Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Should We Lower the Drinking Age? — Troy Senik
Camille Paglia thinks so. Writing at Time:
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed by Congress 30 years ago this July, is a gross violation of civil liberties and must be repealed. It is absurd and unjust that young Americans can vote, marry, enter contracts, and serve in the military at 18 but cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a bar or restaurant. The age 21 rule sets the United States apart from all advanced Western nations and lumps it with small or repressive countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
… What this cruel 1984 law did is deprive young people of safe spaces where they could happily drink cheap beer, socialize, chat, and flirt in a free but controlled public environment. Hence in the 1980s we immediately got the scourge of crude binge drinking at campus fraternity keg parties, cut off from the adult world. Women in that boorish free-for-all were suddenly fighting off date rape. Club drugs — Ecstasy, methamphetamine, ketamine (a veterinary tranquilizer) — surged at raves for teenagers and on the gay male circuit scene.
Alcohol relaxes, facilitates interaction, inspires ideas, and promotes humor and hilarity. Used in moderation, it is quickly flushed from the system, with excess punished by a hangover. But deadening pills, such as today’s massively overprescribed anti-depressants, linger in body and brain and may have unrecognized long-term side effects. Those toxic chemicals, often manufactured by shadowy firms abroad, have been worrisomely present in a recent uptick of unexplained suicides and massacres. Half of the urban professional class in the U.S. seems doped on meds these days.
I’m actually open to Paglia’s point on the principles level. It is pretty hard to articulate the logic for the 18/21 divide.
That said, I find several of the lines of argument here unpersuasive. Appeals to which nations our legal code aligns with leave me cold, as do vague warnings about “unrecognized long-term side effects” and “shadowy firms abroad,” the kind of weasel words usually employed by someone who doesn’t have any evidence. (I’m not confidently stating that the pills that Paglia decries are necessarily harmless, by the way — that’s well beyond my area of expertise —but you have to either make specific claims or keep quiet). I’m also having a hard time picturing this fictional 19-year-old who, because he can’t get a Sam Adams at an Applebee’s, decides it’s open season for ketamine.
My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that the drinking age law doesn’t have much effect outside of the margins. If you want to get it, you can. It’s nearly impossible to keep a product that’s legal for one segment of the population out of the hands of other segments unless you control distribution on a much tighter basis than we’re generally willing to do with booze (this is the same reason why medical marijuana has always struck me as an untenable compromise position).
As with most prohibitions, the group most affected is likely the ones you least have to worry about — those who take the sanction of law seriously enough that illegality, regardless of the merits, is sufficient to deter them. As a result, I’d have to conclude that changing the law wouldn’t be a huge deal — but also that letting it stand falls far short of the cosmic injustice that Paglia imagines.
What do you think?
Published in General
Why not consider this counter-proposal?
Perhaps the age for drinking is not too high, but the age for voting and military service is too low.
That has nothing to do with Her comment or My response.
Her comment reflects a favorable nanny state, because it may do some “good” in Her eyes. I’m stating that this issue is none of Our government’s business.
I would prefer each state set an age for legally recognizing a person as an adult. That recognition would apply for all matters; drinking, guns, contracts, insurance coverage, prosecution, etc… Quite simply, you are an adult or you are not.
Merina said the law keeps “kids” from drinking, and you said in response that was a parental issue. I was just noting that the law is not aimed at kids at all, but legal adults. If we’re going to combat nanny-statism, it’s important to be clear on where the private responsibility really lies. Calling 18-year-olds “kids” only enables the nanny state, because protecting child welfare is generally considered a legitimate state function.
Whether one favors a drinking age of 16 or 25, everyone who claims to support a limited federal government should be offended by the present system. It’s extortion. We force the motorists of each state to contribute to this federal highway fund, but if your state doesn’t set the drinking age and the blood alcohol level where the feds want it, say goodbye to your state’s highway funds. Same for mandatory seatbelt laws and as Troy mentioned, Nixon’s much-hated 55 mph speed limit. And the people in practically every state bow down and comply. I’d sure like to see some rebellion on this from some state legislatures.
