For Drinking, 21 the Right Number

Although arguments for lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) are reasonably convincing, the US should not repeat its past mistakes. We have already experimented once with a lower MLDA, and the results should be enough to convince even college libertines of the wisdom of limiting alcohol to those over 21.

In reaction to the young age of soldiers in fighting Vietnam, many states lowered the MLDA and allowed 18-year-olds to drink during the 1970s. By 1984, however, the federal government compelled states to reset the MLDA to 21 in response to the obvious reality of the time: Quite simply, lower MLDAs have failed in practice.

Underage drinking will always be a problem, no matter where the MLDA is set. However, if it were set at 18, alcohol would spill over to high schools even more than it already does, and 13-to-17-year-olds would be more likely to drink at levels now associated with the 17-to-20-year-old college demographic. Although correlation is not causation, a 1978 study suggested high schoolers drank more, abstained less, and got drunk more often in those states with a MLDA of 18.

Teenagers have also been safer since 21 became the MLDA. The government estimates that the higher age saves up to 1,000 lives a year from drunk-driving accidents. During the 1970s, states that changed their drinking ages to 18 or 19 reported spikes in the frequency of alcohol-related crashes and fatalities. Likewise, New Zealand, which recently lowered its MLDA to 18, was rewarded with 12 percent more crashes involving alcohol among 18-to-19-year-olds and 14 percent more among 15- to-17-year-olds.

As logic would suggest, more legal access to alcohol also means more consumers. Almost all studies agree that states with higher MLDAs fostered citizens who drank less often than those in states with lower MLDAs, both before and after their 21st birthdays. The number of high-school seniors nationally who report binge drinking in the past two weeks has also fallen to below 30 percent on a consistent basis, after topping 40 percent every year from 1978 to 1983.

Retired Massachusetts high school teacher Ann Marie Gagne recounted witnessing the proliferation of alcohol first-hand in the 1970s. The situation deteriorated to the point that one high-school senior “showed up for school so drunk that he couldn’t get out of his car.” Clearly, teenagers tipple for reasons other than alcohol’s illicit appeal. Although at times it might seem that underage drinking is so prevalent that the drinking age is irrelevant, in practice a higher MLDA does play a role in prevention.

Still, proponents of a lower MLDA persist with this “forbidden fruit” speculation and some fallacious comparisons. For instance, shouldn’t a country that sends 18-year-olds to war also let them drink? Perhaps other minimum ages deserve amendment, but the bottom line of this one remains safety and responsibility. It is probably smart to deny 18-year-olds the presidency, too.

The United States is almost alone in the world with its high MLDA. As has been seen, however, America would not respond well to foreign countries’ rules after forging a drinking culture based on limiting drinking to 21 and over. For one, Americans drive more and therefore suffer more consequences from drunk driving. For another, the rest of the world may actually have evolved higher physiological tolerances for alcohol, an effect that Americans cannot hope to duplicate overnight. Finally, research shows that European countries, at least, do actually have an alcohol problem: Europe, as a whole, consumes far more,per capita than the United States, and its rates of liver problems are alarming.

All parties can agree that covert consumption of alcohol is dangerous, but a lower MLDA would not solve it. Although 18-to-20-year-olds would feel more comfortable seeking medical assistance for alcohol poisoning, younger teenagers, whose chances of becoming a victim of alcohol poisoning would increase, would not. Also, given that 98 percent of conclusive studies found an inverse relationship between MLDA and drunk-driving accidents, lives saved in hospitals may still be lost behind the wheel.

Safe drinking environments would also be more elusive than one would hope under a lower MLDA. The “safe” environments of legal drinkers—bars and clubs— are really not so safe for the impaired. Even if the government allows a student to drink, a student’s school may not, so the result of undercover drinking would remain.

Furthermore, spillover creates another problem. Younger brains are still developing and thus at higher risk from alcohol. Drinking from an early age can even inhibit the brain’s neurological defense against alcoholism. Unsurprisingly, then, those who start drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to display symptoms of that disease. Self-selection probably plays a role in that result, but it is better to spare high school freshmen from potential danger.

Those for a lower MLDA are bound to raise some good points. Still, all the good points in the world cannot refute the fact that the United States’ experiment with an 18-year-old drinking age did not work. Experience, science, and logic all overwhelmingly illustrate that an MLDA of 21 is appropriate. Why, then, condone potential danger and addiction for a greater population by lowering it?


Nathaniel S. Rakich lives in Greenough Hall.