Underage drinking has become such a problem that many want to reconsider the legal drinking age. They want it lowered, and we agree.
Once beyond the auspices of home, 18 year olds rush to alcohol like beer leaving a funnel: quickly and messily. Underage drinking has become such a problem that many want to reconsider the legal drinking age. They want it lowered, and we agree.
A powerful movement known as the Amethyst Initiative, which advocates a lower drinking age to curb the “culture of dangerous binge drinking,” has been signed by 129 university officials. Schools like Duke, Dartmouth, Tufts, Johns Hopkins and Amherst have witnessed firsthand that there is a definite problem in their midst – they are not responding to nothing. The best evidence agrees: binge drinking is a problem, and it is getting worse.
People act like you treat them, and treating below-21s like they cannot handle alcohol responsibly makes them think they do not have to handle it responsibly.Who is surprised? Many pundits have identified the forbidden fruit phenomenon, where the illicit quality of a controlled substance makes it all the more appealing to our human nature. We would also like to point out the buy-a-lot, drink-a-lot phenomenon, where underage Adams and Eves buy in bulk when they find the rare chance and then consume in bulk during that rare chance.
There is also the issue of trust. People act like you treat them, and treating below-21s like they cannot handle alcohol responsibly makes them think they do not have to handle it responsibly. What is a youth supposed to do with the mixed message that they can take enough responsibility for their actions to join the military, vote or be executed for murder but not drink a single beer?
Lowering the drinking age would eliminate the forbidden fruit phenomenon, the buy-a-lot, drink-a-lot phenomenon and the perception of mistrust – at least for the age groups who would then be allowed to purchase alcohol.
We suggest a drinking age of 17, giving the oldest of youths the opportunity to encounter legal alcohol within the relative safety of their own home. They could learn moderation from their parents rather than trying to glean it from the encouraging paddle of a fraternity pledge master. If they overindulge, let the first toilet they spend all night worshiping be feet away from where their parents sleep.
There is vast opposition to this kind of policy change. The Los Angeles Times calls it “misguided”; The Boston Herald suggests that the academics supporting this measure are playing “pretend” if they think it will do any good. Slate offers compelling evidence that the dangers of alcohol consumption were diminished when the age limit was first raised to 21.
But it is too simplistic a view of the evidence to conclude that a higher drinking age is a better law. Even Prohibition began by successfully diminishing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related deaths – and we all know how that eventually turned out.
Indeed the current prohibition has been an impressive failure, especially on college campuses. (Trust us.)
Indeed the current prohibition has been an impressive failure, especially on college campuses.Our current policy is too general. It targets and punishes the act of drinking itself, which is not itself a problem. The problem is when drinking is unmoderated or combined with various dangerous activities, such as driving. So we additionally propose coupling a lowered drinking age with strengthened penalties for those who violate the new law and especially for those who do so while doing something stupid.
For instance, those caught drinking under the lowered age, whatever it is, should lose something both valuable and appropriate to the offense, like six to 12 months added to the age at which they are entitled to a driver’s license. Offenders who already have a license could simply lose it.
Finally, those who sell alcohol to kids under the proposed legal age could be punished similarly to the way they are today: fines, closures, loss of licenses, jail time, etc.
... [I]t is no longer enough simply to say that drinking itself is the problem.The idea is for these laws to unambiguously associate drinking with not driving and otherwise be specifically tailored to what we should be worried about – inappropriate, immoderate alcohol use. In order to prevent specific problems, it is no longer enough simply to say that drinking itself is the problem.
States all have the freedom to implement such a change today – but they risk federal punishment in the form of a 10 percent deduction in transportation funds. To compensate, fines can be added to the punishments for illegal drinking. Or, the federal law which perpetuates the current mini-Prohibition can be repealed or changed. Either way, positive change should not be hamstrung by cash incentives.
... [M]oderation is the key.The Amethyst Initiative is on to something. Though two college presidents have removed their signatures since this initiative made national news, 15 more presidents have added theirs. We propose that they step even further. If 17 year olds could learn to drink in their own homes – the same way they learned to drive – instead of in the pressure of a college environment, and stricter measures are taken to punish the deadly combination of alcohol and machines, we are confident that accidents and deaths caused by binge drinking would begin to decline.
Conclusions 
