Taking the easy way out

It is that time of year again. I saw the kids walking out to their bus stops for the new school year today.  The start of classes are usually a good time for that refresher course on what you are supposed to do when the bus stops to pick up kids.  I may try to sort through that for you, but I wanted to talk about the statement released from the 100 university and college presidents that asked for the legal drinking age to be lowered to 18.

First a little background: There technically isn't a national drinking age. Each State is responsible for setting the age at which alcohol can be legally consumed.  What Congress did in 1984 was tie highway funding to the minimum drinking age chosen by each State.  Chose to set your minimum age below 21 and you lose 10% of your federal money for roads and bridges.  Of course, nobody wants to have the government tit put out 10% less milk, so by 1987 every state set 21 as the minimum drinking age. For me this is just like the V-chip in your television: another example of the government having to step in and be the parent because a large part of its population is too stupid or lazy to do it themselves.

The argument for 21 as the drinking age is based largely on the "fact" that it saves lives because of fewer drunk driving deaths.  There has been a 13% reduction in traffic fatalities among 18-20 year olds since 1984, or about 900 fewer deaths per year.  There a couple of problems: (1) The methodology is suspect due to the subjective process that police use to determine if something is alcohol related; and (2) the law doesn't exist in a vacuum so you can't say that the minimum age of 21 is the cause of the reduction.  During that same time frame laws against drunk driving were strengthened with much more severe penalties, there was an increase in public education and awareness of drunk driving, there was an increase in vehicle safety standards, and the use of seat belts.  The groups like MADD claim that the statistics are "filtered" or "corrected" to take these other changes in laws or technology into account, but whenever you have a group that is so closely identified to a particular position, WATCH OUT FOR THE STATISTICS!

While there is certainly is some small reduction attributable to the change in the law, there are certainly other factors that contributed more (seat belt usage).

So where is the harm in a minimum age of 21?  What does it cost? To me, the harm comes in the erosion of respect for the law, the criminalization of normal adult behavior, and creating a culture that glorifies binge drinking.  It makes no sense to me that we allow an 18 year old to enlist in the army to fight and die in Afghanistan or Iraq and we tell them they aren't mature enough to go down to the bar with their friends for a beer.  I also can't understand why we are criminalizing normal adult behavior.  I know of several of my clients that have had to worry and fret over whether they will be able to get a job after college with a PAULA (Possession of Alcohol Under Legal Age) ticket on their record.  It is a scheduled violation, so you can't get most judges to give you a deferred judgment on it.

I believe that anyone vested with the rights and obligations of adulthood should be able to legally drink.  If you can serve on a jury, serve our country in time of war, get married without anyone else's approval, buy a house, or sign a contract, you should be able to drink. I believe that most parents are lazy.  They don't want to confront their children (read: under 18) on anything, let alone drinking.  They don't want to take the time to talk with their kids about alcohol abuse. By a legal prohibition for anyone under 21, they get off the hook (unless they are one of the "cool parents" that let their kids drink at home). The government is also taking the easy way out.  Instead of an education program aimed at younger persons they preach total abstinence by anyone under 21. That always works. Look at teen pregnancy, STD's or street drugs. 

The United States has a higher drinking age than all of western Europe and Canada.  Those countries have achieved the "results" of fewer traffic deaths through education and safety initiatives.  We could do the same if we weren't so lazy.  The bonus is that we would have a law that matched reality and made sense.  It reminds me of a quote from The Simpsons when Ned Flanders' hippie parents are at a loss for his hyper behavior...."You gotta help us, Doc.  We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".

Comments

[John Neff]

Fatal automobile accidents involving alcohol are under reported because the police are often too busy dealing with injuries to collect the evidence needed to prove that alcohol was a factor.

The Iowa alcohol related fatal accident rate was decreasing prior to 1984 and continued to decrease at about the same rate after 1984. The Iowa rate was smaller than the national average and when you subdivide the data by age range you have to contend with large statistical fluctuations because of the small sample size. I would not bet the farm that reducing the minimum age to drink made any difference in the Iowa fatal accident rate.

You noted that people are more in the habit of wearing seat belts today than they were prior to 1984 but in addition todays cars are more crash worthy than 1980s models. Both of those factors contribute to a reduced fatality rate.

Severe and frequent intoxication are public health problems that are being treated as criminal justice problems. My impression is that severe and frequent intoxication are more common today than than they were in 1980.

A study in Wisconsin showed that counseling of young males by family doctors about alcohol abuse resulted in a decrease in the incidence of OWI with respect to a control group. This is an example of treating the problem as a public health issue instead of a criminal justice issue.

I agree with you that massive noncompliance with a law contributes to contempt for the rule of law but I don't think you will get much traction with that argument.