Twenty-One Debunked

A New List of 39 Recommendations (Updated)

2012-01-20T11:53:00.000-08:00

In 1982, President Reagan appointed a special commission to study the problem of drunk driving in America. They came up with 39 recommendations, #8 of which was to raise the drinking age to 21 in all 50 states. Of all the recommendations, that was the one that got the most attention, often at the expense of the others. Most of the other 38 were just simple common sense measures, and many of these were implemented to some extent in both the United States and Canada. Interestingly, the decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities since 1982 occurred at about the same rate in both countries, with no evidence of divergence in the expected direction despite the fact that Canada did not raise the drinking age to 21. In fact, the decline was slightly faster in Canada (ditto for the UK and Australia as well, who remained at 18). And fatalities declined in all age groups, not just those under 21. While the problem of drunk driving has been greatly reduced in both the US and Canada, it remains persistent. We still hear all too often about innocent people killed by drunk drivers who already have multiple DUIs on their record, in addition to countless others who simply weren't caught until it was too late.

More than a quarter-century later, a new set of 39 recommendations is long overdue. We know a lot more about the problem now than we did in 1982, and have a better sense of what works in the long run and what does not. The nature of the problem has also changed, with most of the deaths caused by so-called "hardcore" DUI offenders who drive drunk repeatedly. By the time someone finally gets caught even once, they had already driven drunk an average of 88 times--often hundreds of times. And it's an open secret that the vast majority (nearly 9 out of 10) of them are over 21, with 21-24 year olds being the worst offenders of all. Thus a multifaceted and wholehearted approach is essential. But what is currently being done is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, and progress has stalled until very recently. And as long as we keep following outdated methods, we will surely fail to see any further progress in the future. The updated list, devised by Twenty-One Debunked, is as follows, with those in red being the highest priorities:

Lower the drinking age to 18, ideally in all 50 states and DC. The more states, the better.
Raise and equalize all of the federal alcohol taxes to the 1991 real value of the liquor tax. That would be $21.33/proof-gallon for all beverages, proportional to alcohol content. Use the bulk of the revenue for education, treatment, and DUI enforcement.
Lower the blood alcohol limit to 0.05 BAC for administrative penalties, while keep the BAC limit 0.08 for criminal penalties, as some Canadian provinces have done. Maintain a Zero Tolerance law (0.02 BAC) for drivers under 21 and/or all drivers with less than 3-5 years of licensed driving.
Increase the number of roving patrols and sobriety checkpoints for DUI enforcement, and their publicity. Checkpoints should be considered a supplement to patrols, not a substitute.
Increase alcohol education programs, but make them more honest and comprehensive. An excellent model is AlcoholEdu, by Outside the Classroom. This can also be combined with social norms marketing campaigns.
Toughen the penalties for driving under the influence, with graduated penalties based on BAC. See the chart below.
Make fines for DUI proportional to the relative risk at a particular BAC. For example, 0.15 would be 50-100 times higher than 0.05.
Restrict alcohol advertising to no more than what is currently allowed for tobacco. That means no TV, radio, or billboards.
Increase alcohol treatment. Require all DUI offenders to undergo an alcohol assesment to determine if they have an alcohol use disorder. If so, force them into treatment via DUI court and monitor them electronically with a SCRAM bracelet, in addition to other penalties.
Use fines and fees from offenders to pay for enforcement of DUI laws, to make the program completely self-sustaining.
For the eight states that currently lack it, institute administrative license suspension/revocation. The administrative penalty for refusing a breathalyzer or any other test should be greater than or equal to that for failing it.
Have mandatory jail time for all DUI offenses of 0.08 or greater, including first offenses. Make driving with 0.15 BAC or higher a felony on the first offense, and 0.08 or higher a felony on the second offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
Those who kill or seriously injure someone else in an alcohol-related, at-fault crash should get a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, permanent license revocation, and forfeiture of any and all vehicles owned by that person upon conviction.
Do not allow plea bargains for any DUI offense.
For anyone convicted of drunk driving, drunk violence, or repeated drunk and disorderly conduct, blacklist them from buying alcohol or even entering a bar for at least a year or until age 21, whichever is longer. Do the same for anyone furnishing alcohol to anyone under 18 that is not one's own child.
De-register any car owned (or registered) by a DUI offender, boot it, and confiscate the plates upon arrest. Or better yet, impound the vehicle at the offender's expense. When (if) they get their license back, or get a conditional license, give them special "scarlet letter" DUI plates.
Require ignition interlocks for all conditional licenses, and for any DUI offender that gets their license back, forever.
Make ignition interlocks standard on all newly manufactured vehicles sold in the USA, with use and maintenance of these devices voluntary for non-offenders.
Abolish the "assigned risk" pools for auto insurance, or at least forbid any DUI offenders from joining them.
Repeal all "alcohol exclusion" laws for insurance, which have been shown to do more harm than good.
Make it a federal crime to drive drunk across state lines. Punishable by a mandatory 5 years hard labor in federal prison.
Eliminate any rules of evidence that prohibit admission of chemical test refusals--it should be used against a DUI defendant in court.
Make the road test tougher--an hour long like it is in the UK.
Make licenses easier to lose for moving violations, especially during the first two years.
Bring back free driver's ed classes for all high school and college students.
Require all drivers involved in fatal accidents to be tested for alcohol and drugs.
Lift state-mandated smoking bans in bars, which have been shown to increase DUI fatalities.
Extend bar hours to 3 am or later, but have a one-way door policy after 1 or 2 to reduce late night bar-hopping. Or let the locals decide rather than the state.
Raise the gas tax by a penny each week until it is $1.00 higher than it currently is. Call it "a penny for progress."
Improve public transportation, especially very late at night. Use the alcohol and gas taxes to pay for it.
Lift any cap on the number of taxicabs wherever it exists, or better yet, subsidize taxi service to reduce the costs.
Encourage the hospitality industry to set up "safe rider" programs, particularly in rural areas.
Limit or reduce alcohol outlet density in cities and other high-density areas, but increase it in rural areas. More rural bars within walking distance = less drunk driving deaths.
Dry counties and towns should go wet, especially if their neighbors are wet.
Abolish all social host laws, both civil and criminal. Furnishing alcohol to minors should not include merely providing a safer location to drink.
Put a price floor on alcoholic beverages, especially for off-premises sales.
Kegs and cases of beer should be sold only in beer distributors, which should close at 10 pm. A purchase age limit higher than 18 may be desirable for such bulk quantities, which are very unlikely to be for personal use. Ditto for very large quantities (i.e. multiple liters) of hard liquor.
Increase media campaigns against drunk driving, similar to the Australian model.
Last but not least, park a police car in front of every bar possible to watch for drunks getting into their cars about to drive. Then nail them. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Recomendation #1 implies that, at the very least, we should repeal the federal highway funding penalty for doing so, and let the states use their Constitutional rights to decide for themselves. Recommendations #3, #4, and especially #21 should take care of any potential adverse effects of unequal drinking ages across states or internationally, as well as dry counties that refuse to go wet.

To avoid collateral damage, recommendation #2 should not apply to microbrewers. Their beer is already relatively expensive anyway, and those who abuse alcohol tend to go for the mass-produced, cheap stuff.

If all 39 of these recommendations were followed, the alcohol-related fatality rates should be cut by at least half in the first year alone. If only the ones in red were followed, or even just the first six, there would still be a dramatic drop in fatalities in both the short and long term. Some of them, such as #1, are a bit counterintuitive (the whole purpose of this blog explains in detail why #1 is actually a good thing rather than something to fear).

When we say graduated penalties, the table below is a good guide to what they should be:

BAC Threshold	First offense	Subsequent offenses within 10 years
0.02-0.08 (under 21 or novice, administrative only)	$250 fine ($500 if over 0.05) 30 day suspension (90 day if over 0.05) 3 day impoundment	$500 fine 6 month suspension (2nd), 1 year revocation or until 21 (3rd or 2nd over 0.05) 7 day impoundment Ignition interlock 1 year or until 21
0.05-0.08 (administrative only)	$500 fine 3 day suspension 3 day impoundment	$750 fine (2nd), $1000 (3rd) 30 day suspension (2nd), 1 year revocation (3rd) 7 day impoundment (2nd), 30 day impoundment (3rd) Ignition interlock 1+ year
0.08-0.10 (criminal)	$1000 fine Minimum 1 year revocation (or until 21, whatever is longer) Mandatory 30 days in jail, up to 6 months Ignition interlock 5+ years after re-license	$2500 fine License revoked for at least 10 years (forever for 3rd offense) Mandatory 1+ year in jail (possible felony) Possible vehicle forfeiture upon conviction
0.10-0.15 (criminal)	$5000 fine Minimum 5 year revocation Mandatory 6 months jail, up to 1 year Ignition interlock forever	$7500 fine License revoked forever Mandatory 5 years prison (felony) Vehicle forfeiture upon conviction
0.15+ (felony)	$10,000 fine Minimum 10 year revocation Mandatory 1 year in prison, up to 5 years Ignition interlock forever	$20,000 fine License revoked forever Mandatory 5+ years prison (felony) Vehicle forfeiture upon conviction

In addition to (and independently of) criminal penalties, those who blow above 0.08 or refuse the test should be given the following immediate adminstrative penalties upon arrest:

Test failure, first offense: 90 day suspension, 7 day impoundment
Test failure, second offense in 5 years: 1 year suspension, 30 day impoundment
Test refusal, any offense: 1 year suspension, 30 day impoundment

Conditional licenses should only be given for grave reasons, be highly restricted, and require ignition interlocks.

All offenses would require completion of an alcohol education program and alcohol abuse screening, paid for by the offender.

Driving with a BAC above 0.08 with kids under 16 in the car should be an automatic felony, and treated like 0.15+.

In other words, though we've clearly wrestled the problem to the ground, we have unfortunately allowed ourselves to become complacent and distracted. It's time to finish the job.

Common Sense in Alberta, Canada

2012-01-17T10:10:00.000-08:00

The Canadian province of Alberta (just north of Montana) has had a legal drinking age of 18 since 1970, when it was first lowered from 21 along with the age of majority. Recently, a few police chiefs have been talking about wanting to raise the drinking age to 19, which it currently is in most other provinces except for Manitoba and Quebec. They claim it would reduce binge drinking, drunk driving, and other alcohol-related problems among young people. However, the current Tory government of the province doesn't buy that line of reasoning, and states that they have no intention to raise the drinking age. Premier Alison Redford says that the move is "off the table", and we at Twenty-One Debunked couldn't agree more.

Instead, the provincial government is moving forward with plans to toughen up their DUI laws and make them similar to the successful model found in their neighboring province, British Columbia. A previous post discusses the BC success story in more detail.

Before You Go Out Drinking--Watch This:

2012-01-14T17:22:00.000-08:00

Here is a great Australian video everyone should watch about the dangers of driving under the influence, regardless of age. It just might make you think twice before taking such a risk. (Warning--contains some graphic images)

Moral of the story: Drunk driving is like Russian roulette, and you never know who will be hit with the proverbial bullet when you play. In fact it's worse because it all too often kills innocent people who aren't playing that stupid game. It's actually very simple to avoid: if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive. Thus, there is no excuse.

ARRIVE ALIVE, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!

ATVs to Stop Underage Drinking? Really?

2012-01-04T10:03:00.000-08:00

Police apparently have a new weapon in the perennial (and futile) crusade against "underage" drinking: all-terrain vehicles. Apparently raising the drinking age to 21, and the ever-toughening enforcement of this law, has (predictably) pushed teen drinking further and further into the woods than in the past, often into areas where cop cars can't enter. But now, in some places (such as Enfield, CT) the police will use ATVs to patrol remote wooded areas to check for teen drinking parties. No word yet on whether this has actually been successful in curbing "underage" drinking, but I think we already know the answer to that question, especially as far as 18-20 year olds are concerned.

In a word: NO.

Instead of patrolling the woods in an attempt to ferret out "underage" drinkers, wouldn't it be better to use those resources to patrol the roads to hunt down drunk drivers of all ages? That would save far more lives, but that would make too much sense, wouldn't it?

Have A Safe And Happy New Year

2011-12-29T12:20:00.000-08:00

With the New Year's Eve festivities approaching, we at Twenty-One Debunked want to remind everyone to celebrate responsibly. There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving at any age, period. We cannot stress this enough. It's very simple--if you plan to drive, don't drink, and if you plan to drink, don't drive. And there are numerous ways to avoid mixing the two. Designate a sober driver, take a cab, use public transportation, crash on the couch, or even walk if you have to. Or stay home and celebrate there. Or don't drink--nobody's got a gun to your head.

The Truth is In: Swift Justice Works

2011-12-15T12:45:00.000-08:00

According to the latest traffic fatality statistics, there was a 40% drop in alcohol-related traffic deaths in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) in the twelve months ending on September 30, 2011 compared to the same period a year ago.  Such a massive drop in a single year is quite noteworthy indeed. While part of that may be due to significantly higher gas prices in 2011, the decrease in fatalities was apparently much larger in BC than the rest of the nation. So it had to be something specific to that province as well.

About a year ago, there were significant changes to BC's impaired driving laws. For example, under the new laws, if a driver is stopped by police and blows 0.05-0.08 BAC, the driver will immediately lose his or her license for three days for a first offense, a week for a second offense, and 30 days for a third offense. Vehicles may be impounded for up to the same number of days each time. If a driver blows 0.08 or higher, or refuses to be tested, he or she will lose his or her license for 90 days and the car may be impounded for up to 30 days.   There are also stiff fines and towing and storage costs, and an ignition interlock device must be installed (at the driver's expense) when the impoundment ends. Thus, total costs can range from $600 to $4060 depending on the severity and number of offenses, and that alone can be a deterrent in itself for many people.

These administrative roadside penalties are also quicker and easier to enforce (and process) than the Criminal Code penalties as well due to their streamlined nature. Prior to the law change in September 2010, numerous drunk drivers (in fact the majority) were getting off relatively easily with only a 24-hour driving ban, while only relatively few were nailed with criminal charges and convictions. Like the rest of Canada, there were fairly tough laws on the books, but enforcement of those laws was another story. But since then, things have gotten much more consistent, and since police have spent less time processing suspects, they have had more time to catch drunk drivers. And if you look at the data, you will see a decrease in criminal charges (despite presumably increased enforcement) since then along with the decrease in deaths. It has been so successful that now the neighboring province of Alberta wants to adopt similar laws.

However, in November the BC Supreme Court had blocked some of these penalties from being enforced, after ruling that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because there was "no adequate avenue for review." Effectively, that aspect of the law was held to be unconstitutional by Canadian standards due to lack of recourse (i.e. due process) for those busted. The three-day license suspensions and impoundments, on the other hand, can still be enforced for those who blow in the "warn" range of 0.05-0.08, along with the rest of the penalties, but for those who blow above 0.08, things will revert back to the old law until the current law is rewritten to comply with the Charter. It remains to be seen whether these sanctions will be reinstated, and if not, what effect this will have on traffic fatalities in the future.

In the USA, most states have at least a milder version of what BC had instituted in 2010, usually minus the vehicle impoundment. Called "administrative license suspension/revocation" (ALS/ALR), it has generally held up in the courts provided that there is at least some semblance of due process, which is typically just an informal DMV hearing.   This type of law has proven to be highly cost-effective in reducing traffic deaths. And while a temporary license is generally given pending the hearing, short-term impoundment of the vehicle and the driver immediately following arrest is not unprecedented (see "John's Law") and can very easily occur in some states. But all of these laws need to be strengthened and enforced better, as alcohol-related traffic fatalities remain unacceptably high despite being at a record low. Since we now know what works and what doesn't, what are we waiting for?

UPDATE: On Dec 23, just in time for the holidays, the judge who struck down parts of the controversial BC law ruled that the entire law can temporarily remain in effect as written until June 30, 2012, citing public safety concerns. The province has until that date to amend the law so it will comply with the Charter, or else it will be automatically void after that date.  Which can and should be easily done simply by creating some kind of appeals process, and confirming any failed roadside breath tests with a more accurate machine. That said, all penalties are back on the menu for now, so drunk drivers beware.

So Where Do Very Underage Drinkers Get Their Booze?

2011-11-30T09:56:00.000-08:00

All 50 states and DC have a legal drinking age of 21 thanks to federal coercion, but apparently there are some parts of the country where the average age of onset of drinking is as low as 12. Think about that for a moment--that's nine years below the legal age, and that's the average in some communities!

So with all of this very underage drinking going on, with numerous kids starting to drink nearly a decade before they are legal, where are they getting all that booze? The answers can be found in a survey of kids in one such community in South Dakota. And 37% of the kids surveyed said that friends over age 21 would buy it for them, while 8% got strangers to buy for them and 4% had other means. But wait--wasn't raising the drinking age to 21 supposed to stop kids under 18 from getting their older friends to buy for them? Guess not.

Of course, the average age of onset in the USA as a whole has generally been in the 16-17 range since 1965 despite fluctuations in the legal drinking age. And the average age at first drink actually dropped from 16.6 in 1980 to 16.2 in 2002. Even 8th graders (13 year olds!) can apparently their hands on alcohol more easily than even cigarettes, which have an age limit 18 in 46 states (and often poorly enforced). There seems to be little to no correlation between the legal drinking age and the average age of onset of drinking. But if not that, what does explain why some communities drink earlier (and/or more so) than others? Like the above-referenced article points out, a combination of socioeconomic disadvantage, low alcohol prices, and the drinking patterns of their parents and grandparents seems to be the main culprit. And there is nothing at all surprising about that.

A community group has made recommendations to address the problem. Such recommendations include restricting alcohol advertising in the area, raising alcohol taxes, working with retailers on pricing and the placement of alcohol in stores, and increasing compliance checks on retailers by law enforcement. We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that these commonsense measures are a good idea overall, and would support them even more if the drinking age was lowered to 18 as well. Remember that the success story of Puerto Rico did not require a drinking age of 21 to succeed. And nor did America's experience with tobacco use reduction over the past few decades require an increase in the smoking age to 21.

Happy Drink Nothing Day!

2011-11-23T07:30:00.000-08:00

You have probably heard of Buy Nothing Day. Celebrated on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving and the biggest shopping day of the year, this self-explanatory holiday is meant to be a protest against consumerism. But perhaps you didn't know that the biggest drinking day of the year is the day before Thanksgiving. That's right, it's not New Year's Eve, but Thanksgiving Eve.

Thus, last year we at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to create our own protest holiday, Drink Nothing Day. It is designed as a way for people 21 and over to show solidarity with those under 21 by not drinking any alcohol that day. To observe this holiday, which can only logically be done by folks over 21, one must not drink any form of alcohol at all during the entire 24 hours of that date, as well as the following day until sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner (or until the sun goes down, whichever occurs earlier). Then, one may drink, but one must give thanks that prohibition no longer applies to him or her. Other things include wearing two black armbands: one to symbolize those soldiers who died before being able to drink legally in the very country they served, and another to symbolize those under 21 who were killed by a drunk driver over 21.

We will continue to observe this holiday until the drinking age is lowered to 18 in all 50 states.

Yet Another Sketchy Study--DEBUNKED!

2011-11-16T11:16:00.000-08:00

A recent study now claims that raising the drinking age to 21 saves the lives of roughly 1200 women per year who otherwise would have died of suicide or homicide, including later in life as well. The pro-21 crowd (and the media) are really eating it up. But is it really true, or should we be skeptical?

It turns out that there are in fact several reasons one should be skeptical of such an audacious claim. First of all, there was no noticeable effect of the drinking age on suicide and homicide rates among the general population exposed to the law change--only when the results were separated by gender was any sort of pattern noticed, and only among women born after 1960. The fact that men (who tend to drink more than women, and who also are more likely to kill themselves and others) were completely unaffected is very difficult to explain away assuming the effect is genuine. Secondly, the odds ratios were fairly small, 1.12 and 1.15, and any odds ratios less than 2.0 ought to be taken with a grain of salt (if not a whole pound). It could very likely be the result of chance, bias, or confounding factors. Thirdly, the study only looked at where the individuals were born, not where they lived at age 18. Fourthly, comparing the USA with countries with lower drinking ages does not appear to support the claim that allowing 18-20 year olds to drink results in higher homicide and suicide rates. For example, Canadians of both genders have lower homicide rates than Americans, and suicide rates that are intermediate between the lower 48 states and Alaska.

Unfortunately, we were unable to access the full text of the study, so we don't know what confounders (if any) the authors attempted to adjust for, except for state and birth-year fixed effects. However, since summaries of the study say that the effect was seen in 38 out of 39 states, that implies that the 12 states that did not change the drinking age at all (remained at 21 throughout) were not included. This is important since that would be a rudimentary way to test for secular trends, as we have done in this previous post. So many other things have changed during that time, making it difficult to tease out the impact of the drinking age change. And why weren't women (or men for that matter) born before 1960 affected? This study seems to leave the reader with more questions than answers.

The true believers in the 21 drinking age will need a lot more convincing in the error of their ways, however. That's why we took the initiative and looked up the mortality data ourselves in the publicly available CDC WONDER database. And here is what we found:

Female homicides, all USA:

Female suicides, all USA:

Female homicides, "always-21" states:

Female suicides, "always-21" states:

Female homicides, "18 at some time" states

Female suicides, "18 at some time" states

The above charts look at the female homicide and suicide rates of various age cohorts (15-19, 20-24, 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54) for the years 1979-1998. The study we are critiquing used the years 1990-2004 instead of 1979-1998, but we felt the latter would be more appropriate since a) the WONDER data are grouped into 1979-1998 and 1999-2007, each with somewhat different death codes, and b) more cohorts would be included. Voila--there is essentially no difference in the patterns of either rate over time between the various groups of states (all states, states that were always 21, and states that were 18 at some time) despite changes in the legal drinking age.

It is really transparent and obvious why a study like this would come out now, at a time when many policymakers are seriously considering lowering the drinking age. After the arguments about drunk driving fatalities have been debunked time and time again, it was necessary to come up with other "public health" arguments for continuing to violate the civil rights of 18-20 year old young adults. But make no mistake--these arguments are really just a more socially acceptable way of saying that some people's rights are more important than others. That is, the antithesis of what America supposedly stands for.

Australia Revisited

2011-10-10T13:10:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, it seems that a vocal minority of Australians want to raise their country's drinking age (currently 18) to 21. Recently, this issue has been revisited due to the nation's notorious drinking problem, in a land where binge drinking is an art form among all ages. But many Australians are not at all convinced that raising the drinking age will solve anything.

A case in point is the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, who originally suggested that the drinking age should be raised but is now against the idea. He knows that it would not fix anything, and that the real problems have other solutions. For example, Professor Sandra Jones (University of Wollongong) notes that raising the prices of alcohol (i.e. through taxes and/or a price floor), reducing overall availability, and reducing advertising would all go a long way to reducing Australia's drinking problem, citing the nation's experience with cigarettes. But more fundamentally, the problem is largely a cultural one that raising the drinking age simply won't do jack to fix. And all they have to do to is come to America to see what we mean.

For more info about Australia's drinking age debate, see our previous post about this issue.

Still More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do (Part 4)

2011-09-29T11:03:00.000-07:00

See previous posts. In the past week or so:

An underage drinker did NOT injure six innocent children at once while driving drunk.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly flip her vehicle with her 4 year old inside, fleeing the scene alone with the child still inside (while her other two kids were left home alone).

An underage drinker did NOT get in a drunken rage and rip the door off of a house and assault her boyfriend because he refused to have sex with her. (Yes, you read that correctly!)

An underage drinker did NOT go to a bar and start two separate fights--with his 9 month old baby in tow.

An underage drinking couple did NOT get sloshed at a Cleveland Browns game, get into a fight, and leave their 9 year old foster son with some strangers.

The presumably drunk homeless man who allegedly raped an elderly woman that was trying to help him was well over 21.

An underage drinker did NOT leave her 9 month old twin babies home alone in a playpen so she could go out on a drinking binge.

An underage drinker did NOT drive so wasted that he stopped at green lights and ran the red ones, and eventually killed an elderly man.

An underage drinker did NOT drive drunk and kill two pedestrians on a bridge.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Still More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do (Part 3)

2011-09-21T12:38:00.000-07:00

See previous post. In the past few weeks or so:

An underage drinker did NOT take two naked men hostage the morning after a night of forgotten drunken sexual activity "in case she was raped".

An underage drinker did NOT get sloshed and then get busted committing the apparent "crime" of "impersonating a stripper" at the local "gentleman's club".

An underage drinker did NOT get busted TWICE for DUI within a span of two days, with her kids in the car, after rear-ending another car on the road.

An underage drinker did NOT give his daughter a black eye and then drunkenly wreck his vehicle with his kids inside, abandoning it with the kids still inside, and then resist arrest when busted.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly rear-end another vehicle in his SUV while more than double the legal BAC limit, with his 5 year old son in the car with him.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly hit and injure a police bicycle officer with his van.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into a police cruiser and try to drive away.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly crash into and kill two people who were riding a motorcycle--but both of the victims were under 21, and thus never got a chance to drink legally.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. Funny how what people over 21 do is their own business, but whatever an 18-20 year old does is used to justify abridging the civil rights of all 12 million 18-20 year olds. Honestly, does that really make any sense?

"Liquorlining" is a Bad Idea

2011-09-08T10:06:00.000-07:00

New research from the UK (where the drinking age is 18) shows that, as the number of off-premise alcohol outlets in an area increases, the number of people under 18 who end up in the hospital for alcohol-related reasons also increases. This study adds to the substantial body of research in several countries (including the USA) that high outlet density increases alcohol-related problems (and crime) for all ages. And there is really nothing at all surprising about this fact, as teen drinking behaviors closely track those of the adults in their families and communities more than anything else.

There is no sound reason to have liquor stores on every corner, and you would think that reducing outlet density (even marginally) would be a top priority at least for the more holier-than-thou members of the pro-21 crowd. But apparently it is not, and again we are not surprised, as money is the roach of all evil and the hypocrisy of the pro-21 crowd is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

We do not have a "teen drinking problem", we have an American drinking problem which affects all ages. And it demands real solutions based on real science, not cowardly age discrimination and scapegoating based on junk science.

More Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do (Part 2)

2011-08-03T20:43:00.000-07:00

See previous post. This time, in the past few weeks or so:

An underage drinker did NOT beat his wife's head in with a rock in a drunken rage, killing her.

An underage drinker did NOT stomp his fiancee's Yorkshire terrier to death in a drunken rage.

An underage drinker did NOT get so wasted he thought it was a good idea to let his 8 year old son drive instead--but then again, at least his son was (hopefully) sober.

The cop who got a DUI while pulling a DARE trailer, of all things, was well over 21.

An underage drinker did NOT force a 40-ounce bottle of beer on her 4 year old son and give her 10 month old daughter a baby bottle that likely contained booze.

An underage drinker did NOT kill five Amish people when he drunkenly sideswiped a van.

An underage drinker did NOT get passed-out drunk in his filthy trailer while his 18 month old son (you read that right) was left outside to drink from open beer bottles scattered about on the porch.

An underage drinker did NOT cause a three-vehicle crash that sent a bus colliding into a McDonalds.

An underage drinker did NOT cause a six-car pile-up when he drunkenly crashed his semi-truck on the highway.

An underage drinker did NOT put a career Marine on life support after drunkenly crashing into him.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.

21 Turns 27

2011-07-19T12:29:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday, July 17, was the 27th anniversary of the signing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This was the law that coerced states to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose 10% of their annual highway funding. It was signed by President Reagan--so much for "states' rights" and "limited government." Every state except Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and (until 2010) Guam had sold out and went with the flow. We would have though for sure that the southern states would have at least threatened to secede as a result, but money is the roach of all evil. It was upheld by the highest court in the land when some states decided to fight it, and those states eventually capitulated. But that was not all--the precedent was set for further federal financial coercion, even when it was not directly related to the funding. Thus, a piece of America died that day.

One can only hope this un-American law will join the "Forever 27 club."

Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.

Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do (Part 1)

2011-07-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

Dave Hitt has a great website, Quick Hitts, with a section titled, "Things Atheists Didn't Do." It is a list of recent, high-profile cases of the crimes, follies, and misadventures of religious fanatics. We at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to do something similar. From time to time, we will post "Things Underage Drinkers Didn't Do", a (partial) list of all the high-profile drunken crimes, follies, and misadventures involving people age 21 and over during the past week or so. Every case we list occurred in the USA or one of the few other countries where the drinking age is 21, and nearly all cases have no mention of other substances involved. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

PART ONE

An underage drinker did NOT "misplace" his baby on the sidewalk after drinking.

An underage drinker did NOT get naked and take a dump in his neighbor's garage.

An underage drinker did NOT kill her teenage son in a drunk-driving crash.

An underage drinker did NOT try to kidnap two teenage girls like this creep did.

An underage drinker did NOT need to be tasered after drunkenly killing a young man and injuring another at 100 mph.

An underage drinker did NOT leave her 3 year old son alone at the pool to get beer money so she could get wasted.

An underage drinker did NOT possibly set a new record for Georgia's highest BAC level (FIVE TIMES the legal limit!) while driving with one's kids in the car in broad daylight.

An underage drinker did NOT drunkenly drive her SUV and smash into a fire station, injuring her teenage daughter who was riding with her.

An underage drinker did NOT get so incredibly wasted that he was completely oblivious that the pedestrian he hit while driving drunk (and landed inside his car) was dead.

An underage drinker did NOT kill a Red Cross volunteer in a drunk-driving crash.

An underage drinker did NOT kill his passenger when he drunkenly sideswiped a train.

The Melrose Place actress who allegedly drove drunk and killed an (almost) elderly New Jersey woman and actually had the audacity to laugh afterwards was well over 21.

Also, none of the police officers recently busted for DUI (one of which drove with his 3 year old son) were underage either.

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Excellent Alternet Post about the Drinking Age

2011-07-11T10:29:00.000-07:00

The recent post on Alternet about the drinking age is probably one of the few (if not the only) occasion the progressive alternative news site wrote an article about this issue. It is surprising that they don't discuss it more frequently, especially given their very liberal stance on the legalization of other psychoactive substances. It is truly refreshing to see them be in favor of liberty and justice for all, not liberty for "just us" like some so-called "progressives" and drug-law reformers.

The article, which is clearly in favor of lowering the drinking age, does almost as good a job at debunking the latest Carpenter and Dobkin study as we did back in May. It also discusses the wisdom of Barrett Seaman, author of Binge: What Your College Student Won't Tell You and current president of Choose Responsibility. Seaman knows what a failure the 21 drinking age has been, especially on college campuses. In addition, the article points out just how out of step America is with the rest of the civilized world.

As for the book Binge, while we at Twenty-One Debunked agree wholeheartedly with Seaman's evaluation of the failure of the 21 drinking age and how the law appears to throw gasoline on a fire (so to speak), the author does seem to over-egg the pudding a bit on the other issues he discusses when comparing today's campus life to the way it was in the 1960s when he was in college in upstate New York. Yes there are kernels of truth in what he says, but we hardly believe that today's students are embroiled in the kind of crisis he appears to suggest they are in. There is definitely a nostalgia bias at work here. And while we question whether technology really deserves much of the blame for the apparent "disconnection" he notes, we certainly agree that the 21 drinking age (which artificially and arbitrarily divides members of the college community) certainly isn't helping.

What is it about July?

2011-06-16T12:53:00.000-07:00

July is just around the corner, and we thought you should know some interesting facts about the seventh month of the year.

When drinking age laws have been changed in the past, July is the month in which it has historically occured the most.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act was signed into law on July 17, 1984.
Wyoming, the last state to raise the drinking age to 21, signed its bill into law on July 1, 1988.
The territory of Guam raised its drinking age from 18 to 21 on July 8, 2010, effective immediately.
The two most dangerous days of the year in terms of traffic fatalities are July 3 and July 4, despite the fact that the most dangerous month is August.
And of course, July 4 is Independence Day in the United States, and July 1 is Canada Day north of the border.

Latest News Roundup

2011-06-02T08:46:00.000-07:00

There have been several relevant news stories lately, including the following:

1) Scotland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom with a notorious drinking and violence problem, has officially allowed (and is trying to encourage) certain local authorities to locally ban off-premise alcohol sales to 18-20 year olds, while leaving the on-premise purchase age and overall drinking age at 18. While some welcome the move, others feel it is a backdoor attempt at a blanket ban on alcohol purchase by 18-20 year olds. But will Scotland Yard* actually enforce it?

2) The Indian state of Maharashtra, in which Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) is located, has just raised the drinking age to 21 for beer and 25 for liquor. Previously, it was 18 for beer and 21 for hard liquor. However, there is one massive loophole that renders it a joke overall: there is still no age limit for wine, and there never was before either. As for enforcement, don't hold your breath: in Delhi, one of the states where the drinking age has been 25 for years, the law is flouted so much that on a busy night, as many as 90% of bar partons are underage. They simply don't have the resources or political will to do so. Ditto for the long-standing law in Maharashtra where anyone who buys alcohol is required to have a permit to do so--almost no one bothers to get one. In fact, it turns out that the age limit on the books for liquor has already been 25 since 1949--but no one seemed to know it until yesterday! Currently, out of India's 28 states, there are three that set the drinking age at 18 across the board, two that set it at 25 across the board, three which are totally dry for all ages, and the remainder are either 21 across the board or have a split drinking age like Maharashtra.

3) New Zealand still has yet to raise the drinking age, as was recently proposed. But a new report by Sir Peter Gluckman may add fuel to the fire, encouraging the country to raise the drinking age to 21. Don't worry, though--there's nothing in it that we haven't already debunked before. Before they even think about raising the drinking age from 18 to 21, perhaps they should actually start enforcing the current law and closing its loopholes.

4) Apparently Baby Boomers (ages 50-65) in the USA are still drinking too much. You know, the same generation that hypocritcally denied todays young people the same freedom they had when they were younger. No surprise there. Of course, there is always that vexing question of whether they drink so much now because they were allowed to drink at 18 and got hooked more as a result. If so, there may be some slight justification for their hypocrisy. However, we at Twenty-One Debunked tested that hypothesis ourselves, using alcohol rehab admission statistics from the SAMHDA database from 1992-2008. Comparing affected age cohorts in the national data does appear to superficially support that hypothesis, but it falls flat when one notices that there was essentially no difference in such patterns between states that kept the drinking age at 21 (such as California and Pennsylvania) throughout versus similar states that changed their drinking ages (such as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) as well as the nation as a whole. This is true for both alcohol-specific cases as well as total cases. Thus, it appears to be a Boomer effect rather than a law effect, and the hypocrisy is not justified in the least.

We at Twenty-One Debunked feel that any attempt to raise the drinking age in any nation is a fool's errand, and will not solve any drinking problems in the long run. In fact, the focus on 18-20 year olds can lead a nation to ignore the pink elephant in the room. There has never been any society where adults drink but teens do not, nor has the reverse ever been true. It's time to stop scapegoating young people for adult problems.

(*That was a test to see if you are paying attention. Scotland Yard is the headquarters of the London Police Department, which has nothing at all to do with Scotland itself.)

A Critique of Carpenter and Dobkin (Part Deux)

2011-06-01T16:36:00.000-07:00

We recently debunked a new study by economists Carpenter and Dobkin (2011) that has apparently concluded that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 will lead to an 8% increase in deaths among 18-20 year olds and an estimated externality cost of $12 million per 100,000 person years (or $1.44 billion per year), for a combined "social cost" of nearly $10 billion per year. (There are about 12 million people in that age group.) The cost estimates were (most ironically) based on the increase in death, injury, and crime that occurs upon turning 21, and the authors suggest that the same would happen for 18-20 year olds if they were allowed to drink legally. While we believe these estimates are grossly overstated (and most likely just represent delayed rather than decreased costs when the legal drinking age is 21), let us take these estimates at face value for a moment for the purpose of a proper Pigouvian analysis.

First, lets examine the other side of the ledger. For one, there is the potential 3% increase in wages for each year of education in which alcohol is consumed (versus not consumed), presumably due to increased human and social capital formation. One study even found that men who go to bars once a month or more make 7% more in wages compared to those who do not--which is significant since under the current laws, most 18-20 year old drinkers do their drinking in locations other than bars. Since Carpenter and Dobkin estimate that the proportion of drinkers among young adults increases by 6.1 percentage points (or a 10% relative increase) upon being able to drink legally, one could say that, based on per-capita personal income figures for 2009, an economic benefit of roughly $1-2 billion per year in the long run would result from lowering the drinking age to 18. Tax revenues that fill government coffers (to the tune of $5.6 billion per year for the general population) are another benefit of alcohol, and foregone drinks translate to foregone taxes. Americans consume 8.4 liters of alcohol per capita, or about 117 billion standard drinks per year in total, making that a tax benefit of about $0.05 per drink. Since Carpenter and Dobkin estimate that an additional 547 million drinks total will be consumed per year if the drinking age was reduced to 18 (which we strongly doubt, but let's go with it anyway), that would be a benefit of $27 million per year. However, that only includes excise taxes. When all taxes are taken into account, beer sales alone bring in about $30 billion per year, so we estimate that total alcohol brings in at least $40-45 billion, or $0.40 per drink. Using that figure, lowering the drinking age to 18 would yield $219 million to the economy. The fact that more drinking would occur in bars would only boost that number even higher. Due to the uncertainty over health benefits of moderate alcohol use for young adults, we exclude them from our calculations.

We also need to examine the externalities of the 21 drinking age itself. There is the cost of enforcement, of course, which while we don't know the exact number, we do know that states receive $25 million each year from the feds for the purposes of underage drinking enforcement. Since states most likely spend their own money as well on this effort, this is a lower-bound estimate of the real number, which we believe is probably double that. But some of these funds would still be spent if the drinking age was 18, so we'll stick with the $25 million figure for now. We also know that due to the laws' ineffectiveness, numerous other ancillary laws (dram shop, social host, use and lose, keg registration, etc.) are often used to prop up the 21 drinking age. There are also significant opportunity costs to enforcing all of these laws, so that fewer resources are devoted to real crimes, including violence and drunk driving. Also, the estimates of the costs of legal alcohol use by 18-20 year olds should be adjusted downward, since forcing alcohol use underground makes it more dangerous than it has to be. The penalties for those who do get busted can be quite harsh in some states, and when you criminalize normative behavior you also create costs such as an increased number of individuals with criminal records, which limits their job opportunities in the future and hinders their ability to become productive members of society. There are also increased court costs and increased lawsuits as well. Other costs, such as loss of social cohesion and loss of civil liberties are probably very high (and many would even say priceless), but exceedingly difficult to measure. But for now let's estimate all of these total externalities conservatively at, say, $200 million per year.

Looking at both sides of the ledger, lowering the drinking age to 18 would now give a net social cost of $7.5 billion, including a net external cost of $1 billion per year. However, if we take into account that the increased wages would be taxed as well, the estimate of the net external cost (which is really the only cost that matters for public policy) drops to about $800 million. And if we use a somewhat smaller value for the statistical value of a life than Carpenter and Dobkin used (there are many legitimate values given in the economic literature), the estimate shrinks even further to as little as $500-750 million. And if a less conservative estimate of the externalities of the 21 drinking age law, say, $200-500 million (remember the measurement difficulty) and hedonic effects of alcohol are factored in, you're now talking chump change, at least relative to our society's $14 trillion GDP.

A remaining externality gap of at most a few hundred million dollars could easily be made up by raising the alcohol taxes, especially since this has also been shown in several studies to reduce traffic fatalities and other alcohol-related social ills, especially among young people. And at least one economist, Donald Kenkel (1993), considers higher alcohol taxes combined with a drinking age of 18 to be more socially efficient than a drinking age of 21. Raising the tax rates to a level that would increase the price of alcohol by as little as 12% could theoretically be enough. In another paper published the same year, he also notes that tougher penalties for drunk drivers would be more efficient than a 21 drinking age as well. And we at Twenty-One Debunked believe that Pigouvian taxation (for all ages) makes far more sense than prohibition of drinking for 18-20 year old young adults.

Remember, as we have noted in previous posts, that we do not believe that Carpenter and Dobkin's estimates are accurate, and that several studies have debunked the claim that the 21 drinking age saves lives on balance, and even the claim that it leads to large reductions in alcohol consumption. Any reductions that do occur are really just delays. Thus, since our analysis assumes Carpenter and Dobkin's estimates to be reasonably correct, we still understate the net benefits to lowering the drinking age by a great deal.

A proper Pigouvian analysis of young adult drinking would also consider the marginal social cost (MSC) versus the marginal private benefit (MPB) of alcohol consumption, in this case for 18-20 year olds. While this is not easy since we have yet to encounter any serious quantitative analysis of these parameters, we at Twenty-One Debunked believe that, as for those over 21, there does exist some level of consumption (which we do not attempt to quantify here) above which MSC exceeds MPB and below which MPB exceeds MSC. This can be logically inferred from the fact that a heavy-drinking minority cause the majority of the problems associated with alcohol consumption, while most drinkers are non-problem drinkers. Thus, the goal of public policy should be to reduce alcohol consumption to a socially efficient level via taxation and/or other cost-effective means.

Of course, there are some folks who believe that for people under 21, the most socially efficient level of consumption is zero (i.e. the marginal social cost exceeds the marginal private benefit at all nonzero levels of consumption), making outright prohibition of drinking for that age group the only solution. We clearly disagree with that statement, but what if it somehow was true? We know that underage drinking cannot be practically eliminated even under the strictest current regimes, but we could do a thought experiment. What if, in a relatively Orwellian version of the future USA, our nation decided to fit everyone between the ages of 13-20, inclusive, with a SCRAM bracelet that monitored the alcohol in their sweat 24/7, and then had the bracelet removed upon turning 21? Costs for all those bracelets, which are currently $300/month/person, would total up to a whopping $90 billion per year. Even neglecting all other costs to the economy (i.e. lost revenue), transition costs, loss of liberty, and negative hedonic effects, this value would exceed even the most liberal estimate of the total social costs of underage drinking ($60 billion) by $30 billion--a massive net deadweight loss. Clearly, this is not a viable option by any stretch of the imagination! And the only other way to guarantee that no one drinks a drop before turning 21 is if no one has kids--which would ultimately lead to our extinction.

Besides, the cost of "overage drinking", at least in terms of lives lost, is FAR worse than the cost of underage drinking. That's the pink elephant in the room that the pro-21 crowd doesn't want to talk about.

Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.

Latest "Binge Drinking" Study Less than Meets the Eye

2011-05-24T16:40:00.000-07:00

Stop the presses! New study links binge drinking to memory loss in college students!

Now before readers all respond with a resounding "DUH!", we should clarify that the study in question, which looked at 18-20 year old college students in Spain, found that those who admitted to "binge" drinking (six or more drinks in the same occasion at least once a month) performed slightly worse on a test of verbal memory (when sober) than those who did not. Already the media has taken it and ran with it, with some people inferring that this is evidence of permanent brain damage. Even worse, some folks have even interpreted this study as justification for the 21 drinking age. And those lines of reasoning are flawed to say the least, especially when one considers what the study actually found rather than the speculation of the alarmists.

First of all, the actual study was a cross-sectional study, and although it did control for several potential confounders, its design made it impossible to determine whether the link was causal since one could not test for temporal precedence (a crucial criteron of causation), much less truly isolate the drinking from all other variables. Second of all, the size of the effects was small (e.g. the "bingers" remembered 2-4% less information from a story compared to controls), not always statisically significant, and was in all cases within a standard deviation. For the word list recall, the difference in the number of words recalled was less than a single word. These differences would be of little to no practical significance, even if they technically were statistically significant. Third, no gender differences of the apparent effects were noted, despite the fact that women are generally more sensitive to alcohol than men as a rule, and that the definition of a "binge" was not gender-specific. Fourthly, we know nothing from the study about how long such effects persist, since the participants were only required to abstain from alcohol or drug use for 24 hours, and such abstinence was not monitored. Hangovers may very well last longer than 24 hours in some cases, which may confound results. Finally, the study design precluded determination of a dose-response relationship, so the all-important question of "how much alcohol is too much" relating to neurotoxicity remains unanswered by this investigation.

This should remind us all of another relatively recent cross-sectional study of 18-20 year old first-year university students in Spain, that looked at the effects of so-called "binge" drinking on the brain. In this study, 95 students (42 "bingers", 53 controls) were given tests of attention and working memory, and their specific brain waves were monitored with electrodes. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of actual performance, but the electrophysiological test suggested that more attention was expended to complete a given task among the "binge" group, as well as other electrophysiological differences. This is a lot more nuanced and less certain than the media are implying, and hardly represents "dain bramage." EEG differences were also noted in another recent study of a broader age group of young adults in the United States, but such differences were largely confined to "high-binge" drinkers (10 or more drinks per drinking session) rather than those who had 5-7 drinks per session.

Another recent study, done on 18-20 year old college students in Belgium, also found similar electrophysiological differences, but again no behavioral performance differences for some reason. In this study, which was one of the very few longitudinal studies on the matter, there were no differences in alcohol consumption or electrophysiological results at baseline, but both changed significantly in the "binge" group when measured 9 months later, but not in the control group. However, we should keep in mind that the binge group averaged 12.5 units (about 9 American drinks) per binge session, and two such binge sessions per week, which is quite extreme. Number of drinks per week averaged a whopping 35 units (25 American drinks) in the binge group, while the control group drank barely even one drink per week. And some participants drank as recently as three days before the tests as well, potentially conflating short and long term effects, though this was ostensibly controlled for. One good thing about this study, however, was that the sample size was significantly larger than the aforementioned one, and due to its longitudinal nature there was both a before test and and after test, enabling us to control for preexisting differences between the two groups.

The biggest flaw in all of these studies was the fact that there was no over-21 comparison group. So we simply cannot infer anything at all about age from this piece of research. Absolutely zilch. A better method would have been to have three groups each examined separately: 15-17, 18-20, and 21-24 years of age. But no study that we know of meets this standard. This would help to settle the nagging question of whether or not it actually is worse to drink at 18 rather than 21. Or perhaps some people are afraid of the possibility that their rationale for keeping the drinking age at 21 would be debunked if such a comparison was done. As yet, there is essentially ZERO hard scientific evidence that drinking at 18 is significantly worse than doing so at 21, ceteris paribus, but a plethora of evidence showing that excessive drinking is unhealthy at any age. Indeed, a 2002 study of alcoholics found no significant differences in the long-term effects on participants' neuropsychological performance with respect to age of onset (before vs. after age 20) of alcohol abuse. And still another study in 2007, this time of 21-25 year olds (you know, folks who are legally allowed to imbibe) who were self-identified heavy drinkers (more than 25 drinks per week), found that subtle brain changes are not exclusive to those under the magic age of 21.

Drinking ludicrous amounts of alcohol is dangerous, period. Regardless of age. That, if anything, should be the moral of the story. Keeping the drinking age at 21 only encourages such extremes, especially for college students.

We at 21 Debunked provide this for informational purposes only and do not in any way advocate drinking of any kind, underage or otherwise.

A Critique of Carpenter and Dobkin (2011)

2011-05-21T22:28:00.000-07:00

Recently, a new study by economists Carpenter and Dobkin (2011) has apparently concluded that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 will lead to an 8% increase in deaths among 18-20 year olds. The authors argue that those who are proposing lowering the drinking age would therefore face "a very high burden of proof" for their position. However, there is less to this study than meets the eye, and we at Twenty-One Debunked do not agree with their conclusions. In fact, much of what the study adds actually can be said to fuel our side of the debate rather than the pro-21 side, and the burden of proof actually falls on them, not us.

The first part of their study separately examines daytime and nighttime traffic fatality rates (from FARS) from 1975-1993 for four age groups: 15-17, 18-20, 21-24, and 25-29. (Nighttime deaths should be affected much more than daytime ones since the former are much more likely to involve alcohol.) They use a fixed-effects panel regression that, while it controls for state and year fixed effects, state-specific trends, and population changes, still fails to control for any other variables that would not be subsumed under these (in contrast to Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) and Dee and Evans (2001)). The drinking age was expressed as the proportion of 18-20 year olds who are legal to drink in a given state-year, hence the expected sign is positive. The results are summarized below as percent changes, with statistically significant values (p < 0.05) in bold:

Age Group	% Change (Night)	% Change (Day)
15-17	7.9	8.3
18-20	16.9	4.7
21-24	11.3	6.9
25-29	9.7	1.7

As one can see, the apparent effect occurred among all age groups rather than just the 18-20 year olds who were targeted by the changes in the legal drinking age. For 15-17 year olds (the spillover group), whose effects were statistically insignificant, the day-night counterfactual does not appear to work would be predicted if banning 18-20 year olds from drinking really saved the lives of the former. However, it does appear to work for 21-24 year olds and 25-29 year olds, both of whom should not have been affected by the change in the drinking age since the age groups were evaluated contemporaneously rather than as cohorts. In fact, the effects on 18-20 year olds and 21-24 year olds are rather comparable, as opposed to a mere spillover which would be much smaller in magnitude. Thus, it is very likely that the drinking age was a proxy for something else, i.e. one or more of the many possible variables that was not controlled for such as anti-drunk driving campaigns or tougher DUI laws.

We should compare this to other studies that looked at the effects on various age groups. Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), who thoroughly debunked the idea that the 21 drinking age saves lives (at least in the long run) for 18-20 year olds, found that a legal drinking age higher than 18 has no effect either way on 21-23 year olds but actually increases under-18 driver fatalities. Dee and Evans (2001) found that a drinking age of 18 or 19 (relative to 21) increases traffic fatalities among 18-19 year olds but decreases fatalities among cohorts of 22-24 year olds who were allowed to drink at 18 or 19, with no consistent effect on 16-17 year olds. This echoes Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990) and Males (1986), who both found that raising the drinking age to 21 likely just shifts traffic deaths from 18-20 year olds to 21-24 year olds and possibly even increases the net probability of dying by age 25. In addition, a new, award-winning paper by Dirscherl (2011) finds that raising the drinking age to 21 not only shifts deaths from 18-20 year olds to 21-24 year olds, but actually leads to a net increase in deaths among 18-24 year olds, a phenomenon we like to call "White Noise Syndrome".

Next, the authors examined the effects of the drinking age on the mortality rates of various causes of those same four age groups. These death rates were gleaned from vital statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, and the panel estimates of the effects were obtained from a similar model to the one discussed above. Again, the expected sign is positive. The results are summarized below, with statistically significant values (p < 0.05) in bold:

Age Group	% Change All-Cause	% Change Traffic	% Change Suicide	%Change Homicide	%Change Alcohol	% Change Other External
15-17	5.5	8.4	9.3	6.3	-30	-4.0
18-20	6.9	9.1	10.1	-4.6	-10	9.0
21-24	5.5	10.5	3.7	-6.5	2.5	11.6
25-29	-0.8	4.4	0.0	-1.9	-18	5.2

We see that only for suicide is the effect statistically significant for 18-20 year olds and at the same time insignificant (and smaller) for the other age groups. That is, only for suicide can one actually infer a potentially significant lifesaving effect of the 21 drinking age. For traffic fatalities and other external causes of death, there now seems to be a greater effect for 21-24 year olds than for 18-20 year olds, which casts doubt on whether these effects were actually due to the drinking age. Interestingly, homicide and alcohol-related deaths (e.g. alcohol poisoning, etc.) were not only statisically insignificant in all cases but even had the "wrong" sign for most of the age groups. Finally, for all-cause mortality, we see that none of the estimates are significant, not even at the 10% level, which means that they are likely due to chance (and thus spurious). However, the above results are nonetheless taken by the authors of the study to indicate an overall lifesaving effect.

In a previous post, we at Twenty-One Debunked ran several difference-in-differences analyses on mortality rates of 15-19 and 20-24 year olds for all of the external causes listed above. Those were the only age groups publicly available through CDC's WONDER database, and while not ideal, taken together they are still useful for generating estimates of the net effects in the long run, which we did. The control group was the 11 states (excluding Utah) that did not change their drinking ages (i.e. they remained 21 throughout since the 1930s and 1940s), while the treatment group was the states that had a drinking age of 18 in 1979 and later raised it to 21. Comparing 1998 to 1979, we found that the net difference-in-differences between the groups had the "wrong" sign for nearly every cause of death, especially suicide for 15-19 year olds. Only for homicide was there an apparent lifesaving effect, but removing New York from the data attenuated this effect to almost null. The pattern for suicide vs. homicide appears to be the reverse of what Carpenter and Dobkin found. Overall, we found no net lifesaving effect in the long run, echoing what Miron and Tetelbaum found for traffic deaths, and thus perhaps Carpenter and Dobkin's results are primarily capturing short-term effects due to the study design.

