The argument back in the 1960s and early 1970s was that if a young man was old enough to die for his country in the rice paddies of Vietnam, he was old enough to sip a beer before they buried him. And indeed, the argument had sufficient appeal that most states reduced the drinking age, as well as the voting age and age of majority, to 18.
When I arrived at college, a brash 17-year-old who had long since gotten a ridiculously bad fake ID in Times Square showing I was of the requisite age, there was a bar in the student union. A bunch of us from my freshman dorm headed straight over after dinner, and bonded. We were not, at first, particularly responsible drinkers, but then, we were mere steps away from home. And so night after night, we stumbled and survived to drink another day.
In due time, the novelty wore off and we became more responsible drinkers, though I suspect a great many happy times for all occurred in the interim. At the very least, we all had a great time and nobody died of alcohol poisoning or was accused of rape.
At Reason, Robby Soave argues that the 1986 change in law, where states were coerced to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose federal highway funds, has given rise to a plethora of terribles today.
University campuses, unfortunately, have become epicenters of excessive drinking that provide no shortage of easy marks for rapists. By some accounts, binge drinking rates on American college campuses have worsened over the past decade, even as society-wide alcohol abuse has purportedly lessened.
“Young people don’t have moderate models,” she said in an interview with Reason. “If you’re not allowed to go buy alcohol until you’re 21, what are your models going to be?”
Not to be an insufferable slave to logic, but this makes no sense whatsoever. There are no moderate models when you’re 18 and on your own any more than when you’re 21 and on your own. The only difference is that you’re three years younger and less mature, not that those three years do a whole lot to make a person more responsible.
“The 21 year-old drinking age is part of the problem,” said Seaman, who is also president of Choose Responsibility, a non-profit organization opposed to the federal drinking age of 21, in an interview with Reason. “It contributes to this forbidden fruit mentality. It’s the only thing that differentiates an 18-year-old from all other full citizens. And I think it’s built up a resentment.”
Meh. There is nothing, from the point of view that a drinking age of 21 is somehow more problematic to binge drinking, reckless behavior, resentment or any other factor, that distinguishes the two. Every negative one could ascribe to a 21-year-old drinking age can be equally ascribed to drinking at 18.
At some age, whether that’s 18 or 21, a young person has to shed the restrictions of youth, together with the bubble wrap that mommy and government place upon them, and take a risk of growing up and being responsible for their choices. They will make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes.
Does it matter whether they make mistakes at 18 or 21? One perspective is that the “forbidden fruit” and “resentment” issues will be lessened by the additional three years of maturation, though experience suggests that just isn’t the case.
Another way to consider the question is whether delaying the accoutrements of adulthood also delays adulthood itself. No doubt researchers can debate whether, and to what extent, the end of adolescence has changed, but based on my highly non-scientific methodology, it’s gone from 16 to 28 in the course of two generations.
It’s not that I disagree with Robby’s point, that the minimum drinking age should be reduced again to 18, but that I think his reasons are ripe for dismissal by Mensa rejects. There is nothing about 21 that makes 18 a more responsible choice.
Rather, I strongly fear that our nannyism is misguided, and that much of the trauma of victimization that has translated to little boys and girls on campus demanding infantilization and protection from personal responsibility stems from societal efforts to shield them from maturity. Drink all you want. Get drunk. Everyone has *that* night where they puke their guts out and learn that there is a limit to how much stupid is served up with happy hour beers. And then get over it and grow up.
This view is likely very unpopular today, as young people have been weaned on the notion that they are entitled to live in a world where no harm ever befalls them, and so they never learn to deal with its potential and their role in causing harm to happen. And, of course, parents and school officials have been weaned on the premise that a normal life should be devoid of risk.
Yet, life keeps smacking us in the face, no matter how many rules and regulations we enact in the effort to create our safety Nirvana. And kids keep doing dumb kid things, no matter how many times we warn them not to play with sticks of they’ll take an eye out.
So when they first start to drink, they will sip one too many at the Dew Drop Inn, and someone will do something that will make parents sad. Whether it happens at 21 or 18 won’t change that. But the sooner young people learn that bad things can happen when they don’t take responsibility for their conduct, the sooner they get past the likelihood of harm, and the sooner they stop desperately looking for others to blame for their own choices. That’s why reducing the age of drinking is worthwhile. Cheers.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The real tragedy’s when you realize you prefer margaritas.
