not alchohol?

100% this.

 

[Shangobango]

Maybe it's just me but the maturity level I observe between most 21 year olds and most 18 year olds is all but non-existent.

 

[mdhunter]

Let me freshen this up..."its been 34 years" since the drinking age was set at 21 years old".

 

[Nick87]

Let me freshen this up..."its been 34 years" since the drinking age was set at 21 years old".

Well it's been 14 years since this thread was started.

 

[OntarioHunter]

That old arguement "If an eighteen year-old can own a brewery, he should be mature enough to drink the product" doesn't hold much water with me. Very, very few kids I know or have known who are/were that age have the maturity to make a go of a brewery. Any that do are probably smart enough to not be in a hurry to make alcohol part of their life. When Montana lowered the drinking age to 18 in 1971, it damn near ruined me. Fortunately, the draft and Army stepped in. Choosing military police and Korea kept me out of Nam. Also gave me the choice of any post in the world after my Korean tour and at that time the US had a military facility in Africa. I didn't want to f*$k up that sweet deal by doing the wrong things so I got my drinking under control.

I agree, American teens are already at the top of the world's list for immaturity. There is no doubt about that. I would even say its grownups are probably only surpassed in immaturity by Russians ... who lead the world in per capita alcoholism. I don't see any good reason to make it harder for US kids to grow up. Easy access to alcohol is just another obstacle they don't need. The drunk driving angle has never been that important to me. There's other better reasons for keeping the drinking age at 21.