Posted by sarah on February 18, 19101 at 16:59:07:
In Reply to: need your help for paper on legal drinking age posted by Mr. Berg on May 09, 19100 at 07:42:12:
Feasibility of Lowering the Minimum Legal Drinking Age
March 9, 1998
Ever since the passage of the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, there has been a controversy as to whether the federal government has a right to create such legislation. This act pressured states to raise their minimum legal drinking age to twenty-one or face the threat of losing federal highway funding. Legislation opposing the act was introduced to the 104th congress, claiming that this type of decision should be left to state governments. Elisabeth Wheelan and Donald Kenkel also oppose the present minimum legal drinking age: Wheelan feels that holding alcohol up to teenagers as a token of adulthood leads to dangerous temptations, while Kenkel suggests a special "teen tax" on alcohol might be a more useful deterrent than age restriction. Several studies have proved that drinking age laws have a direct impact on driving accidents and alcohol abuse and the authors of these studies argue that, pleasant or not, drinking age laws are necessary to national health and safety. Recently, Clinton encouraged congress to pass legislation to lower the legal driving blood-alcohol limit; non-compliant states would be subject to similar penalties as those outlined in the 1984 act. The legality of federal government to make this type of legislative decision and enduring concerns about the necessity of strict alcohol restrictions are issues that are currently being questioned by society and need to be addressed accordingly.
Wheelan’s column, entitled "Perils of Prohibition: Why We Should Lower the Drinking Age to 18," encourages consideration of the potential negative repercussions of twenty-one being the national minimum drinking age. She claims that while her nearly college-aged daughter would like to spend evenings in sports bars and clubs, the presence of alcohol in these places make them inaccessible without fake ID’s, giving her limited access to the "adult" entertainment she feels her legal adulthood should justify. Wheelan expresses concern that if teenagers are deprived of the opportunity to frequent such places, they might be left with the alternative of spending time on the street.
Children in European countries such as France, Spain, and Portugal are taught appropriate drinking behavior, Wheelan argues, because no drinking taboo exists in their society. In these countries, despite higher rates of alcohol consumption, there are lower incidences of alcohol abuse. Thus, our laws are "unrealistic", expecting people to learn appropriate drinking habits without youth exposure. He outcome of this situation is binge drinking among college students who, often experiencing their first opportunity to drink alcohol, take on a "making up for lost time" attitude.
Wheelan proposes two solutions for avoiding the negative results of a minimum legal drinking age: first, the age should be reduced to 18, and second, young people should be taught that it is alright not to drink, but if it is going to be done, it should be done in moderation. "After all," she concludes, "we choose to teach our children about safe sex . . .Why, then, can’t we—schools and parents alike—teach them about safe drinking?" (14).
In 1996, Representative Scott Klug of Wisconsin introduced HR 3548, a piece of legislation known as the States’ Rights Act. Its aim was to repeal the 1984 act that allowed federal highway funds to be diverted from states that refused to adopt a minimum legal drinking age of twenty-one. The 21st amendment to the Constitution grants rights regarding regulation of alcohol to the states. Admitting potential interstate problems, Klug claimed that states’ rights under the 21st amendment take precedence over national health and safety concerns.
The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence created an "Action Alert" disapproving of this legislation and encouraging citizens to aid them in their opposition. They point out that the national drinking age was originally established to deal with the problems of varying state minimum drinking ages, a result of many state lowering their drinking ages following the passage of the 26th amendment (which allowed eighteen through twenty-year-olds to vote). This led to situations in which underage drinkers would drive across a state border to purchase alcohol and drive back to their home state under the influence of alcohol. NCADD, citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics, points out that the national drinking age of twenty-one has saved nearly 14,000 lives since 1975 and asserts that Klug’s proposed legislation is dangerous in light of the fact that "alcohol is still the drug of choice among high school students."
As Henry Wechsler, evaluating a Harvard School of Public Health study, shows, alcohol is also the drug of choice for college students. Eighty-four percent of college students reported annual use of alcohol, and forty-four percent drink five or more drinks in a row (males) or four or more (females) at least one time in a two-week period, qualifying them as "binge drinkers." Nineteen percent of students surveyed were classified as "frequent binge drinkers"—they binged three or more times in the previous two weeks. Weschler points out that very few of the students that qualified as "frequent binge drinkers" thought of themselves as being problem drinkers, in fact, ninety-one percent of such women and seventy-eight percent of these men considered their drinking to be "moderate" or "light." A majority of the frequent bingers (and more than a quarter of the bingers) reported hangovers, doing something they regretted, missing a class, or forgetting events and actions. Other frequent alcohol-related problems included arguing with friends, having unprotected sex, and damaging property. Wechsler argues that the secondhand effects of campus alcohol consumption require consideration as well, and shouldn’t be tolerated any more than secondhand smoke. More than half of students at high-binge colleges (schools where more than fifty percent of students are binge drinkers) reported having to "baby-sit" a drunken student or having sleep or study interrupted. Wechsler proposes a twelve step plan of action for college presidents, which includes protecting the rights of non-drinking students, eliciting community and campus-wide involvement, and holding an early freshman orientation in order to discourage perceptions of colleges as "party schools."
