Minnesota Considers Lowering Drinking Age
Via Hot Air, apparently the state of Minnesota is considering lowering the drinking age. This is nothing new in the United States. For years, many states have considered doing it. Most are not really serious about it, because they realize if they lower the drinking age, the federal government will slice off some highway funds.
However, one legislator has an odd reason for putting forward the idea: to help the economy. That’s right. A Minnesota Republican, Tom Hackbarth, says that with the ailing economy, the extra money could help the industry:
Tom Hackbarth, a Republican from District 48A said, “I think that bars and restaurants are having a difficult time right now with the smoking ban that went into place. I think with economic times the way they are, I’ve never opposed the drinking age being 18.”
He says the proposal could help the tavern industry. However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes this idea.
Not to be completely cynical, but one thing people sometimes turn to when feeling bad for themselves is drinking. So I wonder how much the industry needs help. Ed Morrissey doesn’t buy it either, though for a different reason:
I’ve heard a lot of arguments against the prohibition on under-21 adults, but never an economic one. Is this Minnesota’s own stimulus plan? In fact, the economics of the argument are usually considered a wash, since one of the points made against the ban is that teens buy alcohol on their own anyway.
As Morrissey notes, promoters for maintaining a higher age typically cite safety issues as a reason for doing so. However, as he also points out, cracking down on drunk driving behavior has increased in recent years. As has the cracking down of retailers who sell to under-21s. I’ve never been able to go into any bar or package store in the U.S. without being carded since I look about 15 or so. I’m 22.
However, then Ed cites an article by an Irish health site about a campaign to try and get Irish youth to delay their drinking, because of problems with underage drinking in that country (which is legally 18 in public with none in private):
The Irish are less convinced of their own wisdom these days:
Over 80% of adults believe that it is easy for people under the age of 18 to access alcohol in pubs and off-licenses, new research from the HSE indicates.
The preliminary results of the research indicate that the vast majority of adults – 91% – agree that underage drinking is a problem in Ireland today, while 50% feel there is nothing they can do to stop young people from consuming alcohol. …
The campaign hopes to increase awareness among adults about the extent of underage drinking, the ease of access which young people have to alcohol and the benefits in delaying the age at which they start drinking.
“We now have a problem which impacts negatively on so many areas of society, from increases in sexually transmitted infections, public order offences and young adult suicide”, commented Dr Joe Barry of the HSE’s population health directorate.
I’m not sure using the circumstances of underage drinking in Ireland is really an argument to keep in 21 in the United States. I’ve hung out with Europeans at online forums for years. And if there’s one thing about drinking in Europe I’ve come to learn, it’s their attitude toward it. They’re much more laid back about it there. Well, when you don’t care as much about stopping underage drinking as it is, you’re going to have a problem.
Let me put it this way. Like I said above, I’ve been carded every time I’ve entered a bar or gone to buy drinks while at home. But when I went to Greece two years ago, I didn’t get carded once. Not a one. Of course, I just found out while researching Ireland’s drinking age that Greece has none (though they do have a purchase age of 17), which explains a lot. But I think my point is even more emphasized in saying that. Europe’s attitude is so laid back in some places that some countries don’t even try regulating it. Even where they officially do, sometimes unofficially they do not.
So I’m scratching my head at that citation. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. With the attitude the U.S. has developed toward enforcing the law on drinking age, that should actually make the argument stronger toward reversing the age. Nobody who’s 15 is going to be allowed into a bar. Nobody’s who’s 17 is going to be purchasing from a package store. The only issue left is actual underage and binge drinking at high school and college parties, but that’s a problem already.
And given that it is, I’m grasping at straws trying to find a reason why the 21 law is still in place. Keep the crack-down attitude for under-18s, I say, and lower the age for the rest.
I can’t imagine many parents in the US who wouldn’t want their kid to be carded and want that drinking age kept up high. And I can’t imagine many kids who are in the 18-21 want that drinking age kept up.
Personally I think they could relax up what happens in private and let that be a personal responsibility issue. And I also think it’s a bit tweaked that a kid can vote, pay taxes, serve in the military – but not have a drink in public.
But in the end, I waited till I was 21, that law no longer affects me so I do not particularly care much.
Though I don’t have any problem with lowering the drinking age, I think that justifying it under the pretenses of helping the economy is a bit of a stretch. The assumption is that a huge number of 18 to 21 year-olds don’t drink because it’s illegal. Maybe that’s true for many young people, but I certainly know plenty for whom the drinking age was no issue at all, just a minor hassle. You want to argue that lowering the drinking age would be good for the economy? Fine, but you better have some decent number crunching to justify it, because it strikes me as far from obvious.
Now if you legalized marijuana, THAT would help the economy. Simply the revenue from the taxation of the crop (currently the biggest cash crop in California, that pays zero taxes) and the decreased cost of fighting the long since lost “War on Drugs” would be a huge boon. But no, we’ll continue the ridiculous hypocrisy that says that a joint is an evil life-destroying drug while taking vodka shots it just good healthy fun.