Next, the study's authors discuss their previous work on regression discontinuity estimates using more recent data, which we critique here. This analysis shows a discrete and significant jump in mortality at exactly age 21. The effect is true only for external causes of death, including motor vehicle accidents, suicides, deaths labled as "alcohol related," and those labeled as "other external," but not homicides or drug-related deaths. Another similar study they did concerning various types of crime gave similar results overall. But unfortunately, they also make the specious claim that such an effect is not merely a delay in deaths, but rather constitutes a true lifesaving effect of the policy (which is dubious). In any case, it certainly shows once and for all that there is nothing at all about turning 21 that magically makes one a safe responsible drinker.

The authors then tie together all of their analyses thus far, and assert that despite all of these limitations, the similarity of the effect size (8-10%) between the regression discontinuity analyses and the panel estimates implies that the effects of the 21 drinking age are likely to be truly causal rather than a proxy for something else. We find that argument to be puzzling at best, especially since Miron and Tetelbaum also found a similar effect of MLDA-21 (8-11%) in their initial 50-state model relative to MLDA-18, but it nonetheless dropped well below statistical and practical significance when the states were disaggregated and when the persistence of the effect was analyzed. For some states, it apparently even made things worse. Thus, an effect of this size may very well be a mirage rather than a truly causal relationship.

But the most tenuous aspect of the author's latest study is their analysis of the "social costs" in dollars per drink consumed by people under 21 if such drinking was legalized. Not only do they presume that the effects they observed in the aforementioned analyses are causal and represent a net lifesaving effect of the 21 drinking age, which we doubt, they also leave out much of the other side of the ledger with respect to alcohol consumption by ignoring or dismissing several potential economic benefits associated with it. They also ignore the likely adverse effects of a high drinking age on social cohesion, as well as the fact that forcing alcohol use underground makes it far more dangerous than it has to be, to say nothing of the value of individual liberty. And the by the same measures, the social cost per drink would likely be at least as high for people over 21 on balance, especially 21-24 year olds who are the most likely of any age group to drive drunk (both in the USA as well as countries with lower drinking ages). Using their logic, even bringing back Prohibition could potentially be justified, and we all know how well that worked out.

On balance, the 21 drinking age is an EPIC FAIL. And even more so are the tired, old attempts to justify it.

QED

Spot the Difference (in Differences)

2011-04-30T19:02:00.000-07:00

The pro-21 crowd insists that the 21 drinking age saves lives. In fact, they even claim to know the number of lives it saves each year: about 900 fewer traffic deaths per year. However, that figure is based on rather questionable assumptions. And in this post, like in previous ones, we seek to demolish these faulty conclusions.

TRAFFIC DEATHS

Take a look at the graph below. We have accessed the CDC's WONDER database, a publicly available health statistics database which has mortality data going back to 1979. The graph contains all deaths among 15-19 year olds and 20-24 year olds that were labled as "motor vehicle traffic" fatalities. All deaths are per 100,000 people.

National

As avid readers of this blog can recall, the drinking age was 18 or 19 in most states in 1979, and was 21 in all states by 1988. Thus, in the aggregate, it seems like there was some lifesaving effect. But as Mark Twain observed, "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics". One thing you can probably see right off the bat is that the decline in deaths had begun in 1979-1980, well before the 1984 federal law that coerced states to raise the drinking age to 21. However, several states also raised their drinking ages voluntarily before that: usually to 19, but a few raised it to 20 or 21 by 1983. So we need to dis-aggregate the data to see whether or not there was any lifesaving effect.

We have separated the states into "control" and "treatment" groups to do a difference-in-differences analysis on the above data. There were twelve states that did not change their drinking ages at all since the 1930s and 1940s (Arkansas, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington), remaining 21 throughout, and these form our control group. (We omitted Utah since that is a special case due to their high Mormon population and archaic alcohol laws in general). For the treatment group, we included every state that had a drinking age of either 18 or 19 for at least a portion of the time period 1979-1998. All other states (Delaware, Maine, Michigan) were excluded entirely since they had a drinking age of 20 or higher since January 1, 1979.

Control Group

Treatment Group

In addition, we then modified the treatment group to exclude all states that had a drinking age higher than 18 as of January 1, 1979. All states that are included had a drinking age of 18 at some time.

Treatment-18 Group

Funny how similar all three graphs look, despite the differences in the drinking ages. The difference-in-differences analysis between the control and treatment-18 groups is shown below:

Control, 15-19: -46.5%

Treatment, 15-19: -39.2%

DD: +7.3%

Control, 20-24: -49.5%

Treatment, 20-24: -40.1%

DD: +9.4%

Wow, that sure seems like a perverse effect of the 21 drinking age! The treatment group saw less progress overall than the control group, and they started out lower as well. This was true even more so for the 20-24 age group. Of course, an even greater lack of progress is evident in the 25-34 age group:

Control, 25-34: -49.5%

Treatment, 25-24: -34.2%

DD: +15.3%

What would our difference-in-differences analysis look like if we used the ratios of 15-19 and 20-24 year old fatalities to those in the 25-34 age group, as opposed to absolute fatality rates? The following calculations show what would happen to our results:

Control, 15-19 ratio: +5.8%

Treatment, 15-19 ratio: -8.0%

DD: -13.8%

Control, 20-24 ratio: 0%

Treatment, 20-24 ratio: -9.2%

DD: -9.2%

So, does this mean there is a net lifesaving effect after all? Hardly! There could be any number of reasons why the rates of progress differed between 15-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds. Take another look at the graphs above. We see that most of the fatality decline has occurred by 1992, and we also know that there was no change in the drinking age from 1990 onwards (the first full year that no grandfathered 18-20 year olds could drink legally). Thus, we now restrict our ratio DD analysis to 1979-1992:

Control, 15-19 ratio: -6.5%
Treatment, 15-19 ratio: -3.7%
DD: +2.8%

Control, 20-24 ratio: -0.1%
Treatment, 20-24 ratio: -11.3%
DD: -11.2%

Thus, it does not appear that the 21 drinking age had a real lifesaving effect. The results of the 1979-1992 ratio DD analysis are totally in the wrong direction: 20-24 year olds should be only minimally affected by an increase in the drinking age to 21, yet they appeared to "benefit" (likely by chance) when we control for the relative lack of progress among 25-34 year olds in the treatment group, while the 15-19 age group saw a relative increase in deaths. Omitting Louisiana (a state who had a massive loophole in the 21 law well into the 1990s) and states that had a drinking age for only a portion of 1979 did not substantially alter the results. Unfortunately, we could not separate the data into 18-20 and 21-24 age groups, nor could we distinguish between alcohol-related and non-alcohol-related deaths. However, the 15-19 year old group includes those most affected by a drinking age of 18 or 19 as well as the so-called "spillover" group of 15-17 year olds, and only one-fifth of the 20-24 year old age group would be directly affected by raising the drinking age to 21. Also, not all "alcohol-related" crashes are necessarily caused by alcohol, and differences in reporting and testing can bias the results in either direction. Thus, our general conclusions remain valid.

New York

Here we see New York, a state whose drinking age was 18 since 1934, raised to 19 in December 1982 voluntarily and then to 21 in December 1985 under federal duress. In NYC, where nearly half of the state's population lives, the drinking age remained unenforced for the most part until Rudy Giuliani became mayor in 1994. One can see that the decline in traffic fatalities began since 1980, years before the drinking age was raised, and seemed to decline at a slower rate after the drinking age was raised to 21. The decline then resumed a few years later, but stalled again since 1994 when NYC began enforcing the 21 drinking age more strictly. One can also clearly see this when you look specifically at fatalities in teen drunk-driving crashes since 1982. Thus it is far from obvious that the 21 drinking age had any benefits at all as far as reducing traffic fataltites.

Now, see if you can guess what year the following, unnamed state raised its drinking age. Go on, guess.

The answer is that they didn't! The state shown, California, has had a drinking age of 21 since 1933, yet its graph still seems to resemble the national graph as well as New York's. And if you look closely at the graphs, you'll see that New York was actually making more progress than California until 1985, after which the reverse was true. Gee, what could have happened?

"ALCOHOL-RELATED" TRAFFIC DEATHS

While the CDC WONDER database does not separate out alcohol-related ones, NHTSA's FARS database does. While not all this data is publicly available, some of it is. Taken from a NHTSA paper, we look at the state-level experience of changes in alcohol-related fatalities involving a 16-20 year old driver from 1982-1998. Since there are no reliable data before 1982, we define our control group as all those who had a drinking age of 21 for several years before 1982 (including Michigan and Utah this time) and our treatment group as those whose drinking ages were 18 for at least a portion of 1982.

Control, median: -64.3%
Treatment, median: -68.6%
DD: -4.3%

At first glance. it looks like there might indeed be a lifesaving effect, even if it is a small one. But what if we omit those states that had a drinking age higher than 18 for a substantial portion (i.e. more than one month) of 1982?

Control, median: -64.3%
Treatment, median: -64.1%
DD: +0.2%

Thus, we see the effect was spurious. This further contradicts the claim that the 21 drinking age saved lives.

NON-TRAFFIC DEATHS

But what about non-traffic fatalities, such as alcohol poisoning, falls, violence, suicide, and alcohol-related diseases? We also calculated those as well:

Alcohol-related deaths* (1979-1996)

Control, 15-19: -82% (unreliable)
Treatment, 15-19: -60% (unreliable)
DD: +22%

Control, 20-24: -39%
Treatment, 20-24: -62%
DD: -23%

Control, 25-34: -33%
Treatment, 25-34: -47%
DD: -14%

*Includes all deaths labeled with "alcohol" in the cause of death. Since the number of deaths is small, any year with fewer than 20 deaths is labled as "unreliable".

Suicide (all kinds, 1979-1998)

Control, 15-19: -12%
Treatment, 15-19: +10%
DD: +22%

Control, 20-24: -21%
Treatment, 20-24: -22%
DD: -1%

Control, 25-34: -27%
Treatment, 25-34: -20%
DD: +7%

(Perhaps Alex Koronay-Palicz was right about the loss of social cohesion leading to more suicides as a result of the 21 drinking age.)

Homicide (all kinds, 1979-1998)*

Control, 15-19: +17.9%
Treatment, 15-19: +3% (+15.2% excluding NY)
DD: -14.9% (-2.7% excluding NY)

Control, 20-24: -4.8%
Treatment, 20-24: -12.3% (-7.8% excluding NY)
DD: -7.5% (-3.0% excluding NY)

Control, 25-34: -40.1%
Treatment, 25-35: -41.0% (-38.4% excluding NY)
DD: -0.9% (+1.6 excluding NY)

*Interpret with caution; California (a control state) saw declines of -3.5% and -19.3% for 15-19 and 20-24 year olds, respectively.

Unintentional Injury (all kinds, including traffic, 1979-1998)

Control, 15-19: -48.8%
Treatment, 15-19: -41.3%
DD: +7.5%

Control, 20-24: -47.8%
Treatment, 20-24: -41.9%
DD: +6.9%

Control, 25-34: -40.0%
Treatment, 25-34: -33.0%
DD: +7.0%

All Causes of Death (1979-1998):

Control, 15-19: -33.7%
Treatment, 15-19: -28.4%
DD: +5.3%

Control, 20-24: -31.8%
Treatment, 20-24: -29.2%
DD: +2.6%

Control, 25-34: -25.5%
Treatment, 25-34: -20.3%
DD: +5.2%

Thus, it appears to be a wash overall at best, or even perverse at worst. In nearly all cases, 15-19 year olds see less progress in the treatment states relative to the control states and/or less progress relative to 25-34 year olds. If that's success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.

America's Best-Kept Secret

2011-04-22T12:41:00.000-07:00

What is America's best-kept secret of all? According to traffic safety researcher Leonard Evans, the "secret" is a rather open one--our lack of progress in reducing traffic fatalities relative to other industrialized nations.

While it is true that our nation has made progress over the past few decades, such progress has been abysmal compared to that made by Canada, Australia, the UK, and most of Europe. Take a look at the following table:

Country	MLDA	1979 Fatalities	2002 Fatalities	% Change (raw)	% Change (per vehicle)	% Change (per VMT)
USA	21	51,093	42,815	-16.2%	-46.2%	-52%
UK	18	6,352	3,431	-46.0%	-67.1%	-70%
Canada	18 or 19	5,863	2,936	-49.9%	-63.5%	N/A
Australia	18	3,508	1,715	-51.1%	-79.1%	N/A

In other words, if we had kept pace with the other nations listed, there would have been an additional 200,000 lives saved from 1979-2002. If we were to grade these countries, Australia would get an A, the UK and Canada would each get a B, and the USA would get a D.

There are likely several reasons why America is lagging behind, of course. But one of the most notable ways in which the USA differs from the rest is our ludicrously high drinking age of 21, compared to 18 in most other countries. So let's take a look at younger drivers, using data from the latest IRTAD report:

Country	MLDA	% Change 15-17 (raw) 1980-2009	% Change 18-20 (raw) 1980-2009	% Change 21-24 (raw) 1980-2009	% Change 15-17 (p/c) 1990-2008	% Change 18-20 (p/c) 1990-2008	% Change 21-24 (p/c) 1990-2008
USA	21	-68%	-59%	-56%	-50%	-34%	-29%
UK	18	-88%	-72%	-61%	-53%	-50%	-53%
Canada	18 or 19	N/A	N/A	N/A	-55%	-49%	-50%
Australia	18	N/A	N/A	N/A	-50%	-59%	-57%
New Zealand	18	-52%	-63%	-58%	-66%	-68%	-75%

We see that America lags behind the rest of the countries for younger drivers as well. We added New Zealand to the list because that was a country that not only did not raise the drinking age, but actually lowered it from 20 to 18 in 1999. Unfortunately, the IRTAD report did not give age-specifc data before 1990 for Canada and Australia, nor did they give age-specific data for alcohol involvement for any country. However, the post-1990 data are still useful despite the constant drinking ages, as enforcement of the 21 drinking age did increase during that time in the USA.

When one looks at the report, one can see that since 1990, most of the progress involving the youngest drivers in America occurred after 2005, during a time when gas prices soared. Thus, we now see what the numbers look like when the data are truncated to 1990-2005. We also examine 1998-2008, the most relevant ten-year period to NZ since they lowered their drinking age to 18 in 1999. All rates shown below are per-capita.

Country	MLDA	% Change 15-17 (p/c) 1990-2005	% Change 18-20 (p/c) 1990-2005	% Change 21-24 (p/c) 1990-2005	% Change 15-17 (p/c) 1998-2008	% Change 18-20 (p/c) 1998-2008	% Change 21-24 (p/c) 1998-2008
USA	21	-35%	-16%	-18%	-40%	-22%	-13%
UK	18	-40%	-32%	-35%	0%	-35%	-35%
Canada	18 or 19	-43%	-38%	-38%	-31%	-24%	-23%
Australia	18	-50%	-49%	-39%	-31%	-24%	-22%
New Zealand	18	-41%	-53%	-72%	-35%	-32%	-19%

This table appears to confirm what we suspect. Before the massive gas price rise of the late 2000s, (which appears to have stronger effects on younger people for some reason), America lags the other nations even more so. We even lag behind New Zealand of all countries! Due to America's lower gas taxes and prices at baseline, the percent difference in gas prices (twofold from 2004 to 2008) was significantly larger than for the other nations--and Americans are not used to high gas prices ($4.00/gallon is considered "low" in Europe, and "high normal" in Canada). As for NZ, it does not appear that lowering the drinking age led an increase in deaths relative to comparable countries (especially Australia) that kept the drinking age constant, at least not in the long run.

So why did American 15-17 year olds see significantly more progress than their slightly older counterparts since 1990, despite lagging behind 15-17 year olds of several other countries? During the gas price rise, one can easily see why since that age group simply has less money to spend on gas. And while they saw more progress than their older counterparts before the price rise, that is likely due to the increase in graduated driver licensing programs in the USA. New Zealand already had graduated licensing since the late 1980s, while the USA and Canada generally implemented it in the late 1990s. The main difference between the American version is that it generally applies only to drivers under 18, while in the other countries it applies to all novice drivers (or at least all novices under 20 or 25). Also, the American version tends to have tighter restrictions on those to whom it does apply, especially when it comes to passengers. This can lead to fewer deaths among 15-17 year olds simply by encouraging them to "wait it out" until 18, when they can get an unrestricted license despite the fact that they are no better at driving than they were two years prior. And those that do begin driving at 16 or 17 would do so under less realistic conditions. One study actually found a shifting of deaths to 18-19 year olds as a result of California's GDL program that started in 1998--and a net increase in total 16-19 year old fataltities.

But what about alcohol-related traffic fatalties? In a previous post, we have already compared the USA and Canada--see the following graphs of the most relevant time period, courtesy of NHTSA:

Percent Change from 1982-1997 US: drivers age 16-20 in fatal crashes with positive BAC (FARS) Canada: driver fatalities age 16-19 with positive BAC (TIRF)	Percent Change from 1982-1997 US: percentage of drivers age 16-20 in fatal crashes with positive BAC (FARS) Canada: percentage of driver fatalities age 16-19 with positive BAC (TIRF)

Interestingly, the decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities since 1982 occurred at about the same rate in both countries, with no evidence of divergence in the expected direction despite the fact that Canada did not raise the drinking age to 21. In both countries, drivers under 21 saw some of the largest declines of all compared with other age groups, though all ages saw some decline over the long run. Moreover, progress continued for Canadian teens from 1997-2005, while unfortunately it stalled for their American counterparts during that time, only resuming after gas prices began to skyrocket and the economy began to sag. And yes, gas prices do have an effect on alcohol-related crashes. In 2005-2006, the rate of total 15-24 year old traffic fatalities (per 100,000 people) for the USA was 25.5, and 16.9 in Canada, the latter being 33% lower than the former.

For the number of all-ages "alcohol-related" fatalities, MADD's own statistics show that from 1982-2004, it declined a whopping 62% in Canada, while it only dropped by 36% south of the border. And unlike Canada, much of America's "progress" since 1993 was rather hollow in that the decrease in the percentage of deaths that were "alcohol-related" was primarily a result of an increase in non-alcohol related fatalities since that year. If that's success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.

Looks like Jack Smith, president of the Canada Safety Council, was right when he said that (relative to Canada), “It’s hard to see how anyone could cite the American experience as a success" when asked whether Canada should raise its drinking age to 21. And we at Twenty-One Debunked certainly agree. We really need to see the forest for the trees.

Will Alaska Lower the Drinking Age for the Troops?

2011-04-15T10:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, Rep. Bob Lynn of Alaska has a bill to lower the drinking age to 18 for U.S. military members in Alaska. While we at Twenty-One Debunked believe that all 18-20 year olds, soldier or civilian, should have the same rights that 21 year olds currently enjoy, this is a great first step in the right direction.  The idea certainly deserves a 21-gun salute.

As for military bases, we also have mentioned last year that several military leaders support allowing 18-20 year old servicemembers to drink beer and wine on base. The current federal law on the matter is that the age limit for drinking on base must be the same as the surrounding jurisdiction or higher (21 in all 50 states, DC, and now Guam), except when within 50 miles of Canada or Mexico. Fort Bliss (El Paso, Texas) was the last base on mainland U.S. soil to raise their own drinking age to 21 in May 2008. However, Maj. Gen. Dana Pittard has been considering lowering it back to 18 on base as well. And of course MADD had to chime in with their usual junk science and scare tactics.

Fort Bliss provides a good modern natural experiment for the effects of changing the drinking age, since that base was an "island" of a lower drinking age in a sea of a higher one, yet only applied to soldiers stationed there. So what were the results of this experiment? Well, the DUIs involving soldiers (on and off base) were as follows:

2005: 107
2006: 143
2007:  97
2008: 214
2009: 183

As you can see, there were actually more DUIs after the drinking age was raised than there were before! That's hardly a ringing endorsement for the 21 drinking age. While the population of soldiers grew dramatically during that time, it has been growing since 2005, and DUIs were relatively flat or declining until 2008. Perhaps it was safer to let them drink on base after all, as driving would not be necessary. As for other statistics specifically involving alcohol and soldiers in El Paso, there are no reliable data either way. Total traffic fatalities (all ages) in the city, even per capita, were higher in 2008 and 2009 than in in 2006-2007 despite declining for years in the rest of Texas and the nation as a whole. And while overall crime did decline in El Paso since 2008, this trend predates the raising of the drinking age on base.

While alcohol abuse is indeed a problem in the military (and among civilians), it is a problem for those over 21 as well. And there does not seem to be any hard evidence that pre-2008 Fort Bliss was any worse than the other bases where it has been 21 for decades.  Thus it does not appear that scapegoating 18-20 year olds and denying them the rights that people 21 and over currently enjoy actually solves anything.

While some say that allowing only members of the military to drink at 18 in Alaska would violate the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) and thus be tough to defend in court, that would actually work in our favor should someone choose to fight it. The pro-21 crowd would then be forced to face the fact that the 21 drinking age in general violates the Equal Protection Clause as well (since is arbitrarily higher than the age of majority), paving the way for the drinking age to be lowered to 18 across the board.

The proposed bill would also represent the first challenge of the 10% federal highway penalty since Louisiana bowed down to the feds in 1996 and reversed their own court decision. If Alaska loses any of its highway funding, they can retaliate by cutting off (or threatening to cut off) their vast oil supply to the lower 48 states and Hawaii--OUCH! That should teach the feds to respect the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for once.

Lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.

New Review of the 21 Drinking Age

2011-04-06T17:11:00.000-07:00

Economist Darren Grant (Sam Houston State University) has recently published online a study on the history, merits, and effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the 21 drinking age. This study is one of a four-part series on drunk driving and related legislation. Though he is not a member of Twenty-One Debunked, he nonetheless appears to echo much of what we have been saying all along. Specifically, it exposes several biases in both the policy-making process and the studies used to support the 1984 federal drinking age law.

If his name sounds familiar, it is probably because we already discussed an older study of his on a previous post. That study critically analyzed the effects of zero-tolerance drink-driving laws. He also has a working paper that looks at both MLDA and drunk-driving laws in general, in which he found that hard-to-measure "social forces" were generally far more important than any of these laws, and that fact tends to skew the estimated effects of these laws.

One notable aspect of his current study concerns what we like to call "The Incredible Shrinking Effect Size" of the 21 drinking age. For the studies that were presented at the federal hearings around 1984, and got the most attention, effect sizes of 30% or even higher (in terms of 18-20 year old traffic fatality reductions) were often reported. However, several other studies found much smaller ones, especially the more recent regression-based ones. Is it 30%? Or maybe it's 20%. Or maybe it's 13%. Or maybe 11%. Or maybe 7%. Or maybe 5%. Or maybe it's really zero, or even a net increase in deaths. And yes, there are studies that found the latter. But politics prevailed over science nonetheless.

One should also realize that NHTSA's estimate on the lives currently saved by the 21 drinking age (25,000 total, or 900 per year) is based on an unpublished in-house study from 1985 using only 13 states. That study found a reduction of 13%, and NHTSA simply extrapolated that figure to the number of 16-20 year old fatalities in later years. This number is thus junk, especially since studies like Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) found that the apparent effect wore off after the first year or two, was only found in the early-adopting states, and was offset by increases in fatalities among drivers under 18. Other studies, like Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), Males (1986), and Dee and Evans (2001) find that any lives of 18-20 year olds that appear to be "saved" are merely delayed a few years to the 21-24 age group. Thus there is no net benefit in the long run to keeping the drinking age at 21.

It's time to put science ahead of ideology for once. What better time than now?

Alaska Considers Lowering Drinking Age for Troops

2011-04-06T08:01:00.000-07:00

Alaska, the last frontier, is considering lowering the drinking age to 18--but only for members of the U.S. Military. While we at Twenty-One Debunked would like to see it lowered to 18 across the board, this would be a great first step in the right direction. And it deserves a 21-gun salute.

It would also be the first time the 10% federal highway funding penalty would be tested since Louisiana did so in 1996. While we don't know how Alaska would respond to that, one should remember that, despite their tiny population, they have lots of oil that the lower 48 and Hawaii are dependent on. Thus, it would probably be foolish for the feds to enforce the FUDAA against such a state and risk retaliation. Also, the so-called "blood-borders" argument (one of the reasons the FUDAA was enacted) would not really apply due to Alaska's isolation from the rest of the nation. Not like it was a particularly good argument to begin with, since studies of the purported effect have been inconsistent, and the still-tolerated "blood-borders" of dry/wet counties are far worse since they directly involve a much larger share of the driving population. Besides, a uniform drinking age of 18 would also eliminate "blood-borders" just the same, and even if varying state drinking ages are tolerated the feds would still have the power to make drunk driving across state lines a federal offense punishable by many years in federal prison. Thus the "blood-borders" argument is a canard.

Remember, Alaska was one of the first states to lower the drinking age in 1970, even before the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age in 1971. We wish lots of luck to the Land of the Midnight Sun.

Our Views on the BEER Act

2011-04-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

A recent bipartisan bill in Congress known as the BEER Act has making headlines lately. What it would do is significantly reduce the federal beer excise tax for small domestic brewers (less than 2 million barrels per year) and leave the normal rate untouched, essentially making the beer tax more progressive than it currently is. While the small brewers currently get a somewhat reduced rate on the first 60,000 barrels, the bill would further reduce this rate as well as the rate on barrels up to 2 million, and only on those brewers who produce a total of 6 million barrels or less. And this seems to be one of the few things that our increasingly divided Congress can agree upon.

