The Orbis

While Mothers Against Drunk Driving's initial motives for drinking age reform were certainly admirable, it is not entirely clear that this change has led to all of the successes often touted by supporters of the legislation.

Actually, it is not even entirely clear that it has been successful at all. By criminalizing drinking, it becomes a symbol of rebellion and of perceived maturity by many underage drinkers. The laws that require a person to be 21 to possess, purchase or consume alcohol are not only naïve, they are counterproductive. The drinking age should be lowered to 18.

It is no secret that statistics can be very deceiving and easily manipulated to fit a preconceived conclusion. MADD is particularly fond of statements such as "there was a 33 percent decrease in fatal crashes due to intoxication of drivers 16-20 from 1988 to 1998." What they don't tell you is that for drivers 21-24, as well as 25 and older, fatal crashes involving alcohol dropped dramatically as well during the same period.

MADD also lists on their web site the following statistics: "70 percent of college age individuals favor 21 as the minimum drinking age, 65 percent want rules more strongly enforced, and over 79 percent support raising excise tax by 5 cents a drink." These sorts of conclusions really make you wonder how on earth they are collecting this data.

Administrators in many universities have had serious qualms with the law. James Wright, president of Dartmouth College, argues that "if there were an 18 or 19 year old drinking age, we could address some of the issues more favorably." Law enforcement would be able to better address problems associated with irresponsible drinking as well, if they weren't required to monitor the inane drinking age laws. This is only one sense in which the law is counterproductive.

The clichéd arguments for the law's change in the late '70s were, in all honesty, not too far off target. The question naturally arises, "When is someone considered an adult in this country?" It seems that is a serious fundamental contradiction to endow an 18-20 year old with the responsibility of voting, being selected for jury duty and possibly being drafted to fight in a war, but to simultaneously deny him or her the right to have a glass of Chianti with their dinner. It should be a matter of individual responsibility, not government control.

Unfortunately, the underlying foundation of the age restrictions on drinking are based less on statistics or reducing drunk driving, but on a fundamental assumption in our society that alcohol is bad, even if it is often tolerated. In fact, there is nothing physiologically (or "morally" for that matter) wrong with drinking in moderation and responsibly. Nonetheless, alcohol is often the go-to scapegoat for societal ills. In this sense alcohol policy should be based more on scientific evidence, rather than ideology.

Article Tools