Change the drinking age

[Benny B]

BTW, I would also argue that changing the drinking age to 21 has actually worsened the drinking culture on campus.  As I mentioned in the other thread, I would rather have my kids drinking in a bar or at a campus sponsored event where there is control.  When you see problems such as binge drinking, drinking that leads to sexual assault etc, they almost always come from private parties in an uncontrolled environment.

Ask yourselves a question... "Why haven't the folks at Miller-Coors and A-B signed on to the Amethyst Initiative?"  Well, the answer is that a drinking age of 21 makes the beer companies a LOT more money.

It's well-established that underage college students have virtually unfettered access to alcohol.  It's also well-established that most college students have a limited budget when it comes to what they can spend on alcohol.  So let's say that Skink Jr. is 21 and he has $20 to spend on alcohol this weekend... his $20 buys him perhaps six or seven bottles of Miller Lite at a bar, maybe less?  Or he can use that same $20 to procure an entire case of Miller Lite from Pick N Save.  But if Skink Jr is 19, he doesn't really have much of a choice... he's going to be waiting in the car at Pick N Save for his libations.

Now here's a little known fact... off-premise licensees (grocery stores, gas stations, liquor stores, etc.) pay the same prices to the distributor as do the on-premises licensees (bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.).  So regardless of where Skink Jr. gets his beer, the beer companies get the same "profit" per bottle/can. 

Therefore, where does Miller-Coors want Skink Jr. buying his beer?  The grocery store, of course.
And what's the best way to keep him out of the bars?  A 21 drinking age.

So back to Skink Sr.'s point... now Jr. is back in his dorm room, at a house party, whatever; he's not just in an "uncontrolled" environment, but now he has 3-5x as many beers to consume than if he simply went to the bar with his buddies.  No bouncers, no bartenders, no cameras to keep these kids, who are now probably twice as drunk as they would have been at a bar, and therefore twice as likely to get into (or cause) trouble.  Statistics aren't necessary... just do a Google News search of "sexual assault battery injury alcohol college" and read about where these incidents take place (hint: Skink is right, the majority don't happen at a bar or club... not to mention when they do happen, they are exponentially less likely to go unreported if they happen in a bar or club).  I'm not saying than anything bad can't happen at a bar, but considering that on-premise establishments are under constant pressure by insurance companies, lawyers, and city councils to prevent these things from happening, that's the place I want my kids drinking.... not someone's roommate's friend's lab partner's co-worker's babysitter's cousin's third-floor apartment six blocks off campus.

Moral of the story -- You see all those "21 = Responsibility" campaigns from the beer companies... that's the biggest crock of lies the alcohol industry spews.  What the beer companies call "responsibility," wall street calls "profit."  In any event, it's happening at the expense of our children's health and well-being.

[Pakuni]

"The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized results from all 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 by 1986. They concluded that "raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." Additional studies since 1986 have reached the same basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar, 1996)."
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/feweryoungdrivers/iv__what_caused.htm

"After accounting for differences among the 50 states in various background factors, changes in economic and demographic factors within states over time, and the effects of other related laws, results indicated substantial reductions in alcohol-positive involvement in fatal crashes were associated with the two youth-specific laws. The policy of limiting youth access to alcohol through MLDA laws and reinforcing this action by making it illegal for underage drivers to have any alcohol in their system appears to have been effective in reducing the proportion of fatal crashes involving drinking drivers."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12729821

"One of the most comprehensive studies on the minimum drinking age shows that laws aimed at preventing consumption of alcohol by those under 21 have significantly reduced drinking-related fatal car crashes. Specifically, the study published in the July 2008 issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention found that laws making it illegal to possess or purchase alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 had led to an eleven percent drop in alcohol-related traffic deaths among youth; secondly, they found that states with strong laws against fake IDs reported seven percent fewer alcohol-related fatalities among drivers under the age of 21."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701083542.htm

[Galway Eagle]

three months to go for me

Start hydrating now I wasn't able to move for a few days after turning 21

[Galway Eagle]

Under this, you'd still be dealing with the allure of something you can't have. After six months of drinking beer, a 19 year-old will want liquor. Plus, your tolerance isn't necessarily built across all platforms so the idea of "starting" with beers or wines and graduating to liquors as a form of cautious exposure wouldn't work for most teenagers.

You have to take the mystique out of it all for it to be handled appropriately. American society isn't built to handle this issue intelligently.