Although we at Twenty-One Debunked have repeatedly called for significantly higher alcohol taxes (beer, wine, and distilled spirits) at both federal and state levels as part of our comprehensive plan to lower the drinking age to 18, we support the BEER Act since it is specific to small brewers (microbrewers). We would never support a significant tax hike on microbrewers for three reasons: 1) they are far less able to absorb such a tax hike than larger brewers, 2) it would bring in very little revenue in practice relative to tax hikes on larger brewers, and 3) their products are already expensive enough, and are thus far less likely to be abused than their cheaper major brewer counterparts. These small brewers contribute not just higher product quality, but numerous jobs for Americans that pay a decent wage. So lets give them a shot in the arm, not a kick in the teeth.

Further Proof of White Noise Syndrome

2011-04-03T14:09:00.000-07:00

We have commented in previous posts about a phenomenon we like to call "White Noise Syndrome", or the shifting of deaths from one age group to another when the drinking age is changed. Sociologist Mike Males refers to this as a "seesaw effect". This has been documented in several peer-reviewed studies, namely Males (1986), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and most recently in Dee and Evans (2001). Studies like Carpenter and Dobkin (2010) which find increases in deaths upon turning 21 (today, with a 21 drinking age) seem to dovetail with these results. Of course, as with anything not every study has agreed with these results, and estimates of net effects varied, but they have been pretty tough to refute.

Now a new study by economics student Dan Dirscherl (2010) at Notre Dame University further confirms the previous studies mentioned. His award-winning paper, which uses a fixed-effects, difference-in-differences model on data from 1972-1994 finds that a drinking age of 21 (compared with a lower one) not only shifts deaths from 18-20 year olds to 21-24 year olds, but appears to result in a net increase in fatalities among 18-24 olds. The effect was driven by males, while females saw no effect either way. Interestingly, the effect on 18-20 year olds was statistically insignificant, while on 21-24 it was highly significant. This is the dirty (not to mention deadly) secret of the supposed lifesaving effect of the 21 drinking age that the pro-21 crowd would rather sweep under the rug.

One potential flaw to this study was that legal drinking ages of 18 and 19 (and even 20 for two states) were lumped together as states with an age limit below 21, compared with states at 21. This could increase the noise in the data. However, Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) found no statistically significant difference between drinking ages of 18, 19, or 20 on traffic fatalities in any of their models, even those models that found significant effects for a drinking age of 21 relative to 18. (Of course, the best model found no lifesaving effects in the long run for MLDA 21 either.) Another criticism one could make is that Dirscherl did not include data for those under 18. Again, however, Miron and Tetelbaum found during a robustness check of their own study that a drinking age of 19, 20, or especially 21 increases fatalities of drivers under 18, contrary to what the "trickle-down" or "low-hanging fruit" theory predicts. Still another criticism is that Dirscherl (like Miron and Tetelbaum) used total traffic fatalities and not "alcohol-related" ones. But there is no reliable data for "alcohol-related" fatalities before 1982, and even after that the data can be biased due to differences in testing rates. When using data going that far back, when about 2/3 of teenage fatalites were alcohol related, total fatalities would likely be sufficient, but surrogates like single-vehicle nighttime fatalities are a good robustness check. And both studies by Asch and Levy do exactly that, with similar results.

Of course, alcohol-related deaths among young people are by no means limited to the highways. There is virtually zero evidence that non-traffic alcohol-related fatalities as a whole are significantly reduced by the 21 drinking age, and effects on specific causes of non-traffic death have been inconsistent at best. In fact, from 1998 to 2005 (years during which enforcement of the 21 drinking age generally increased), these fatalities among 18-24 year olds increased significantly, including a near-tripling of alcohol poisoning deaths for this age group. It is entirely plausible that forcing alcohol use underground for 18-20 year olds would make it more dangerous than it has to be, most notably for alcohol poisoning deaths (which are really just the tip of the iceberg of high-risk drinking). An honest cost-benefit analysis of the 21 drinking age should take these deaths into account as well.

We did our own research as well, using the CDC WONDER database to look up any deaths that mentioned "alcohol" in the cause of death for 15-24 year olds. They group ages by 15-19 and 20-24 instead of 18-20 and 21-24, but the data are still useful for our purposes. Shown below are the alcohol-related death rates per million people in each of the two age groups.

In other words, raising the drinking age to 21 appears to have been a shell game at best, and those who support it have quite a bit to answer for. It's a lot like the movie White Noise 2, hence our term for this unfortunate phenomenon.

More Evidence Drinking Age is Irrelevant to "Big Booze"

2011-04-01T11:22:00.000-07:00

One common thought-terminating cliche that the pro-21 crowd loves to use to discredit their opponents is to try to link them to Big Booze (i.e. the alcohol industry). But there is really no hard evidence that Big Booze would respond to changes in the legal drinking age with anything more than a collective shrug.

A case in point is SAB Miller, the resulting multinational merger of South African Brewery and Miller Brewing Company (who also owns Coors and Molson). Recently there has been some talk about South Africa considering raising its drinking age from 18 to 21 (which we hope does not happen), yet a recent article dismisses any claims that such a change would affect the company's share prices. Why? The quote below says the gist of it:

The general practice found in countries where the age limit for drinking is 21 is that those teenagers in the 18 to 20 years range ask legally-competent people to buy beer for them. This is also expected by commentators to happen in South Africa as well, as it does in many other parts of the world where 21 is the legal drinking age.

Coupled with another quote: "Teenagers are not necessarily a huge part of SAB's business in the first place". Not even in a nation like South Africa where the drinking age is 18 and very poorly enforced.

And there you have it. No significant effect on the alcohol industry as a whole. But what about the restaurant/bar industry? Surely they would be affected, right, since it would shift drinking away from bars and toward underground parties? In 1984, the National Restaurant Association understandably came out against the national raising of the drinking age in the United States. However, they have since backed down once it was a done deal, implying that they had far bigger fish to fry. And the alcohol industry overall has been relatively silent on the issue both then and now.

While neither the alcohol nor the hospitality industries are making any serious effort to reduce America's drinking age, they have both* been (and still are) fighting tooth-and-nail every attempt to raise alcohol taxes, restrict advertising, lower blood alcohol limits for DUI, increase sobriety checkpoints, and install ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. All while the groups like the distiller-funded Century Council ostensibly dedicate themselves to fighting underage drinking (while supporting the 21 drinking age), supporting tough penalties for underage drinkers and social hosts, and even "reverse-stings" to bust underage purchasers (as opposed to those who profit from such consumption). Now that really says something about the effectiveness of the 21 drinking age versus these other countermeasures they hate in reducing heavy and problem alcohol consumption (which constitutes the majority of Big Booze's revenue) among all ages. But groups like MADD are so gung-ho about the sacred cow that is the 21 drinking age that they fail to see this obvious fact about how their foes operate.

So where do we, Twenty-One Debunked, stand on the countermeasures the industry opposes? We support them, for the most part. We believe that the alcohol taxes should be raised significantly, for all beverages (except microbrews), with the tax proportional to alcohol content. We believe that alcohol advertising should not be allowed to target minors, and should be restricted to the greatest extent allowed under the U.S. Constitution, similar to tobacco. We support reduced blood alcohol limits for driving, with graduated penalties that steeply increase with BAC level, and the penalties for the highest levels should be much higher than they are now. We believe that first offenders should, at a minimum, be required to have ignition interlocks if (not when) they get their licenses back, revocations of which should be permanent upon the second offense. These folks are ticking time bombs that will kill someone if left unchecked. And while we have nothing in principle against checkpoints that are conducted properly, we believe that roving patrols are more effective and cost-effective in catching drunk drivers and saving lives.

As for the drinking age, if our wish is granted and it is ever reduced to 18, we would support tough enforcement targeting vendors above anyone else, and only very modest civil penalties (if any) against underage drinkers themselves. Until that day comes, we believe that liquor law violations involving 18-20 year olds (and no one under 18) should be made the lowest law enforcement priority and penalites dramatically reduced if not eliminated. The drinking age should also never be used as an excuse to violate the Constitution. Social host laws, at least for those over 18, should be repealed. And no one of any age should be jailed or receive a lifelong criminal record solely for drinking alcohol in a manner that does not harm others, as the punishment does not fit the "crime".

It should also go without saying that Twenty-One Debunked does not, and will never, accept even a single dime from Big Booze or the hospitality industry. No offense to them, but our integrity is worth much more than anything they could ever possibly offer.

*One such industry trade group is the American Beverage Institute, of which MADD's turncoat founder Candy Lightner is currently a member (or at least was back in the 1990s) despite still supporting the 21 drinking age as of 2008. Also, take a look at some of the supporters of one of the federal government's most prominent pro-21 websites.

Latest Age of Onset Study Is Less than Meets the Eye

2011-03-18T12:16:00.000-07:00

Just in time for St. Patrick's Day, a well-known drinking holiday, a new study comes out about the controversial relationship between age of onset of drinking and later alcohol dependence.

What the study apparently found was that 1) those who began drinking at all before the age of 11 (!) were statistically more likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who began later, and 2) those who began drinking regularly before age 21 were statistically more likely to develop alcohol dependence (but not alcohol misuse) than those who began later, with interestingly no statistically significant difference between those who began in early adolescence (11-14), middle adolescence (15-17), and those who began between 18-20 years of age.

However, there is less here than meets the eye. First of all, for regular drinking (defined as 2 or more drinks per week, an arbitrary distinction and not a real lot) they lumped together those who drank lightly or moderately with those who drank heavily, and lumped together those who started at exactly 21 with those who started much later. Well DUH--those who had any interest at all in alcohol would likely have begun drinking at least occasionally before 21, and those who would actually wait that long tend to be nondrinkers for the most part. People uninterested in alcohol are unlikely to become alcoholics, plain and simple. This is especially true since those individuals who began drinking regularly after 21 but did not initiate any drinking before 21 were excluded from the study. Also since the study only followed participants to age 33, those who began drinking after 21 may not have had enough time for problem drinking to show up in the study. As for those who began drinking regularly between 18-20, it is likely that most of them had their first drink well before 18 since most of that study's participants began drinking very early, but this distinction was not made among the reportedly regular drinkers. And those who had their first drink at 18-20 were found to be 65% less likely to become alcoholics than those who began before the age of 14, making it rather curious why the researchers did not adjust for this in the analyses of regular drinking.

Other flaws existed as well. The study did not adequately control for general deviant tendencies, and deviant people are more likely to break the law (such as the MLDA), more likely to begin drinking much earlier (or later) than their peers, and more likely to become alcoholics. The only control variables were race/ethnicity, gender, poverty, tobacco, and illicit drug use, despite the fact that many other variables (e.g. genetics, childhood trauma, peer group, IQ, etc.) may very well have had an effect. Also, the sample size was fairly small and was likely not representative of the general population, since all participants were initially recruited from schools in high-crime areas of Seattle. Reporting bias, especially on the question of regular drinking, may also be an issue. Another issue was the apparently non-monotonic relationship between age of onset of regular drinking and alcoholism (starting at age 18-20 had a slightly higher odds ratio than at age 14 and under, though statisically insignificant), which is rather suspicious and runs counter to the idea that the relationship is primarily due to differences in brain development. Finally, the adjusted odds ratios were 1.6-1.8, and all honest epidemiologists know that odds ratios below 2.0 should be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a whole pound.

To really control for as many confounders as possible, twin studies are the best choice since their genetics and environment are about as similar as one can get. A recent twin study (Agrawal et al. 2009) with a larger sample size in Australia found that, while drinking before age 15 was associated with a significantly greater incidence of alcohol dependence, the effect of age of onset diminishes after that point and practically disappears from age 18 onwards. Those who began drinking at 18 were not significantly more likely to become alcoholics than if they had started at 19, 20, 21, or even 23+. Funny how the effect of age on later alcoholism levels off precisely at the country's legal drinking age, 18. And in a country that has roughly the same rate of alcoholism that we do despite their lower drinking age.

To prove causation as per the Bradford-Hills criteria, one crucial criterion is "biological plausibility." While that is not exactly the same thing as "truth", without it one cannot have a great deal of confidence that a relationship is truly causal. Animal studies are often used for this purpose, but rodents are hardly ideal to test a hypothesis like this since their adolescence occurs far too quickly to distinguish between specific ages, not to mention the obvious fact that rats are not people. Thus, such studies have been rather inconsistent. Nonhuman primates, such as monkeys, are better suited to such a task. And the only known monkey study of whether earlier-onset drinkers are more likely to get hooked than later-onset ones shows no connection with age of onset per se, even though the monkeys were dosed with "binge" amounts. This suggests that genetic, social, and cultural factors are most likely far more important than age of onset for humans, if the latter is even causal at all, and that the difference between an age of onset at 18 vs. 21 is practically negligible.

Also, one ought to take a look at a previous post about our neighbor to the north. Again, they also have a roughly equivalent alcoholism rate as the USA, despite Canada's lower drinking age as well as their demographic and geographic features more conducive to heavy drinking. Besides, it's not like the 21 drinking age really stops 18-20 year olds from drinking--even the latest study showed that nearly 9 out of 10 people will do so before age 21, many of them having initated at or before age 15. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to not drink a drop until 21 or later, and far better to teach moderation and responsible drinking. Yes, there were a few people who waited until 21 or later before drinking, but that was also true in the Australian study, in a country whose drinking age has been 18 for decades (and over a century in some parts). It's time for Americans to stick their heads out of their current anatomically-impossible positions and join the rest of the civilized world.

Former MADD President Busted for DUI

2011-02-27T10:48:00.000-08:00

Former Gainesville (FL) MADD president Debra Oberlin, 48, got busted for drunk driving on Feb 24, blowing a whopping 0.239 BAC, nearly triple the legal limit. Thank God no one was hurt or killed. Hopefully they will throw the book at this ticking time bomb before someone actually is--according to MADD's own statistics, the average drunk driver does so an average of 88 times (!) before being caught.

We at Twenty-One Debunked can't help but feel a sense of schadenfreude about the fact that she was busted for the ultimate act of hypocrisy. We all know what MADD stands for, and 48 is certainly old enough to know better. As many readers already know, Twenty-One Debunked hates drunk driving with a passion and actually agrees with MADD on so many things with very few exceptions, most notably the 21 drinking age and the ancillary laws that serve no purpose other than to prop up this failed policy. If they were to jettison their advocacy for unconstitutional age discrimination (and their neo-temperance mindset) and give their undivided attention to actual drunk driving by all ages instead, we would most likely become members of MADD. That'll be the day. Unfortuantely, they have effectively made the 21 drinking age (and its ancillary laws) the crux of their overall campaign, which ultimately detracts from their original purpose.

Like MADD, we support tougher penalties for drunk drivers, tougher DUI enforcement, lowered BAC limits (albeit with graduated penalties), higher alcohol taxes, better alcohol education and treatment, and more control over alcohol outlet density. No argument there. Unlike MADD, however, we believe in lowering the drinking age to 18, abolishing dram shop and social host laws (at least for those over 18), and giving additional attention to other forms of reckless and negligent driving (cell phones/texting, speeding, etc.) that now kill and maim more people than drunk driving does. Canada (along with several other countries) has proven that raising the drinking age to 21 was completely unnecessary for saving lives, as they have made more progress in reducing fatalities than we have despite not violating the civil rights of 18-20 (or 19-20) year old young adults.

Shame on you, Debra!

We Debunk the New Zealand Report

2011-02-06T14:16:00.000-08:00

A New Zealand-based "pro-family" (read: socially conservative) group called Family First New Zealand has published a new report on why the drinking age in NZ should be raised to 21. The report shows a picture of a (presumably teenage) female passed out drunk on the cover, no less. However, there are several flaws with this one-sided report, known as Young People and Alcohol, and it is up to folks like us to debunk it.

The so-called new scientific evidence about neurological effects of alcohol that they cite involves either 1) animal studies, 2) studies of truly heavy drinking humans, and/or 3) adolescents who were under 18 or began drinking before the age of 18, having little to no relevance for 18-20 year olds. In fact, we have known for a long time that alcohol is neurotoxic at high doses, and heavy drinking at any age is harmful--no surprise there. And the few studies of fairly low-level alcohol use in adolescent humans generally had small sample sizes as well as small "effect sizes" with limited or unknown practical significance, and most such studies were cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Nor have the apparent adverse effects on the brain been shown yet to be irreversible. Reporting bias can also skew the results, such as when heavy drinkers underreport how much they drink. It is also worth noting that not a single neuroscientific study they cited that actually compared those who began drinking at 18 versus those who began at 21, and as well as the fact that no rodent studies would have the power to distinguish between this age difference. And the single nonhuman primate (i.e. monkey) study they cited involved chronic heavy drinking during adolescence, not moderate drinking.

Other parts of the report were purely speculative and theoretical, and/or were based on old research that we at Twenty-One Debunked have already done a rather good job of, well, debunking. Or the effects discussed were true for all ages, not just those under 21. Ironically, one of the studies they cited was an Australian twin study that found that the risk of later alcohol dependence, while inversely related to age at first drink, dropped dramatically after age 15 and leveled off from 18 onward. But what can we really expect from a report whose primary author, a self-described "enlightened Puritan American", also believes that television causes half of all violent crime in the USA, and that Facebook somehow causes cancer?

Comparisons between the USA (drinking age of 21) and Canada (drinking age of 18 or 19 depending on the province) also render the authors' claims highly questionable. In international standardized tests, Canadian 12th graders beat their American counterparts despite the former having similar or lower scores in 4th grade. In fact, nearly all the countries that beat us set the drinking age at 18 or even lower! The alcoholism rates in both the USA and Canada are also roughly equivalent, and the adult per capita alcohol consumption rate is actually slightly lower in Canada. Alcohol-related death rates, both in terms of liver cirrhosis as well as "alcohol use disorder", are also lower in Canada according to the World Health Organization, as are traffic fatalities despite the country's somewhat more rural nature. In fact, Canadians live on average three years longer than Americans. And the rates of violent crimes, especially the most serious ones like homicide, tend to be significantly lower in Canada as well, for both teens and adults.

Another serious flaw was that the authors assumed that the brain is fully developed by age 25, and implicitly much more so than at age 18. While we concede that 21 is slightly closer to the actual age than 18, one would still be off by about two or three--wait for it--decades. That's right--at least some parts of the brain (e.g. the corpus callosum and even the prefrontal cortex) continue to develop well into the 40s, and myelination (white matter growth) can continue to about 40 years of age. Which partly explains why a 50 year old typically has a bit more difficulty thinking in new ways than a 20 year old, with the trade-off of (hopefully) somewhat better impulse control. In fact, certain types of cognitive ability seem to peak as late as 53, while other types peak earlier, after which they decline. And new research shows that even the middle aged brain is vulnerable to the long-term effects of excessive drinking. As we have repeatedly said, 21 is an arbitrary drinking age in light of both science and ethics, and it has no place in a free society where 18-20 year olds are considered legal adults for essentially all other purposes.

The report's outright denial of the "forbidden fruit effect" of the 21 drinking age is even more astounding. It ignores, for example, the fairly extensive research of college students by Dr. Ruth Engs and replicated by others that demonstrates that this phenomenon is real, at least for that demographic group. Which is precisely what happened during Prohibition as well. It's the Law of Eristic Escalation in action--impostion of order leads to escalation of chaos. And it's no wonder that Big Booze, who routinely and vigorously fights any proposed alcohol tax hike, advertising restriction, or even some DUI laws, did not put up much of a fight when the drinking age was raised in the USA--they knew that (except for bars) they'd still have more than enough customers and could conveniently avoid having to confront America's notorious drinking problem among adults over 21.

While the report really does not make a strong case for a legal drinking age of 21, and many of the claims they make are inconclusive at best, we must not ignore any sound science when it is available. We at Twenty-One Debunked feel that the best take home messages of this report are that 1) excessive drinking should be avoided at any age, and 2) that perhaps it is prudent for teens to delay the onset of drinking (or at least doing so regularly) to age 18 or older, and especially avoid drinking before age 15. While we do not encourage alcohol use at any age, or the breaking of any existing laws, we disagree with the central thrust (about the legal drinking age) made by the authors of this biased report.

To the Kiwis reading this, take it from us Yanks: the 21 drinking age does NOT work. If you think it will make your nation's rather notorious drinking problem magically go away, think again. The problem affects all ages, and scapegoating young people for adult problems is the refuge of the coward.

More Evidence that 21 Is an Arbitrary Number

2011-01-19T10:44:00.000-08:00

Only in the nanny-state we call the United States of America would anyone assume that 1) there is absolutely no safe level of alcohol for an 18-20 year old, and 2) that as soon one turns 21, they are magically able to safely consume as much booze as they please, as long as they don't drive (which they never will, because they are far too mature of course). Absurd? You bet. But our nation's alcohol policy unfortunately presumes exactly these things. And we are guaranteed to remain unable to solve the American drinking problem until we confront both of these baseless and paralyzing assertions.

The first assertion falls apart when one considers that there is a safe level for just about everything, even (gasp!) radiation. And even water can be toxic (even deadly) at a high enough dose. It's the dose that makes the poison. While it is true that children may not be able to handle even small amounts of a substance that adults can, remember that for essentially all medications, 18 year olds (who are not "children," by the way) are considered developed enough to handle an "adult dose." In fact, people 18-20 years old are even considered old enough to legally put a known neurotoxin (nicotine) into their bodies! And countries that allow 18 year olds to drink legally (such as Canada and all of Europe but Iceland) have somehow not become nations of brain-damaged alcoholic felons. While we at Twenty-One Debunked do not encourage alcohol consumption at any age, or the breaking of any existing law, we clearly take exception to the "no safe level" claim as it concerns 18-20 year olds.

The second assertion simply defies logic and common sense, as well as established scientific facts. Excessive alcohol consumption is dangerous at any age, even among middle-agers. Amid all the sensational scare tactics about alcohol-related brain damage in people under 21, a recent study found that "binge drinking" in middle-aged adults may increase the risk of later dementia. While we at Twenty-One Debunked dispute the overly broad definition of "binge drinking" that the study used (hence the scare quotes), there had to have been some real binge drinkers among them, especially since the study was done in Finland (a Nordic country with a notorious drinking problem). Interestingly, teetotallers were also at increased risk of later dementia, echoing well-known findings about the relationship between alcohol and cardiovascular disease. In a nutshell, moderation appears to be the key.

Latest Study Wields "Occam's Butterknife"

2010-12-12T11:06:00.000-08:00

More educated readers of this blog are probably familiar with Occam's Razor--the observation that a relatively simple explanation is more likely to be correct than a more complicated one. Some folks have satirically come up with the term Occam's Butterknife, which is the erroneous belief that a more complicated explanation beats a simple one. A case in point is the latest study on how lowering the drinking age in the USA might affect college binge drinking.

The study uses a mathematical model to suggest that lowering the drinking age would not reduce binge drinking. However, there are significant problems with the study and its conclusion:

The study is purely theoretical, not empirical.
The only empirical data considered is current self-reported survey data where the drinking age is 21, which may be biased, and levels of enforcement in various colleges.
The definition of "heavy episodic drinking" is questionable in the absence of context.
The study modeled a change in the drinking age to 19, not 18.
The study only looked at two variables--"misperception" (social norms) and "wetness" (availability/enforcement).
Most campuses are actually very "wet" in practice.
Variables such as the dangerous effects of forcing alcohol underground are not considered.
Consequences of drinking were not considered.

Thus, while the study was relatively complicated in terms of the mathematics used, it does not prove that lowering the drinking age to 18 is a bad idea, or that keeping it at 21 is a good idea on balance.

We at Twenty-One Debunked also find it rather funny that the authors of the study said that lowering the drinking age to 18 would be a "radical social experiment," when in fact, the current drinking age of 21 is the real radical social experiment, both internationally and in terms of our nation's own history. And a failed one nonetheless.

New Holiday: Drink Nothing Day

2010-11-11T19:56:00.000-08:00

You have probably heard of Buy Nothing Day. Celebrated on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving and the biggest shopping day of the year, this self-explanatory holiday is meant to be a protest against consumerism. But perhaps you didn't know that the biggest drinking day of the year is the day before Thanksgiving. That's right, it's not New Year's Eve, but the day before Thanksgiving.

Thus, we at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to create our own protest holiday, Drink Nothing Day. It is designed as a way for people 21 and over to show solidarity with those under 21 by not drinking any alcohol that day. To observe this holiday, which can only logically be done by folks over 21, one must not drink any form of alcohol at all during the entire 24 hours of that date, as well as the following day until sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner. Then, one may drink, but one must give thanks that prohibition no longer applies to him or her. Other things include wearing two black armbands: one to symbolize those soldiers who died before being able to drink legally in the very country they served, and another to symbolize those under 21 who were killed by a drunk driver over 21.

We will observe this holiday this year, and every year thereafter until the drinking age is lowered to 18 in all 50 states. After that, we should rename the holiday "Novemberfest" or something like that.

Several Military Leaders Support Lowering Drinking Age on Bases

2010-09-18T14:12:00.000-07:00

It seems like we may have finally reached daybreak on the drinking age issue. Though many are hesitant to talk about it, several military leaders are endorsing proposal that would allow 18-20 year old servicemembers to drink beer and wine on base. This would affect all military bases, both foreign and domestic. Currently, most domestic bases set the age at 21 due to a federal law that requires all domestic bases to have the same drinking age as the state the base is in, except for those very close to the Canadian and Mexican borders, who set it at 18 if they choose to. Of course, many 18-20 year old servicemembers still drink illegally anyway like civilians do, usually off-base which creates more dangerous situations. Thus, lowering the drinking age on base would likely be safer than the current situation. This idea certainly deserves a 21-gun salute.

Though this is quite a limited relaxation of the 21 drinking age, the movement to lower the drinking age to 18 across the board has to start somewhere, and we at Twenty-One Debunked fully endorse this idea. If you are old enough to go to war, you are old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.

Do Drinkers Really Outlive Teetotallers?

2010-08-30T19:37:00.000-07:00

This has been a controversy for decades, with most studies saying "yes", at least for moderate drinkers. Such a relationship is thought to be primarily due to reductions in cardiovascular disease. However, methodological problems such as confounders and the "sick quitter" effect (not to mention the wrath of the neoprohibitionists) have hampered the ability to draw any firm conclusions until now.

