Finally, Some Common Sense on the Drinking Age
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.
EShipley
Living in a state where drinking is as a sport as a social past time and being one who does not drink at all, I am in agreement with your assessment. I find it ridiculous that we would send our “children” at 17 and 18 into harms way to protect our country, but throw them in the brig for having a drink after battle. Like so much of our governments policies, this bipolar notion that some mystical change happens at 21 is simply crazy. While I would simply like to see no consumption of alcohol because of the devastation that it can bring and often without real warning, I am still a realist. If we are to allow individuals to contract for virtually anything at the tender age of 18, why would be ban those same individuals from having a drink. Maybe it is time that we teach our youth how to act within the law and not encourage them to circumvent it.
Comment on Sep 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
tcarpenter
Eddie–You make some very perceptive comments. We ought to ask two key questions about any law the government passes: 1)Is it consistent with respect for an individual’s inalienable rights? 2)Does it achieve its objective without creating side effects that are worse than the problem it attempts to solve? Requiring a “yes” answer to both questions would spare us from a host of stupid and damaging laws. Establishing a minimum legal drinking age of 21, I believe, fails both tests.
Comment on Sep 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm