Lowering the Legal Drinking Age: An Analysis of the Pros and Cons

Background

Since the mid 1930’s, the legal drinking age in the United States has been set at 21.  But during the Vietnam War, in consideration of young people in military service, 29 states lowered the legal drinking age. As a result, there was no uniform drinking age, with some states choosing 18, 19, or 20, and some states also putting restrictions on types of beverages that could be purchased such as beer and wine, or limited the right to on-premise sales only, etc. 

As a result of these changes, there was a marked increase in car fatalities where young people and drinking was involved. This patchwork of laws also led to problems at state borders, creating significant risk for teens that would drive to an adjacent state to obtain or consume alcohol.  For instance, Wisconsin allowed liquor sales to 18 year olds, and Illinois did not, and it is not uncommon to hear local adults tell stories, some tragic, of their youth and driving back and forth to Wisconsin to drink.

Under Ronald Reagan’s administration in 1984, the Uniform Drinking Age Act was passed, creating a mandatory requirement for all states to establish the drinking age at 21 within 5 years.  Funding for highway construction was tied to compliance, providing a strong incentive, but the concern about teen drinking and driving was the most compelling reason for the change.  All states complied.

The age of majority, also called the “legal” age, across the country is 18 years, and includes rights for medical information and decisions, voting, entering into contracts, and so forth.  Some restrictions on rights, privileges, and accountability do vary by state or across the nation from 16-35; examples are the age one can rent a car (25), age considered an adult in an arrest (17), age of consent (can marry, have sex—16 with permission, 18 without), the age one can run for the state legislature (18 to 21), the age one can be held responsible for a contract (21), age one can run for US elected positions (House of Representatives, 25, Senate 30, President 35), and so forth.

Some states, such as Ohio, allow alcohol consumption in establishments by minors when parents are present; most allow parents to serve alcohol to their children in their own homes. All states have penalties for fake id possession, sale, or use, and most consider this a felony.  Even so, many high school and college students report that they have a fake id for purposes of obtaining alcohol.

Proposals to lower the legal drinking age for purchase or service, or for those under 21 in the military have been proposed in Vermont, Missouri, Minnesota, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and South Carolina (each proposal is different). None have passed as of today’s date.

In 2004, John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College, spoke out about the problems of underage drinking and advocated lower the drinking age in his state and the country.  With the help of the Robertson Foundation, he formed Choose Responsibility in 2007, a non-profit group whose mission is to investigate the issue of youth and risky alcohol use, and more specifically, to promote consideration of lowering the drinking age. McCardell argues that lowering the age will end covert and dangerous drinking. McCardell went on to form the Amethyst Initiative, a movement among college presidents who agreed in their statements that  “irresponsible drinking by young people continues despite the minimum legal drinking age of 21, and there is a culture of dangerous binge drinking on many campuses.”  The organization advocates free and unencumbered discussion about lowering the drinking age from 21 as a potential solution to the dangerous drinking issue.

Other Countries

There is little uniformity in the legal drinking age across the rest of the world. Some countries have no law regarding the age one can purchase or consume alcohol; others allow use as early as 16. Few other countries have a legal drinking age of 21. Many countries have laws but little/no enforcement of the law. US students frequently report no restrictions on obtaining alcohol in Mexico, for instance, even at 12-13 years of age.

Despite the higher drinking age, the level of automobile crashes and fatalities related to drinking is higher in the US than other countries. While the larger number of cars available to youth is a factor, another contributing factor is the higher BAC level allowed for drinking in the US vs. other countries, and the harsher penalties for drinking and driving elsewhere. 

Binge drinking, among youth however, has been recorded at higher levels in many other countries than the US.  The European Economic Union (http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/papers/europe/phproject/bingedrinking-report.pdf) fielded a study in 2008 that recorded binge-drinking levels significantly higher than the US in all countries except Turkey, where the Muslim culture forbids alcohol use.  Thus, early access to alcohol, and normalized use of alcohol in families and among youth has not appeared to lower the rate of binge drinking that is popular with youth people today. Some countries are currently contemplating an increase in the drinking age to address the health issue of risky teen drinking, but there is strong opposition from youth and from the powerful liquor industry to do so. This would be the case in the US as well, as sales to minors represents a significant portion of liquor sales in this country.