Oh I know that's why I said I know it wouldn't work.  But I just figure on college campuses and the like it sets a difference between those wanting to have a few beers while watching the game or having a glass of wine while on dates vs those downing 10 shots before they go out and end up throwing up in my bathtub.  In theory if the kids get a ticket in the dorms for alcohol but would be ok with beer or wine and the main objective is to get drunk then why take the chance? Admittedly I'm a beer guy so maybe I'm thinking of this too one dimensionally. 

[melissasmooth]

Start hydrating now I wasn't able to move for a few days after turning 21

[Sir Lawrence]

This guy thinks it's all about too much free time on campus:

http://nypost.com/2013/09/24/the-answer-to-college-binge-drinking/

[ChicosBailBonds]

18

If you are "deemed" responsible enough to sign for a car loan that lasts 36-72 months and have a credit card but not responsible enough to buy a 6 pack.  Seems absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe, but then again I know a lot of 18-22 year olds that do really stupid stuff.  Statistically that is proven out.  Just look at car insurance rates for people that age, especially males.  Those aren't made up out of thin are, but because of real data.  Not the end all be all, but a lot of really dumb moves made at that age.

[brandx]

Maybe, but then again I know a lot of 18-22 year olds that do really stupid stuff.  Statistically that is proven out.  Just look at car insurance rates for people that age, especially males.  Those aren't made up out of thin are, but because of real data.  Not the end all be all, but a lot of really dumb moves made at that age.

I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.

[Galway Eagle]

I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.

Could be a purchase at 18 bars can set their own age restrictions

[Golden Avalanche]

I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.

At this point, I think drinking and driving is behind texting and driving, talking and driving, pill popping and driving, and 38 year-old mom in a minivan of kids on her phone driving on my list of fears.

[warriorchick]

I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.

I think young people these days are way more careful about drinking and driving, at least more than I was as a youngster.

[Pakuni]

I think young people these days are way more careful about drinking and driving, at least more than I was as a youngster.

I think that's probably true, but it reflects the trend that DUIs overall have fallen thanks to increased enforcement, harsher penalties and more awareness campaigns.
That said, stats among the 21+ set show that the younger you are, the more likely you are to drink and drive. A third of all drivers involved in fatal DUIs are 24 or younger, according to the CDC. I wouldn't expect 18-20 years olds to exercise better judgement than 21-24 year olds.

It seems the stats are pretty indisputable ... raising the drinking age has lowered alcohol-related crashes and deaths among people under 21. If you're OK with more drunk drivers on the road, by all means lower the drinking age.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

38 year-old mom in a minivan of kids on her phone driving on my list of fears.

+1  - A driving epidemic if there ever was one.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I think that's probably true, but it reflects the trend that DUIs overall have fallen thanks to increased enforcement, harsher penalties and more awareness campaigns.
That said, stats among the 21+ set show that the younger you are, the more likely you are to drink and drive. A third of all drivers involved in fatal DUIs are 24 or younger, according to the CDC. I wouldn't expect 18-20 years olds to exercise better judgement than 21-24 year olds.

It seems the stats are pretty indisputable ... raising the drinking age has lowered alcohol-related crashes and deaths among people under 21. If you're OK with more drunk drivers on the road, by all means lower the drinking age.

Correlation versus causation. You keep pointing out that the two are correlated, but then you admit that the real causation is probably greater societal pressure against drunk driving, more law enforcement.

[Benny B]

I think that's probably true, but it reflects the trend that DUIs overall have fallen thanks to increased enforcement, harsher penalties and more awareness campaigns.
That said, stats among the 21+ set show that the younger you are, the more likely you are to drink and drive. A third of all drivers involved in fatal DUIs are 24 or younger, according to the CDC. I wouldn't expect 18-20 years olds to exercise better judgement than 21-24 year olds.

It seems the stats are pretty indisputable ... raising the drinking age has lowered alcohol-related crashes and deaths among people under 21. If you're OK with more drunk drivers on the road, by all means lower the drinking age.

The primary objective of MLDA 21 was to reduce fatalities caused by youth drinking and driving; that is also what the studies examined.  There's nothing in the studies that would suggest MLDA 21 has reduced the number of drunk drivers on the roads, nor does it imply that lowering the drinking age would increase the number of drunk drivers.

As to what you claim is indisputable... alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased since MLDA 21.  That is true.   What is not true is your implication that alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased because of MLDA 21... at best, it's a half-truth (or a half-lie).

You should pay closer attention to the first study you cited:

But MLDA 21 laws probably had other effects beyond the straightforward prohibition and attempted punishment of alcohol use by youth. As listed in Chapter IIIB, 11 states have had MLDA 21 laws since the repeal of prohibition. These states also saw substantial reductions in youth drinking and driving after drinking in the 1980s. Furthermore, youth driving after drinking decreased more than youth drinking.