I’ve always felt that the biggest problem with having the drinking age set at 18 is that this actually allows kids who are only 15 or 16 to drink, and they really aren’t ready for the responsibility (a lot of 18 year olds don’t drink responsibly either, but when you go down to high school freshmen in some cases, and kids who are just learning to drive (enough problems with safety with that situation, without adding alcohol), it’s really a bad mix. I say this as someone who grew up in a place where alcohol was ubiquitous (New Orleans) and the drinking age at the time was 18- and I know for a fact that a large percentage of high school kids were already drinking pretty heavily.
Having the age set at 21 reduces some of that because it’s pretty easy for a lot of 15 year olds to pass for 18, but not for 21.
as if kids ages 15-16 are not drinking! lowering the drinking age will not result in younger people drinking. they have always been drinking. age will not change that. kids want to do things they cant do and no matter what the age they will do it. middle school kids can gain access to cigarettes and alcohol no matter what. The age will not do anything but prohibit the self consious and law enforced individuals from drinking which should result in less deaths. i mean, we are not lowering the driving age too!
mike, I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think your comment makes any sense. I suspect you may be joking, but I’m not sure. Perhaps I’m not getting your point, in which case I apologize and would ask you that you try again.
I’ve seen too much of the bad effects of alcohol abuse, and in my ideal world I would prefer that alcohol (or, more specifically, the desire the drink it) just ceased to exist (yes, I know you can drink and not be an alcoholic, but I think even seeing people mildly buzzed is unappealing at best, but that’s just my judgmental side talking). But, of course, we’re already tried to enforce that politically and that didn’t turn out so well. But still, I would at least prefer not to make it even easier to get it.
Besides that, I’m wary of doing anything that the tavern league would support. In my state, they argued against a measure to increase punishment for drunk drivers (on the third offense), arguing that it would decrease their revenue. Give me a break. I used to respect the fact that they had the right to run their businesses (and have defended their opposition to smoking bans, for example), but opposing tougher punishment for repeat drunk drivers makes clear that they do not have the best interest in society in mind, and should not be taken seriously.
But, here’s a compromise for you. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, let’s decide to ask every person that has lost a love one due to someone else’s drunk driving if we should lower the drinking age, and then do what they say. We might not all agree with their opinion, but hopefully we can all agree that their opinions should be considered of much higher weight than our own.
Mike @ #5: Your last paragraph doesn’t make sense because it assumes that everyone who causes drunk driving accidents is between 18 and 21.
Christine: Why not do what a lot of package stores do, then, at least in my state. If you don’t look 35, you get carded. How’s that for a compromise?
Michael, I don’t think my last paragraph assumes that. Even, in a hypothetical world were everything obeys the law and 0 incidents were caused by people under 21, one could still argue that lowering the age to 18 would increase the number of deaths. What I am saying is that the best people to measure to societal impact of voluntarily increasing the number of drunk driving deaths are the people that have lost loved ones to drunk driving.
Research has shown that the drinking age of 21 has decreased drunk driving deaths by 11% (http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20080702/age-21-drinking-laws-cut-traffic-deaths I couldn’t find the original source on-line) after controlling for original factors. The research of course could be wrong, but this also conforms with common sense, in my opinion. Why would be make a policy change that will predictably result in more drunk driving deaths?
So, since the 11% of people who did not die due to the drinking age being 21 cannot be identified, the next best people to speak for them would be the 89% who have lost loved ones to drunk driving.
I’m not convinced that raising it alone has slashed the number of deaths. The study you cite accounts, as you note, for tougher laws on purchasing of alcohol by underage persons and enforcement of those laws. The also cite better education.
Merely raising the age does nothing if you don’t have the laws/enforcement and the education. Look at the article Ed Morrissey cited. Officially, the age of consumption in Ireland is 18 (in public), but it doesn’t seem like Ireland has very strong enforcement of its laws. Hence their current issues with underage drinking.
I think if you keep the laws and enforcement strong (and require that all bars card those looking under 35), and couple it with a continued program in education, that it’s going to help, no matter what the age is.
@Michael Merritt
I agree that enforcement is important, of course. But if the choice is between a drinking age of 21 and 18, both combined with strong enforcement policies, I think it’s clear that a drinking age of 21 would result in less drunk driving deaths.
Of course, there is a limit to my logic. A drinking age of 50, for example, combined with strong enforcement, would also reduce the number of drunk driving deaths. But clearly that is unrealistic. However, it is perfectly reasonable just to leave the age as it is. The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law to argue that changing it will not result in more drunk driving deaths, and I remain unconvinced.
That’s fine, Michael, but fake IDs are easy to create or obtain. My point is that younger teenagers can much more easily pass for 18 than pass for 21 (there are more distinct physical changes that occur during those few years.)