Current Release: September 11th, 2007 | Vol. XXIV Iss. 10

illustration By taylor boyd

18-year-olds at the bar?

pATRICK SHAHAYDA

mpshahayda@vwc.edu

For the first time in many years, the long fight to lower the national drinking age to 18 may be picking up steam. States that are considering lowering the age include Florida, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Vermont, with several others included as well. Proponents claim that the drinking age is unnecessarily set at 21, which drives drinking underground.

The main pusher of the initiative for change is The National Youth Rights Association. John McCardell, a vocal proponent of the group, stated in an interview conducted with MSNBC, “The only way to measure the success of [the current law] is to ask ourselves whether...those under 21 are not drinking. The evidence is very clear,” McCardell said. “It has had no effect.”

Binge drinking has gone up, and the NYRA is stating that the law has done the opposite of what it was supposed to—protect teens from drinking in unsafe environments. And many libertarians see the law as an unwarranted government attempt to control social behavior.

However, others, particularly Mother Against Drunk Driving, state that the law has been a success, due to statistics pointing to a drop in auto deaths involving alcohol.

What do VWC students think about lowering the law?

“I think it should be lowered, because drunk driving statistics have gone down, but maybe that’s people just getting smart about being caught,” said freshman Andrew Ray

George Florence, another Freshman, agreed.

“If you can serve, and then be killed for your country, you should have a beer beforehand.”

Nate Greyard, a freshman, has a differing view.

“The drinking age should remain 21. If kids start drinking at an earlier age, it can lead to more health problems, like liver and brain damage,” she said.

In any case, the fight is not expected to do any major damage to the law. But, it is gradually picking up steam, and one day the spark for youth rights may become a raging fire. The argument against the law, however, is a strong one.

The law will trust you at 18 to buy cigarettes, which are infinitely more toxic than alcohol. The law will trust you at 18 to enlist in the military, and shed blood, possibly your own, for your country. And at 18, the law will trust you to vote for the president, an act that can affect all 299 other million residents of the US in immeasurable ways.

Simply put, the 21 law is a backdoor attempt to push a last ditch prohibition effort on the public.

Alcohol laws should be state issues only, and should not need, nor have, the federal government essentially resorting to blackmail and extortion in order so states will comply. It’s another case of big government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, and trying to regulate a social issue, which if the history of prohibition and the colossal failure that is the “War on Drugs” have taught us anything, weren’t such a good idea. The government was never meant to be the public nanny; hence it’s not very good at the job.

The bottom line is that the more you demonize and taboo alcohol to the under 21 crowd, the more of a mystique it has. Make it legal to 18-year-olds, and encourage common sense while drinking, and most of the problems the country faces will cease to exist. Europe, to use only one example, has incredibly lax drinking laws (Germany allows one to drink at age 16), yet European teens are not binge drinking, nor does Europe have exorbitant amounts of drinking and driving. The difference is they’re introduced to it early, and in a comfortable environment, and it has no mystique surrounding it.

Personal responsibility, not excessive government intervention in the public sphere, should be the rule of thumb. Economically, it would be a goldmine, with millions of 18-year-olds legally purchasing beer, whose money would spur the creation of new jobs, just in the beer industry alone; money that the government could happily enact a tax on, it seems to be a win-win scenario.

It begs one to ask the question, with all the money that could be made in sales taxes alone, is it even really that smart for the government to prohibit an 18-year-old from buying alcohol?