Should The US Lower The Minimum Drinking Age?
Sheela Doraiswamy writes at Mind The Science Gap about the arguments for and against lowering the drinking age:
Those in favor of lowering the drinking age basically argue that the current minimum drinking age of 21 doesn't serve much benefit as it is. For example, in an editor's note published in a 2007 issue of the Journal of American College Health, author Dr. Reginald Fennel argues that the current drinking age is essentially like prohibition all over again- meaning that, even though alcohol is outlawed for people under 21, that certainly doesn't stop them from drinking....With the mindset that they're not supposed to drink, underage students may actually be more likely to binge when given alcohol (in other words, they may think along the lines that "this is my only chance to do this, I may as well enjoy it" and drink more than would have without restriction). In fact, underage students are more likely to binge drink than their peers who are of age.
Some arguments against:
According to a review of literature published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, author Ralph Hingson cites several studies on the issue done in the 70s and 80s. In 1971, some states did try and lower the drinking age to 18, and in the years following had an increase in fatalities from alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents. These numbers declined after 1988, by which time all 50 states had raised the minimum age back to 21.Another article by Robert Voas and James C. Fell also argues that lowering the drinking age to 18 will have too many unintended consequences. Aside from increasing motor vehicle accidents again, they claim that this will make it easier for even younger adolescents (high school students) to obtain alcohol from their 18 year old peers. They also discuss the fact that there hasn't been as much research on binge drinking among 18-25 year olds who don't attend college, and we don't know how lowering the drinking age may effect this group.
Actually, as addiction treatment specialist Stanton Peele noted on my radio show, kids who come from families where there's a responsible culture of drinking tend not to binge drink. He notes that the Jews and the Chinese tend to foster healthier attitudes toward alcohol. The Jews, for example, do it through exposure to it young, and through being less accepting of abuse of alcohol. (This isn't to say no Jews abuse alcohol, just that there's a culture, like that in my family, where drinking is not prohibited and where drunkenness would be entirely unacceptable. Wildly so.)
Silliness from the piece:
Proponents of the Amethyst Initiative have also discussed the idea of creating a "drinking license" for 18-20 year olds, who would have to take a course on safe alcohol consumption and pass a test before they can legally buy alcohol. Whether or not this would work should be a subject of further research. For now, it's probably safe to say that public health experts should look to other interventions in the quest to decrease binge drinking on college campuses.
Your vote? (On the drinking age, not which of the two substandard candidates will win the presidency.)
You're old enough to vote. You're old enough to enlist in the military. You're old enough to pay taxes. Why should you not be old enough to drink?
The US has a really bizarre, puritanical relationship to sex, alcohol, gambling, and any other activity that sets off religious conservatives.
The religious conservatives have their priorities all screwed up. There was an interview last night on Swiss TV of a prominent US conservative(Bryan Fischer) who tells his followers to vote based on issues like a politician's position on homosexuality. It seems to completely escape his understanding that (a) there are more important issues and (b) it's none of his business who other people choose to have sex with.
It is not the government's business to regulate the private activities of adults. Period. The drinking age of 21 is a futile attempt to prevent college students from partying like their parents did.
bradley13 at November 6, 2012 3:28 AM
It seems to me that whatever (arbitrary) condition we set to determine a person is an adult, when met, then that person should be treated as an adult. That means all the rights and responsibilities associated with that.
We could argue the merits of 18 versus 21 (or 20, or 16, or whatever). We could argue for/against a test or rite of passage. However it is determined, it should be fixed and complete.
To me, that means that, if you are an adult, you aren't on your parent's insurance. It means you can (if you are a citizen) vote, serve in the military, be on a jury, etc. It means you can apply for licenses and permits (for driving, a business, etc). It means your signature is legally binding.
There really, to me, should not be an argument about "college kids" or "binge drinking." The law is way too crude a tool to fix people's personal demons and problems. It should be about rights and responsibilities. I'm not saying that binge drinking isn't a problem, but the law isn't gonna stop it. After all, murder is illegal, but people still do it (just like people also commit rape, steal, vandalize, etc.).
My two cents.
Shannon M. Howell at November 6, 2012 4:51 AM
Shannon said it well. Consider the absurdity of allowing 18 year olds to vote, but not to drink. It was the opposite when I was that age - in NY, anyway. Then to placate those who quite rightly noted we were allowed to be drafted, but not vote, the voting age was lowered. Then the nanny state decided to raise the drinking age. I propose young adults should not have to pay taxes, since they don't have all the rights of an adult. It's only fair.
In Japan, the age of majority is 20. You are an adult, or not. I think 18 is a reasonable place to fix the age of majority.
MarkD at November 6, 2012 5:44 AM
A drinking license? What's next? a license to have sex?
Sounds like just another way for government to tax us.
Charles at November 6, 2012 5:58 AM
When I was 18, the drinking age WAS 18. The state (of CT) had lowered it, and if you didn't have a driver's license, you had to get a majority card. I still have mine. When I was 20, they raised the drinking age to 21 again, because the number of younger-driver-alcohol-related car accidents had gone up, supposedly. My take on this is the same as Shannon's. It should be about rights and responsibilities. There are some 40+ year-old people out there who still have no idea of what it means to be responsible. There are some youngsters out there who have had responsibilities beyond their years and capabilities thrust upon their lives, through no fault of their own.
I've said it before and I'm really sick of saying it still, but it remains true: the government CANNOT legislate morality, no matter how hard they try.
Flynne at November 6, 2012 6:16 AM
To me, that means that, if you are an adult, you aren't on your parent's insurance.
So, the drinking age should be raised to 27?
