Theory Post

As with most polarized debates, part of the reason why the issue becomes so starkly bifurcated is because people take sides to which they are personally attached. This is equivalent to the formation of “pet hypotheses” in scientific discourse. Consequently, both sides are deeply convicted of the validity of their stance, and are blindsided to other possible solutions to the issue.

Bringing the idea of the pet hypothesis – a position to which one is personally attached – to the drinking age debate, we can easily see that such is the case within the debate. Amongst those who argue fervently for the age to be maintained, is the organization MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). With such a name, the appeal to pathos is hard to miss. Even more, when one is aware of the history of the organization, it is easy to understand why the founders and the current members are passionately attached to their cause (many of them have lost a child to drunk driving). This emotional attachment, put alongside the statistical success of the 21 drinking age in reducing drunk driving incidents since its inception, further cements proponents’ belief in the legitimacy of their solution.

On the other side, supporters of lowering the drinking age include parents such as Leslie and Michael Lanahan, parents of Lynn Gordon Bailey, who died from alcohol poisoning after binge drinking at a fraternity gathering. They are recorded on the CBS 60 Minutes program on the drinking age debate as supporting the lowering of the drinking to 18, because it might have made a difference in their son’s case – the difference being that the underage fraternity “kids” would have called for help if what they had been doing had not been illegal. Other supporters such as the college presidents heading the Amethyst Initiative find their personal attachment to the 18 age in that a lower drinking age will have significant implications on the way colleges are run. As it is, with the age of 21 and so much illegal drinking going on at college, presidents and college administrators are at a loss as to how to handle the situation. While many claim to have the interests of the students at heart, which is not untrue, there is no denying that with the legalization of alcohol for 18 year olds, that is one less headache for college administrators.

Both sides view their drinking ages as instrumental to solving their pet problems of drunk driving and college binge drinking. However, the two ages are mutually exclusive, thus they cannot agree on the age issue. Yet, it can be said that neither side wishes to see more teenagers/college students making irresponsible drinking choices. Hence, I propose that both sides step away from the issue about age and focus instead on the problems of drunk driving and college binge drinking as problems in their own right. As for the age, it should not be conflated with other drinking problems, but decided upon separately (how this should be done is another matter for another blog).

At the heart of both problems of drunk driving and binge drinking are the attitudes towards drinking and one’s ability to make good, responsible decisions. If both sides in the drinking age debate can come together to devise a system apart from the restrictive method of the law that encourages a healthy attitude towards drinking and good decision making among teenagers and college students, that will go further in addressing both problems. In other words, what is more important is a fundamental revision of attitudes, as opposed to simply slapping on a law, which may restrict, if effectively enforced, but fails to revise underlying attitudes towards drinking. It is also of little use if the age is lowered in a vague hope that doing so will address the problem of binge drinking.