Renee RosenowWhich is more dangerous? Which requires more maturity, judgment and responsibility – drinking alcohol, being a parent, driving a car, serving on a jury, fighting in a war, smoking cigarettes, using firearms or voting?
There are two major problems with the current approach to alcohol. The first is it isn’t fair and the second is it doesn’t work. With a president-elect who owes some of his success to the young voters, now seems an opportune time to discuss the inequities and failures of the “mandatory minimum drinking age” (MMDA) and to recommend an alternative that is fair and more effective.
Pressure for the current drinking laws came, in large part, from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Whenever the drinking age has been questioned, MADD has been quick to point out that since the drinking age was raised there have been drastic reductions in drunk driving incidents involving 18 to 21 year olds. This is true, but it isn’t the whole truth, and because drunk driving is the primary justification for 21, it is the logical place to start.
The main reason for raising the drinking age to 21 was evidence that 18 to 21 year olds were far more likely to drink and drive and more likely to be involved in an accident – even if they weren’t intoxicated.
However, prior to the MMDA, the drinking age varied from place to place and, not surprisingly, many young adults drove to locations with lower drinking ages. Unfortunately, some drove home drunk after bar close. The MMDA set the nation-wide drinking age at 21, eliminated the motivation to drive (drunk) and heralded the resulting decrease in drunk driving as proof-positive that those less than 21 shouldn’t have been allowed to drink in the first place.
The problem here isn’t 18 to 20 year olds: the problem is drunk driving laws are toothless and stopping drunk driving is not enough of a priority. National studies suggest most drunk driving goes undetected, unticketed and unpunished. Instead of wasting the valuable time of police officers and clogging the courtroom with underage drinking tickets let’s focus on the real problem. Drunk driving takes thousands of lives each year and causes many more serious injuries.
Raising the drinking age to 21 has saved lives, but banning alcohol completely would save even more. Swinging open the front door of a keg party or locking down the backdoor exit of a bar are great ways to catch underage drinkers, but aside from enforcing a law what is being accomplished?
On a weekend night there are more important laws to enforce, like those for drunk driving – a crime that has a high cost in lives lost and property damaged. I defy anyone to find a single death or related crime that was caused by drinking underage (The only thing that comes close are the people injured fleeing busted parties). Alcohol poisoning, alcoholism, drunk driving, suicide, vandalism, public urination, lewd conduct, noise violations and other alcohol-related problems are the result of alcohol and either poor choices or a failure to recognize danger.
Eating too much candy is something we can afford to learn through individual trials and errors. We eat too much and get a stomach-ache, but we learn not to do it again. Even if we must suffer a sore tummy 10 times before we learn to control our sweet tooth, the chance that we will be killed by eating too much candy is almost zero. The same cannot be said of learning to drink alcohol – it is extremely toxic and too dangerous to be learned through experience.
It is foolish and costly to think that a person will be endowed with knowledge of alcohol’s danger on the eve of his or her 21st birthday. Most of the time people survive their trial(s) with alcohol and the error is a hangover or a regrettable drunken phone call. Tragically, as I’m sure we’re all aware, some trials end in serious injury or death.
Consider that the drinking ticket for blowing a .001 (a sip-of-beer) is the same as the ticket for a .3 (almost-in-a-coma drunk). Ticketing based on the amount consumed won’t really work because breathalyzers are not accurate enough. Essentially, there is no legal incentive to drink less, except for cost (and at house parties, it is all you can drink for five dollars) is one final justification for the current drinking age.
Thus, the primary argument for the MMDA is that it reduces underage drinking and prevents stunted brain development. Yet, 25 to 34 year olds are responsible for more drunk driving fatalities and the brain isn’t “properly” developed until the mid-twenties. So, why isn’t the drinking age higher?
The drinking age is 21 for the same reason that nobody cares what 18 to 20 year olds think about it. There have been, and continue to be, more heinous and immoral exploitations of small and under-represented demographic groups, but ultimately the ability to silence objectors and limit the inequity to a small group is the key to this law’s continued “success.”
If MADD and other MMDA supporters truly relied on their data to guide policy recommendations they’d be lobbying for a higher drinking age (30?).
Here is my proposal for a National Drinking Standard: To qualify for the drinking education class, candidates must be 18, have a high school diploma (or equivalent degree) and must have no drinking violations of any kind. The diploma requirement ensures individuals are out of high school, it encourages people from high school and it is at least somewhat demonstrative of the qualities needed to be a responsible drinker. The DEC would be a “temperance-plus” approach and would encourage abstaining from drinking until at least the mid-20s by teaching the adverse health consequences of drinking, especially those caused by binge drinking.
Furthermore, it would focus on low-risk drinking, which includes knowing where and with whom you will be drinking and establishing a plan for afterwards – such as spending the night or having a designated driver. This program would be approximately 20 hours long, which is not much longer than the course underage offenders already take.
Upon completion students would receive a probationary license that entitles them to three things: 1) Entering and patronizing taverns. 2) Possessing, but not purchasing, store bought alcohol. 3) Having alcohol present in their blood stream, except when driving. If they violate or attempt to violate any of these provisions, their license will be stripped until at least 21. At the age of 21, students will receive a qualified drinking license, which entitles them to all the freedoms 21 year olds now have.
Why can’t probationary drinkers buy alcohol from a store? One reason for setting the drinking age at 21 is that it helps keep the alcohol out of high schools and this is a legitimate concern. To get store bought alcohol (i.e. something with a top on it that can be transported) probationary drinkers would have to enlist the help of a qualified drinker (somebody at least 21 years old) just as they do now. This, combined with the diploma requirement, ensures that it will be just as difficult for high school students to procure alcohol as it is now.
Probationary drinkers must be completely sober when driving. Hopefully, this will mean they get practice being a designated driver and realize that being sober at a bar or party is not that bad. Some states might even require that probationary drinkers log some number of hours as a designated driver, but that is besides the point.
Providing to minors (over a certain quantity) would be treated like drug dealing – as a felony. Drunk driving should also be a felony – anybody dumb enough to drive drunk is too dumb to vote.
The drinking age should not be 21.
Stewart is a senior education major and a guest columnist for The Spectator. “Will Stewing” appears every Monday issue.