A recent study found that, among 55-65 year olds at least, moderate drinkers lived the longest, followed by light drinkers, followed by heavy drinkers, followed by abstainers. You read that right--for some reason, even heavy drinkers outlived teetotallers! This was true even after controlling for numerous traditional and non-traditional confounders, including smoking, obesity, sociodemographic factors, former problem drinking status, and health problems at baseline. While controlling for these attenuated the relationship somewhat, it still remained strong, confirming previous studies that also found a U-shaped or J-shaped curve for mortality. It appears that the ancient Greeks were right after all.

But before you go out and buy a bottle of Jack to celebrate, remember that there are several caveats to these findings. First of all, the study only looked at 55-65 year olds, so attempting to generalize these findings to younger (or older) age groups can be problematic. No health benefits from alcohol have ever been conclusively proven for people under 40 (though one study suggests that there might be some), and many (but certainly not all) experts believe that the well-known risks (dependency, injuries, liver damage, etc.) outweigh any theoretical benefits that may occur from drinking before that age, especially for heavy drinking. People over 65 would likely show significant cardiovascular benefits from light drinking, but this age group can run the risk of falls and other injuries from drinking as well. Also, there are many folks (of all ages, and we all know them) who really should avoid the bottle like the plague. The fact that the study included only people over 55 means that it inherently excluded many severe alcoholics and/or drunk drivers who would most likely have died before reaching that age, and thus reduced the number of life years in the population. Finally, the study failed to distinguish between different patterns of drinking--you should realize that there is a huge difference between having two drinks each night of the week (Continental-style) versus having all 14 drinks on a single night (British-style). The latter is very dangerous indeed, don't do it!

While this study is not directly relevant to the drinking age issue, we feel that studies like this are important to show that alcohol is not an unmitigated evil like MADD and their ilk claim it to be. Booze does indeed have a dark side that we all need to be aware of, but there are good things about it as well.

We at Twenty-One Debunked present this for informational purposes only and in no way intend this to be an encouragement for anyone to drink. We are not a "pro-alcohol" organization, but rather we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. But if you do choose to drink, remember that moderation is the key, and of course never drink and drive.

UPDATE: Take a look at this review in the British Medical Journal on the apparent inverse relationship between light to moderate drinking and cardiovascular disease.

More About Guam

2010-08-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

As you already know, much to our chagrin Guam was in the news for hastily raising the drinking age to 21 in July 2010. That makes them the first part of the USA to change the drinking age in over two decades. They were in the news again recently in August. The first is that they will actually get tougher on DUI by requiring a mandatory overnight jail stay and will prosecute cases within 48 hours, instead of the former policy of "catch and release" that made it such a joke before. (This we certainly applaud, by the way.) The second was the fact that the arrest rate for DUI had been skyrocketing since 2007, especially for younger drivers. Aside from being the major impetus for the latest change in DUI criminal procedure, this fact was also used by some to retrospectively justify the drinking age hike to 21.

But the latter claim does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, it falls flat on its face. The stats from the Guam Police Department show the following numbers, in a population of about 175,000 residents:

Year	Total DUI Arrests	Under 21	% Under 21
2007	790	58	7.3%
2008	677	70	10.3%
2009	1146	116	10.1%
2010 (first half)	382	41	10.7%

Clearly arrests have risen for all ages, and doubled for those under 21 in two years, though the share of arrests under 21 has essentially plateaued since 2008, after jumping from 2007 to 2008. Back in 2005, it was only 6%. However, arrest rates can be quite deceiving, as the table of fatalities below so clearly shows:

Year	Total Fatalities	Alcohol Related	Under 21	% Under 21
2007	24	11	1	9%
2008	8	5	0	0%
2009	13	9	1	11%
2010	10	2	0	0%
Avg.	15.7	7.7	0.57	7.4% (3.7%)

Here we see a very different picture indeed. It does not appear that alcohol-related fatalities have been rising for any age group. Quite the opposite in fact, a whopping 64% decrease overall, and thus the reason for rising arrests is most likely greater enforcement and targeting of younger drivers, as opposed to more drunk driving. You read right that in 2008 and 2010, there have actually been zero traffic fatalites of those under 21. The 2010 data only include the first half of the year (up to June 30), during which the drinking age was still 18, so one can thus project 20 total deaths and 4 total alcohol-related deaths for the whole year, and either zero or one death under 21, had the status quo remained.

As for the percentage under 21, since alcohol involvement is not given for the under 21 data, we assumed the worst (that all of them involved booze) and calculated the number of under-21 deaths as a percentage of total alcohol-related deaths. This gives 7.4%, but if we assume that half of the under-21 deaths involve booze (a reasonable estimate given the all-ages data), we get a mere 3.7%. Thus, drivers under 21 are overrepresented in arrests, but underrepresented in fatalities. Put another way, even if all under-21 drinking was to somehow magically disappear, over 96% of the deaths would most likely still occur.

How does this compare with the rest of the nation, where the drinking age has been 21 since 1988? Well, research shows that in 2008, drivers under 21 accounted for 12% of total fatalities and 13% of alcohol-impaired fatalities. Clearly worse than Guam by any measure, but remember that 21-24 year olds are the worst of all in terms of overrepresentation in drunk driving deaths, a fact that is true in almost every developed nation in the world regardless of drinking age. Thus, these data are hardly a ringing endorsement for a 21 drinking age.

California Passes Social Host Law

2010-08-19T19:10:00.000-07:00

Much to the chagrin of 21 Debunked and all those who love liberty and oppose the 21 drinking age, today California joined the majority of states and passed a social host liability law. This means that if you furnish alcohol to someone under 21 and they happen to get killed or injured, you can be sued, and there appear to be no limits on how much you can be sued for.

We have already discussed in previous posts why we oppose such laws. First of all, it is just another attempt to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, the 21 drinking age. Secondly, 18-20 year olds are legal adults in all other ways, and should be responsible for their own actions, drunk or not. Third, such laws have not been proven to save lives, and would probably just force alcohol even further underground, leaving party hosting to only the bold and reckless. Finally, in a country without meaningful tort reform, it will enrich greedy trial lawyers while causing many families to possibly even lose their homes in lawsuits, as social host awards are typically in the millions of dollars. We can just see them salivating like Pavlov's dog at the prospect.

We at 21 Debunked feel that suing the host (who is at most only peripherally involved, by definition) because the drunk driver does not have deep enough pockets is really quite low to say the least. Parasitic even, especially when the dollar amounts are ludicrously high as they usually are. The worst of all are those stupid drunk drivers who sue the host for their own injuries, a group for whom we have no sympathy. Thus, we do not support social host laws of any kind. But we do think that drunk drivers of any age who kill or seriously injure others should be sued for everything they have and, if that is still not enough to cover the damages, be forced to work off their debt in prison the rest of their lives.

Interestingly, social host laws (as well as dram shop laws, which are the same thing only applied to bars/restaurants instead) appear to exist in only two countries, the USA and Canada. We Americans are well-known for our ethic of hyper-individualism, as opposed to a more communitarian or "brother's keeper" ethic found in most other countries, including many in Europe. Thus, America is the last place one would expect to find such laws, but for some reason it is almost the only place they are found. Perhaps the fact that our society is so litigious compared to the rest of the world, and increasingly so, is at least part of the reason. Or maybe it is for the same asinine reasons that the drinking age is arbitrarily set at 21, a full three years higher than the age of majority. Whatever the reason, such laws are un-American, obsolete, and incompatible with the values upon which our nation was founded, and should thus be stricken from the books at once.

Zero Tolerance Laws in Canada

2010-07-28T08:58:00.000-07:00

On August 1, 2010, Ontario will join a few other Canadian provinces (not to mention the USA) in implementing zero-tolerance laws for drinking and driving. In Ontario's case, the age limit will be 22, and the BAC limit will be 0.00%. It is a traffic infraction rather than a criminal offense. The penalty will be an automatic 24-hour roadside suspension of one's license, plus a fine of up to $500 and a suspension of up to 30 days upon conviction. For those over 22, the limit will remain 0.05 for a traffic infraction and 0.08 for a criminal offence of DUI.

Ontario has, and will retain, a drinking age of 19. In Canada, the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province. Thus in Ontario, one can drive at 16, drink at 19, but will not be allowed to mix the two until 22 or until one has had a license for at least two years, whichever is longer.

We at Twenty-One Debunked, who unequivocally abhor drunk driving but believe the drinking age should be 18 and not a day later, have mixed feelings about the new law. On the positive side, though it may or may not actually save lives, it does send a strong message that drinking and driving simply do not mix. It provides a reason (or even an excuse) for young drivers to refuse a drink from their buddies at a bar or party without looking or feeling awkward. It also helps to appease the fears among older adults about young people drinking and driving, and can help pre-empt more extreme measures, such as raising the drinking age. On the negative side, it still remains a form of age discrimination, regardless of how well-intentioned it is, and the unrealistically low BAC limit provides no safeguards against false positives. There is a significant margin of error of +/-0.01-0.02 in BAC readings, meaning that it is theoretically possible for someone who had nothing at all to drink can test positive and lose his or her license for up to a month.

Thus, we recommend keeping the law, but raising the BAC limit to 0.02, or at least automatically subtracting 0.01 or 0.02 from any breathalyzer reading if they still wish to retain the absolute zero limit. Also, we think all fairly novice drivers (less than 5 years of licensed driving experience) should be held to the same standard regardless of age, as is currently done in the Netherlands with a BAC of 0.02. In addition, we recommend that if there must be age limits, the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and the zero tolerance age should be 21. Finally, we must never lose sight of the fact that (in the USA) the average BAC in fatal crashes is 0.16 overall and 0.14 for drivers under 21. We need to see the forest for the trees, and focus enforcement where it matters most. For those with high BACs, regardless of age, judges need to throw the book at them before they ever kill someone.

Guam Raises Drinking Age to 21

2010-07-08T09:20:00.000-07:00

We didn't think this would actually happen, but it did. On July 8, 2010, the bill that raised the drinking age to 21 was unfortunately signed into law at noon. This new law, effective immediately with no grandfather clause, criminalizes the purchase and possession of alcohol by anyone under 21, just like it was for those under 18 before, except that 18-20 year olds are still allowed to work in bars and sell/serve alcohol. Selling to anyone under 21 is illegal now as well.

This time, they did not even leave it up to the people. (Not like those over 21 really should have a say as to what legal but outvoted young adults 18-20 put into their own bodies, especially if those over 21 are allowed to do it themeslves, but it still was elitist for the legislature to go over the people's heads.) It was passed unanimously by the Guam Senate with almost no debate at all, in spite of the fact that referenda for raising the drinking age in previous years (such as 2006) had failed. What little discussion occurred was primarily recycled and often outdated junk science from the mainland, combined with shaky (but emotional) anecdotal evidence from Guam. The deck was stacked, and the opposition didn't stand a chance.

We predict that, based on research we have previously cited, no lives will be saved as a result of this draconian law, at least not in the long run. They would have been better off getting tougher on DUI and raising the alcohol taxes than punshing all 18-20 year olds for the actions of the few. Like we previously noted, 94% of the island's DUI problem consists of drivers over 21, and would still remain even if they could somehow prevent everyone from drinking until 21. On the mainland, roughly 90% of young adults will drink before 21 despite the drinking age, so even that is just wishful thinking.

Also, this will most likely hurt Guam's economy, dependent on tourism as they are. Looks like tourism will probably decrease over there, while it will likely increase in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the last two places in the USA in which 18-20 year olds are allowed to drink legally, and no passport required. Fiji learned this the hard way in 2006-2009, when their drinking age was briefly 21. They have since lowered it as a result, and the sky did not fall. Thus, we hope the leaders of Guam will come to their senses within a few years as well after seeing that the costs of an unrealistically high drinking age outweigh any possible benefits.

To Guam: Don't Raise the Drinking Age!

2010-06-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

Guam (Guahan) is one of the few places in the United States that, along with Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, still has a drinking age of 18, but all that may soon change. Several politicians on the island want to raise the drinking age to 21, and the majority of adults (who are over 21) agree as well. They claim it will make the island safer and reduce various social problems. But we at Twenty-One Debunked feel that this move is a huge mistake.

Supporters of the proposed 21 law ignore several important facts while simultaneously touting junk science. First, Guam (as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) has lower teen drinking and past-month "binge" drinking rates than the mainland, as well as lower than the Northern Mariana Islands, where the age limit is currently 21. Ditto for self-reported driving after drinking in the past 30 days, according to the latest CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey data:

Location	"Binge" Drinking (Grade 12)	Drove after drinking (Grades 9-12)	MLDA	Year
USA (overall)	36.5%	10.5%	21	2007
Puerto Rico (USA)	33.2%	7.3%	18	2005
Guam (USA)	30.3%	7.8%	18	2007
Northern Mariana Islands (USA)	36.5%	14.1%	21	2005
US Virgin Islands	14.4%	6.1%	18	2003
American Samoa	26.1%	7.8%	21	2007

In addition, only about 6% of all drunk driving arrests in Guam are for drivers under 21. That means that even if you could somehow magically stop everyone from drinking until 21, 94% of the island's DUI problem would still remain.

Secondly, Canada has seen the same (or faster) decline in traffic fatalities as the United States despite not raising the drinking age to 21, and their teen "binge" drinking rates in most provinces remain comparable to the geographically and demographically similar northern States as well. In fact, most of the world allows 18 year olds to drink, without the sky falling in those countries.

Thirdly, if Guam thinks that a drinking age of 18 is not working in some way, the first thing that should be done is to enforce it (and other existing laws, such as DUI) better, not to ban all 18-20 year olds from drinking and thereby increase the number of "underage" drinkers. Also, jacking up the alcohol taxes (especially beer) would likely be beneficial as well, especially if the funds are used for education, treatment, and law enforcement.

Fourthly, it will merely force drinking by young adults underground, as well as create "forbidden fruit" and "feast or famine" mentalities about alcohol. This will make it a lot more dangerous than it has to be. The effects of a 21 drinking age are thus iatrogenic--the "cure" is worse than the "disease." This is part of the reason that several college presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18 on the mainland, even as the pro-21 folks are calling for more and more ancillary laws and pharisaical enforcement to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition. And we all know how that worked out.

Finally, 18 year olds are legal adults, for better or worse. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. And those that claim that the brains of 18-20 year olds are not developed enough to be given full adult rights need to think long and hard about the underdeveloped ethics of trying them as adults, executing them, letting them be police officers, letting them get married and raise their own children, among other things--all while denying them sovereignty over their own bodies. Makes you wonder how capable the brains of people over 21 (especially over 25) are of thinking in new ways.

To Guam, take it from us folks on the mainland: 21 does NOT work! On the contrary, those that claim that it does and advocate raising the drinking age are playing with fire.

There They Go Again!

2010-06-01T13:31:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, White Noise Syndrome, we have pointed out what was known for a long time: drunk driving (and related deaths) peaks at age 21. Now, yet another study has noticed this too, this time among college students. Captain Obvious, if you will. The researchers found that among 20 year old students, 20% admit to driving drunk, which rises modestly to 25% when they turn 21. But the conclusions the authors drew about it were nothing short of strange.

The authors actually feel that the study validates keeping the drinking age at 21! Their pretzel logic is that the increased availability of alcohol at 21 translates into more drunk driving than at 20, thus lowering the drinking age would be a bad idea. But this argument is specious at best. For example, the peak age for drunk driving is also 21 in countries with lower drinking ages such as Canada (18 or 19), Germany (16), Australia (18), and the UK (18), and this was true in the USA as well when the drinking age was 18 in most states. That is, DUI increases between age 18 and 21 even in the absence of increased availability at 21. Also, the aforementioned study also found that college freshmen drink more than upperclassmen, while drunk driving appears to increase with age--and even between 19 and 20 this increase occurs as well despite similar alcohol availability. One possible reason for this paradox is that freshmen are less likely to have their own cars, as are 18 year olds in general, and more likely to live on campus. Combine a 21 year old's greater likelihood of owning a car with the sudden increase in freedom to drink legally, and the study's results are hardly surprising. It is the Law of Eristic Escalation in action. One thing is for sure: no one magically becomes able to handle alcohol upon turning 21 if they were not able to handle it before. And with 1 in 5 college students overall admitting to driving drunk in the past year, it is quite obvious that if this is what they call success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.

Perhaps our country's misguided attempt to keep 18-20 year olds from drinking at all, which has clearly failed, is not the best way to prepare young adults for the reality of drinking that 90% of them will experience. All it is doing is delaying the inevitable at best, and making it more dangerous than it has to be at worst. If the drinking age was 18, young adults could get the partying out of their system before many of them get their first cars, and often while still living on campus. It would likely be done more safely than now, when it is done underground. There would be no need to go to far-off locations (which often involve drinking and driving) when they could drink in their dorms, apartments, or walk to and from the local bar. In fact, a 2005 study found that blood alcohol levels prior to driving among college students are higher from drinking at parties compared to all other locations, so more 18-20 year olds going to bars would probably mean fewer crashes, even among those who are foolish enough to drive. Then when they are a few years older, it would get to be "old hat" and there would be less desire to mix booze and car keys.

If anything, this study is a good argument for lowering the drinking age to 18, as well as cracking down harder on drunk driving. We currently waste far too many resources trying to keep 18-20 year olds from drinking, that could be better spent on DUI enforcement. But apparently the brains of people over 21 (especially over 25) are less capable of thinking in new ways.

As the late Ronald Reagan would say, "I can't help it, there you go again!"

Finally, Some Good News from Britain!

2010-05-27T10:51:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: This blog is from a primarily American perspective)

The United Kingdom (which happens to be America's mother country) has had a long history of binge drinking. By long, we mean nearly a thousand years. And by binge drinking, we mean drinking to not only get drunk (or "pissed" as they like to say), but to fall down.

The British drinking culture, which was the main influence on its former colonies around the world, has generally ebbed and flowed along with the zeitgeist. For a variety of reasons, binge drinking and alcohol consumption in general has increased dramatically over the past few decades (especially the 1990s) among both teenagers and adults alike. Most notable among those reasons was the steadily falling price of booze relative to personal income since the 1960s, the rising number and density of alcohol outlets, and the practice of "loss leading" promotions by these outlets. Since around 2000, the news media (especially the tabloids) have been hawking scare stories on a regular basis about the country's apparently worsening drinking problem, especially stories about young people. Of course, we all know that good news doesn't sell nearly as well as bad or frighening news.

However, it appears that things are actually changing for the better, at least among young people. Since about 2003, teen drinking in England is down significantly, especially among 11-15 year olds. This appears to be driven in part by fewer people under 18 buying their own alcohol directly, which is likely a result of tougher enforcement of Britain's long-standing drinking age of 18. By tougher we mean that enforcement went from practically nonexistent to quite significant, though the age limit is still less enforced than America's 21 drinking age and there are numerous exceptions to the UK limit. Think of it like the way we treat cigarettes in the USA. Also, 16-24 year olds are drinking less frequently and less heavily in 2008 than they were in 1996. Unfortunately, however, there has been little to no progress overall among adults over 25 for some reason, and alcohol-related deaths (mostly liver disease, which has a lag time of many years) remain higher than in the 1990s. Though that may change as the current cohort of teens and young adults ages in the future.

In addition, the British Crime Survey shows that violent crime has generally declined since the 1990s as well, including crimes committed by offenders perceived by victims as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Suicides have dropped as well. This trend is unlikely due to tougher gun control laws passed in the 1990s--the use of guns in crimes has actually risen since 1998 despite overall violent crime falling. It also calls into question the conventional wisdom that the 24-hour extended drinking laws (effective 2005) have ushered in disaster on the streets of England.

Most notably of all, this occurred without raising the drinking age to 21, as some people in the UK had suggested doing. Right-o, old chap?

The Real Terrorists of the Road

2010-05-06T09:32:00.000-07:00

What if we were to tell you that there was an epidemic of adults going around killing thousands of children and teenagers every year, and maiming hundreds of thousands more? What if the innocent victims were statistically more likely to be victimized by such adults than to be victimized by people their own ages? What if the killers were able to get off with relatively light punishments, and were still allowed to engage in the very behaviors that led to such tragedies?

You probably think there would be an outrage, as there should be. But America just predictably responds with a collective yawn and a shrug to the problem of drunk driving adults over 21 killing and maiming people under that age. A new study shows that, with respect to alcohol-related crashes, children and teens are statistically more likely to be victimized by adults over 21 than vice versa, and more than from drunk drivers under 21. Think about that next time you read about yet another "teenager killed in a drunk driving crash."

Remember, the drunk driver that killed MADD founder Candy Lightner's 13 year old daughter was 46. A teenager was killed by an adult. And what age group lost the most civil liberties as a result of MADD's activism? 18-20 year olds. Honestly, does that really make any sense?

It's time we got much tougher on the real terrorists of the road. Our children and teens--that is, our future--deserve nothing less.

New Zealand Revisited

2010-04-22T09:29:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: This blog is from a primarily American perspective)

It's official. New Zealand has a drinking problem. While America does too, if you scrape the bottom of the barrel you will actually find quite a few countries that are worse than the good old USA in terms of dangerous and excessive drinking, and NZ appears to be one of them. And it appears to be getting worse over there as time goes on.

New Zealand has always had such a problem to some extent. Google "six-o-clock swill" and you'll quickly see that it goes back at least a century. But the recent increase can be traced back to 1989, when the Sale of Liquor Act dramatically liberalized the booze laws. Trading hours for booze became 24/6 (still no Sunday sales), up from the previous 10 pm closing times, and the looser licensing laws caused number of outlets to more than double from 1989 to 2009. Booze prices also shrank relative to average incomes, and "loss leading" became a common practice. In 1999, on the same day the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18, they began allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, accelerating the rise in outlet density, and with the simultaneous addition of Sunday sales, it was now 24/7. All this in a country that is generally soft on crime and tolerant of extreme drinking and drunken violence.

The Law Commission has apparently come up with a few recommendations to tackle the problem. In their report, they include the following, among others:

Have a "one-way door" (no entry) policy for pubs and nightclubs after 2am
Require all pubs to close by 4am
No off-premise sales after 10pm
Restrict "irresponsible" promotions that encourage excessive drinking
Raise the alcohol excise tax by 50%
Raise the drinking age from 18 to 20

While we at Twenty-One Debunked would not have a problem with the first five changes being implemented, we clearly take exception to the last one, raising the drinking age. We do not think it will do any good, and may possibly throw gasoline on the fire. Clearly, NZ doesn't have a teen drinking problem, they have a Kiwi drinking problem, one that spans all ages. Plenty of 20-29 year olds can't handle their liquor, should the drinking age be 30 then? Funny all the vitriol about raising the tax, often the same people over 20 who want the drinking age raised. If the proposed 50% tax hike (really a mere 10% price hike) bothers you, you're clearly drinking way too much. Perhaps you should cut down. Chivas Regal said it best.

Besides, raising the age limit would be a major victory for the pro-21 crowd in this country as well if the drinking age was raised, reducing the chances that our drinking age will be lowered any time in the near future. It would only reinforce the specious claim that lowering the drinking age in America would be a disaster, since it would seem that NZ tried it and couldn't handle it. Nevermind that NZ is a very different culture from the USA, and that other factors were at work--neoprohibitionists apparently can't be bothered with pesky facts.

Instead, we propose the following for NZ in addition to the Law Commissions recommendations (aside from the drinking age), and these will likely work in other countries with a serious drinking problem:

Set a price floor for alcohol, especially at off-licenses, and ban the practice of "loss leading" (selling below cost).
Restrict or ban alcohol advertising, especially on TV and radio.
Increase the penalties for drunk driving, and step up enforcement.
Lower the general blood alcohol limit for driving to 0.05, and the under-20 limit to 0.02 or less (the limits are currently 0.08 and 0.03, respectively).
Hold parents accountable for what their under-18 kids do, especially if the parents supplied them with alcohol beforehand.
Put more cops on the street, and get tough on real crime, especially drunk violence.
Ban drinking in the street by all ages, or allow very limited designated areas to do so.
Restrict the number and density of alcohol outlets, especially in cities.
Increase alcohol education and public awareness campaigns.
Exempt microbreweries from any new tax hikes (they are generally not part of the problem, and they would have the hardest time absorbing such price increases). Otherwise, tax the hell out of alcohol, especially RTDs (alcopops).
Do NOT raise the drinking age! Just enforce it better, especially for off-premise sales, and close the existing loopholes on furnishing alcohol to minors under 18 (which the Law Commission also recommends).

Note that some of these things are a bit stricter than that which we would propose for America. However, NZ has a worse drinking problem than we do, and appear to be one of the worst in the world. Only Russia and a few other former Soviet-bloc countries appear to be worse, and not by all that much.

Interestingly, the New Zealand Medical Association agreed in 2006 that the drinking age should remain 18, since there was no clinical evidence that alcohol was more harmful to an 18 year old than a 20 year old. But they did say that the current drinking age needs to be enforced better, and also called for tighter advertising restrictions on alcohol. Unfortunately, they appear to have flip-flopped on the drinking age issue this time around.

What exactly were the effects of lowering the drinking age from 20 to 18 in December 1999? It turns out that those who claim it was a disaster haven't the foggiest idea of cause and effect. Carnage on the highways? Unlikely to be causal. According to the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group, the reporting of nonfatal injury crashes by police had improved since 2001. Teen traffic fatalities fluctuated a great deal due to their small numbers, but the rates generally remained below their 1999 values from 2000-2008. Increase in youth crime and violence? That had been rising since 1992, seven years before the drinking age was lowered, and actually declined around 1998-2002 before resuming its upward trend. Again, unlikely causation.

(Take a look at our May 2009 blog post about New Zealand for more information about the issue of their drinking age)

In other news, NZ's driving age (currently 15) was raised to 16 effective in mid-2011, and it will also be a bit tougher to get a license. To that, we say good--if any age limit should be raised over there, the driving age is it. Kiwis tend to have higher fatality rates compared to Aussies or us Yanks, and their driving age is ridiculously low compared to most other countries. They are already debating whether to raise it further to 17. But while they're at it, why not get tougher on drunk driving and reckless driving for all ages?

New Scare About Young Adult Drinking

2010-04-12T16:03:00.000-07:00

This one is so easy to knock down it is almost a straw man, but we will do what we always do when junk science is encountered. That's what we're here for, after all.