Got it. We’re falling into “what is” vs. “what should be.” Noted.
This reminds Me of a lil’ story:
An adventure road trip years ago had Me working at a convenience store in Las Vegas. I worked every shift.
All over the store were signs stating,”We card under age 35″ or some such.
Well, I never did. I never asked for IDs. As You can imagine the lines would get longer and longer during My shift; regardless which shift.
A few asked Me about some of the customers purchasing tobacco and/or alcohol and if I was asking for IDs. “Nope,” I replied. “They look 35 to Me.”
“Really? He was eighteen inches tall, crawling, with a load in His diaper? And You sold Him alcohol?!”
“Where’s the rule book of what a ’35 year-old’ looks like? How’s the prosecutor going to tell Me what a ’35 year-old’ looks like and why wasn’t I trained to spot ’em?”
Lower it or raise the age required for everything else.
If the GOP platform included a common age of adulthood (voting, legal responsibility, military service, alcohol) it would be simple, consistent, and would be worth millions of votes.
We should raise it to 26. If you cant pay for your own health care. No booze for you until you can prove your an actual adult.
Try reading Our conversation first. And the minimum 27; so it should be ‘raised’ to 28, by Yer suggestion.
Me too, I like this idea. We can have our own Rock the Vote concert
Fair point. Let’s face it, kids are growing up slower these days so we should raise the voting/marriage/contract age to 21. If necessary, we can raise the military age as well.
-E
Wisconsin gives bars and restaurants the option to serve underage patrons who are accompanied by a parent, guardian, or spouse over the age of 21.
http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/ise/atundrg.html
No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
The issue here is not the inconsistency. The issues is the federal government meddling in things they have no business meddling in. The federal government should not set ANY age for drinking. It should be decided upon in the various states. This is exactly the kind of issue on which we can stake out some ground, and do some constitutional education.
The next person who says “raise the other things to 21” gets a thump on the noggin’! This ain’t new, baby!
I think we should raise the voting age to 21. I’d prefer 30, but would settle for 21.
[spin: not all those other things, just the voting age! Totally unrelated to consistency. I just think young people shouldn’t be voting. Or, maybe, you should have to pay taxes to vote. Of course, that’s a whole different topic.]
I never understand (generally) libertarians who say that the laws of economics and incentives don’t apply to government action. This instance, though, seems even more absurd than usual; as our Canadian friend notes, there are plenty of minors who drink when and where it is legal, but not when it is not. I didn’t go to a US High School, but it sure seemed like sobriety was a lot more common at US universities than in the final two years of UK high school.
I agree that we should repeal the vile blot on the Constitution that is the Reagan/ Liz Dole drinking law mandates. The Medicaid portion of Roberts’ Obamacare decision restored a little freedom, but more would be desirable. It’s pretty much exactly the sort of thing that state diversity is best for, reflecting diverse community norms. I don’t see the justification for suggesting that this represents a free lunch, though.
That’s wonderful! I had not known that, but will congratulate my (liberal) badger friends. The only sad thing is that parents can’t delegate that authority, so I will still have to transport my godchildren out of the country to introduce them to wine before their taste buds all die out.
That’s true in 10 states, and some 30 allow private parties to serve alcohol to underage persons with parental consent. But that only highlights the irksome contradictions. The law presumes an 18-year-old has sufficient independent judgment to get a tattoo or get married — decisions with ostensibly lifelong consequences — yet can’t have a beer without Mommy or Daddy’s permission.
For whatever reason, this just sticks in my craw. I would love to see some 14th-Amendment Equal Protection challenge on behalf of 18- to 20-year-old citizens who are experiencing systematic legal discrimination in this area.
Make lowering the drinking age to 18 part of the Republican party platform in 2016 and let’s win some of the youth vote back.
Yes, let states determine their own drinking age. 18 worked for me. But I’d rather see the voting age raised to 21!