As a junior, I was lucky enough to get a seat in Winetasting at the Hotel School, which was one of the hardest classes to get. Not only was the course entirely about drinking (homework was fabulous), but as a result, I started buying wine futures (called DIs). I recently sold 16 cases of wine I bought in college for almost $100k profit. Drinking been very, very good to me.
I’m still holding out hope for these holographic Charizards.
You probably think I’m too old to know about Pokémon, but I’m not. I have kids.
I’m amazed. I was certain you were going to strike him down with your curmudgeon bludgeon.
Yes, I’ve waited a long time since I noticed that particular rhyme. Wait, I didn’t do that last one on purpose.
Why does everybody think I’m so unhip? I know stuff.
“There are no moderate models when you’re 18 and on your own any more than when you’re 21 and on your own.”
The “moderate models” are more experienced drinkers in bars and restaurants ordering a glass of wine or two. But when you’re 18, you can’t join them, if you want to drink, you have to have join a bunch of other 18 year olds in a dorm room or something. I did a study abroad in a country that basically didn’t have a drinking age. The kids had been drinking moderately at home with their parents for years, could order a drink whenever they felt like it, and just didn’t see a reason to binge drink the we kids in the US did.
I’m desperately hoping that you wrote this comment under the influence of grossly excessive amounts of alcohol.
You conflate entirely separate examples, Shelby. Countries where there is no drinking age has no bearing on the question of whether the experience differs for 18- or 21-year-olds. It’s apples and oranges.
On the other hand, do you suppose that 18-year-olds are so utterly sheltered that they’ve never seen anyone, their parents, relatives, friends, television, movies, anyone, drink alcohol so that they hole up in their dorms with some mysterious unknown beverage that transforms them into drunken terrors? And yet, when they turn 21, they are suddenly worldly and aware from watching others in bars (for the ten seconds it takes for them to order their first drink) that they become paragons of moderation?
Crazy.
What never ceases to surprise me is not that people struggle with the flow of logic, but that they feel compelled to publicly demonstrate it. Logic is often counterintuitive, but that’s the challenge. And this one doesn’t require much heavy lifting at all.
This certainly is true.
The kids had been drinking moderately at home with their parents for years, could order a drink whenever they felt like it, and just didn’t see a reason to binge drink the we kids in the US did.
~~~
That is basically what my Spanish teacher in college had to say on the subject. She was from Catalonia and said she saw no reason for the drinking age being 21 because it was 16 back home and there just weren’t any problems aside from the usual learning curve that applies to new drinkers.
I think the point about responsible examples from peers could have been better made. I would argue it thusly: those squares who would be more moderate and responsible at ages 18 to 20 when drinking don’t drink at all with a 21 drinking age because as squares they would not want to violate the law. Had it been legal at 18 they would drink and do so more moderately and so would provide a counter example to the more irresponsible drinkers at that age. I don’t think this is anything more than a minor point, however. Full disclosure: I was one of those squares so I did not buy alcohol until six months past my 21st birthday. And I have never been drunk or drunk more than two or three drinks at one time (with one possible exception I won’t bore you with). I have never been sick from drinking too much.
Aside from the aspect of your being a pathetic excuse for a young person, there is nothing in your argument that distinguishes the experience of an 18 year old from the experience of a 21 year old when it comes to roll models for moderate drinking. How does this elude you? At least Shelby has the excuse of being (theoretically) shitfaced drunk for arguing such idiocy.
I could be involuntarily intoxicated now, without my knowledge. I have seen plenty of defendants claim that, so it must be terribly common…
The distinction is the more responsible types who could be role models for their peers while they are 18 to 20 are not drinking at all at that age so the only example they give is that, as you put it, squares don’t drink at all and so are pathetic excuses for young people rather than been seen as someone who joins the party but stops after a few drinks.
Seriously? Do you really contend that no one between 18 to 20 isn’t bent on getting totally shitfaced in their dorm, and has managed to live all those years without every seeing a responsible drinker, but suddenly upon reaching the age of 21 finds bars filled with responsible role models who guide them by example to become paragons of self-control?
And space aliens?
