ERLC Policy Position: Opposing the Reduction of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age
- Aug 26, 2008 - 3
Since the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) was increased to 21 years old by every individual state in the mid-1980s at the prompting of the federal government, there have been some groups and individuals who have sought to lower the legal drinking age. Recently, though, there has been a much stronger push to reduce the MLDA that has mobilized college presidents, politicians, and some in the news media. Despite this push, the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of keeping the MLDA at 21 years of age (21 MLDA), and numerous studies provide evidence of support for the 21 MLDA. The ERLC strongly supports upholding 21 MLDA, as lowering the drinking age would be dangerous to America’s youth and American society.
Read the column by Doug Carlson – Lowering Drinking Age: Research Says Bad Idea
The ERLC supports the 21 MLDA for numerous reasons. Foremost, reducing the legal drinking age would jeopardize the health of adolescents and national traffic safety. It would result in drinking at even younger ages, increased cases of drunken driving, more vehicular accidents, and higher levels binge drinking, especially among teenagers. Encouraging drinking at younger ages is also likely to have negative health effects on adolescents, as research shows that the human brain does not fully develop until the early- to mid-twenties. Finally, states selectively implementing a MLDA would make the administration of the law more difficult and increase cases of drunken driving.
History of MLDA Laws
It is important to know the history of the legal drinking age in the United States, as many groups who want to decrease the MLDA manipulate the history to advance their arguments. Following Prohibition in the early twentieth century, almost all states set the MLDA to 21. However, during the early 1970s, 29 states lowered their MLDA to ages of 18-20. These decreases in the legal drinking age were prompted by the connection between the Vietnam War draft and social rights in America. Individuals were available for the draft at 18 years old, and many argued that there should be an equivalent age limit for the right to vote and the right to drink alcohol (Wechsler & Sands 1980; American Medical Association (AMA) 2008). Thus, the voting age was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment, and many states lowered the MLDA.
Toward the end of the 1970s, several studies were released that connected the reduction in legal drinking age to increased adolescent traffic injuries and fatalities. This prompted citizen campaigns to advocate for the restoration of the 21 MLDA. These advocacy campaigns were successful on the state level, as 16 states increased their MLDAs (AMA 2008). To gain full compliance across the country, these citizen groups lobbied Congress to pass the Uniform Drinking Age Act. The current MLDA law was passed in a 1984 bill that created an incentive for states to increase their MLDAs by connecting legal drinking age to a small percentage of national highway funds. By 1988, all 50 states had raised their MLDAs to 21.
Policy Arguments Related to History of MLDA Laws
Organizations advocating for a decrease in the MLDA frequently employ several arguments related to the history of the current MLDA. Many of these arguments do not present the entire historical scope and fail to make adequate comparisons. Groups seeking to decrease the MLDA often argue that the MLDA of 21 is only a recent standard, yet it was the dominant MLDA throughout the twentieth century, as only for approximately 15 years during the twentieth century was a MLDA of less than 21 the law in the majority of states. Advocates of a reduced MLDA also argue that special interest groups created the current legal drinking age by persuading members of Congress to deceptively hide the standard within the 1984 highway bill. This is a hypocritical argument because the proponents of a reduced MLDA are also special interest groups who are seeking to use political strategies to achieve their policy goals. The public overwhelmingly agrees with the current minimum legal drinking age, as a 2007 Gallup survey reports that 77 percent of respondents are not in favor of lowering the MLDA to 21 (Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) 2008b). This public support has provided the strength citizen groups needed to increase the MLDA to 21 and keep it at 21.
Advocates of a reduced drinking age additionally argue that since citizens can serve in the military at 18 years old they should be able to legally consume alcohol. However, the U.S. has effectively employed varying standards for numerous social activities. Individuals can drive cars at 16 in most states, vote at 18, serve in the military at 18, gamble at 21, and consume alcohol at 21. The current MLDA laws are not inconsistent with the broad scope of laws in America. Also, this would be a stronger argument if a military draft was currently in place as it was during Vietnam. The current American military is composed of volunteers, making the political environment much different than it was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Therefore, the arguments of the 1970s are incongruent with the political conditions of contemporary America. Most important, there is scientific evidence that consuming alcohol is a more dangerous activity for teenagers, making the MLDA of 21 an important public health law.