This suggests that MLDA laws may have helped influence youth attitudes about drinking and driving. The principal reason for raising the drinking age to 21 was to reduce traffic crashes. Some youth and some parents may have consciously or unconsciously absorbed some of these beliefs: that youth drinking is not a problem unless it results in dangerous actions, of which by far the most dangerous is drinking and driving. Underage drinking is generally accepted, but underage drinking and driving is not. The widespread debate over the legal drinking age also may have had some "spillover" effect in states where MLDA 21 was already in place.

However, the observations that youth drinking and driving decreased substantially more than youth drinking, and that youth drinking and driving after drinking both decreased in states which had MLDA 21 laws throughout the 1980s, suggest that MLDA 21 laws were not the only influence on youth drinking and driving during this period.
[\quote]

[warriorchick]

I haven't made up my mind about the drinking age question, but it makes sense that a 19-year-old would be much more likely to call home and say, "Mom, can you come get me?  I'm too drunk to drive home" if the drinking age were 18 than if it was 21.

[GGGG]

This guy thinks it's all about too much free time on campus:

http://nypost.com/2013/09/24/the-answer-to-college-binge-drinking/

While I am not sure that's necessarily the cause, I do agree that we are asking much less of a lot of our students than a generation ago.

A related article:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/26/many-high-schoolstudentsunpreparedforcollegeassatscoresremainfla.html

I personally think we need to ask more of our students academically in high school.  Sometimes I just think it might be a perception on my part, but my kids in high school don't seem to have nearly the amount of homework as I did when I was that age.

[Pakuni]

The primary objective of MLDA 21 was to reduce fatalities caused by youth drinking and driving; that is also what the studies examined.  There's nothing in the studies that would suggest MLDA 21 has reduced the number of drunk drivers on the roads, nor does it imply that lowering the drinking age would increase the number of drunk drivers.

Well, I suppose you're correct. Short of underage drinkers admitting en masse to all the occasions they drove under the influence, there is no empirical way to measure the frequency with which people drink and drive without consequence.
That said, I think it's safe to assume that young drunk drivers in 1975 probably crashed with similar frequency as young drunk drivers in 1995 and 2013. Unless your argument is that 18-20 year olds are driving drunk as often as ever, they've just gotten much better at it.

As to what you claim is indisputable... alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased since MLDA 21.  That is true.   What is not true is your implication that alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased because of MLDA 21... at best, it's a half-truth (or a half-lie).

Did you read the studies?
From the report on Fell's study:
Fell's research controlled for more variables than any other previous study on the topic, accounting for regional and economic differences, improvements in roadways and vehicles, and changes that lowered the illegal blood alcohol content for driving to .08.

In other words, he accounted for other variables that may have had an impact on the number of fatalities, and still found that the 21 age in itself was responsible for a significant (11 percent) decline.

You should pay closer attention to the first study you cited:
But MLDA 21 laws probably had other effects beyond the straightforward prohibition and attempted punishment of alcohol use by youth. As listed in Chapter IIIB, 11 states have had MLDA 21 laws since the repeal of prohibition. These states also saw substantial reductions in youth drinking and driving after drinking in the 1980s. Furthermore, youth driving after drinking decreased more than youth drinking.

This suggests that MLDA laws may have helped influence youth attitudes about drinking and driving. The principal reason for raising the drinking age to 21 was to reduce traffic crashes. Some youth and some parents may have consciously or unconsciously absorbed some of these beliefs: that youth drinking is not a problem unless it results in dangerous actions, of which by far the most dangerous is drinking and driving. Underage drinking is generally accepted, but underage drinking and driving is not. The widespread debate over the legal drinking age also may have had some "spillover" effect in states where MLDA 21 was already in place.

However, the observations that youth drinking and driving decreased substantially more than youth drinking, and that youth drinking and driving after drinking both decreased in states which had MLDA 21 laws throughout the 1980s, suggest that MLDA 21 laws were not the only influence on youth drinking and driving during this period.
[\quote]

Nothing there disputes that MDLA has reduced drunk driving among the 21 and under crowd. It merely states it isn't the only factor. I don't think I or anyone else has claimed otherwise.

[muwarrior69]

Ok, if 18 is the age of majority so be it and lower the drinking age to 18. However I suggest raising the age one can get a drivers license to 21.

[Benny B]

Well, I suppose you're correct. Short of underage drinkers admitting en masse to all the occasions they drove under the influence, there is no empirical way to measure the frequency with which people drink and drive without consequence.
That said, I think it's safe to assume that young drunk drivers in 1975 probably crashed with similar frequency as young drunk drivers in 1995 and 2013. Unless your argument is that 18-20 year olds are driving drunk as often as ever, they've just gotten much better at it.

Did you read the studies?
From the report on Fell's study:
Fell's research controlled for more variables than any other previous study on the topic, accounting for regional and economic differences, improvements in roadways and vehicles, and changes that lowered the illegal blood alcohol content for driving to .08.

In other words, he accounted for other variables that may have had an impact on the number of fatalities, and still found that the 21 age in itself was responsible for a significant (11 percent) decline.


Nothing there disputes that MDLA has reduced drunk driving among the 21 and under crowd. It merely states it isn't the only factor. I don't think I or anyone else has claimed otherwise.

Putting aside the fact that the Fell study was funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (which makes it just as reliable as one of those "smoking isn't bad for your health" studies funded by Phillip Morris), the study came to a similar conclusion as all of the others... there was a decline in fatalities/accidents following MLDA 21 but failed to ascertain the magnitude of the decline directly attributable to MLDA 21.

In other words, yes, MLDA 21 (directly and indirectly) reduced drunk driving & associated fatalities amongst youth.  However, if you reversed MLDA 21 today, there is nothing in those studies that suggest the same would increase by the same percentage.  Everyone agrees that there are (were) other factors - beyond age - that played into the 11% decline, so take it one step further... if the goal is further declines, why not expand upon those factors instead of relying upon an inconsistent and arbitrary age?

I firmly believe if you lowered the drinking age to 18 and introduced a "DUI under 21" law that carried a minimum sentence of nine months in jail you'd see a decline that would dwarf the mere 11% decline they got from MLDA 21.  But if it ever was, MLDA 21 is no longer about the health and safety of our kids... it's about corporate profits.  And that's why the drinking age will stay 21 in the US.

[GGGG]

Ok, if 18 is the age of majority so be it and lower the drinking age to 18. However I suggest raising the age one can get a drivers license to 21.

So how are adults supposed to get to work?

[Pakuni]

Ok, if 18 is the age of majority so be it and lower the drinking age to 18. However I suggest raising the age one can get a drivers license to 21.

Driving my kids around until they're 21? Pass.

[Pakuni]

Putting aside the fact that the Fell study was funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (which makes it just as reliable as one of those "smoking isn't bad for your health" studies funded by Phillip Morris),

Nice ad hominem, but no. Unlike, say, your Philip Morris example, SAPRP would have no financial stake in the results of a study that says the raising of the drinking age reduces fatal crashes.

the study came to a similar conclusion as all of the others... there was a decline in fatalities/accidents following MLDA 21 but failed to ascertain the magnitude of the decline directly attributable to MLDA 21.
In other words, yes, MLDA 21 (directly and indirectly) reduced drunk driving & associated fatalities amongst youth.  However, if you reversed MLDA 21 today, there is nothing in those studies that suggest the same would increase by the same percentage.  Everyone agrees that there are (were) other factors - beyond age - that played into the 11% decline, so take it one step further... if the goal is further declines, why not expand upon those factors instead of relying upon an inconsistent and arbitrary age?

I think you need to take a second look at the Fell report. It clearly states that the 11 percent drop exists after other facts are taken into account, thus attributing that percent of the decline to the age increase alone.

"There has been evidence since the 1980s that an increase in the drinking age to 21 was having an impact on traffic deaths,” Fell said. “But this is the first time we’ve been able to tease out the real effect, free of the variables that had been used to question the validity of the evidence.”

”Some have argued that the declining numbers are due to a general decrease in drunk driving, or because of the lowering of the BAC limit, or better cars and better roads. But we controlled for all of these to the extent possible in this study.”
http://www.saprp.org/m_press_fell070108.cfm

I firmly believe if you lowered the drinking age to 18 and introduced a "DUI under 21" law that carried a minimum sentence of nine months in jail you'd see a decline that would dwarf the mere 11% decline they got from MLDA 21.  But if it ever was, MLDA 21 is no longer about the health and safety of our kids... it's about corporate profits.  And that's why the drinking age will stay 21 in the US.

First, you probably couldn't create a "DUI under 21 law," but I doubt it would have much effect anyways. Most people drink and drive because they a) don't think they're drunk, b) think they're drunk but also think they can get away with it or c) are alcoholics. Nobody says "Boy, I'm going to drink and drive today because if I get caught it'll only cost me my license for six months and about $7,000-$10,000 in fines, court costs and legal fees."

[GGGG]

Driving my kids around until they're 21? Pass.

Hell, I don't even want to drive them around after they turn 16.

[warriorchick]

Hell, I don't even want to drive them around after they turn 16.

I think they should be able to drive themselves to middle school.