Information about Local Youth and Drinking

While college presidents have recently been the most vocal on the subject of underage drinking, most American youth start using alcohol well before moving on to college.  In Lake Forest/Lake Bluff, teens are no exception.  Based on a February 2008 survey, 77% of LFHS seniors have used alcohol in the past year, 60% reported alcohol use in the past 30 days, and 42% report binge drinking in the past 2 weeks.  Average age of first drink was 15 years of age, but over half of those who drink in high school indicated they started drinking before starting high school.  These levels are above the national, regional, and county averages, and it appears that other communities around the country similar in demographics to Lake Forest/Lake Bluff have higher levels, too.

Despite the laws prohibiting use, only 26% of seniors in high school feel it is Very Wrong or Wrong For Someone Their Age To Drink Alcohol Regularly.   As well, they feel the adults around them do not feel that drinking is Very Wrong, either, once they reach the later years of high school.

Most recent surveys, however, do indicate a decline in the past two years of drinking and risky binge drinking, a trend that in the long term has been seen across the country. While it is early to say definitively that our local efforts have been truly successful, there is reason to be optimistic that the environmental strategies being pursued in Lake Forest/Lake Bluff can make a difference.

Arguments For Lowering the Drinking Age

These are the arguments presented by those who favor a reduction in the drinking age and some questions we have regarding those arguments:

• Young people are still drinking despite the fact that this behavior is illegal; teens and many adults are ignoring the law.
• Are the laws on the books being effectively enforced and supported by the community at large?
• Could lack of consistent enforcement be the reason the laws aren’t working?
• Why are some towns able to get the community behind being tough on teen drinking and others are not?
• The age restriction makes underage drinking cool (violating rules) and makes teenagers more likely to do it. This is the “forbidden fruit” theory. Removing the age restriction would no longer make drinking cool.
• Since most of our high school students reach 18 while still in high school, would lowering the age make drinking cool and accessible for an even younger group, then? Is it socially responsible to take this risk?
• Would teens really change the way they socialize and stop drinking games and parties with drinking (to get drunk) because it is legal?
• What evidence is there that this change would indeed occur?
• The law and fear of being caught creates covert drinking, and such secretive drinking makes it difficult for adults to know it is happening and help those with a problem.
• Most adults are quite aware that their kids are drinking, but they don’t act on the information due to lack of confidence, sense of futility, or lack of education on the risks.
• Those who desire to get drunk are likely to still drink covertly even if access to alcohol is legal for them.
• The fear of being caught, limits on the ability to get alcohol, or not being allowed to drink at a club or party makes teens drink large amounts in a short period of time in private (often called “pre-gaming”), putting kids at risk for alcohol poisoning, and other risks associated with binging.
• Could the real reason kids drink heavily before going out be that they like themselves better and have more fun drunk than sober?  How should we address this fundamental emotional health issue?
• Do kids feel more relaxed or socially competent “high” than sober?
• How would the change in the law address this?
• If youth are allowed to make other choices, such as voting, going to war, getting married, then they should be given the choice to consume alcohol, too, even if it hurts them.
• Not all choices are available to youth who are 18.
• Does a society have an obligation to limit the damage to a population through its laws?  Like prostitution, youth smoking, sex with minor, stealing, speeding?
• Is allowing young service personnel alcohol a good way to reward them for military service? Alcohol abuse is already a huge problem among military personnel. How would this help?
• How would lowering the legal drinking age change the “irresponsible drinking by young people” and the “culture of dangerous binge drinking”?
• The law creates a reason for teens to hide that they have been drinking and more pressure to drive home under the influence (afraid to call home for a ride or admit they can’t drive). 
• What alternative support systems could be developed to address the issue?
• Would harsher laws about DUI be more effective at getting this message across? Why do we have some of the weakest DUI laws in the world?
• The age limit restricts educators at high schools and colleges from directly addressing drinking and teaching responsible drinking—since such advice would appear to condone drinking.
• The majority of US colleges are already openly discussing moderate alcohol use and many require education programs for incoming students.
• We should teach children to drink responsibly at a young age, while they are still at home.
• How can one justify alcohol use by a developing youth if the data shows that the substance is harmful (e.g. brain development and early use increasing probability of adult alcoholism and substance addiction)?
• Can you teach a teenager to have just one drink, or do they seek the effects that only larger amounts of alcohol provide?
• Some cite that Prohibition wasn’t successful in our country’s past, so why would laws designed to keep youth from drinking expect to be successful?
• Prohibition restricted access to alcohol by adults, not youth, so is this a fair historical reference point?
• By lowering the drinking age, adults could openly model responsible drinking in establishments and at parties and irresponsible behavior would be discouraged.
• Do all adults in drinking establishments model responsible drinking?
• Do kids generally attend parties with adults?
• How would irresponsible drinking be enforced if no law exists?
• A beginner’s license to drink could be an effective way to encourage responsible drinking.
• Wouldn’t this license just create another set of rules that need to be monitored, thus putting a similar burden on colleges who feel hampered by enforcement costs?
• What proof is there that a license to drink would change the cultural norm of drinking heavily for fun?
  