Research Supporting the Legal Drinking Age of 21
Beyond the historical competency of the current MLDA laws, numerous strains of research support keeping the legal drinking age at 21. First, having the MLDA at 21 saves adolescent lives and reduces drunk driving. When MLDAs are decreased, injury and death rates among youth increase, and, when the MLDAs are increased, these same death and injury rates decrease (Wagenaar 1993; AMA 2008). The Centers for Disease Control evaluated 49 peer-reviewed studies and found that having the MLDA at 21 decreases adolescent fatalities by 16 percent (Shults 2001; MADD 2008a), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that the legal drinking age of 21 has saved nearly 25,000 lives and saves at least 1,000 lives annually (National Center for Statistics and Analysis 2004; NHTSA 1989; Jones, et al. 1992; MADD 2008b). In addition, the number of youth killed in automobile crashes has been reduced by more than 50 percent from the early 1980s to 2005 (NHTSA 2005; MADD 2008b). While the specificity of some of this research has been challenged and some have found that the negative effects of drinking are redistributed to later life periods, such as shifting alcohol related accidents from 18 to 21 (Dee and Evans 2001), the research overwhelmingly confirms that the 21 MLDA decreases automobile accidents, injuries, and fatalities. In fact, a recent study which more specifically and comprehensively analyzes minimum drinking age laws finds that the 21 MLDA has led to an 11 percent drop in alcohol related fatalities among youth (Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation 2008).
The MLDA of 21 also reduces binge drinking among teens, who are at greater risk of having negative health effects because of drinking. From 1983-1988 (during the adoption period of the 21 MLDA) binge drinking rates among 12th graders dropped by 15 percent, even while binge drinking rates were increasing across the same age group in Canada (Johnston, et al. 2003; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 2007; MADD 2008b). Research has also shown that when the MLDA is at 21, people under 21 and over 21 drink less (O’Malley and Wagenaar 1991; AMA 2008) and youth under 21 have fewer alcohol-related injuries and fatalities (Wagenaar 1993; AMA 2008). Thus, the MLDA laws have a deterrent effect on individuals under 21, causing them to drink less and resulting in fewer alcohol-related tragedies. In addition, comparing the U.S. to countries with lower MLDA laws, drinking and intoxication rates are higher in many countries with lower legal drinking ages and alcohol related disease rates are similar to those in the U.S. (Grube 2001; Hibell, et al. 2000; Johnston, et al. 2003; Room 2004; MADD 2008a; Wagenaar 1993; AMA 2008). The cross-national evidence does not support the argument that lowering the drinking age would make young people more responsible consumers of alcohol.
Overall, decreasing the MLDA would have negative effects for America’s youth and for society. Currently, the MLDA of 21 deters many young people from using and potentially abusing alcohol, and it also decreases access to alcohol for those under 21. If the MLDA were reduced to 18, the availability of alcohol would increase, especially among younger teens. Because 18-year-olds are in the same peer group as high school students from the ages of 14-to-17, the younger youth will have increased access to alcohol, likely increasing potential abuse at these young ages. Alcohol exposure at these early ages is dangerous, because brain development continues until the early twenties and alcohol use during the development period negatively affects coordination, cognitive ability, decision-making, and memory (Narcotic Education Foundation of America 2002; MADD 2008b). In addition, use of alcohol during the teenage years leads to increased likelihood of unplanned and unprotected sex (Hingston, et al. 2003; MADD 2008b), increased propensity for alcoholism (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2006; MADD 2008b), and decreased performance in school (AMA 2002; MADD 2008b). Thus, it is imperative to protect teenagers from exposure to alcohol, and the 21 MLDA is an effective component of reducing teenage alcohol exposure. Keeping the MLDA at 21 will result in less adolescent alcohol use than reducing the MLDA, preventing many potential negative effects caused by alcohol use by teenagers, including traffic accidents and deaths, decreased brain functions, and increased levels of risky behavior.