No. People tend to hang with people their own age at age 18. Freshman don’t have classes with seniors. Only seniors generally would be 21, and at the start of the year, many would not be even then. So if your peer group is mostly other 18 year olds, maybe some 19 and 20 year olds, then the people you go to parties with and hang out with are likely all below drinking age. Who has more effect on your socializing at that age… Your friends in school or your parents and other adults not in your crowd?
However, as I said initially, it is a minor point. Very minor. Because as you point out, there are examles of moderation outside your peer group. Lots of them. And even if there weren’t, most people don’t squander their youth by being responsible all the time.
Let me try this a different way. Yes, 18-year-olds tend to hang with other 18-year-olds, who similarly lack experience with alcohol. And 21-year-olds on campus hang out with 50-yearolds at the 21 Club. Oh wait, they hang with other 21-year-olds at college bars who have no greater experience than they do. Ceteris parabus.
And when and if 18-year-olds are lawfully allowed to drink alcohol, they will still hang out with other college kids in college bars, just as the 21-year-olds do now, all of whom share the same lack of experience with alcohol. This would be their models of moderation, others who are just like them, whether it’s at 18 or 21.
Hate speech graffiti punching down Figrin D’an and the Modal Nodes, found in the Bith restroom of Chalmun’s Cantina, Mos Eisley, Tatooine:
Teen space aliens frequent these bars.
They cruise in here weekly from Mars.
They slurp beer by the keg
Chased with hard boiled egg,
And play Spice Girls on detuned sitars.
Get ‘um started early they have so much to learn…
Mickey Rourke, role model. Is that what they mean?
“So when they first start to drink, they will sip one too many at the Dew Drop Inn, and someone will do something that will make parents sad. Whether it happens at 21 or 18 won’t change that.”
I find your argument is both overly narrow and overly broad, because the intent of changing the MLDA is not about individual outcomes.
The purpose of increasing the drinking age to 21 is to protect the public from the aggregate effects of drunk teenagers behind the wheel. According to a recent study, which I will be happy to link if you’ll allow it: “The cause and effect relationship between MLDAs of 21 and reductions in highway crashes is clear.”
You’re talking old news. That was the argument in 1984, when the MLDA was first proposed, and 1986, when it was effective, and has since been the line of bullshit promoted by MADD and its sponsored studies every time they want to increase the BAC amount or increase the penalty for drunk driving ever since.
No, I’m not. I’m talking about a study published in 2010 (The effects of minimum legal drinking age 21 laws on alcohol-related driving in the United States \\ Anne T. McCartt, Laurie A. Hellinga, Bevan B. Kirley) that found, along other evidence supporting my POV, that among fatally injured drivers ages 16–20, the percentage with positive BACs declined from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995, a bigger decline than for older age groups.
On the contrary, what we can’t discuss is the junk, patently anti-federalist Cato Institute joke of an analysis published by Miron and Tetelbaum, which based its conclusions on data which failed to separate traffic fatalities based on the presence of a positive BAC, and which I see so much of in your argument.
Yeah, the study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Totally legit.
Hey, they’re not funded by MADD. Besides, who’s better at actuarial than the insurance industry?
Seriously though, what, in your estimation, renders the IIHS unreliable? My understanding is they exist to more accurately understand risk so their sponsors can be successful. They are apolitical.
They exist to make money for the insurance industry. I agree with you that reducing 18-20 year old drinking and driving will reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities, though there are many components (such as seat belts, safer cars, air bags, etc.) and are invariably ignored in the mix. They hate drinking, and will use any means possible to eliminate it as much as possible.
So is it an issue? Sure. Is there anyone doing legit analysis? No. Is it the only, or even most important issue? That’s a matter of perspective. You’re POV is fair, but it’s yours. You can’t demand others share your priorities or fears.
The fact that safety standards were vastly increased in that period, and that traffic fatalities went down across the board is entirely irrelevant…
Now that I’m reading that quote again, it could just as well mean that sober 16-20-year-old drivers were killed a lot more frequently than they used to be, thus reducing the positive BAC ratio. And, of course, that could be due to their extended adolescence, which causes them to be more careless (if sober) drivers, or because their millennials and don’t believe they can driver poorly because they always won a trophy.
Reductio ad absurdum?
Probably. Just having some fun with statistics.
