Lower the Drinking Age

In our October 28th issue, we warned against the temptation to "use death to advance... political agendas." Not surprisingly, the Ann Arbor Police Department has not heeded our concern. Following the tragic death of Courtney Cantor, overzealous policeman orchestrated a liquor crackdown, trying to end the alleged scourge of underage drinking happening on campus. Of course, these raids will have no permanent effect. College students intoxicated themselves back in the Middle Ages, and will continue to do so long after all of us are nothing more then ash and bone. However, although the raids won't curb underage drinking, they do pose serious civil liberty questions. In light of the answers the Review reached in response to those questions, we would like to postulate another: why should the drinking age be 21? Sadly, this unwarranted regulation stems from a paternalistic government trying to be everybody's parent, not sound science.

Of course, we acknowledge that excessive alcohol consumption generates a plethora of serious short and long-term problems. Yet these risks are no more significant for a twenty-one-year old then an eighteen-year old. Nor do three years make people substantially more mature - many celebrate their 21st birthday with 21 shots, a potentially lethal amount. If anything, responsible drinking derives from a function of alcohol experience, rather than age. Thus, rates of alcoholism and other assorted liquor problems are lowest in those cultures where moderate drinking is accepted, if not encouraged during childhood.

Of course, we cannot expect the United States to suddenly adopt European or Rabbinical opinions about drinking. Quite likely, Americans will continue to view supplying a child with alcohol as grossly inappropriate, if not dangerous. Therefore, some sort of legal drinking age makes sense. This leads to a second enigma: when does society consider a person responsible for their actions? Although this answer varies from issue to issue, and from state to state, the most accepted legal definition is 18. At that age, individuals are no longer charged through the juvenile court system, and of course have the universal right to vote and serve in the armed forces.

As eighteen-year-olds have legal responsibility for their actions, and are at no greater emotional or physical risk from alcohol, it seems illogical to deny them the same privileges as other adults. Of course, this statement is predicated upon a belief in the free society - namely, that individuals possess the freedom to make bad choices, provided they accept full responsibility for them. Anything else amounts to governmental paternalism. Although some people might justify that argument on the basis of protecting citizens, such a policy amounts to a negation of freedom in general. After all, we must remember that we make thousands of choices each day. Each choice results in both positive and negative consequences. For example, when we decide to postpone our term paper an extra hour by watching television, we effectively make a trade-off. In the short term, our choice leads to happiness, contentment, and relief from irritating work. However, when the hour ends, a "hangover" sets in. We now have one less hour to finish the work, resulting in poorer quality writing, a lower grade, a falling G.P.A, a worse job, etc. Philosophically, the choice of alcohol abuse rests on the same principle: the sacrifice of long-term prosperity for short-term pleasure. It makes zero sense to control one and not the other.

Of course, many might argue that there exists a crucial difference: alcohol has a serious potential to harm others (drunk driving etc.). Yet, such an argument fails to differentiate from actions that harm only the self (alcohol consumption), and actions that injure others (drunk driving). Simply because we legalize one does not require that we endorse the other. In fact, we feel the drop in the legal drinking age should be accompanied by a substantial increase in penalties for alcohol-related crimes. This would continue to serve as an impediment to harming others, while giving individuals maximum control over their own choices and bodies. Because of this legal dimension, we argue that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, the age of legal culpability.

As our nation learned in the 1920s, the solution to alcohol-related tragedies does not lie in prohibition. If anything, a higher drinking age might encourage irresponsible alcohol consumption, by equating alcohol with freedom, rebellion, and maturity. Rather, we should remove the mystique of alcohol by decriminalizing its use among 18-20 year olds. This would shift the focus from consumption to action - after all, while students might think it is "cool" to sneak a drink behind mom and Uncle Sam's backs, very few consider it enjoyable to drive drunk into an old lady. It would also promote the principles of the free society by supporting the rights of autonomous individuals to do as they please, without the meddlesome influence of an authoritarian government. Furthermore, a lower age would redirect the attention of the Ann Arbor P.D. from harmless frat parties to legitimately serious offenses. MR

This article was published in the 9 December 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 5).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.