One Year Too Many

BOUNCERS AND BARTENDERS in the Commonwealth may have to weed a lot more minors from majors this year, as the legislature seems intent on raising the drinking age to 21. With the probable backing of the legislative and executive leadership, and a lack of any explicit opposition, the date the law goes into effect appears all that is uncertain about the proposal. That is unfortunate, because boosting the drinking age by one year would be not only unfair but ineffective in its ostensible purpose--preventing traffic deaths. It would simply be a gratuitous slap at the state's young adults to score political points with their elders.

It is undeniable that a disproportionate number of 18-to 24-year-olds cause highway tragedies by drinking. It is equally clear that since 1979, when Massachusetts withheld drinking privileges from 18-and 19-year-olds, a substantial number of lives have been saved. In that instance, the raise--though philosophically unfair to young people treated as full-grown for purposes of voting and registration--was justifiable on the basis of the gain in safety.

But such restrictions must have significant justification, and boosting the drinking age from 20 to 21 does not. All the data used to show that a rise saves lives come from states which raised the drinking age from 18--none exists with hikes from 20 There is a logical explanation for why the two might be different. Even supporters concede that the "drinking age" is an inexact law, and that raising the level from 18 to 20 was aimed at saving 14-to 18-year-olds by getting alcohol out of the high schools. The current proposal could serve no similar purpose. Most 20-year-olds can pass for 21, or have a friend who is. The records show that 20-year-olds drive no worse than 21-to 24-year-olds--last year, in fact, 21-year-olds had a more dismal record.

Supporters, unable to show significant cause, justify their stance by pleading that they are merely following the recent recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. Yet no politician argues that Massachusetts should comply with some other recent proposals--such as the per se law, which would automatically penalize drunk drivers without a trial. Rather than attacking the problem of age again, legislators should focus on the real dangers of drunk driving itself--whether through more roadblocks, the per se laws, or better education on the dangers of drunk driving.

Despite the questionable benefits from the proposed rise, no visible opposition has mounted, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis is trying to boost his image by selling his tough anti-drunk driving package to his younger constituents. Students, along with everyone else, should laud him for the beefing up of roadblocks and bolstering of educational programs he has already done. But they should put the heat on him to oppose the illogical plan which insults them without offering a significant benefit.