Analysis Post

This is the situation in which the big debate on underage drinking takes place. The recent discussion last year (2008) on lowering the drinking age to 18 was mooted by the Amethyst Initiative (AI for short), a group comprising chancellors and presidents of university colleges in the United States, which asserts that “Twenty-one is not working” due to the development of a “culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking””. The AI is careful not to suggest outright that drinking age be lowered. Instead, they seek to promote “an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.” Nonetheless, many supporters of the lowering of the drinking age see the AI as a vindication of their argument (even college presidents and chancellors agree!), thus breathing new life into a debate that was once thought over when the law changed in 1984. Although, I suspect it will never end…

A brief legal history of the drinking age:

Prohibition:
The term refers specifically to the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1919 which banned the “sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol for consumption.” The history behind prohibition however, is somewhat older. It was prompted by the offense saloons (retail outlets that sold beer and whiskey and promoted other activities such as prostitution and gambling) posed to the general American community in the 1890s. This cultivated protest groups such as the Anti-Saloon League, and eventually culminated in the Prohibition of the 1920s. Prohibition was repealed in 1933 amidst growing problems of illegal sale and consumption of alcohol and related gang activity.

Modern developments with regard to the drinking age:
For a long while, 40 years, according to this site, many states in the US set their minimum drinking age at 21. It was only in the 1970s, when the military enlistment and voting age was lowered in the midst of the Vietnam War, that “29 states began lowering their drinking age to more closely align” with the new age limit for enlistment and voting.
The drinking age was raised back to 21 in most states with a federal ruling in 1984. This move came amidst “an increase in alcohol traffic fatalities and injuries.” However, since the drinking age is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the federal government utilised a separate act in which it would cut “10% of annual highway funding from states that chose an age below 21.” At the same time, it is worthwhile noting that by 1983, 16 states had “voluntarily” raised the drinking age to 21 from the earlier 18.

The current debate outlined:

Those for lowering the age:
The AI argues that the 21 drinking age has given rise to another problem of clandestine binge drinking. Currently, the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimate that 39% of college students binge drink, and “80 percent of American youth consume alcohol before their 21st birthday.” In addition, “out of the 5000 lives lost to alcohol each year by those under 21, more than 60 percent are lost OFF the roadways.”
Another argument articulated by supporters of the lower age is that the legal barrier presents a “thrill and incentive for drinking.” Hence, supporters of lowering the age assert that doing so will reduce binge drinking among college students. Moreover, they claim that with drinking made legal for college students, more can be done to regulate drinking. The AI also points out that the constant flouting of the 21 limit “[erodes] respect for the law.” Those in favour of lowering the drinking age are also fond of comparing the 21 age in the US with the lower age limits in other countries, especially European ones, and claiming that this contributes more responsible drinking, as exemplified by the YES section in this site that poses the question “Does having a drinking age of 21 contribute to binge drinking and alcohol abuse among college students, as claimed recently by a group of university presidents?”

Those for maintaining the 21 age limit:
One of the strong supporters of the 21 limit is the very organisation that helped put the law back in place in 1984: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Their argument for maintaining the age at 21 largely relates to their concern with alcohol related traffic accidents among teenagers. They have studies showing a decreasing trend of alcohol traffic fatalities following the raising of the age to 21 in 1984.
Apart from the statistical argument related to alcohol traffic fatalities, those against lowering the age also point to physiological arguments. Here, it is asserted that “The 21 law is predicated on the fact that drinking is more dangerous for youth because they are not yet fully developed mentally and physically.” On its website, MADD provides a detailed account of the physiological argument.
There are also those who meet the arguments of the AI head on. Once such individual, Bernie Machen, president of the University of Florida points out that lowering the drinking age is unlikely to affect college students’ attitudes towards binge drinking because it does little to reduce the social desirability of binge-drinking. Here, Robert Voas, a researcher of drinking and driving, debunks the notion that European countries have fewer youth drinking problems. His assertion is supported by a comparative study of countries and their youth drinking problems.

My analysis:
I can see where each party is coming from. In addition, I acknowledge that both sides make valid arguments for their case, whether it is to lower the drinking age or keep it at 21. However, my contention with the debate is that it chooses to focus on the legal instrument of age minimums in order to address drinking problems among college students, whether it is drunk driving or binge drinking. In this respect, the debate fails to most effectively and directly confront the underlying problem of college students’ attitudes towards drinking, focusing instead on the mechanism of the age limit. In a sense, the concern of both sides is well-meaning but somewhat misplaced. I think this USC student, Joshua Sharp, articulates my solution insofar as he pinpoints changing the attitudes of students towards binge drinking rather than changing the law. Likewise, Robert Schlesinger echoes my thoughts when he concludes his commentary on the debate by saying “There are larger issues we need to address as a society regardless of what happens regarding the drinking age.” In the same way, attempting to target drunk driving through controlling the drinking age seems needlessly removed from the issue of drunk driving itself.
Hence, in this blog, I will attempt to investigate the particular problems of drunk driving and binge drinking and what can be done to address them. In so doing, I hope to show how the concerns of both parties can be met without getting into a deadlock over the age issue.
This is not to say that there is no place for a discussion over the drinking age, although this is not what I will be focusing on. An age is necessary for legal arbitration. Yet, how one arrives at the age should be determined more by the needs and attitudes of the whole of society (not just college students), and less by a reaction to circumstances (simply because too many people are breaking the law). However, as the poll on this website suggests, public opinion is somewhat even. So, why not split the age down the middle and settle for 19.5 years of age, then get on to discuss the more pertinent problems of drunk driving and binge drinking, which in turn are influenced by attitudes towards drinking as a whole.