I R A Darth Aggie at November 6, 2012 7:02 AM
Just because the DRIVING age is usually 16 doesn't mean it should be so low - these days. The reason? Even well under than a century ago, neither roads or cars allowed for high speeds. If they had, you can almost bet the writers of the driving laws wouldn't have allowed 16-year-olds to drive. Given the traffic fatalities for teens, maybe it's time to change the laws?
In the same vein, if we're serious about lowering the divorce rate, how about making it much harder for people under 21 to get married, since few such marriages last anyway?
Also, in 1984, Ellen Goodman said, in a column on underage drinking, that back when young men started arguing "if we're old enough to fight, we're old enough to vote," we should have raised the draft age to 21 instead of lowering the voting age. At the end, she said: "What then of the voter who says that anyone old enough to die for his country is old enough to drink in it? Tell him 18 is much, much too young to die for his country."
You can read the column here:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19840217&id=v8daAAAAIBAJ&sjid=p20DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4837,4088469
(move the little blue rectangle on the right)
I must say it's interesting to imagine how the debate would have gone HAD we tried to raise the draft age.
I also wonder, why is it that, before the 20th century, when adolescence didn't officially exist and young men were expected to do men's work starting in their early teens, they STILL couldn't vote until 21? Or did that have to do with the fact that so many back then didn't finish high school anyway because doing so wasn't as important back then?
lenona at November 6, 2012 8:02 AM
Old enough to be cannon fodder for the government, but the same government won't let you buy a beer.
I'm against fascism, and I think a law banning a 20-year old from buying alcohol is pure fascism ... I can't see how it is not, as it is the initiation of force against innocent adult victims (both purchaser and seller). 20 is adult age. Unless we can scientifically prove that 20 year olds are mentally children, in which case, the voting age, military service cut-off age, driving age etc. should also be raised to 21.
Lobster at November 6, 2012 10:19 AM
"To me, that means that, if you are an adult, you aren't on your parent's insurance.
So, the drinking age should be raised to 27?"
No.
When I was 19 - 21, I HATED being on my parents' insurance. Sure, it saved me money, but I didn't feel like an adult. I couldn't do anything without informing them (even if I didn't say something, they'd get an insurance statement). Conversations such as, "Oh, I noticed you got a new dentist. What was wrong with the old one?" shouldn't come up if you haven't mentioned going to the dentist! So much for privacy!
I would argue a lot of things about what I think is the best solution. But, that would cover LOTS of different areas of life and take a lot of space. In short, I don't think adults should be on their parents' insurance unless they are true adult dependents (such as those who are incapable of caring for themselves). It is demeaning to the young adults.
As an aside, I have no idea what happens, given the new until-26 mandate thing, when a young adult offspring gets married. Are they still on the parent's insurance until 26? Ugh! I'm glad I didn't have to deal with that when I got married (at the ripe old age of 22).
Oh, and before I get snarky comments about being too young & my marriage won't last... 10 years next May.
Shannon M. Howell at November 6, 2012 11:06 AM
Personally, as fewer and fewer cars are stick shifts I think we need to LOWER the driving age, teach driving skills before the hormones kick in.
Most kids already know how to drive form the age of 5 on up as there isnt much difference between steering a cart or a bike, they need to be taught how to handle cars beofre the reach the age where they think strret racing will get them laid
lujlp at November 6, 2012 11:43 AM
I was at an extended family gathering this summer and there were a few 14 to 16 year olds there.
I was pouring the wine and one of the moms went into Super Ninja Atomic Attack Mode when I asked if it was ok for them to have a taste of it with their meals.
You would've thought I'd asked the girls to pole dance for us and set out shot glasses for the boys.
The stupids have taken over. I give up.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 6, 2012 11:56 AM
It'll never happen, lujy, much as I hate to say it. Most teenage boys nowadays are more worried about getting the latest smart phone than a car. But as I told my nephew, when I was growing up, most of the guys I knew in high school had some kind of car, or access to one. You can't get laid in the back of a cell phone!
Flynne at November 6, 2012 11:59 AM
Oh yes - here's another reason why, in 1971, we should probably have just raised the draft age to 21 instead of lowering the voting age. From 1991:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-09-21/entertainment/9103110767_1_young-adults-motel-room-dear-ann-landers
This letter is the first of three on the same subject:
Dear Ann Landers: That letter from the Montana reader who complained that a motel keeper wouldn`t rent a room to a teenager because he wasn`t ``of age`` burned me up. Here`s how it looks from my side of the registration desk.
I worked in a hotel in North Carolina for several months. Our age requirement for guests went from 18 to 21 to 27, after several ``young adults`` trashed their rooms. When I say trashed, I don`t mean wet towels on the carpets and a broken lamp or two. I mean they knocked holes in the wall trying to remove the fixtures, ripped out the telephones, tore up the carpeting and sneaked out in the dead of night without paying their bill.
Another group of young people were selling drugs out of our place. It didn't help business any when the police showed up to make arrests. We suspected something was odd when carloads of friends came to ``visit`` at all hours of the night. We finally told them to leave after several guests phoned the desk to complain about the noise.
``Montana`` said it was unfair to allow a few bad apples to spoil the barrel. I agree. But when the majority of problems are caused by people under 25, the hotel must take whatever steps are necessary to save its reputation, not to mention the business itself. This means we have to keep the troublemakers out. The only way to do it was to raise the age limit, which we did. By the way, we noticed that the people who got upset about the age limit being raised were the very ones who caused the trouble to begin with. We know because we kept a list.
lenona at November 8, 2012 8:36 AM
Leave a comment