Four experts (including, with all modesty, your’s truly) have been waging a vigorous debate in the latest issue of Cato Unbound (Cato Institute’s on-line monthly publication) regarding the war on drugs. The focus has been on the drug-related violence in Mexico, with former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda writing the lead essay, but the discussion has evolved into something much broader. Please take a look.
While U.S. leaders focus on Afghanistan, Iran, and other problems in distant regions, there is an alarming security threat brewing right next door. Violence in Mexico, mostly related to the trade in illegal drugs, is spiraliing out of control. Even worse, it is apparent that the drug traffickers are winning their fight against the Mexican government. The situation on our southern border has grown so bad that even the Marines at Camp Pendleton in southern California are now barred from spending their leave time in neighboring Tijuana because the city is too dangerous.
The drug violence in Mexico, and how it is spilling across the border into our own country, is the subject of my new policy study for the Cato Institute. You can access it here.
A group of more than 100 college and university presidents have issued a statement advocating that the minimum drinking age in the United States be lowered from 21 to 18. It’s about time! The law requiring states to set a minimum age of 21 for consuming alcohol or lose their federal highway funds is perverse and counterproductive even by the usual standards of federal legislation. We have a system in place where 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are considered mature enough to marry, purchase property, obtain and use credit cards, serve in the military, and be held responsible for any violations of law. Yet, they are not considered mature enough to have a beer or a glass of wine.
I wrote on this issue back in 2001, pointing out that the United States is almost alone in the Western world in setting the minimum age at 21. The vast majority of countries set the age at somewhere between 16 and 18. Some have even lower limits–or no legally mandated minimum at all. And almost all of those countries have fewer problems with drunk driving, binge drinking, and other social pathologies. That’s not surprising. Adolescents (and even younger children) in such societies learn to drink responsibly under adult supervision. In the United States, young people are expected to avoid even a drop of alcohol until their 21st birthday. Presumably, while they are asleep on the night before they turn 21, the responsible drinking fairy comes and sprinkles responsible drinking behavior dust over them.
The U.S. system is a disaster. A large percentage of teens and young adults flout the law, often in unsafe settings where binge drinking is the norm. It is a law that cries out to be changed.
Predictably, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which was the main lobby for the passage of the orginal law setting a nationwide minimum of 21 back in the 1980s, has reacted to the proposal of the college presidents with shrill denunciations. MADD, a group that was originally formed to combat a real social problem, quickly morphed into a group of prohibitionist zealots that has waged a jihad against even recreational drinking, and especially against any drinking by young Americans. It is well past time that the rest of us reject their views and urge Congress to adopt more sensible legislation. The college and university presidents deserve praise for launching a badly needed debate.