Conclusion
Proposals to decrease the MLDA from 21 are dangerous for teenagers and society. If enacted, such proposals will increase alcohol use and abuse at younger age levels, increase alcohol-related traffic accidents and deaths among teens, enlarge the binge drinking rates among adolescents, and hamper brain and social development among teenagers. Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the 21 MLDA and its help in reducing traffic accidents and alcohol related-deaths and injuries. Holding the drinking age at 21 is also consistent with American legal regulations on driving and gambling. In addition, reducing the MLDA below 21 would result in a health risk. Finally, if states selectively legislate lower drinking ages, teenagers will be more likely to drive drunk while traveling between states to purchase and consume alcohol. This will also likely hamper the administration of the law. Therefore, the ERLC supports maintaining the 21 MLDA and strongly opposes any efforts to reduce it. While we understand that having an increased legal drinking age is not the only measure necessary to prevent injuries and fatalities related to alcohol use and abuse, the 21 MLDA is an effective measure and it should remain in effect. It is vitally important for families, churches, schools, and communities to warn adolescents of the dangers of alcohol abuse, but the 21 MLDA has proven to be a successful tool in deterring teenage alcohol consumption and in preventing the tragedies caused by teenage alcohol use.
Read the column by Doug Carlson – Lowering Drinking Age: Research Says Bad Idea
References
American Medical Association. 2008. “Minimum Legal Drinking Age.” American Medical Association. Accessed August 2008
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2006. 106: 739-746.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. 2007. “Drug Abuse Among Ontario Students, 1977-2007: Detailed OSDUHS Findings.” Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
Dee, T. S. and W. N. Evans. 2001. “Behavioral Policies and Teen Traffic Safety.” The American Economic Review 91: 91-96.
Grube, J. 2001. Comparison of Drinking Rates and Problems: European Countries and the United States Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Office of Juvenile Justice Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program.
Hibell, B. 2003. “The ESPAD Report 2003.” The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs.
Hingson, R.W. and D. Kenkel. 2004. “Social, Health, and Economic Consequences of Underage Drinking.” Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Johnston, L.D., P.M. O’Malley, and J.G. Bachman. 2003. “Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Adolescent Drug Use: overview of Key Findings, 2002.” NIH Publication No. 03-5374. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Jones, N.E., C.F. Pieper, and L.S. Robertson. 1992. “The Effect of Legal Drinking Age on Fatal Injuries of Adolescents and Young Adults.” American Journal of Public Health 82: 112-115.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2008. “21 Minimum Drinking Age – The Science.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Accessed August 2008.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2008. “Underage Drinking and the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) Law.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Accessed August 2008.
Narcotic Education Foundation of America, Drug Abuse Education Provider of the California Narcotic Officers’ Association. 2002. “Alcohol-a Potent Drug.”
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 2004. “Traffic Safety Facts 2004: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System.’ NHTSA System DOT HS 809 919, Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1989. “The Impact of Minimum Drinking Age Laws on Fatal Crash Involvement: An Update of the NHTSA Analyses.” NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 807 349, Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2005. FARS Data. NHTSA, Washington, DC.
O’Malley, P.M. and A.C. Wagenaar. 1991. “Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws on Alcohol Use, Related Behaviors and Traffic Crash Involvement among American Yough: 1976-1987. Journal Studying Alcohol 52: 478-91.
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. 2008. “Minimum Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives, Study Finds.” Science Daily. Accessed August 2008
Room, R. 2004. “Drinking and Coming of Age in a Cross-Cultural perspective.’ In National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility, Background Papers. [CD-ROM]. Committee on Developing a Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Shults, R. 2001. “Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 21: 66-88.
Wagenaar, A.C. 1993. “Minimum Drinking Age and Alcohol Availability to Youth: Issues and Research Needs.” In Hilton, M.E., Bloss, G., eds. Economics and the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Research Monograph No. 25, NIH Pub. No. 93-3513. Bethesda, MD: NIAAA: 175-200.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to fight substance abuse across the country. If you would like to learn more about this important issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on substance abuse, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Addictions, Substance Abuse, Children, Living, Health
3 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Aug 27th, 2008, at 1:46pm, Aleene Griswold wrote:
I am not for lowering the drinking age. I do not
understand our College Presidents. In fact I wish
the day would come when we would do away with
intoxicating alcohol completely - the sooner the
better.
2 On Aug 27th, 2008, at 8:16pm, Stephen Nobles wrote:
Amen to the college presidents! 18 should be the all legal age! Old enough to die in war, old enough to have a beer!
3 On Aug 28th, 2008, at 10:24pm, Austin wrote:
I’m with the ERLC on this one. There are more alcohol related deaths than just about anything else, certainly bigger than war, smoking, etc. I’m a closet prohibitionist which makes me a little less popular with my more liberal friends. But hey, if this was about civil rights, I’d think a little differently. But this issue costs a lot of lives of folks who don’t drink, in addition to the family members’ suffering of those who do.