A second study, entitled, "The Minimum Legal Drinking Age: History, Effectiveness, and Ongoing Debate," categorically refutes typical arguments for lowering the minimum legal drinking age. According to the artivle, numerous studies conducted between the passage of the 26th amendment (when twenty-nine states lowered their minimum drinking age to eighteen) and the federal Uniform Drinking Age Act showed a significant increase in teenage traffic accidents and crash fatalities during this period of time. Raising the age led to a sixteen percent decrease in the vandalism rates of four states; suicide rated, pedestrian accidents, and other injuries decreased in studies in other states. Contrary to Wheelan’s presumption that youth who are forced to wait until they turn twenty-one to drink will drink at higher rates once they reach the age to "make up for lost time, " this study claims that older ages of initial drinking correspond to less alcohol consumption. The trend applies to the legal age threshold. Her examples of European behavior are also challenged, taking into account the fact that multiple variables go into the differences between American and European drinking habits, and a direct comparison cannot be made. For example, European youth do not have as many problems with drunk driving as Americans, but they receive drivers’ licenses at older ages and are more likely to use public transportation than American youth. In addition, Europeans suffer from alcohol related diseases at rates equal to and even higher than Americans. In response to the assertion that only states should have the right to regulate alcohol under the 21st amendment, it is pointed out that the movement to increase the legal drinking age was driven by citizen action groups, and the 1984 Act has maintained strong public support in polls.
Kenkel offers a compromise tha involves lowering the legal age and providing a deterrent to youth alcohol abuse in his article, "Prohibition Versus Taxation: Reconsidering the Legal Drinking Age." He claims that enforcing a minimum legal drinking age assumes that "the benefits of the legal age exceed the costs of denying young adults the right to drink." (48) While conceding that the majority of U.S> citizens agree with this tenet, he proposes that instead, a "teen tax" could be levied on alcohol purchases by teenagers. He believes that this solution has the potential of being almost as effective as the minimum age law, and could be imposed at a lower "social cost." In addition to retaining civil liberties for eighteen-year-olds, Kenkel estimates that annual revenues of up to $564 million could be generated and used for alcohol abuse education.
The issue of whether the minimum legal drinking age should be lowered is complex. Wheelan’s argument is unrealistic; teenagers have many options beyond "hanging out on the street" when not allowed in sports bars or clubs. My college peers seem content to go bowling, to movie theatres and to each other’s houses (dorm rooms)—surely her high–school-aged daughter can manage to have a good time outside of alcohol-affiliated facilities. In fact, in these adult surroundings, her daughter might find herself in dangerous situations, very possibly encountered in places where rowdy adults drink alcohol, and may not have the social or emotional experience to deal with them. Even if her daughter is equipped to watch out for herself in sports bars, certainly this shouldn’t be permissible for all eighteen-year-olds. The problems in Wheelan’s comparison of European drinking standards to American standards is addressed partially by the second alcohol study, but is fallible in an additional way: she proposes that the legal drinking age should be lowered, but in the menti0oned European countries, there is o minimum drinking age. Therefore, the standards are incomparable. Perhaps abolishment of the legal drinking age altogether could lead to national responsibility, but as the second study shows, simply lowering it had not been historically successful. The 21st amendment argument is justified in its grounds, but as the NCADD points out ,the potential of varied age laws between states is too dangerous as far as drunk border-crossers are involved for Klug’s legislation to be valid. (Apparently congress agreed—HR died in committee hearings.) While Kenkel’s proposition is intriguing, it is far too idealistic to be realizable. Primarily, a "teen tax" is good for revenue building, but its discriminatory nature will surely not be looked upon by teenagers as lowering the "social cost" of minimum drinking age legislation. Drinking is not a right and does not fit under the category of "civil liberties." It is a privilege with attached responsibilities. In addition, human life, as is shown in the second study to be dramatically related to a high minimum drinking age, cannot be wagered upon. One cannot count on the teen tax t9o target the correct drinkers, rather, only the poor alcohol consumers will be prey to this policy. The Wechsler article demonstrates the sometimes appalling results of an environment in which eighteen to twenty-year-olds are allowed to choose for themselves whether or not to drink. The secondhand effects of campus drinking and students’ inability to recognize their unreasonable drinking habits demonstrated the irresponsibility of this age group of alcohol consumers. Unfortunately, the policy for change presented in this article is entirely dependent upon the college president for implementation; the rest of the people associate with the college can sit and wait for him or her to notice the problem.
I recommend that the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act remain in effect as it stands today. The major issue that remains to be addressed is the ability of underage people to obtain alcohol. Studies have shown that alcohol purchase by minors is accomplished in fifty percent of attempts. When options for improving enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age are found, our society will be closer to freedom from the ill effects of alcohol abuse by minors.
Works Cited
Kenkel, Donald S. "Prohibition vs. Taxation: Reconsidering the Legal Drinking Age." Contemporary Policy Issues. July 1993: 48-58.
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. Congressional Update, 104th congress. Online. March 5, 1998. Available http//www.ncadd.org/alert6.html
Neal, Terry M. "Bill Seeks Uniform DWI Level." Washington Post. 4 March 1998: A19.
Toomey, Traci L. et al. "The Minimum Legal Drinking Age: History, Effectiveness, and Ongoing Debate." Alcohol Health & Research World, Fall 1996: 213-215.
Wechsler, Henry. "Alchohol and the American College Campus." Change, July/August 1996: 30-36.
Wheelan, Elizabeth M. "Perils of Prohibition: Why We Should Lower the Drinking Age to 18." Newsweek, 29 May 1995: 14