1
Should the Legal Drinking Age Be Lowered to Eighteen or Nineteen? Yes. Ruth C. Engs
A professor of Applied Health Sciences at Indiana University in Bloomington, Ruth Engs is the author of seven
books and many scientific papers on alcohol. She is an internationally recognized authority on drinking
patterns and problems of college students.
The legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to about 18 or 19, and young people should be
allowed to drink in the presence of adults in such settings as restaurants, taverns and pubs and at official
school and university functions. Allowing young people to consume alcohol in such controlled
environments would enable them to learn mature and sensible drinking behaviors. The flaunting of current
drinking-age laws is readily apparent among university students. Those underage 21 are more likely to be
heavy, or "binge," drinkers—consuming over five drinks at one sitting at least once a week; 22 percent of
students under age 21 classify themselves as heavy drinkers, compared with 18 percent of students over age
21.
Research has documented a decrease in problems associated with drinking and driving that has paralleled a
decrease in per capita consumption of alcohol. However these declines started in 1980, before Congress
passed the law that required states that had not already done so to raise the drinking age to 21 if they wanted
to continue receiving federal highway funds. The decrease in drinking and driving problems is the result of
many factors, including education programs concerning drunk driving, designated-driver programs, increased
seat belt and air bag usage, safer automobiles and lower speed limits.
While drunk driving problems have declined over the past two decades, there has been an increase in
other problems related to heavy and irresponsible drinking among college-age youth.These include
vomiting after drinking, missing classes, getting lower grades and getting into fights.
Our current approach to controlling underage drinking is not working, and we need to try alternatives
based on the experiences of other cultures that do not have these problems. Ethnic groups that have few
drinking-related problems tend to share some common characteristics: They see alcohol as neither a poison nor a magic potion; there is little or no social pressure to drink; irresponsible behavior is never
tolerated; young people learn from their parents and other adults how to handle alcohol in a
responsible manner; there is a societal consensus on what constitutes responsible drinking.
Because the laws making 21 the legal drinking age n working, and, in fact, are counterproductive, it
behooves us as a nation to change our current policy and instead concentrate on teaching responsible
drinking techniques for those who choose to consume alcoholic beverages.
Should the Legal Drinking Age Be Lowered to Eighteen or Nineteen? No
Charles A. Hurley
Charles Hurley was Executive Director of Public Affairs for the National Safety Council when he wrote
this article for the Congressional Quarterly. In it, he responds to those who argue that we should lower the
minimum legal drinking age.
Binge drinking on college campuses and elsewhere is a . serious problem that recently has caused a number
of highly publicized tragedies. It also has triggered several calls for cc' of lowering the drinking age from
campus officials and the alcohol industry. The National Safety Council welcomes this de: two reasons:
The real causes of binge drinking must be addressed and the case for maintaining the current drinking age
is overwhelming.
There are no simple answers to campus binge drinking, but a number of promising strategies are being
developed by a consortium led by the Harvard School of Public Health and others through the Higher
Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. The consortium fosters a broad campus
approach to change the underlying culture and environ that condones irresponsible behavior.
2
As far as lowering the drinking age, I do not believe you solve a problem by expanding it. Binge drinking
did not start with the uniform drinking age of 21. In fact, we may be in danger of seeing history repeat
itself. During the Vietnam War, drinking ages were lowered based on the adage "old enough to fight,
old enough to drink”. The results were horrific. The surgeon general of the U.S. found in the early
1980s that longevity was increasing for all age groups except one—those under 2 —and the ear cause
of their deaths was drunk driving. As states individually moved to correct this by raising their drinking
ages, they often were penalized severely by border states trying to attract underage drinker to travel across
state lines, then try to make it home. The enactment by the Congress of the uniform drinking age legislation in
1984 was a direct outcome of those tragedies.
What has been the outcome of the uniform age-21 drinking law? One thousand young lives are being saved
every year, making it one of the more effective things that Congress has done in recent memory. Has it
magically eliminated underage or binge drinking? No, but it has sharply reduced the late-night, bar-to-bar, acrossstate-lines patterns that had proved so fatal in the early 1980s. It has also saved nearly 1,000 families per yean some
15,000 to date, the senseless devastation that was occurring with lower drinking ages. Those who propose a
return to the days when young people were being killed on our highways in record numbers must shoulder the
burden of proving that lowering the drinking age would benefit anyone but the alcohol industry.
The Perils of prohibition Elizabeth M. Whelan
Elizabeth M. Whelan is president and a founder of the American Council on Science. She holds masters and doctoral degrees
in public health from the Yale School of Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health. She is the author or co-author
of more than two dozen books, including Panic in the Pantry, Preventing Cancer, Toxic Terror, and A Smoking
Gun—How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder.
My colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health, where I studied preventive medicine, deserve high praise
for their recent study on teenage drinking. What they found in their survey of college students was that they
drink "early and ... often," frequently to the point of getting ill.
As a public-health scientist with a daughter; Christine, heading to college this fall, I have professional and
personal concerns about teen binge drinking. It is imperative that we explore why so many young people abuse
alcohol. From my own study of the effects of alcohol restrictions and my observations of Christine and her
friends' predicament about drinking, I believe that today's laws are unrealistic. Prohibiting the sale of liquor to
responsible young adults creates an atmosphere where binge drinking and alcohol abuse have become a problem.
American teens, unlike their European peers, don't learn how to drink gradually, safely and in moderation.
Alcohol is widely accepted and enjoyed in our culture. Studies show that moderate drinking can be good
for you. But we legally proscribe alcohol until the age of 21 (why not 30 or 45?). Christine and her classmates
can drive cars, fly planes, marry, vote, pay taxes, take out loans and risk their lives as members of the U.S. armed
forces. But laws in all 50 states say that no alcoholic beverages may be sold to anyone until that magic 21 st
birthday. We didn't always have a national "21" rule. When I was in college, in the mid-'60s, the drinking age
varied from state to state. This posed its own risks, with underage students crossing state lines to get a legal
drink.
In parts of the Western world, moderate drinking by teenagers and even children under their parents'
supervision is a given. Though the per capita consumption of alcohol in France, Spain and Portugal is higher
than in the United States, the rate of alcoholism and alcohol abuse is lower A glass of wine at dinner is normal
practice. Kids learn to regard moderate drinking as an enjoyable family activity rather than as something they
have to sneak away to do. Banning drinking by young people makes it a badge of adulthood—a tantalizing
forbidden fruit.
Christine and her teenage friends like to go out with a group to a club, comedy show or sports bar to
watch the game. But teens today have to go on the sly with fake IDs and the fear of getting caught Otherwise,
they're denied admittance to most places and left to hang out on the street. That's hardly a safer alternative.
Christine and her classmates now find themselves in a legal no man's land. At 18, they're considered adults. Yet
3
when the-want to enjoy a drink like other adults, they are, as they put it, "disenfranchised."
Comparing my daughter's dilemma with my own as an "underage" college student, I see a difference—and
one that I think has exacerbated the current dilemma. Today's teens are far more sophisticated than we were.
They're treated less like children and have more responsibilities than we did. This makes the 21 restriction seem
anachronistic.
For the past few years, my husband and I have been preparing Christine for college life and the inevitable
partying-read keg of beer—that goes with it. Last year, a young friend w~ no drinking experience was violently
ill for days after he was introduced to "clear liquids in small glasses" during freshman orientation. We want our
daughter to learn how to drink sensibly and avoid this pitfall. Starting at the age of 14, we invited her to join us
for a glass of champagne with dinner She'd tried it once before, thought it was "yucky" and declined. A year
later; she enjoyed sampling wine at family meals.
When, at 16, she asked for a Mudslide (a bottled chocolate-milk-and-rum concoction), we used the
opportunity to discuss it with her We explained the alcohol content, told her the alcohol level is lower when
the drink is blended with ice and compared it with a glass of wine. Since the drink of choice on campus is beer,
we contrasted its potency with wine and hard liquor and stressed the importance of not drinking on an empty
stomach.
Our purpose was to encourage her to know the alcohol content of what she is served. We want her to
experience the effects of liquor in her own home, not on the highway and not for the first time during a
college orientation week with free-flowing suds. Although Christine doesn't drive yet, we regularly reinforce
the concept of choosing a designated driver Happily, that already seems a widely accepted practice among our
daughter's friends who drink.
We recently visited the Ivy League school Christine will attend in the fall. While we were there, we read a
story in the college paper about a student who was nearly electrocuted when, in a drunken state, he climbed on
top of a moving train at a railroad station near the campus. The student survived, but three of his limbs were later
amputated. This incident reminded me of a tragic death on another campus. An intoxicated student maneuvered
himself into a chimney. He was found three days later when frat brothers tried to light a fire in the fireplace. By
then he was dead.
These tragedies are just two examples of our failure to teach young people how to use alcohol prudently. If
18-year-olds don't have legal access to even a beer at a public place, they have no experience handling liquor on
their own. They feel "liberated" when they arrive on campus. With no parents to stop them, they have a "let's
make up for lost time" attitude. The result: binge drinking.
We should make access to alcohol legal at 18. At the same time, we should come down much harder on
alcohol abusers and drunk drivers of all ages. We should intensify our efforts at alcohol education for
adolescents. We want them to understand that it is perfectly OK not to drink. But if they do, alcohol should be
consumed in moderation.
After all, we choose to teach our children about safe sex, including the benefits of teen abstinence. Why, then,
can't we— schools and parents alike—teach them about safe drinking?