Reasons Not to Lower the Drinking Age

These are reasons we have identified to oppose reduction of the drinking age.

• Current scientific data has proven that alcohol, when consumed the in any amount, but especially at levels kids are using today, is damaging to the developing brain (cognitively, emotionally, functionally).  Permitting free access to alcohol for even younger youth goes counter to sound health practices, increases the risk of heavy use.
• The majority of high school seniors reach the age of 18 by senior year in high school; lowering the drinking age would pose significant risk to them and to their younger classmates and siblings and transfer an even larger problem to the high school community.
• Would more kids drink if it were legal?  Yes, we think so and history documents this.  Furthermore, the levels of teen alcohol use since the drinking age was raised have steadily declined (it is still dangerously high, however). Consumption of this substance at a young age would increase health risks, not decrease them.
• When the drinking age was lowered in the 1980’s, there was a steep rise in the level of teen drinking and driving fatalities, and correspondingly, there has been a significant drop in the level after the age was raised to 21. Admittedly, seatbelt safety also contributed to this drop, but research shows that most kids who are drinking die because they are drinking AND they don’t use their seatbelts because of their impairment.  Would the resulting hike in youth deaths ever be worth it?
• Lowering the drinking age would be accompanied by other harmful behavior such as unplanned or unwanted sexual activity, violence, alcohol poisoning, etc. 
• Data conclusively shows that the earlier kids start drinking, the higher the chance they will have a life long problem with alcohol, and the more quickly they will have the potential to become an alcoholic.  Again, lowering the age of legal drinking is forecast to increase the percentage of the population with life long alcohol problems, already a huge health issue for our country.
• It is true that students are drinking heavily before the legal age, but are the laws that we have on the books being enforced?  Perhaps not. Many high school and college youth drink, some with their parents consent, or with the knowledge of their campus “parents”, yet the level of arrests of students or parents is miniscule compared to the incidence of the behavior.  Have we given our laws the chance to be successful in protecting us? Have we provided the support to our police departments to enforce the laws?
• Changing the law to suit the residential population of those 18-20 does not serve the majority of this demographic group who are not residing in a resident college.  (Students living on campus who could be helped with drinking problems represent less than 25% of the 18-20 year olds in the United States.)  The rest of this age group are driving, attending school but living off campus, are working, living at home or elsewhere outside of a potential support group.
• There is no proof that making a “forbidden fruit” available reduces its appeal.  This argument has also been made about illicit drug legalization. Our conversations with students who drink indicate that the “rebellion factor” is far less important than the perceived benefits of inebriation.  Until that social issue is addressed, changing the law is taking a huge leap of faith, fraught with risk.
• If colleges are the driving force behind changing the law, have they diligently applied all of the best practice programs currently recommended to curtail risky underage drinking before recommending giving up?  Most admit they do not have the resources to do so, or the lack support on campus to do these things.
• Loss of federal funding, millions of dollars, would occur if states lower the drinking age.  This is unlikely to change given the preponderance of data supporting the health and safety benefits of a higher drinking age.
• Lowering the drinking age is being rationalized by some on the mistaken perception of the European model of early access to alcohol.  Binge drinking in the European Union is significantly higher than the US.
• Changing a law that was justified as a protective measure because it is ignored is addressing the wrong side of the issue.  Yes, allowing flagrant disobedience creates disrespect for authority and our legal system.  But taking the law away does not solve the problem that alcohol poses to our children and the community.
• Lowering the drinking age does not address the serious problem of alcohol abuse among those who are drinking legally on campus.

