With the presidential debates now in the rearview mirror, another national dialogue is unfolding before the American public. It, too, is enormously consequential. Young lives hang in the balance.
Sound a bit dramatic? Perhaps, but in truth arguments both for and against lowering the minimum legal drinking age represent similar policy implications as did those addressing the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and the war on Wall Street. This particular war concerns a public health crisis that neither side can, or wants to, ignore: catastrophic rates of underage — and in many cases high-risk (or binge) — drinking.
On that point, all seem to agree. It is the answer to the epidemic that remains contentious.
The Great Debate
Mostly settled in the 1980s by legislation linking a portion of federal highway funds to the current universal minimum legal drinking age of twenty-one, the issue has been placed back on the front burner by former Middlebury College president John M. McCardell, Jr., founder of Choose Responsibility and its Amethyst Initiative, which seeks to accelerate discussion around alcohol use and abuse on college campuses.
McCardell believes that alcohol is a fixture in the lives of young people and suggests, instead of trying to outlaw it, America should consider policies that will "empower" eighteen- to twenty-year-olds to make mature decisions about it.
Surely, an issue as important as this one deserves just the type of national consideration the Amethyst Initiative has called for. If nothing else, the back and forth will foster greater awareness of a problem that, according to a report from the U.S. Surgeon General's office, is a leading contributor to death from injuries, plays a significant role in risky sexual behavior, increases the risk of assault, and is associated with academic failure and illicit drug use. For example:
- An estimated 1,700 college students die each year from alcohol-related injuries.
- Approximately 600,000 students are injured while under the influence of alcohol.
- Some 700,000 students are assaulted by other students who have been drinking.
- About 100,000 students are victims of alcohol-related sexual attacks or date rapes.
In addition, impaired driving crashes kill thousands of young people each year (they remain the leading cause of death for young people ages fifteen to twenty, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and injure many more.
Perhaps none of this is surprising when you consider the fact that alcohol is used more frequently and more heavily than all other drugs combined. Teens Today research from SADD (Students Against Destructive Decisions) reveals that the average age at which young people begin drinking is thirteen, and by the time they are seniors in high school, more than three in four teens use alcohol.
Of considerable concern to all who address this issue is the way that young people drink. Binge drinking, something McCardell cites as a relatively new phenomenon, has become more of a means to an end (getting drunk) for many youth rather than part of a larger social strategy. Binge drinking is defined as consuming five or more drinks in a row for boys and four or more in a row for girls.
From the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention:
Here's how the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration breaks out the risks.
- Binge drinking, often beginning around age thirteen, tends to increase during adolescence, peak in young adulthood (ages eighteen to twentytwo), then gradually decrease.
- Binge drinking during the past thirty days was reported by 8 percent of youth ages twelve to seventeen and 30 percent of those ages eighteen to twenty.
- Among twelve- to twenty-year-olds, 15 percent were binge drinkers, and 7 percent were heavy drinkers.
- Nearly one out of every five teenagers (16 percent) has experienced "blackout" spells in which he or she could not remember what happened the previous evening because of heavy binge drinking.
- Binge drinking during high school, especially among males, is strongly predictive of binge drinking in college.
- Frequent binge drinkers were eight times more likely than non-binge drinkers to miss a class, fall behind in schoolwork, get hurt or injured, and damage property.
- Binge drinking during college may be associated with mental health disorders such as compulsiveness, depression, or anxiety, or early deviant behavior.
- In colleges with high binge drinking rates, 34 percent of non-binge drinkers reported being insulted or humiliated by binge drinkers; 13 percent reported being pushed, hit, or assaulted; 54 percent reported having to take care of a drunken student; 68 percent were interrupted while studying; and 26 percent of women experienced an unwanted sexual advance.
The Amethyst Argument
McCardell and his 130 college president signatories concede the stats but argue that the current law forces drinking "underground" and out of sight of older adults, such as faculty members, who might actively, or perhaps subliminally, discourage inappropriate and irresponsible consumption. Amethyst states that it's time to rethink the drinking age because the current law is not working, instead creating a culture of dangerous and "clandestine" alcoholrelated behavior. In addition, the Initiative maintains that:
- Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students;
- Adults under twenty-one are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries, and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer; and
- By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.
"How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?" they ask while calling upon elected officials to support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the twenty-one minimum legal drinking age; consider whether the 10 percent highway fund "incentive" encourages or inhibits that debate; and invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.
For its part, Choose Responsibility argues for a "new paradigm" when it comes to the issue of alcohol use by those under the age of twenty-one. That paradigm suggests semantic changes (that anyone age eighteen or older consistently be referred to as an adult); reality-based alcohol education (a partnership between families and schools consisting of academic and experiential learning about alcohol); licensing (after completion of the education component, the student would receive a license entitling him/her to all the privileges and responsibilities of adults in the purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol); and a congressional waiver (the Congress would permit states to apply for a waiver of the highway funding condition, setting specific criteria under which a waiver would be considered).
An Alternative View
At the other lectern is a broad slate of citizens, experts, and public servants who believe that lowering the minimum legal drinking age to eighteen will only exacerbate a national crisis of staggering proportion. Indeed, according to an ABC News poll, 78 percent of Americans do not believe that lowering the minimum legal drinking age is such a good idea.
Those who share that view include the American Medical Association, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, National Institutes of Health, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the U.S. Congress.
What's Their View?
According to these organizations, undoing the current minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws would likely do little, if anything, to reduce problematic drinking behaviors on college campuses. Most assuredly, it would contribute to the downward age-trending of initiation into alcohol use by legally moving it into the high school community. It is pertinent to note that, according to Teens Today, students in grades six to twelve ranked the drinking age as the number-one reason why they choose not to use alcohol.
Others recite recent data made available through advances in brain imaging technology about the permanent damage alcohol can inflict upon the structure and function of still-developing adolescent and young adult brains, all the while reminding us that the earlier young people begin to drink, the more likely it is that they will encounter alcohol-related problems later in life.
And one coalition, Why 21?, believes the problem rests with an inconsistent message sent by adults who allow young people to drink — illegally — by selling alcohol to those under twenty-one, providing or purchasing alcohol, looking the other way when teens openly talk about their drinking exploits, and refusing to hold other adults and youth accountable for breaking the law. They argue, as have the National Academies' National Research Council and Institute of Medicine in their report Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility, that not until all segments of society recognize underage alcohol use for the public health problem it is will we make significant headway in solving it. Among the remedial approaches it recommends is more enforcement of laws pertaining to zero tolerance, minor in possession, drinking and driving, and public intoxication for those underage.
The Spin Room
In most debates, the side with the better backstory often wins. This debate is no different. Who's saying what in the spin room? McCardell points the finger squarely in the face of those who support current MLDA laws (telling US News and World Report, for example, "If you infantilize people, you can't profess astonishment when you see infantile behavior") while his Amethyst Initiative maintains that preaching abstinence is unrealistic and counterproductive. As Elisabeth Muhlenfeld, president of Sweet Briar College and an Amethyst supporter, says, "We know that twenty-one simply isn't working . . . . At my college, more than 70 percent of our students are under age, but we find ourselves unable to educate them effectively about drinking . . . . There must be a better way . . . ."
On that point, both