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age: Facts and Fallacies
Traci L. Toomey, Carolyn Rosenfield, and Alexander Wagenaar
The following selection, which appears on the website of the American Medial sociation, is adapted from an
article that originally appeared in Alcohol He^ji Research World. In it, the authors summarize the scientific
research related ^ minimum legal drinking age.
Brief History of the MLDA
After Prohibition, nearly all states restricting youth access to alcohol designated 21 as the minimum legal
drinking age (MLC-Between 1970 and 1975, however, 29 states lowered the MLD-to 18, 19, or 20.These
4
changes occurred when the minimum age for other activities, such as voting, also were being lowered
(Wechsler & Sands, 1980). Scientists began studying the effects of the lowered MLDA, focusing particularly
on the incidence of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers. Several studies in the
1970s found that motor vehicle crashes --creased significantly among teens when the MLDA was lowered
(Cucchiaro et al., 1974; Douglas et al., 1974; Wagenaar, 1983, 1993; Whitehead, !977;Whitehead et al., 1975;
Williams et al., 1974).
With evidence that a lower drinking age resulted in more traffic injuries and fatalities among youth, citizen
advocacy groups pressured states to restore the MLDA to 21. Because of such advocacy campaigns, 16 states
increased their MLDAs between September 1976 and January 1983. Resistance from other states and concern
that minors would travel across state lines to purchase and consume alcohol, prompted the federal
government in 1984 to enact the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which mandated reduced federal
transportation funds to those states that did not raise the MLDA to 21. Among alcohol control policies, the
MLDA has been the most studied: since the 1970s, at least 70 studies have examined the effects of either
increasing or decreasing the MLDA.
Research Findings
A higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among
youth. When the MLD has been lowered, injury and death rates increase, and when the MLDA is increased, death
and injury rates decline (Wagenaar, 1993).
A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves
the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al., 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the
MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. At least 50 studies have evaluated
this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993).
A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many minors still drink and
purchase alcohol, the policy doesn't work. The evidence shows, however; that although many youth still
consume alcohol, they drink less and experience fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths (Wagenaar, 1993).
Research shows that when the MLDA is 21, people under age 21 drink less overall and continue to do so
through their early twenties (O'Malley & Wagenaar, 1991).
The effect of the higher MLDA occurs with little or no enforcement. Historically, enforcement has focused
primarily on penalizing underage drinkers for illegal alcohol possession and/or consumption. For every 1,000
minors arrested for alcohol possession, only 130 merchants have actions taken against them, and only 88
adults who supply alcohol to minors face criminal penalties (Wagenaar & Wolfson, 1995).
Researchers conducted an in-depth review of enforcement actions in 295 counties in Kentucky, Michigan,
Montana, and Oregon. The review showed that in a three-year period, 27 percent of the counties took no action
against licensed establishments that sold alcohol to minors, and 41 percent of those counties made no arrests of
adults who supplied alcohol to minors. Although the majority of the counties took at least one action against
alcohol establishments and/or adults who provided alcohol to minors, many did not take such actions frequently
(Wagenaar & Wolfson, 1995).
Regarding Europeans and alcohol use among youth, research confirms that Europeans have rates of alcoholrelated diseases (such as cirrhosis of the liver) similar to or higher than those in the U.S. population (Single,
1984). However; drinking and driving among youth may not be as great a problem in Europe as in the U.S.
Compared to their American counterparts, European youth must be older to obtain their drivers' licenses, are
less likely to have a car, and are more inclined to use public transportation (Wagenaar, 1993).
Demonizing Rum: What’s Wrong with “Underage Drinking? Andrew Stuttaford
The following selection appeared in National Review in 2001. Its author, Andrc*-Stuttaford, has been
contributing to National Review since 1993. He has written on subjects ranging from post-Soviet Russia to
Xena, Warrior Princess. Based in New York since 1991, Andrew's day job is in the financial sector.
5
It was a day of shame for the Bushes, an incident made all the more embarrassing by the family's previous wellpublicized difficulties with alcohol. I refer, of course, to the regrettable 1997 decision by then-governor George
W Bush to approve legislation further toughening the penalties for underage drinking. In Texas, the legal drinking
age is 21. A typical Texan of 19—let's call her"Jenna"—is judged to be responsible enough to vote, drive, marry,
serve in the military, and (this is Texas) be executed, but she is not, apparently, sufficiently mature to decide for
herself whether to buy a margarita. The 1997 legislation made things worse: Miller Time could now mean hard
time, a possible six months in jail for a third offense.
It is a ludicrous and demeaning law, but it has been policed with all the gung-ho enthusiasm that we
have come to expect in a land where the prohibitionist impulse has never quite died. In Austin, there is now
a special squad of undercover cops dedicatee to fighting the scourge of teenage tippling. In other words, they
hang around in bars.