A new study reports that there is a correlation between benign breast disease and frequent drinking in young women aged 15-22. One headline, "Underage Drinking Tied to Breast Disease Risk," is misleading because it includes women up to two years over the legal drinking age of 21, and not all drinkers were equal. The risk was only statistically significant for those who drank three or more times per week, with the highest risk for daily drinkers. Even so, the confidence intervals were very wide, suggesting possible residual or unmeasured confounding. And the effect was not explained by age of onset of regular drinking. That's right--no correlation with age of onset, and therefore nothing magic about the drinking age of 21.

Once again, it appears moderation is the key, regardless of age. That should be the take-home message for this study, not "don't drink a drop until 21, then do what you will," which is apparently what one of the authors implied when discussing the results. But moderation appears to be a forgotten virtue in the land of extremes that is America, no doubt spurred on by the 21 drinking age.

We at 21 Debunked provide this for informational purposes only and do not in any way advocate drinking of any kind, underage or otherwise.

High Gas Prices Save Lives

2010-03-28T10:48:00.000-07:00

It's now official. Traffic fatalities in 2009 were at their lowest since 1954, and in 2008 were at their lowest since 1961. This was despite the fact that now the population is much larger, there are much more cars on the road, and much more vehicle miles traveled than back then. Similar trends have been noted in preliminary data from Canada as well. While many factors likely contributed to this lifesaving trend, perhaps the most salient one of all was gas prices, which had been rising steadily since 2004 and spiked dramatically in 2008.

Gas prices are now known to have a significant effect, and are thus now emerging as one of the most cost-effective ways to save lives on the road. Carefully controlled studies have found this to be true, and the fatality rates of 2008 and 2009 confirm this. While 2009 had lower gas prices than 2008, the driving habits learned in 2008 had yet to be unlearned, and this was likely prolonged by the recession. Similar effects of gas prices (and recessions) occurred in 1974-1975, 1980-1983, and 1990-1993. Contrary to popular opinion, the price elasticity of gasoline is not zero, or even close to zero, and it seems to rise dramatically when prices go above $3.00/gallon. Longer-term elasticites are about twice as strong, suggesting the effect builds over time.

The effects on fatalities are not limited to reduced vehicle miles traveled; while that drops too, even controlling for this we can see a decrease in deaths. "Discretionary" driving declines the most when gas prices rise, and most fatalities occur from this type of driving, including the majority of alcohol-related fatalities. Speeding and aggressive driving also decline in an effort to save fuel and money. Thus, the price elasticity for gasoline demand actually understates the effect on fatalities.

By that logic, it seems that one of the best ways we can reduce traffic fatalities (both alcohol and non-alcohol) would be to raise the gas tax. Of course, that would make a lot of people mad. But if it saves even one life, it's worth it, right? Isn't that what groups like MADD have said about things like the 21 drinking age? Judging by the lack of enthusiasm about raising the gas tax, it appears that the pro-21 crowd doesn't practice what they preach. Or maybe it's all about liberty for "just us," not all.

If we know higher gas prices save lives, not to mention the planet, what are we waiting for?

The Lincoln (Nebraska) Miracle that Wasn't

2010-03-22T11:16:00.000-07:00

You have probably heard about the supposed miracle that has happened in Lincoln, Nebraska. At the University of Nebraska--Lincoln, a combination of tough laws, heavy-handed enforcement, and strong public support (from community members over 21) has led to a decrease in "binge" drinking and associated consequences since 1997. Or at least that's what they're telling us.

UNL is a dry campus, and has been such for a while, but the surrounding town has been anything but dry. But then the crackdowns happened, apparently with a special focus on underage drinking. Police, college officals, and landlords all teamed up to reduce underage drinking and out of control parties, and the consequences meted out for either are severe (at least compared to other college towns). Lives and careers have been ruined to one degree or another as a result. In fact, it's become a virtual witch-hunt that would likely make McCarthy himself blush.

The crackdowns are actually part of a larger anti-alcohol program known as A Matter of Degree, funded by grants from the neo-temperance Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and directed by Dr. Richard Yoast. Ten colleges around the country, including UNL, participated in the AMOD program since 1997 and it is still ongoing.

So was it worth it? Well, if you dig a little deeper you will find that according to its own police department, the city of Lincoln had a record high number of DUI arrests in 2009. In fact, 2008 and 2009 were the two worst years, even surpassing the old record from 1992. Of course, analyzing arrest rates poses a chicken-or-egg problem; it could simply be tougher enforcement, not more drunk driving. However, student surveys show that the percentage of students who report driving after drinking actually doubled from 2003 to 2006. We speculate that many of the parties have simply shifted outside of the city limits, so party-goers drive there, get drunk, and drive back. If that's success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.

And the decrease in "binge" drinking according to surveys was from 62% of students in 1997 to 45%, meaning that they went from well above average to merely average. No better than average in fact, and average is still quite high. Remember too that correlation does not equal causation. Part of it could be that prospective students who are most likely to be party animals simply choose other colleges instead after hearing about what a police state Lincoln has become. And high school student drinking in Lincoln is still a persistent problem, one that most likely will remain as long as the police continue disproportionally targeting 18-20 year olds. (Of course, Lincoln is clearly not the only place in the country where this is an issue)

As for the crackdowns purportedly reducing crime, LPD crime statistics for the city as a whole appear to debunk that claim as well, at least for the most serious crimes like homicide, rape, and aggravated assault.

Thus, it appears that it was a rather hollow victory overall. While there are some good aspects to their overall strategy of reducing high-risk drinking, it would probably be best if Nebraska decided to lower the drinking age to 18 (it actually used to be 19 until the 1980s) and targeted the actual troublemakers rather than those who are simply drinking and/or at the wrong place at the wrong time. But the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation would never even consider that, given their apparent bias against alcohol.

In fact, the rather expensive AMOD program itself is highly questionable at best. A 2004 study found that in the first five years of implementation, little to no change in high-risk drinking (or its consequences) was seen in the aggregate. Five out of the 10 schools that participated (including UNL) did see some improvement, but it was hard to tease out what actually caused what due to all the variables involved. The RWJF, of course, put a positive spin on the results, as does the neo-temperance crowd overall. But the rest of us can clearly see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

So let's make a toast to Richard Yoast.

The Emperor Is Naked

2010-03-11T10:23:00.000-08:00

We should have written about this last year, but we recently learned that MADD has severed all ties with the Century Council, and all of the reasons why. For those who don't know, the Century Council (TCC) is an organization dedicated to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking, that is funded entirely by America's leading distillers. Cynics, however, would say that the organization is just a political ploy to deflect blame from the alcohol industry. MADD's Dear John letter to them noted that the primary reason for the split was the Century Council's initial opposition to mandatory ignition interlocks for first offenders, a group MADD rightly referred to as "ticking time bombs" since they have already driven drunk 88 times on average before being caught. For that particular issue, we at Twenty-One Debunked tend to agree with MADD. Ignition interlocks are the mimimum that should be imposed on drunk drivers, and in fact we think the laws against DUI should be much tougher. Usually only extremely die-hard libertines or those with vested interests would be opposed to that, and TCC has since officially switched to neutrality on the ignition interlock issue.

However, another less-publicized reason noted in the letter was that TCC allegedly condoned drinking before the age of 21, despite the organization's generally unequivocal stance supporting the 21 drinking age. This was based solely on a quote by TCC's president, taken way out of context, concerning an ad campaign designed by college students through the American Advertising Federation's student competition to reduce excessive drinking. The actual quote was, "[t]he behavior is taking place, the best thing we can do is reduce the harm." Despite the TCC reaffirming its support for the 21 drinking age, MADD still was not satisfied since their refusal to retract that specific quote (though clearly true) could somehow be perceived as "undermining" the drinking age or "condoning" underage drinking. Now that's just lunacy--even the slightest hint that one can see cracks in the facade of prohibition is somehow bad?

Just go to any college campus (except perhaps Brigham Young or Bob Jones) and you will see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. The 21 drinking age simply doesn't work--the majority of 18-20 year olds still drink. And while fewer of them now drink regularly than they did back in the 1970s, which may or may not have anything to do with the drinking age, the more they do when they do. And the problem of truly dangerous drinking, though always there, is arguably worse in colleges today. Forcing alcohol underground only makes it that much more dangerous (and appealing), a lesson we should have learned in the 1920s but somehow conveniently forgot when it comes to today's young people. We need better solutions, the kind that can only work with a lower drinking age. What better time than now?

The Fake Controversy

2010-02-27T15:54:00.000-08:00

The Canadian women's ice hockey team is supposedly in hot water after some of its members were drinking beer on the ice to celebrate winning against the American team in the Vancouver Olympics. At least one of them was 18, and the drinking age in British Columbia is 19 (but 18 in Alberta where they trained, as well as in the player's native Quebec). They weren't out of control, and the festivities occurred after the fans had left.

The American media has been making a big deal out of this. Why? Because in the good old US of A, the drinking age is 21, and many older adults are both terrified and titillated simultaneously at the idea of those under 21 drinking. Especially when it is done by young women. Thus it makes a good story over here. But the rest of the world (including Canada) just laughs at our puritanical immaturity and cultural schizophrenia regarding alcohol and young people.

In Canada, they recognize 18-20 year olds as full adults, and treat them as such. The drinking age is 18 or 19, depending on the province, and they do not appear to be any worse off for it than us. Drinking at that age is viewed as normative behavior, and they recognize that alcohol abuse (rather than mere use) is the real problem. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from our neighbor to the north.

Vermont Debates the Drinking Age

2010-02-19T16:13:00.000-08:00

The Vermont legislature is currently debating whether or not to lower the drinking age to 18. And we hope they choose to do so. Someone's gotta go first, and Vermont's independent streak will make them a good choice.

For those who don't know, Vermont was the first state (except the 10 states that were 18 since the 1930s) to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 in 1971, along with the voting age and age of majority. This remained the case until 1986, when it was raised back to 21 due to federal coercion. Actually, Governor Richard Snelling flat-out refused to raise the drinking age in spite of the highway funding penalty, vetoing several bills, and thought that it would be better to actually get tougher on drunk driving and improve alcohol education. It was not until they got a new governor that the state finally sold out and it was raised.

Interestingly, Vermont in 2008 actually had zero under-21 drunk driving fatalities, down from 14 in 1982. Of course, that's easy for a state with a population of only 621,760. And the decline began at least four years before the drinking age was raised. This is in spite of their proximity to Quebec (where the drinking age is 18), the state's rural nature, and its above-average "binge" drinking rate. Since the pretext for raising the drinking age in the 1980s was reducing drunk driving, many of the state's 18-20 year olds are probably now wondering, "Can we have our civil liberties back now?"

Most states either hate guns or hate gays. Vermont, however, uniquely tolerates them both. And if they lower the drinking age to 18, they will truly be the most free state in the country. Even freer than their neighbor New Hampshire, the one with the motto "Live Free or Die," which also happens to be the motto of the True Spirit of America Party.

Social Host Laws Revisited

2010-02-14T13:14:00.000-08:00

We at Twenty-One Debunked have repeatedly stated that there was no hard evidence that "social host" laws (laws that impose civil and/or criminal liability on those who merely allow (not give) those under 21 to drink on property they control, especially if injuries or fatalities subsequently occur) save any lives or reduce underage drinking. In fact, a 2008 study by Fell et al. (a true believer in the 21 drinking age no less) found no effect of such laws, at least not for criminal ones. That is not surprising since even district attorneys find these laws difficult to enforce, including the notorious law in Massachusetts.

But a new study by Dills (2009) appears to have found a lifesaving effect for social host laws among 18-20 year olds, at least according to the author. And it supposedly remained even after several other variables (drinking age, 0.08 BAC limit, seat belt law, zero tolerance, beer tax, etc.) and fixed effects were controlled for.

However, this claim does not appear to stand up to closer scrutiny. After reading the paper ourselves, we find the following issues with the study:

The fatalities were divided into three categories: drinking, drunk driver, and sober. The fact that data from the 1977-2005 were used would likely introduce biases relating to BAC testing rates. Testing rates were much lower in the 1970s and early 1980s, and determination was often subjective.
Restricting the data to 1982-2005 (the only years for which that FARS has alcohol-related data, and likely less biased) reduced the size and significance of the effects of both social host laws and the drinking age. The former was only significant at the 10% level, while the latter was not even statistically significant at all.
None of the models showed a "dose-response" relationship when the effects of various drinking ages (18, 19, 20, and 21) were tested. In fact, some even had the "wrong" sign.
Many of the covariates such as BAC limit, beer tax, zero tolerance, and seat belt laws were statistically insignificant, suggesting something wrong with the models.
Dram-shop laws were not controlled for, and since many social host states have these as well, this may be a potent confounding factor. Some past studies have found effects of dram-shop laws, while others have not.
Other variables that were not controlled for include sobriety checkpoints, roving patrols, 0.10 BAC laws, harsher DUI penalties, administrative license revocation, police per capita, and several others.
There was no distinction between statutes and case law, which suggests a potential endogeneity problem.
There was no over-21 comparison group.
In general, states that adopted social host laws already had declining fatalities before adoption.
Using survey data among 18-20 year olds, effects of social host laws were not significant (even at the 10% level) for drinking, "binge" drinking, and drunk driving in the past 30 days when other variables and state trends were controlled for. For the frequency of drunk driving per respondent, it was only significant at the 10% level despite a very large sample size of over 52,000 people.
Effects on those under 18 were not tested in any sense.

For those who don't know, statistical significance refers to the likelihood that a result did not occur by chance. However, it only controls random errors, not systematic ones (such as bias or confounders). Traditionally, a 5% level is chosen, meaning that if the p-value (the probability of getting another result at least as extreme) is below 0.05, it is considered statistically significant. Results with a p-value above 0.05, such as many of the results in the Dills study, are traditionally rejected.

In other words, the evidence from the study in support of social host laws is rather weak, and is likely to be a spurious correlation. In fact, the reported 9% decrease in drunk driving fatalities is both too small to be conclusive evidence of causality (especially when statistical significance is examined), and too large to be plausible given that the majority of people are likely unaware of the existence of these laws, especially civil ones (which are usually only sporadically enforced). Most likely, social host laws are acting as a proxy for something else, such as tougher DUI laws and/or enforcement.

To our knowledge, there has been only one other study of social host laws to date. A 2000 study by Stout et al. did manage to find a significant negative correlation between all-ages civil social host laws and both self-reported "binge" drinking as well as self-reported drinking and driving among adults over 21 in national survey data from 1984-1995. While numerous variables were controlled for, the following were not: state fixed effects, state trends, blood alcohol limit, sobriety checkpoints, overall DUI enforcement, and drinking age. Again, it could have been a proxy for something else. And traffic fatalities or any other consequences of drinking were not examined in the study, so questions relating to those are left unanswered by that study. Generalizability is also limited, and it says nothing about the persistence of the reported effects or whether they are applicable to anyone under 21, especially in today's world. Those who use the study to justify social host laws as worthwhile should bear in mind that the same study found that mandatory fines and especially mandatory jail for a first DUI offense to be more effective in reducing self-reported drinking and driving than social host laws.

What about the "collateral damage" that occurs from social host laws? For one, a host (however broadly defined) can be fined, sued, or even jailed--in some cases for several years. And civil liberties often need to be violated to enforce such draconian prohibitions. But what about the "children," you know, the ones these laws were ostensibly written to "protect"? In the five years since San Diego passed their own local social host ordinance in 2003 (California itself has none), there have been more police responses to parties, and more alcohol-related teen hospital admissions. In other words, there was likely just as much drinking if not more so, but the bigger teen drinking parties of the past seem to have broken up into many more smaller (and more dangerous) ones with presumably more booze to go around. And only the bold and reckless (and/or ignorant) are hosting them now that it is a crime. Looks like the Law of Eristic Escalation in action yet again.

We at Twenty-One Debunked do not support any type of social host law, civil or criminal, as they contravene the very idea of personal responsibility and likely do more harm than good by forcing alcohol deeper underground, making it more dangerous than it has to be. At the very least, we do not think that such laws should apply to drinking by those over the age of majority (18), regardless of the current legal drinking age. Of course, we want that to be 18 as well. And we have repeatedly noted that social host laws are just another pathetic attempt to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition. We would be better off going after those who actually do drive drunk and endanger the public, regardless of age.

Let's Talk About Canada

2010-02-03T17:24:00.000-08:00

When advocates of lowering the drinking age bring up Europe for comparison, they often paint themselves into a corner. America and Europe are very different, so in many ways it's apples and oranges. But European countries are not the only ones that have lower drinking ages.

We do in fact have a good yardstick for what would have happened had the drinking age not been raised to 21 in the 1980s. It's called Canada. Their drinking ages have remained at 18 or 19, depending on the province, for the past three decades. And it is the country that most resembles America in many ways, especially in terms of its car culture. So let's talk about Canada then.

ALCOHOL-RELATED TRAFFIC FATALITIES

It is often claimed by proponents of the 21 drinking age that raising the drinking age saved lives. While alcohol-related traffic fatalites did decline, correlation does not prove causality. First of all, the trend began in 1982, two years before the National Minimum Drinking Age Act that forced all states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by 1987. Perhaps the trend began even earlier, as total 18-20 year old fatalities began declining in 1979-1980, but 1982 is the first year that FARS has reasonably reliable data for alcohol-related fatalities. And Canada saw a remarkably similar trend, as you can see in the graphs below (courtesy of NHTSA).

Percent Change from 1982-1997 US: drivers age 16-20 in fatal crashes with positive BAC (FARS) Canada: driver fatalities age 16-19 with positive BAC (TIRF)	Percent Change from 1982-1997 US: percentage of drivers age 16-20 in fatal crashes with positive BAC (FARS) Canada: percentage of driver fatalities age 16-19 with positive BAC (TIRF)

Tougher laws and penalties for DUI
Better DUI enforcement
More education and awareness of the problem of impaired driving
Designated driver programs
Seat belt laws
Safer cars and roads due to improved engineering
Demographic changes
Changes in gas prices

In fact, some things, such as the 0.08 BAC limit, were already in place in Canada well before 1982. The BAC limit in the US was still 0.12-0.15 in most states in 1982, and since then all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico lowered it to 0.10 and eventually to 0.08. Zero-tolerance laws for younger drivers, which were enacted in all 50 states and DC by 1998 (beginning in the 1980s), were nonexistent until well into the 1990s in most Canadian provinces, and until very recently no province's law was as strict as in the USA. Also, graduated driver license rules for younger drivers had eventually become stricter than Canada's in several states. If anything, fatality rates for all ages should have declined faster in the US relative to Canada, but for some reason they did not.

Worse still, according to a 2004 book by Leonard Evans, former safety researcher for General Motors, America has been lagging behind several other countries in terms of traffic safety. The table below shows the change in the number and rate of total traffic fatalites (all ages) over time in the US and three other countries that maintained lower drinking ages since 1979.

Country	MLDA	1979 Fatalities	2002 Fatalities	% Change (raw)	% Change (per vehicle)	% Change (per VMT)
USA	21	51,093	42,815	-16.2%	-46.2%	-52%
UK	18	6,352	3,431	-46.0%	-67.1%	-70%
Canada	18 or 19	5,863	2,936	-49.9%	-63.5%	N/A
Australia	18	3,508	1,715	-51.1%	-79.1%	N/A

TEEN DRINKING AND "BINGE" DRINKING

Of course, highway fatalities are not the only concern raised about the drinking age. Proponents of the 21 drinking age also claim it reduced teen drinking and "binge" drinking (5+ drinks in an occasion). But that trend, as measured by the Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey, began in 1979, which was several years before most states adopted the 21 law. And raising the drinking age may lead to reduced reporting in surveys even in the absence of actual behavioral change. So all teen surveys ought to be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a pound.

The province of Ontario (with a drinking age of 19 since 1979) has a similar survey (OSDUS) going back to the 1970s, though not all the measurements are the same. The following table, again courtesy of NHTSA, shows the changes in Ontario during the most relevant time period (1979-1991 unless otherwise stated) compared with the USA. The American data are for grade 12 only, while the Ontario data are for grades 7-13 combined, so they are not directly comparable. The trends, however, are strikingly similar.

Drinking Behavior	1979	1991	% Change, 1979-1991
Annual drinking: USA	88.1%	77.7%	-12%
Annual drinking: Ontario	76.9%	58.7%	-24%
Daily drinking: USA	6.9%	3.6%	-48%
Daily drinking: Ontario	0.9%	0.4%	-56%
5 or more drinks: USA (past 2 weeks)	41.2%	27.9%	-32%
5 or more drinks: Ontario (past 4 weeks)	27.0%	21.9%	-19%
5 or more drinks: USA (past 2 weeks, 1979-1993)	41.2%	27.5% (1993)	-33%
5 or more drinks: Ontario (past 4 weeks, grades 7, 9 and 11 only, 1979-1993)	24%	15% (1993)	-38%
Drive after drinking: USA (past 2 weeks)	31.2% (1984)	18.7%	-40%
Drive after drinking: Ontario (annual)	43.2% (1983)	20.1%	-53%

Of course, that is only one province. What about the rest of Canada? Unfortunately, most Canadian provinces do not have longitudinal data going back that far, or even before 1996, so we are stuck with doing a crude cross-section using current data for our international comparison. The following table consists of the past-month prevalence of "binge" drinking (5+ drinks in an occasion) for high school seniors as reported in recent surveys, in selected states and provinces. American data were taken from the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, while Canadian data were taken from various provincial surveys.

Location	Binge Drinking (Grade 12)	Drove after drinking (Grades 9-12)	MLDA	Year
USA (overall)	36.5%	10.5%	21	2007
North Dakota	47.0%	18.7%	21	2007
South Dakota	47.3%	13.0%	21	2007
Montana	46.2%	18.5%	21	2005
Vermont	38.0%	9.2%	21	2007
Wisconsin	42.7%	14.3%	21	2007
Alberta	46%	N/A	18	2005
Alberta	48.5%	10.3%	18	2008
Atlantic Provinces	49.7%	N/A	19	2007
Manitoba	47%	N/A	18	2007
Ontario	48%	11.6%	19	2007
Saskatchewan	70%+	N/A	19	2008
Puerto Rico (USA)	33.2%	7.3%	18	2005
Guam (USA)	30.3%	7.8%	18	2007
Northern Mariana Islands (USA)	36.5%	14.1%	21	2005

Care was taken to compare apples to apples, and that is why the YRBS was used for American data instead of the Monitoring the Future survey. Canadian surveys and YRBS report past-month "binge" drinking, while MTF reports it for past two weeks (and thus contains lower numbers). The Manitoba figure was for the past-year, as comparable data for past month were not available, and can thus be considered an upper bound for past-month "binge" drinking.

Note the similarity between the northern states and Canadian provinces which are geographically and demographically similar--they generally tend to be around 50%. There does not appear to be a significant correlation between the drinking age and "binge" drinking rates. Remember again that the American data are more likely underreported than the Canadian data due to the drinking age difference and cultural factors.

Also note the below-average numbers for the US territories of Guam and Puerto Rico, both of which have a drinking age of 18. In fact, even the temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concedes that Puerto Rico was able to reduce both alcohol-related traffic fatalities and underage (under 18) drinking since the 1990s without raising the drinking age. From 1982 to 2009, Puerto Rico saw a whopping 84% decline in teenage (16-20) drunk driving fatalities, while the nation as a whole saw a 74% drop, in both cases to record-low levels. Now that's a great American success story.

In other words, it appears that Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) were spot on when they said that the drinking age appears to have "only a minor impact on teen drinking," just like they were right about its lack of a lifesaving effect on the highways.

OTHER EFFECTS, OR LACK THEREOF

As for allegedly creating a nation of brain-damaged, alcoholic felons by allowing 18-20 year olds to drink, this myth does not hold water either. In international standardized tests, Canadian 12th graders beat their American counterparts despite the former having similar or lower scores in 4th grade. In fact, nearly all the countries that beat us set the drinking age at 18 or even lower! The alcoholism rates in both the USA and Canada are also roughly equivalent, and the adult per capita alcohol consumption rate is actually slightly lower in Canada. Alcohol-related death rates, both in terms of liver cirrhosis as well as "alcohol use disorder", are also lower in Canada according to the World Health Organization. In fact, Canadians live on average three years longer than Americans. And the rates of violent crimes, especially the most serious ones like homicide, tend to be significantly lower in Canada as well.

In short, puritanical America, with our 21 drinking age, appears to be the less healthy society of the two. And while correlation does not prove causation, the aforementioned statistics certainly won't convince anyone that our illiberal policies are doing much good in reducing alcohol-related problems or improving public health and safety. We need to see the forest for the trees, something America chronically fails to do in terms of alcohol policy.

Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from our neighbor to the north?

QED

2011 UPDATE: Errata have been found (and updated) for some surveys. Also, additional data have been (and will be) added to this post from time to time--stay tuned.

A Teachable Moment

2010-01-30T17:10:00.000-08:00

Too young to drink legally, but old enough to be sued? Welcome to the world of the American teenager.

In Massachusetts in October 2008, a 17 year old honor student, Taylor Meyer, went out drinking with several friends after a football game, and unfortunately did not survive. They went to some house parties and eventually the woods by a swamp, Taylor wandered off, and her body was found in the frigid swamp a few days later. The details of what actually happened in the woods are not yet known, and it is thus a bit premature to speculate on the roles of her friends that night. Though it is highly unlikely anyone forcibly poured the booze down her throat, and the autopsy showed that the death was consistent with drowning rather than foul play.

Now, in 2010, Taylor's mother is suing seven of the girl's friends, five of which are under 18 and six of which are under 21, for wrongful death. She says it is about "accountability" rather than money, and the amount she is suing for was not disclosed. Nevermind the fact that those teens are, due to their age, deemed too irresponsible and immature to drink legally. If that's the case, how can they be mature enough to be held legally liable for a friend's self-inflicted death?  Look, you can't have it both ways--either they're adults or they're not. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when alcohol is forced underground. Many preventable deaths occur as a result of the 21 drinking age, just like during Prohibition. So why is no one in the MSM saying this? If anyone should be sued, it should be the government, as well as fanatical groups like MADD, for helping to create a more dangerous environment for young people. Those folks have WAY more blood on their hands than they care to acknowledge.