I think the point about responsible models was that if you’re getting booze purchased by older people, they are more likely to be poor models because they’re breaking the law to intoxicate younger people. Probably not always with the best of intentions, either.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s what was meant at all.
I have read Robby Soave argue elsewhere for lowering the drinking age in an effort to reduce sexual assaults. The idea is that this would move the 18-20 year old drinking crowd into legal establishments like crowded bars and away from house parties thrown by less scrupulous people (less scrupulous because they’re willing to break the law to serve drinks to minors).
I find this argument for lowering the drinking age more persuasive. I agree with you that the “moderate model” thing is unconvincing.
People don’t get drunk in bars? People don’t get to parties where booze is served when they’re able to go to bars? Has the world changed that much since I was young?
In theory, bars have an incentive not to over serve. You can also be pretty confident your drinks are not doctored by the bartender. Perhaps more options for safe rides home at your local cluster of bars.
As far as bars vs parties, I suppose it just gives you more options if previously your only option for alcohol was the house party in the sketchy basement of the kid buying booze with a fake ID.
You find that persuasive?
I’m pleased to discover that we both attended the same college, Scott, although I’m a fair bit younger. I can definitely say that I saw far more problematic drinking and its aftermath at unregulated frat parties than bars. That’s not to say that lowering the drinking age would solve all problems, but it would give 18-20 year-olds an alternative evening activity that merely involves drinking, rather than dangerous drinking.
The current system, as applied on college campuses, involves pretty much everybody blatantly ignoring the law except when someone suddenly decides to enforce it. That approach doesn’t work in the criminal justice system and it fails for much the same reasons on campus. Criminalizing video games and beer in a dorm with friends is a phenomenally poor use of everyone’s time.
That said, I think there’s a real concern about how a change in the drinking age works on a national level. The situation at a remote residential college is different from that at a predominately commuter school, for instance. Not to mention the potential impacts for 18-20 year-olds who are not attending college. Some college presidents have proposed a “drinking license” program where students could receive licenses to drink after completing an alcohol education program (many colleges require some sort of online alcohol education program anyway at this point). This approach is problematic to me, especially as it could easily wind up as an elitist indulgence program, but it’s worth considering.
In any case, this subject brings up the sad news today that the Chapter House in Ithaca was destroyed in a fire yesterday. A shame for all, regardless of where we put the drinking age.
Someone on twitters pointed out the news about the Chapter House fire. A shame to lose a piece of history.
If you can purchase a home for your wife and kid, serve in the military and be charged with insider trading or tax evasion, then you should be able to drink.
Whether 16 or 25, some people can handle drinking and others can’t. 21 versus 18 is negligible but for the other responsibilities we give 18 year olds.
My anecdotal experience probably means absolutely nothing at all but i am going to talk about it anyway. Living in Australia where the legal drinking age is 18 i can tell you now that i cannot see any difference between the drinking behaviors here vs those described in the US. We still have parties at peoples homes after we legally can go to bars and bars definitely do give you enough alcohol to get you shitfaced and then sell you more if you are willing to pay.
I find Marc’s comment the most accurate, some people just go stupid when they drink whether this is at 14, 18, 21 or 65.
I think you miss several reasons why lowering the drinking age to 18 would both encourage more moderate drinking and provide more reasonable role models.
When the drinking age is 21 people under that age are generally not allowed to drink with their families when they go out to dinner (or family friends or even responsible older friends). Family and older friends don’t want to be seen as encouraging 18 year olds to break the law and even if they were willing to drink with them no restaurant or bar they might attend with them is going to (legally) serve the under 21 year old in the party. Thus, it really is true that you lose the chance to start drinking with more responsible role models as a result of the 21 year old drinking age. Not to mention the fact that (as someone pointed out) the squares will hold out longer shifting the mix of drinking buddies.
Furthermore, it changes where students drink. Instead of ordering a few beers over dinner their only option for drinking is in the worst places possible, parties where overdrinking is encouraged and it is easiest to get in trouble.
Basically, the argument follows from the fact that 18 year olds are going to be curious and try drinking and the law forbids the most responsible ways for that to happen. Not that changing this law would stop the college party culture….but I tend to think trying binging and moderately stupid things isn’t so bad.
Meh, for reason already made abundantly clear.