We are too focused on the number. An 18 year old getting shot at in Iraq or working a blue collar job is far more of an adult than a 24 year old hipster who never left college and is still on Mommy and Daddy’s insurance. Legal adulthood should be based on independence; if you receive more than 25% of your income from something other than wages, investments, or savings, or you are listed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return or health insurance, you are not an adult and should be treated accordingly.
I understand your reasoning but I dread the idea of the tax code being used as a basis for anything beyond taxes due. In fact, I object to its use for that purpose as well.
When I was in high school in Wisconsin, the drinking age was 18, and anyone with a only a university ID could usually get served a beer. I regularly had a drink with friends, but the one and only time I showed up at home in an altered state was when I experimented with … espresso.
My daughter went to McGill University in Quebec, where the drinking age is still 18. Because many students come from provinces with higher drinking ages, the university puts new students through “Frosh”, an extended event where they are led in groups through a series of local bars, and encouraged to partake through games and contests. Drinking is permitted in the dorms, where it can be supervised. There are almost no incidents of alcohol poisoning.
After a year of feeling all cool and grown up because she could drink, my daughter’s consumption tapered off. “School is really hard,” she explained. “I couldn’t drink that much and keep up with my classes.” Now 25, she drinks in moderation.
Prohibition causes overconsumption, every time it’s tried. Social disapprobation worked brilliantly (if a bit creepily) with cigarettes; let’s use that instead.
Did none of you see the episode of Family Ties where Alex sneaks across state lines on his 18th birthday in order to get a drink!
IT WAS A CAUTIONARY TALE, DAGNABBIT!!!
If Gary David Goldberg can’t convince you of the evils of alcohol, nothing can.
Oh man. I recently took up pipe smoking. During one trip to the tobacconist I picked up a packet I’d never tried before. I can’t remember the brand, but I couldn’t even stand up afterwards.
I don’t know what people waste their time with cigarettes. That’s kids’ stuff by comparison!
Spin,
There are two arguments here.
1) The Federal Government has no business setting the age of majority, drinking, anything except maybe the voting age in federal elections.
2) The difference in voting age and drinking age is an argument for states to make them the same age. Even before the 1984 law some states had the drinking age greater than 18.
These two arguments are complementary.
I agree with Troy that many of Camille Paglia’s arguments are specious. However, these specious arguments can make headway with liberals and progressives who are the main readers of Time.
I’m in the camp where we get the Federal government out of the “setting rules for everyone” camp. Especially with drinking age. Personally, I like the drinking age being at 18 and at 16 a minor is allowed to drink with a parent or guardian in public. However, I’m sure others will have different opinions. Allowed to set their own laws, states will do what’s best for them. California will get rid of the age altogether because apparently drinking is the only fun thing California is easy going about. Utah will set the minimum drinking age to 42. Everyone else will be somewhere in between.
Best part is, Feds won’t be extorting the states for this issue.
A little off subject here, but every time I hear about “binge drinking” I see red. According to the definition promoted today, a woman who has a drink before dinner and splits a bottle of wine with dinner has gone on a binge. If a man does the above plus has some brandy after dinner, he has binged. <Expletive> nonsense.
Here’s a question for everyone. Let’s say your state was considering defying the federal government and lowering the drinking age, changing the BAC level back to .1, or repealing mandatory seatbelt laws. The penalty will be that Uncle Sam will hold back some of the highway money. Right now the federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. I know about ten years ago I read that on average, most states where getting back about 75% of what their motorists paid in as the federal government was skimming off about 25% for other purposes. So if that’s still the case, and the feds only held back part of a state’s highway funds for their disobedience, the typical state may have to increase the state gas tax by a dime a gallon to make up the difference. Would you be willing to pay an extra dime a gallon to regain this measure of independence? I certainly would. The price of gasoline has gone up by about $1.5-2 a gallon since about a dozen years ago and we’ve gotten nothing for it. This dime would buy us some freedom.
Right. Even if a woman has two drinks or a man has three just once a month, they’re officially a binge drinker.