Our litigious culture feels the need to sue for just about everything, and this is just one of many examples. Personal responsibility has sadly become a forgotten virtue in our society, and parents increasingly abdicate their responsibility for their children as well.  They often expect the state to raise them, and when things go wrong it is always someone else's fault. Alas, this has become the new "normal" for America.

The mother in this case, however, believed she was doing the right thing. From what she said, she (like many American parents of teenagers) appears to have raised her daughter on a "zero tolerance" model with respect to alcohol, perhaps even more so than average. And she is left wondering what more she could have done, such as check her daughter's Facebook. The problem with the "zero tolerance" approach, however, is that there is little to no room for harm reduction.   Many teens, like Taylor, are going to drink either way. And the 21 drinking age often creates a false sense of security for parents, as well as increased dangers for their teenage children. Better alcohol education, and a more relaxed view of alcohol, could oddly enough have prevented this tragedy. A feast or famine mentality, fear of getting busted, forbidden fruit attraction, and a schizoid drinking culture all combined, in this case, to spell disaster.

We can learn a lot from tragedies like these, and how to prevent them from happening in the future.

New Organization for Lowering the Drinking Age

2010-01-08T14:31:00.000-08:00

We at Twenty-One Debunked are clearly not alone in wanting to lower the drinking age. Within the last week, the nation's first commercial (aka .com), non-blog website, Drink at 18, launched. (In contrast, we're still just a blogged site--they beat us to it!) Though they are not in any way affiliated with us, we wish them the best. The more supporters our common cause has, the better, since there is still a dearth of websites dedicated to lowering the drinking age (compare that to the number dedicated to legalizing cannabis). Check the site out for yourself--it's good.

Are there any significant differences between us, besides the fact that our site is primarily devoted to debunking junk science (as our name implies)? Perhaps we have a somewhat more detailed plan of action for lowering the drinking age, but Drink at 18 is new and still has time to formulate such details. Rome wasn't built in a day. And any other differences are mostly cosmetic, such as the fact that we don't sell merchandise (yet). We salute you, Drink at 18.

18 Year Old Elected Mayor--Too Bad He Can't Legally Drink

2010-01-05T11:02:00.001-08:00

In the small town of Dawson, Iowa, an 18 year old high school senior named Colton Morman was just elected mayor. This makes him one of the youngest mayors in US history.

We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that the idea that one can be old enough to be mayor but still not allowed to drink legally is absurd. We wish him well.

Will Israel Emulate the American Failure?

2009-12-21T08:17:00.000-08:00

Perhaps. A recent government proposal in Israel, if passed, would restrict alcohol to a greater extent than it is now. The bill would ban off-premise alcohol sales after 11 pm, furnishing alcohol to minors, and most notably would (possibly) raise the drinking age from 18 to 21. Other restrictions may include raising the prices for spirits, banning alcohol advertising, and requiring special licenses to sell alcohol.

Allegedly, there has been an "epidemic" of teen drinking and drunkenness in just the past few years over there. But it is unlikely that raising the drinking age to 21 would help. Hell, they don't even enforce the current drinking age of 18! Perhaps if they did so, along with several of the other reforms that have been proposed, the "epidemic" drinking could be reduced, or at least contained. Attempting to emulate America's greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition would likely just throw gasoline on the fire.

How Common is Extreme Binge Drinking? Now We Know

2009-12-14T20:09:00.000-08:00

We at 21 Debunked have repeatedly voiced disapproval at those who insist on calling 5 drinks a "binge," as well as noting the dearth of longitudinal data concerning the practice of imbibing 10 or more drinks in an evening, sometimes called "extreme" drinking or "extreme binge" drinking. The Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey of middle and high school students has not been gathering data on this truly dangerous activity, so we have been left in the dark about its true prevalence. Until now.

Lloyd Johnston, the overseer of the survey, has recently been asking high school seniors whether they have had 10+ drinks or more in at least one occasion in the past 2 weeks. The most recent data say 11% have done so, and 6% have had 15+ drinks in a row. While clearly a small minority, it is not a trivial fraction either, and is probably an underestimate. And, most relevant to the drinking age debate, these numbers have not changed significantly since Johnston began following them, despite ever-intensifying enforcement. So recent declines in prevalence of 5+ drinks in a row appear to be somewhat misleading, especially since underage drinkers tend to undercount their drinks. Lying (or exaggerating or minimizing) is also fairly common in teen surveys.

For what it's worth, according to the same surveys 25% of seniors and 18% of sophomores admit to having had 5+ in a row in the past two weeks, and these numbers are leveling off after a decade-long decline. It seems that fewer teens are drinking, but the more they do when they do. That may explain why in emergency rooms in several cities across the country, admissions related to teen binge drinking increased in recent years in spite of surveys showing less drinking.

Tracking this dangerous behavior is long overdue. We already know that among college freshmen, 20% of males and 8% of females have done extreme drinking (10+ males, 8+ females) in the past two weeks. But that was a one-semester snapshot in the fall of 2003, with no other years for comparison. The rate of "binge" drinking (using the 5/4 definition) in the past two weeks was 41% for males and 34% for females, which does jibe well with known statistics (roughly 40%) that use that definition. But one must wonder if there is even any relationship at all between the rates of drinking, "binge" drinking, and "extreme" drinking.

Indeed, from 1993 to 2005, the percentage of college students who "binge" drank (5/4 definition) in the past two weeks has not changed a whole lot, but the percentage who do so three more times in the past two weeks ("frequent binging") has gone up significantly. And since the aforementioned study found that extreme drinking was strongly correlated with frequent "binging," the former most likely rose as well. Further evidence comes from another study that found that the number of alcohol poisoning deaths (a good indicator of truly dangerous drinking) among college students nearly tripled from 1998 to 2005.

Bottom line: when you criminalize normative drinking, you inevitably normalize truly dangerous drinking. We saw the same thing during Prohibition. And we all pay a heavy price for it.

Would you drive a car knowing its brakes would fail 11% of the time? Didn't think so.

White Noise Syndrome

2009-12-11T09:48:00.000-08:00

Has anyone ever seen the 2007 horror film White Noise 2? (Spoiler alert) A man has a near-death experience that has left him with the supernatural ability to predict exactly who will die and when. He acts on his premonitions, and saves several lives, only to find out that exactly three days later, the people he saves start killing others upon being possessed by an evil entity. In other words, the net effect is an increase in deaths. He then realizes he wasn't supposed to save those people, regrets his choices, and actually considers killing those he saved in order to rectify this horrible, unforseen tragedy. We watch such films with revulsion and assume they are mere fiction.

But what if there was a government policy, at the expense of tax dollars and civil liberties, that at best delayed deaths of young people by a few years and potentially even increased the number of premature deaths over the lifecycle? What if there were entire orgainizations who wholeheartedly endorsed such a policy as "saving lives" or "for the children" while ignoring or minimizing its dark side? And what if anyone who questions such a policy is subjected to a heckler's veto and even occasional censorship to chill debate?

Well, that describes the 21 drinking age perfectly. Fans of this blog already know about a study done by Dee and Evans (2001) which showed that raising the drinking age merely shifted deaths into the future by a few years, and perhaps even increased them. Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990) and Mike Males (1986) were some of the first people to notice this redistribution of mortality. And remember, the longer a drunk driver lives, the more innocent people he or she can take to his grave with him or her. Of course, not every study agrees with Dee and Evans' conclusion, but there is some new evidence that supports this view.

Kitt Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin (2009) have a new study out that shows a discrete and significant jump in mortality at exactly age 21. The effect is true only for external causes of death, including motor vehicle accidents, suicides, deaths labled as "alcohol related," and those labeled as "other external," but not homicides or drug-related deaths. The effect also occurs for self reported alcohol consumption as well. Ruling out alternative explanations, they conclude it is due to the effect of the drinking age. But unfortunately, they also make the specious claim that such an effect is not merely a delay in deaths but a true lifesaving effect of the policy.

We at Twenty-One Debunked who have read the paper fail to see a true lifesaving effect over the lifecycle. First of all, only deaths between one's 19th birithday and 23rd birthday are included, and the data are rather grainy, making longer range projections very difficult for what would happen in the absence of the observed drinking age effect. Yes, the effect persists to an extent, but one can clearly see it gradually decline over time. It would have been better if they expanded the data to include ages 18 through 24 (are 18 year olds somehow irrelevant to the debate?). And there could be other age-related factors that give an illusion of persistence, such as a "toning down" of drinking in the few months just before turning legal as well as the fact that 22-23 year olds are more likely to have cars and live away from their parents than 19-20 year olds. Indeed, our own crude back-of-the-envelope calculations after reading the paper (and its graphs) in which we project while excluding ages 20.5-21.5 suggest exactly that--it is most likely just a temporary effect overall.

Of course, death rates are merely the tip of a very large iceberg. Carpenter and Dobkin (2008) also conducted another similar study, this time concerning various types of crime, with similar results overall. Arrest rates were used as the proxy measure of crime. They found a discrete and significant jump in the arrest rates of several offenses, such as assault, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and especially DUI, at exactly age 21. However, there was no noticeable effect for other crimes. Interestingly, even rape, which has a reputation for being alcohol-related, appeared to be unaffected. (We suspect this is due to the fact that drinking is less likely to be done "underground" after 21, and thus in environments less conducive to rape, which may outweigh the increase in drinking. Or perhaps the supposed causal link between alcohol and rape has been overstated.) The authors draw the same conclusions that they did in the other study, which is unfortunate for precisely the same reasons.

While our own back-of-the-envelope projection estimates suggest that the increaes in assault and disorderly conduct arrests are merely temporary and seem to wear off by age 22, the effects on DUI and drunkenness arrests do still seem to persist to at least age 23. However, the fact that 21-23 year olds can drink in bars may make drunk drivers more likely to get caught, and also the increase in both DUI and drunkenness may be an artifact of the fact that people over 21 can no longer be charged with underage drinking, as evident in the simultaneous sharp decrease in "liquor law" (i.e. underage drinking) arrests upon turning 21. Thus, some behaviors that would lead to underage drinking arrests before 21 would likely lead to DUI and/or drunkenness arrests instead after turning 21.

In other words, these studies show that banning young people from drinking until age 21 (when they are more likely to have cars, and family controls are much weaker) may not be the best way to introduce them to alcohol. In fact, it appears on balance to be one of the worst ways, and is akin to setting a time bomb. There is zero evidence that people magically become mature enough to handle alcohol upon turning 21. Indeed, the aforementioned studies suggest quite the opposite, at least in the short term.

We all know what the road to hell is paved with. Let's defuse this ticking time bomb and lower the drinking age to 18, legalizing alcohol for all legal adults in America. What better time than now?

Chasing the Dragon

2009-12-07T08:07:00.000-08:00

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a functional definition of insanity. So why does our government continue to pursue policies that fail? It could be that some bad public policies, such as Prohibition, the War on (some) Drugs, and the 21 drinking age are simply addictive. But how exactly can failure be addictive?

The answer lies in the fact that several of these policies began with at least perceived success. Prohibition, for example, coincided with a large decrease in alcohol consumption in the first year or two. The 21 drinking age coincided with reduced drunk driving fatalities in the 1980s. And it occurred in both cases despite little to no enforcement. Whether or not the relationship was causal is immaterial to the government's perception of success. For Prohibition, alcohol consumption (and its attendant social problems) began rebounding after the first two years, and by 1929 consumption reached at least 70% of pre-Prohibition levels, possibly even 100% by some estimates. Even during the Great Depression, it continued to rise, albeit at slower rate. Enforcement increased dramatically, but it could not duplicate or prolong the initial, temporary "success" the government was now hooked on. Most scholars agree that Prohibition did more harm than good, and most Americans agree as well.

For the 21 drinking age, there were numerous confounding factors that likely explain the fatality decline better, especially since it occurred in Canada as well, who did not raise the drinking age to 21. But numerous studies still claim that raising the drinking age was causally linked, and the effects occurred largely at a time during which enforcement was weak. Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), however, find that was not the case, at least not in the long run. By separating out states that raised it voluntarily (before 1984) from those who were coerced by the feds in 1984-1988, a striking pattern was discovered. After controlling for numerous confounders and secular trends, it was observed that states that raised the age voluntarily did see a small lifesaving effect, but it was only temporary, lasting no more than 1-2 years. Kind of like Prohibition, though this time the rebound was masked by confounders and secular trends. The coerced states, however, saw no lifesaving effect, and in many states it merely threw gasoline on the fire. A similar pattern was seen for high school drinking and "binge" drinking rates as well. And in all states, increasing enforcement over time does not appear to have any noticeable correlation. In other words, the idea that raising the drinking age somehow saved lives and continues to do so was nothing more than a mirage. Of course, this should come as no surprise to those who study history, or know anything about young people, but I guess we can't expect the government to do so.

In addition, another addictive aspect of these policies is actually the oldest addiction of all: POWER. Policies like Prohibition and the drinking age inevitably give more power to any government that enacts them. And once they experience it, they cannot seem to get enough. This further reinforces the pursuit of unattainable success that characterizes the various prohibitions on consensual activities throughout history. It is also no accident that the targets of enforcement tend to be the least powerful members of society.

It's time to stop chasing the dragon. You are never going to catch it.

Will Australia Raise the Drinking Age?

2009-11-20T06:20:00.000-08:00

NOTE: This blog is primarily about the United States and is thus written from an American perspective.

Just as more and more Americans want the drinking age to be lowered to 18 over here, there is a growing movement to raise the Australian drinking age (currently 18) to 19 or even 21. The movement, which appears to be spearheaded by Prof. Ian Hickey, cites hackneyed and specious claims about "dain bramage" and alcohol-related violence. Interestingly, drunk driving in Australia is barely even mentioned at all since it is less of a problem over there than here (they are much tougher on DUI than America is), and we can really learn a lot from them. Fortunately, the government is not interested in raising the drinking age, and thus it probably won't happen. Because if it did, it would merely throw gasoline on the fire.

If they want to see what a failure the 21 drinking age is, they should come to America. We tried raising the drinking age to 19 in the early 1980s. Didn't work, so we raised it to 21 in the mid 1980s. Still didn't work. Then we added all these ancillary laws such as dram shop, social host, use and lose, zero tolerance, internal possession. And we toughened up enforcement. Guess what? It still doesn't work.

If Australia is worried about kids under 18 getting wasted, they should enforce the current drinking age better. And the biggest problem group over there, like in America, is people in their twenties. Raising the drinking age targets the wrong group. It would be best for them to raise the alcohol taxes (and make them proportional to alcohol content), shorten pub sales hours (currently 24/7), increase alcohol education, and have zero tolerance for drunk violence. Being drunk is no excuse for misbehavior--millions of people get drunk without ever becoming violent. And forcing drinking underground (where it can't be monitored) is unlikely to reduce violence in any sense. Even if it somehow did for 18-20 year olds, which is unproven, it would merely shift the behavior to 21-24 year olds (which already have a problem).

As for brain damage, there is no conclusive evidence that drinking at 18 is significantly worse than doing so at 21, all else being equal. Maybe for those younger than 18, but that's already illegal. So let's not confuse the issue. Again, lack of enforcement (in Australia) is the problem. And many young people would likely benefit from education about alcohol, which needs to start young since drinking starts young over there (and here as well).

Yes, Virginia, Australia DOES have a drinking problem, and a legendary one at that. But America does too. In fact, all predominantly Anglo-Celtic cultures do to some extent. That's not news. With few exceptions, the more Anglo-Celtic they are, the worse the drinking culture. Ditto for pub/street violence--they don't call it a Glasgow kiss for nothing.

How Anglo-Celtic is each country? (Figures are approximate)

US: 30%
Canada: 50%
Australia: 70%
New Zealand: 70%+
UK: 86%
Republic of Ireland: 95%

Due to changing demographics, America is less Anglo-Celtic now than in the past. This perhaps explains the decline in drinking since 1980 more than anything else, and it is less true for Australia and other such cultures.

The drinking age is irrelevant. Drunken violence (and other problems) flourishes in cultures that tolerates misbehavior when drunk, such as Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and of course the USA. Alcohol must never be considered an excuse.

Why Have Virtually All Prohibitions Failed?

2009-11-01T19:12:00.000-08:00

This is a question that many people have asked, and essentially all serious scholars know the truth. Even those who admit alcohol prohibition failed, but claim the 21 drinking age (as well as the War on (some) Drugs) was a success, likely know precisely why, but are afraid to admit it. And it's more than just an inability to legislate morality or the fact that a given substance is too much a part of the social fabric. So, as Professor Charles Whitebread of USC Law School said:

Every single person who has ever written seriously about the national alcohol prohibition agrees on why it collapsed. Why? Because it violated that iron law of Prohibitions. What is the iron law of Prohibitions? Prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the conduct of THEM. Do you have me? Take the alcohol prohibition. Every single person who has ever written about it agrees on why it collapsed.

He further elaborates:

Large numbers of people supported the idea of prohibition who were not themselves, opposed to drinking. Want to see it? Let me give you an example, 1919. You are a Republican in upstate New York. Whether you drink, or you don't, you are for the alcohol prohibition because it will close the licensed saloons in the City of New York which you view to be the corrupt patronage and power base of the Democratic Party in New York. So almost every Republican in New York was in favor of national alcohol prohibition.
And, as soon as it passed, what do you think they said? "Well, what do you know? Success. Let's have a drink." That's what they thought, "let's have a drink." "Let's drink to this." A great success, you see.

There you have it. There is always an US and a THEM. Liberty for "just us," not all. And if you STILL don't get it by this point, he goes on to drive the point home even further:

I just want to go back to the [English] prohibition against the drinking of gin [in the 1800s]. How could a country prohibit just the drinking of gin, not the drinking of anything else for forty years? Answer: The rich people drank whiskey and the poor people drank [guess] what? -- gin. Do you see it?

He also points out that the rationale for drug prohibitions often follow the same pseudo-logic. Cannabis was banned partly due to anti-Mexican racism and competing business interests, opium banned due to racist fears of the Chinese immigrants, and cocaine was banned due to (largely fabricated) fears of superhuman, coked-up black men going on murdering sprees and raping white women. (Cocaine ironically became popular due to Southern liquor laws designed to keep whiskey out of the hands of lower-class blacks, thus driving them to a more dangerous substitute.) And the very first laws on the books against these other substances specifically targeted such groups. Even to this day, minorities are disproportionally targeted for Drug War enforcement, while the Clinton drug czar Lee Brown speciously claims that drug legalization would be "genocide" against blacks. You read that right. WE can handle it, while THEY cant.

Of course, Dr. Whitebread was not talking specifically about the 21 drinking age, but it too follows the same "iron law" as an age-based selective prohibition of sorts. In fact, it applies a fortiori in this case--the "us" group being adults over 21 and the "them" group being "minors" under 21, the latter being politically impotent at the time it was passed. Supporters of the 21 drinking age, who usually drink themselves, invariably say something to the effect of "well, WE can handle it, but THEY can't." And guess who takes that as a dare?

Nevermind that 18-20 year olds are judged capable of handling war, guns, cigarettes, questionable "dietary supplements," gambling, cars, trucks, motorcycles, chainsaws, dangerous jobs, sex, marriage, and even having kids. But not beer. This would clearly fail the Martian test (can you explain it to a Martian without sounding like an idiot?) for obvious reasons.

In the entire history of the world, there has never been a society in which adults drank but teens did not, nor has the reverse ever been true. While this is also true for other substances, it is especially true for those substances that have gained the widest acceptance in a society. And no substance in history has ever achieved this widespread status quite like ethanol. And that, my friends, is why the 21 drinking age is the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition.

Mike Males observes that in the USA, youth have the least amount of freedom relative to adults. The key word here is relative. Look at other countries around the world and see if you can see a pattern. Ever notice how the less relative freedom teens have, the worse the excesses (of all kinds) are among adults in such cultures? The reason for that is very simple. Those adults feel they need not worry about being good role models, since teens will face harsh punishment for emulating their behavior. Do as I say, not as I do--farcical (and pharisaical) to say the least. Being "grown-up" apparently just means making better excuses for bad behavior rather than truly behaving better. And what passes for "education" is often little more than "just say no" and disingenuous scare tactics. Such cultural schizophrenia is clearly not the best way for teens to be socialized into the adult world. And the excess-loving adults they eventually become are living proof.

But why is America like that? How could these obvious farces still be with us? Dr. Males notes that it is more than just fear of young people in general, it is that today's youth are more racially diverse (i.e. less white) than the older generation, and this is more true in America than any other industrialized country. So the in-group-out-group thing is even more pronounced since there is more than one dimension to this fear/loathing of the Other. How did we get to be so primitive?

A Proven Method to Eliminate Underage Drinking

2009-10-19T19:32:00.001-07:00

Fed up with underage drinking? Want to not just reduce it, but eliminate it for good? Well, we know of a scientifically proven, universally effective, but little known way to guarantee that your kids will not drink a drop before reaching the magic age of 21. It has been verified in randomized controlled trials, is truly self-evident, and costs nothing. In fact, it is not all that difficult when you think about it, despite the interesting fact that the vast majority of parents had not even considered it. How, you ask? Well, here's what you gotta do.........

(keep scrolling down)

(farther)

(almost there)

(keep going)

DON'T HAVE KIDS!

Not only is it 100% effective against underage drinking, it also has other benefits, such as saving $250,000 per child over the first 18 years, reduced overpopulation, less urban sprawl, and a cleaner environment. The Earth will love you.

Yes, that is the only foolproof way to guarantee abstinence from alcohol (or anything else for that matter) until 21. But seriously. For those of us that live in the real world (you know, the one in which the majority will have kids and about 90% of those kids will drink before age 21), we need to admit that the 21 drinking age is a miserable failure. And admit that we do not have a "teen" drinking problem, we have an American drinking problem. Only then can real solutions be given a serious chance of working.

Do Zero Tolerance Laws Really Work?

2009-10-13T14:23:00.001-07:00

This is a question to which most researchers would answer "yes," due to numerous empirical studies as well as in theory, but many have had their doubts. Enter Darren Grant, an economist at Sam Houston State University, who did a recent study that shows that there are good reasons to doubt the effectiveness of such laws.

Zero Tolerance (ZT) laws are what they sound like: laws that prohibit people (under 21 in this case) from driving with any measurable amout of alcohol in one's blood. These laws were justified by studies that found that the relative risk of a fatal crash for 16-20 year old drivers begins rising at a lower BAC, and more rapidly, than for those over 21. By 1998, all 50 states and DC have passed such laws. Many states did so voluntarily, but the rest were forced by Congress to do so or lose highway funding (sound familiar?) and capitulated. ZT laws had to set the BAC limit for drivers under 21 at 0.02 or less in order to pass muster for Congress. And until now, virtually every study has supported their effectiveness.

Grant's study found that ZT laws had essentially no effect on traffic fatality rates or the BAC distribution of fatalites. Data was from 1988-2000, during which time all states had a 21 drinking age. Several control variables and fixed effects were accounted for. Whether a state had a "partial" ZT law (a lower BAC limit for youth that was either >0.02 or had an age limit below 21) before adopting a "full" ZT law (satisfying the federal mandate), which several did, was also accounted for. Similar effects were observed on daytime and nighttime fatalities, despite the fact that most alcohol-related fatalities are concentrated at night. In addition, effects were compared to drivers over 21, who should not be affected by the ZT laws, but such effects were in fact similar, which suggests a spurious relationship due to unknown coincident factors. Finally, the fractions of total fatalities that were zero BAC, low BAC, and high BAC drivers were equivalent before and after a ZT law was passed, further casting doubt on its effectiveness.

What are we to make of all this? Previous studies were either pre/post studies that omitted key variables, or longitudinal studies that were otherwise less thorough than this one. This study appears to trump the rest, and it is thus very tempting to say that zero tolerance = zero intelligence.

That being said, we at 21 Debunked still recommend that if the drinking age is lowered to 18, which we strongly advocate for all 50 states, that the ZT laws generally remain as is, with an age limit of 21. Better yet, ZT laws ought to be strengthened by making the BAC limit 0.02 for the first x number of years of licensed driving for all ages, or age 21, whatever is longer. Several countries with lower drinking ages (Canada, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) interestingly set ZT age limits higher than the legal drinking age and/or base it on the number of years of licensed driving one has, with the latter making even more sense. Puerto Rico, with a drinking age of 18, also recently adopted a 0.02 limit for those under 21. And there are good reasons for America maintaining some type of "full" ZT law even after the drinking age is lowered.

ZT laws send a strong message that alcohol and driving don't mix, and removing them may be seen by some as implying otherwise.
Inexperience in drinking as well as driving, regardless of age, can be a deadly combination.
If the drinking age was 18, one would have three years of legal drinking experience and up to five years of driving experience at 21.
ZT laws would be a good precautionary measure against the alleged adverse effects of lowering the drinking age, and would help assuage fears about such effects.
Federal law requires ZT laws as a condition of highway funding. It's bad enough to have to deal with that kind of coercion with the drinking age, let alone additional funding losses.
Some studies find positive externalities from ZT laws, such as reduced suicide rates, which may or may not be causally related.
ZT laws have strong public support, and frankly, it would be politically impossible to lower the drinking age without maintaining such laws.

However, we recommend that laws that set the BAC limit to 0.00 be changed to 0.02 to prevent false positives, and violating a ZT law (but not violating the adult BAC limit) should not be a criminal offense. For those who violate adult BAC limits, there should be graduated penalties that are proportional to BAC, eliminating the current perverse incentives resulting from reduced marginal penalties for each additional drink above the 0.08 threshold. And those penalties should be tougher than the current ones as well. In addition, we also recommend lowering the adult BAC limit of 0.08 down to 0.05, like it is in many other countries, since impairment begins well before 0.08. In addition, preliminary breath testers (i.e. handheld ones) should be not be sufficient evidence; that's what evidential breath testers are for.

But most importantly, we should never lose sight of the fact that the average BAC in an alcohol-related fatality is 0.16 in general and 0.14 for drivers under 21. Moreover, only 5.8% and 5.4% of total fatalities, for all ages and ages 16-20, respectively, involve a BAC below 0.08--and most of such deaths would probably still have occurred in the absence of booze. And drivers age 21-24 are the most overrepresented in alcohol-related fatal crashes (at all BACs) as well. Thus, the highest priority in the fight against impaired driving should be catching and deterring those very high BAC drivers of all ages (who are responsible for the lion's share of such deaths), rather than strategize on how best to catch young drivers with BACs below 0.05 (who are responsible for only a small fraction). In other words, we need to see the forest for the trees.