Best Practice Programs to Reduce College Drinking

There are several recommended approaches that have proven to reduce levels of risky drinking on college campuses in the US.  Some of them are:

• Promotion of prevention programs before college.  Data conclusively shows that most students are coming to college with drinking patterns in place.  Communities must start prevention programs earlier and be more aggressive in order to change this cultural pattern. Colleges can be direct with prospective and admitted students and parents regarding the issue as well.
• Work with local schools to help fight the image that college = getting drunk that is so prevalent in the movies and on television.
• Begin Alcohol Edu type programs before college.  Kids are way beyond this level when they arrive, although these programs have been shown to reduce harm at college, too.
• Address the lack or inconsistent consequences for teen drinking.  Address honor codes, school and community policies on enforcement to send a consistent message.
• Address the perception (and fact?) that alcohol is very easy for kids to get by controlling access, sales and service to minors, and parent assistance in obtaining alcohol.
• Changing social norms.  Northern Illinois University pioneered the positive social marketing approach to address attitudes and perceptions about binge drinking, and other colleges have adopted this approach and have experienced reductions in risky behavior.
• Utilization of an environmental strategy that encompasses education, enforcement, risk reduction and asset building.
• Work with local authorities to reduce availability of alcohol to minors.
• Identify positive ways youth can take risks, find social networks and build confidence other than events that focus on alcohol and getting drunk.
• Seek ways to change the behaviors and attitudes about alcohol.
• Invest in harm reduction options that reduce drunk driving risks.
• Providing adequate and well-trained student assistance resources, consistent training and supervision of resident advisors, and best practice treatment programs available for students at risk.
• Mandate a consistent attitude campus wide about the prevention of risky drinking (from the top down).
• Increase the level of involvement in adult mentoring by coaches, teachers, and other campus staff as part of the prevention strategy.
• Educate coaches on the information now available on the detrimental effects on sports prowess of drinking (e.g.  American Athletic Institute studies).
• Train faculty and staff on signs and symptoms of alcohol abuse and develop clear policies on referrals and assistance programs.
• Provide sufficient resources to develop and present on-campus student activities that do not involve alcohol.
• Re-examine policies regarding social organizations such as sororities and fraternities that have characteristically promoted drinking.

Conclusion

We recognize that college drinking, and underage drinking overall, is a serious problem, and that the solution will be difficult and take significant time to address.  But we sincerely feel that the strategy of reducing the legal age of drinking is not the solution that we should pursue. We look forward to further exploration of the issue with you and our other local colleges, and hope that we can work together to help our youth lead safe and happy lives.


Sincerely,

Stacy Vermylen
Director, LF/LB Underage Drinking Prevention Coalition.

Resources:

College Drinking Prevention Website and their resource pages
http://www.collegedrinking prevention.gov/research

American Athletic Institute
http://www.americanathleticinstitute.org

California Law Enforcement Forum on College Drinking
http://www.socialhost.org/socialhost/documents/CA%20LE%20Forum%20Coll%20Drink.pdf  

Reducing Drinking and Driving on Campus: Best Practices from the College and University Drinking and Driving Prevention Awards Program, 1998-2006
http://www2.edc.org/cchs/aaa-awards/2006booklet.doc

Binge Drinking Studies in Europe
http://www.dhs.de/makeit/cms/cms_upload/dhs/binge_drinking_report.pdf

Positive Social Norms Marketing
http://alcohol.hws.edu/SocialNormsPrimer.html