The crusade does not stop there. The Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse boasts a campaign
called "2young2drink. which features billboards, a hotline (Denounce your friends!), and a program enticingly
known as "Shattered Dreams." Other efforts include the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission's sting
operatic-; (Make your kid a snoop!) and, for those parents 2stupid2think, a helpful series of danger signs
compiled by the Texas Safety Network One early indicator that your child is drinking may be the "smell of
alcohol on [his] breath." Who knew?
But it's unfair to single out Texas. The legal drinking age has been raised to 21 in every state, a dreary
legacy of Elizabeth DC e otherwise unremarkable tenure as President Reagan's transportation secretary. She is
not apologizing; her only regret is that the age of barroom consent was not increased to 24. In her Jihad against
gin, Mrs. Dole forgot that the guiding principle of the Reagan administration was supposed to be a reduction in
the rote of the state.
And, as usual, government is not going to do any good. The only circumstances in which the approach
taken by the zero-tolerance zealots could have the faintest chance of success would be in a society where
alcohol was a rarity. Zero tolerance has been a disastrous failure in the case of young people and illegal drugs;
how can it be expected to work with a product that is available in every mall or corner store? Sooner or later,
your child will be confronted with that seductive bottle. The only question is how he is going to deal with it.
Not well, if the Dole approach continues to hold sway. Demonizing alcohol—and thus elevating it to the
status of forbidden fruit—is counterproductive. Adult disapproval magically transforms that margarita from
a simple pleasure into an especially thrilling act of rebellion.
My parents avoided this error Growing up in more tolerant England, I could always ask them for a drink, and,
fairly frequently, I would even be given one. At least partly as a result, I went through adolescence without feeling
any need to drink a pint to make a point. My drinks were for the right reasons. The only recollection I have of any
real parental anxiety in this area was when, at the age of about 13, I accepted a brandy from a friend of the family (an
alleged murderer; as it happens, but that's another story).The worry was not the drink, but the uninsured glass
containing it: antique, priceless, and, as our host explained to my trembling mother, quite irreplaceable. In the event,
the glass survived me, and I survived the drink.
Parents, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how and when their offspring should be permitted to drink.
Intelligent parents don't let alcohol become a big deal, a mystery or a battleground. They teach its perils,
but its pleasures, too. Have a bottle of wine on the table, and let the kids take a gulp; it will not, I promise,
turn them into Frenchmen. Treat a drink as a part of growing up, as something to be savored within a
family, rather than guzzled down in some rite to mark passage from that family.
Furthermore, too much of the discussion about alcohol in this country reflects prohibitionist fervor rather
than scientific fact. We act as if alcohol were a vice, a degenerate habit that can—at best—be tolerated. In
reality, it does not need to be apologized for Alcohol has been a valuable part of Western culture for thousands of years. It can be abused, sure, but it can inspire as well as intoxicate, illuminate as well as irritate. In
excess, the demon drink merits its nickname; in moderation, it can be good for you.
6
Ah yes, some will say, but what about drunk driving? They have a point. While it is possible to debate the
numbers, there can be little doubt that the higher drinking age has coincided with a reduction in the number of
highway deaths. But has the price been worth paying? The question sounds callous, particularly given the horrors
of the individual tragedies that make up the statistics, but all legislation is, in the end, a matter of finding a
balance between competing rights, interests, and responsibilities. We could, for example, save lives by denying
drivers' licenses to those over 65, but we do not. We understand the trade-off: There is an interest in safer roads,
but there is also an interest in allowing older people to retain their independence.
In the case of the drinking age, the balance has shifted too far in one direction, away from individual
responsibility and towards government control. Raising the limit may have reduced drunken driving, but the
cost in lost freedom has been too high, and, quite possibly, unnecessary: Alcohol-related auto accidents seem to be
falling in most age categories. The problem of teen DWI is best dealt with directly, by strengthening the
deterrents, rather than obliquely, in the context of a wider attack on "underage" drinking—an attack that might,
in fact, ultimately backfire on those whose interest lies in combating the drunk at the wheel.
For the most striking thing of all about the minimum drinking age of 21 is how unsuccessful it has been. A 19year-old in search of a drink will not have to hunt for long; just ask"Jenna." Almost impossible to police
effectively, our current policy sends a signal to the young that our legal system is capricious, weak, occasionally
vindictive, and not to be respected. In the interest of enforcing important laws—such as those against drunk
driving—we should do what we can to make sure our young people see the police not as interfering
busybodies, but as representatives of a mature, broadly respected moral order, who are prepared to treat them as
adults. Those who believe government should be in the message-sending business should pay a little more
attention to the message they are really sending, when they ask the police to enforce unenforceable—and frankly
indefensible—taboos.