What Will South Dakota Do? (Updated)

2009-10-01T14:15:00.000-07:00

The latest state in which there is an attempt to lower the drinking age is South Dakota. Which, as you may know, was the second to last state (followed only by Wyoming) to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1988 under federal duress and coercion. State Rep. Tim Rounds (R) currently has a proposal to let 19-20 year olds drink beer in bars if accompanied by someone over 21. Even that is rankling people like MADD, though. Rounds says he will drop the proposal if it will cost the state federal highway funding, which it likely will (it is unlikely that he found a loophole in the federal law).

Here's some advice, Mr. Rounds. You don't start out with a compromised position like this one. You will only have to compromise further. Obama learned this lesson the hard way when it came to healthcare (in 2003 he actually wanted single-payer, similar to Canada, and probably most Americans would have agreed). We know Rounds had a plan that was even more liberal than his current one last year.

If it passes, this will do good to pave the way for further changes in the drinking age, so let's cheer him on. We at 21 Debunked look forward to the day when in all 50 states, all 18-20 year olds will have the same rights as those over 21. In every way.

UPDATE: Tim Rounds is still moving forward with the proposal as of January 2009, though he faces an uphill battle in the legislature. Unfortunately, it appears to be too much of a compromise, and it is unclear whether even that would get around the federal highway funds coercion. His latest plan would create special bars for 19-20 year olds to drink only beer and only on premises, though he dropped the requirement of being accompanied by someone over 21.

Unfortunately, he added a provision that would make it a felony DUI for anyone under 21 to drive with even the slightest amout of alcohol in one's system. It is already illegal to do so in all 50 states for those under 21, and it seems excessive and out of proportion to make it a felony (read: life-destroying) offense to drive after a single drink. While we at Twenty-One Debunked do not support any kind of impaired driving, however slight, we think there is a significant difference between one beer and ten, and that the law should reflect that difference. And what about false positives?

FEB. 2010 UPDATE: The bill has officially been killed by the legislature, unfortunately.

Post #21--Would a Split Drinking Age Be Better?

2009-09-24T13:58:00.000-07:00

A new study of the drinking age (Males, 2008) apparently finds that a split (or "graduated") drinking age of 18 for beer/wine and 21 for liquor would reduce combined violent deaths (traffic crash deaths plus homicides) among 18-20 year olds with similar reductions for 16-17 year olds and 21-24 year olds. It studied the effects over time of raising the age to 21 in the 1980s, based on a state's former drinking age (18 for all beverages, 18 for beer/wine only, or 19 and 20), relative to states that were 21 throughout. When they were raised to 21, the ones that were previously 18 for all beverages, as well as the former 19 and 20 states, saw a decrease in combined deaths, mainly from traffic crashes. But the 11 states that were 18 for beer and/or wine only, they saw an increase in deaths, with the lion's share of the increase being homicides. Interestingly, a few states that were 18 for all beverages saw increases or no significant change as well when the ages were raised to 21.

What are we to make of all this? Several states had split drinking ages, many of which had them for decades. When we look at the dates that the 21 law became effective, we see that all of them but Oklahoma (1983) raised them in 1985 or later. Ditto for the "18 for all beverages" states that saw increases or no significant changes. Hmmmm....what happened around that time? In 1984, the federal government coerced the states with lower drinking ages to raise them to 21 or lose 10% of annual highway funding starting in 1988. So, it could simply be that for many of the coerced states, raising their drinking ages merely threw gasoline on the fire!

This interpretation, rather than anything special about a split drinking age, appears to be more likely to be true when we consider a study by Miron and Tetelbaum (2009). In their study, which controlled for more variables than Males (2008) but looked only at traffic fatalities, they separated out the states based on the year the drinking age was raised to 21. The states that were coerced (i.e. those who raised the age after 1984) overall saw no lifesaving effect. On the other hand, the ones that raised their drinking ages voluntarily in 1983 or earlier did see a small lifesaving effect, but that only lasted a year or two and then wore off. Robustness checks were done as well. Interestingly, Miron and Tetelbaum found no clear relationship for the purchase ages of various beverage types when measured separately, but they did find an increase in fatalities among drivers under 18 when the drinking age was 19, 20, or 21 as opposed to 18.

We at 21 Debunked therefore see no reason why a split drinking age is superior to a drinking age of 18 across the board. We would support the former as a steppingstone to the latter, but ultimately favor the latter hands down. We never understood it since you can get just as drunk on one as you can on the other, and beer is grosslly overrepresented in DUI fatalities. If states feel that they must have special restrictions for 18-20 year olds, which are probably unnecessary, one or more of the following may make more sense:

Keep the age at 21 for kegs, cases, and other bulk quantities of alcohol; let 18 year olds buy everything else.
Limit the quantities 18 year olds can buy off-premise to 216 ounces of beer, 1 gallon of wine, or 1 fifth of liquor per person per day.
Require 18-20 year olds (or even just 18 year olds) to sign a logbook upon purchase, similar to what is done for Sudafed at all ages.
Have kegs and cases be sold only in beer distributors regardless of age, making the first two things easier to enforce.
Keep it 21 for internet alcohol orders, like some states currently do with cigarettes.
Have shorter trading hours (beginning later and/or ending earlier) for off-premises sales for 18 year olds than for those over 19 (or 20 or 21).
Allow some bars to set the limit higher than 18 if they wish (no new law needs to be made).

Also, we feel that the age limit should be the same for on- and off-premise sales, at 18. If we let 18 year olds buy cigarettes and guns for off premise use, why not a 6-pack? Their younger friends will find a way to get booze either way, and both 8th graders and 10th graders currently find alcohol easier to get than cigarettes. Furthermore, if there is a wide gap between the two (i.e. 18 for bars and 21 for stores), that may perversely encourage drunk driving for those rural 18-20 year olds whose nearest bar is 10+ miles away while a store that sells 6-packs is a mere 500 feet away. However, such perverse incentives could in theory be minimized by letting 18 year olds have the same drinking rights as 21 year olds currently enjoy, with the one exception being off-premise purchase, and having that purchase age be 19 instead of 21. We don't have any studies to back this up, but we also know of no hard evidence that it is any safer than 18 across the board.

In contrast, there is some evidence that restricting bulk alcohol sales may have benefits. A study of college students in college towns by Kuo et al. (2003) found that the availability of 6-packs was negatively associated with self-reported "binge" drinking, 12-packs showed no effect, while 24-packs (cases), 30-packs, and kegs all showed significant positive associations. In other words, the more 6-packs available, the less "binge" drinking. The more cases and kegs, the more "binge" drinking. (Liquor and wine were not studied; nor were 18-packs.) They also found that beer price was inversely related to "binge" drinking, and store advertising was directly related, just as expected. While we were unable to locate any jurisdiction in the world that has age-specific bulk-only alcohol restrictions, it stands to reason that such a thing would make more sense than splitting the age by venue or beverage type regardless of quantity.

The Truth Should Be Self-Evident--Not All "Bingers" are Created Equal

2009-09-21T12:47:00.000-07:00

Binge drinking. We all have heard the term used incessantly in the media, who usually claim it is getting worse. Our kids are out of control, they say, and we need to get tougher. Except, of course, when the issue of the 21 drinking age comes up--then it has gone way down, and the raising of the drinking age in the 1980s gets all (or nearly all) the credit. Predictable to say the least.

So which is it? It depends on your definition of "binge" drinking. The term originally meant a multi-day, very heavy drinking session in which the drinker neglects usual responsibilities and behaves recklessly--also known as a bender. Fortunately, very few people do this, both now and back in the day. But in 1994, Henry Wechsler of the Harvard University School of Public Health redefined the term to mean anytime someone drinks 5 or more drinks in the same evening, later modified to be 4 or more for a woman. This "5/4 definition" is the one most commonly used nowadays, with the gender-neutral 5+ definition a close second since the latter has been tracked by national surveys since 1975. And yes, it (defined this way) has gone down since its peak in 1979 for everyone except college students and non-college females. But that downward trend began several years before a significant number of states raised their drinking ages to 21, and also occurred in states that stayed 21 throughout.

But is it really an accurate index of harmful drinking? That question appears to have been answered fairly in a new study. Using self-reported alcohol-related injuries (major or minor) in the past 6 months as the dependent variable, researchers examined the effect of the number of drinks per drinking day, and the frequency of occasions having that number of drinks in the past month, among college students. This clearly makes more sense than lumping them all together, or looking only at total volume or frequency. Results were that risks increase rapidly after consuming 8+ drinks (males) or 5+ (females), on at least four days per month. Effects were further magnified among those who scored high on sensation-seeking. It was also found that the 5/4 definiton loses much of its predictive power when days of 8/5+ are removed from the equation. And remember, none of these models account for speed or context of drinking, or even distinguish drunk driving, and students often undercount their drinks as well (due in part to the ubiquitous "red party cups" and the popularity of hard liquor). But one benefit to this study is that body weight was controlled for, since the effect of a specific number of drinks varies widely across individuals.

Another recent study found that a 7/6+ cutoff was far more predictive of alcohol-related problems (relative to non-bingers) than a 5/4+ one. Those who met the 5/4+ cutoff but not the 7/6+ one averaged 5.4 drinks per occasion, while those who met the 7/6+ cutoff averaged a whopping 9.1 drinks. In terms of negative consequences, those males who typically drank 5-6 drinks (and 4-5 for females) generally did not fare significantly worse than the nonbingers, but the heavier 7/6+ group clearly did.

Clearly, the 5/4 definition is an arbitrary convention with little to no scientific basis. Kind of like, well, the 21 drinking age. An ideal definition would take into account context, speed, and BAC, set at rational thresholds. However, a quick, context-neutral, numerical definition is needed for survey purposes. While for the vast majority of the college-age population a 5/4+ threshold is a good negative test for acutely dangerous drinking, a 10/8+ threshold is a better sufficient test for the same, and intermediate between the two is an 8/6+ threshold. Thus, we at 21 Debunked propose two thresholds: 8/6+ drinks and 10/8+ drinks. It's probably best to jettison the word "binge" entirely--call the first threshold "heavy episodic drinking" or "high risk drinking," and the second one "extreme drinking." Unfortunately, these have not been measured very well over time, so to answer the first question, we don't know for sure.

But if we are to go with anecdotal data and statistical proxies for extreme drinking, we can probably safely that say such drinking has been on the rise, at least for college students. For example, another study found that between 1998 to 2005, there was a significant increase in alcohol-related nontraffic deaths among students, driven by a near tripling of alcohol poisoning deaths. (The actual statistics were simply those for 18-24 year olds multiplied by 30%, so this actually includes many non-students as well) That being said, we should note that the majority of college drinkers still drink responsibly, whether legally or illegally, and only a small minority drinks to these ludicrously high levels. However, the latter appears to be where the real problems lie, and where our efforts are best concentrated. But we still keep on barking up the wrong tree time and again.

It's also worth noting that in the first study mentioned, participants from 3 out of the 4 American universities surveyed had higher rates of alcohol-related injury than those from the one Canadian university, though the difference was not statistically significant. It is quite plausible that the 21 drinking age, by forcing drinking underground, exacerbates such problems. (Canada's drinking age is 18 or 19, depending on the province)

We at Twenty-One Debunked do not endorse any kind of drinking, underage or otherwise, and we do not mean to imply that drinking below a specific threshold is safe for everyone. To our knowledge, no such absolute threshold exists. But we do think that we need to get our priorities straight as a society when it comes to drinking. America's young people--our future--deserve nothing less.

Latest Bit of Scarelore--Is it True?

2009-09-21T06:59:00.000-07:00

In a desperate attempt to hang on for dear life, knowing its days are numbered, the pro-21 crowd is recycling an old fear: that alcoholism rates would increase dramatically if the drinking age is lowered below 21. And they now have a study to "prove" it, or so they say.

The study pools data from both a 1992 survey and a 2002 survey, and finds that those who were exposed to a drinking age of less than 21 when they were ages 18-20 were about 1.3 times more likely to have an alcohol use disorder, and about 1.7 times more likely to have a substance use disorder other than alcohol, in the past year. Even (scratch that, especially) when the respondents were in their 40s and 50s. The researchers attempted to control for confounders, but we all know there can always be some that were missed. And we know that if you torture the data enough, it will confess to anything.

We at 21 Debunked think that the relationship between MLDA and later alcohol problems is likely spurious for the following reasons:

At least part of the relationship seems to be mediated by self-selective cross-state migration (i.e. budding alcohol abusers moving to states with more lenient laws). But there was no data on state of residence at age 18, only birth state and current state.
The relationship was apparently NOT mediated by earlier age of drinking onset, as would be expected if the relationship was truly causal. Also, there was no significant effect on drinking before 18, so we can rule out the often claimed "spillover effect" on younger kids.
Drug addiction (especially hard drugs) was affected more strongly than alcohol addiction for whatever reason, the opposite of what would be expected assuming causality.
No distinction was made between a drinking age of 18, 19, or 20, which may have a misleading impact on the results. Though this could bias the results in either direction.
The effect on past-year alcohol use disorders was strongest among respondents in their 40s and 50s, and weakest (and statistically insignificant) among those in their 20s, the opposite of what would be expected from a causal relationship. Both drinking age exposed groups start out fairly close, disorders decline at the same rate at first, and divergence does not occur until around age 35.
Regressions did not control for state-specific trends, religion, or completely for ethnicity. Whites were treated as a monolithic group (despite wide variation in drinking cultures), and no distinction was made for Native Americans (who tend to have higher alcoholism rates).
Unemployment and education were controlled for, but not poverty.
The odds ratio for the relationship between MLDA <21 and later alcohol use disorders was an anemic 1.33. In epidemiology, odds ratios and (relative risks) below 2.0 are difficult to interpret and are often due to residual or unmeasured confounding, bias, or even chance. This caveat is especially true for retrospective and non-longitudinal survey studies such as this one. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine would likely consider this association "weak" and thus unfit for publication in most circumstances.
And there's always the usual recall bias, as well as good old-fashioned denial. They don't call it a "pink elephant in the room" for nothing.

In other words, the results are preliminary at best. And there's plenty of counter-evidence as well. According to NIAAA data from 1981, courtesy of Mike Males (1986), states with a drinking age of 21 back then actually had higher rates of alcoholism than states with lower drinking ages, and much higher rates of alcohol-related diseases despite both lower teen and adult drinking rates. North Dakota, who nonetheless remained at a constant 21 since the 1930s, is currently the worst state in terms of alcoholism. The worst city is Reno, Nevada, whose state had not seen a drinking age less than 21 for 75 years.

And why does Canada (MLDA 18 or 19 depending on province) not have a higher alcoholism rate than America? Demographically, they probably should! Ditto for most other countries with lower drinking ages, even the notoriously binge-drinking British and Australians? Some may say culture, but Canada's culture is not radically different than ours, and Britain's should, if anything, be more conducive to alcoholism than ours.

Another new study, this one done in Australia (with a legal drinking age of 18), explores the "age at first drink" effect on alcohol dependence from a new angle. Studying numerous twins, they find that there appears to be a gene-environment interaction among those who begin drinking before 15, especially before 13. Such very early drinking, or some environmental factor closely linked to it, appears to activate the bad genes. Though this could simply be a common vulnerability from other differences in environment rather than a truly causal effect of age. Or perhaps the context of drinking matters. The older one starts drinking, the more the environment matters, and the less genes do. But interestingly, and most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, the effect of age at first drink levels off after 18, with no significant difference between those who begin drinking at 18, 19, 20, or even 23. (Funny how this "leveling" effect occurs precisely at the age that corresponds to the MLDA. Coincidence? Hmmm.....)

This jibes well with a Canadian study done in 2000 that found that, while those who begin drinking between 11-14 have the highest risk for later alcohol dependence, even when taking time since first drink into account, there was no significant difference (in the long run) between those who began at 17-18 and those who began at 19 or later. For the latter group, the onset of dependence was merely delayed. Again, no conclusive proof of causation, but the authors concluded that prevention programs that succeed in delaying drinking to even 15-16 would likely produce substantial benefits. This is probably a better idea than trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good, like those who support the 21 drinking age never cease to do.

In other words, we need to see the forest for the trees. Something we as a society fail to do time and again.

Blast from the Past

2009-09-18T14:59:00.000-07:00

One of the fears about lowering the drinking age is that traffic fatalities will rise. Usually, the pro-21 crowd either points to studies of the 1980s, when drinking ages were raised, or the 1970s, when drinking ages were lowered. Having already debunked the studies of the post-1976 period, using studies such as Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), here we look at a period with relatively scant data: 1970-1975, when 30 states lowered the drinking age.

Claim: There was an immediate and persistent increase in (presumably alcohol-related) fatalities among 18-20 year olds when the drinking ages were lowered (generally to 18).

First of all, we don't really know if that statement is even true to begin with, and we probably never will. Only a few decent-quality studies examined the years 1970-1975, the years in which the drinking ages were lowered. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which gives detailed reports about traffic fatalities, was not even created until 1975, and state-level data were not available through that system until 1976. So any conclusions drawn from state-level data for 18-20 year olds before 1976 is questionable at best. For studies of nonfatal crashes, this caveat applies a fortiori. And any "alcohol-related fatality" data before 1982 is unreliable since FARS did not make this distinction until that year, which is understandable since a state that tested even 50% of fatal crash drivers for alcohol was considered stellar back then. Garbage in, garbage out.

From 1970-1975, any alleged increase in fatalities was imperceptible in the aggregate data. Using data from the National Safety Council, Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) showed that national 15-24 year old fatalities peaked in 1969, then declined sharply until 1975. From 1976-1980, fatalities rose somwhat, and declined from then on. The same was true for 18-20 year olds after 1976, when that group was separated out by FARS and the two groups have been highly correlated since. But the increase in the late 70s also occurred in states like California, which kept their drinking age at 21 throughout, so the 1976-1980 increase was unlikely to be a result of lowering the drinking age a few years prior.

So all state-level data for 18-20 year olds before 1976 must be gleaned from sources other than FARS, and some states had data problems for this period. And here's the grain of truth of it all. It is true that some states that lowered their drinking ages (and some that did not) saw increases in reported 18-20 year old fatalities from 1970-1975. But other states that lowered their drinking ages saw either no significant change or sharp decreases in such deaths in the table below:

State	Drinking Age Change (1970-1975)	% Change in 18-20 total auto fatalities per capita (1970-1975)
Alabama*	Lowered, 21 to 19, 1975	-26%
Alaska*	Lowered, 21 to 19, 1970	no data
Arizona*	Lowered, 21 to 19, 1972	-29%
Arkansas	21 (no change)	-22%
California	21 (no change)	-14%
Colorado	18 (no change)	-10%
Connecticut*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1972	+11%
Delaware*	Lowered, 21 to 20, 1972	+2.3%
DC	18 (no change)	no data
Florida*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1973	-28%
Georgia*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1972	-26%
Hawaii*	Lowered, 20 to 18, 1972	no data
Idaho*	Lowered, 20 to 19, 1972	-29%
Illinois*	Lowered, 21 to 19, 1973	-18%
Indiana	21 (no change)	-19%
Iowa*	Lowered, 21 to 19, 1972, then 18, 1973	-31%
Kansas	18 (no change)	-49%
Kentucky	21 (no change)	-31%
Louisiana	18 (no change)	-26%
Maine*	Lowered, 20 to 18, 1972	-14%
Maryland*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1974	-8.6%
Massachusetts*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1973	0%
Michigan*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1972	-6.4%
Minnesota*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1973	0%
Missouri	21 (no change)	-20%
Mississippi	18 (no change)	-46%
Montana*	Lowered, 21 to 19, 1971, then 18, 1972	+19%
North Carolina	18 (no change)	-10%
North Dakota	21 (no change)	+5.2%
Nebraska*	Lowered, 20 to 19, 1972	+7.8%
Nevada	21 (no change)	-61%
New Hampshire*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1973	-59%
New Jersey*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1973	+2.9%
New Mexico	21 (no change)	-14%
New York	18 (no change)	-9.7%
Ohio	18 (no change)	-35%
Oklahoma	21 (not lowered to 18 until 1976)	-14%
Oregon	21 (no change)	-13%
Pennsylvania	21 (no change)	-7.1%
Rhode Island*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1972	+67%
South Carolina	18 (no change)	-25%
South Dakota*	Lowered, 19 to 18, 1972	-31%
Tennessee*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1971	-1.6%
Texas*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1973	+2.0%
Utah	21 (no change)	-49%
Vermont*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1971	+161%
Virginia*	Lowered, 21 to 18, 1974	-17%
Washington	21 (no change)	-7.1%
Wisconsin**	18 (no change for on-premise beer)**	-7.1%
West Virginia	18 (no change for beer)	+1.9%
Wyoming*	Lowered, 21 to 19, 1973	+1.0%

(Taken from Cook and Tauchen (1984), Appendix A. Calculations ours. All data involves purchase age for beer unless otherwise noted. Dates taken from Wikipedia)

Thus, the state-level data are completely patternless, at least in terms of drinking age. Clearly, other factors were involved, such as gas prices (now known to have an effect), the economy, or even the weather. Only a handful of states (mostly with relatively small populations and hence much volatility in the numbers) in the table show significant increases, including one (North Dakota) that kept a constant 21 MLDA since the 1930s. The rest either saw sharp decreases or no significant change. This was in spite of the fact that, nationwide, the average driver in 1975 traveled more vehicle miles than in 1970. And before the advent of FARS, any increases are not clear as to whether they reflect true fatality increases or simply changes in how fatal crashes were reported. Nor does this table tell us whether those increases were contemporaneous with the age-lowering (done mostly in 1972-1973) since only two years, 1970 and 1975, were compared due to data availability. For example, Vermont's rather large increase, apparently, was not contemporaneous (See Douglass and Filkins, 1974).

A quick, albeit imperfect, way to estimate the effect of a policy change ceteris paribus is a method called "difference-in-differences," or DD for short. Here, we do a DD analysis comparing change vs. no change states:

Median difference, "change" states (1975 vs. 1970): -6.8%

Median difference, "no-change" states: -16.5%

Net difference-in-differences: +9.75%

This implies that, while both groups declined overall, the no-change states declined at a significantly faster rate than the states that lowered their drinking ages. And the latter group can be said to have more deaths at first glance. However, there are two radical outliers (VT and RI) that dramatically skew the results. Furthermore, Delaware is the only state that lowered the age from 21 to 20 and no further, and Wisconsin would better be included with the no-change states since 18 year olds were allowed to drink beer in bars both before and after. Thus, we omit the two outliers and Delaware entirely, and instead place WI with the no-change in our adjusted DD analysis:

Adjusted median difference, "change" states: -11.3%

Adjusted median difference, "no-change" states: -14.0%

Net difference-in-differences: +2.7%

Wow, that really makes a difference in the results. The net DD drops from nearly +10% to less than +3%. The latter "effect size" is small enough to be due to chance alone. Indeed, we also observe in the table that several of the states with significant increases are also states with some of the smallest 18-20 year old populations. Such states are prone to spurious shocks due to the volatility of smaller numbers of fatalities. Thus, we see that when we eliminate all the states with populations less than or equal to that of Montana, along with making the aforementioned adjustments, the drinking age effect disappears entirely:

Adjusted median difference, "change" states: -14.0%

Adjusted median difference, "no change" states: -14.0%

Net difference-in-differences: 0%

Regardless of what happened (or didn't happen) in the 1970s, it is essentially irrelevant today. Back then, drinking ages were lowered against a backdrop of falling real alcohol prices, higher adult per capita alcohol consumption than today, permissive and toothless DUI laws, social acceptability of drunk driving, no seat belt laws, ignorance about the risks of alcohol, and a generally cavalier attitude toward safety. The term "air bag" meant a person who talked too much. The term "designated driver" was not even in our vocabulary until the 1980s. Drunk driving was not just tolerated back then, it was expected of you if you were the least drunk person in the group (to drive everyone else home). Needless to say, things are very different today. So it's comparing apples and oranges. And any fear relating to the 1970s is therefore academic. Consider it debunked.

Claim: There was a major increase in high school drinking (and related problems) when the drinking age was lowered, as 18 year olds bought for their younger friends.

Again, correlation does not equal causation. It was true that in the 1970s, teen drinking increased, but that was a national trend that occurred in essentially every state, including those like California that kept the drinking age at 21. In fact, the secular trend predated the 1970s by many decades, and ironically enough began during Prohibition in the 1920s. It lasted until about 1979, then the trend reversed and teen drinking declined through the 1980s until the early 1990s. And the downward trend predated the raising of the drinking age, and again occurred in essentially every state.

The average age at first drink did decline nationwide, but that began in 1965 (or earlier), and continued to decline long after the drinking age was raised in the 1980s. And California, who had a 21 drinking age since 1933, saw the same trend overall as the rest of the country. So clearly other factors are at work, and the trends cannot be traced to changes in the drinking age.

Part of the increase in teen drinking could be that parents stuck their heads in the sand about alcohol, being relieved that "at least my kid isn't smoking pot." Or it could have resulted from a moral panic and a consequent deviancy amplification spiral. Or perhaps a bit of both, with the former preceding the latter.

Interestingly, a 1977 study found that high school seniors in states with a drinking age of 18 actually drank less and had fewer alcohol-related problems than those in states with a drinking age of 20 or 21. Why this is is not entirely clear, but the researchers hypothesize that "forbidden fruit" may very well entice those in the more restrictive states to drink. Or perhaps those seniors that are still 17 are more likely to wait until 18 to be legal since this is more realistic than waiting until 20 or 21.

Again, much of the fears from the 1970s are now academic, and are unlikely to be a problem if the drinking age was lowered today. The notion of teenagers having "liquid lunches" in high school is no longer socially acceptable--it is now considered a sign of a drinking problem. Those who are caught bringing booze to school are dealt with much more harshly than they were back then, campuses are often closed, and students are essentially defanged and declawed. And today's tough enforcement requires IDs to be shown when purchasing alcohol, reducing the chances of a 15-17 year old "passing" for 18. About the last remaining fear is high school keggers (which still occur even with a 21 drinking age), but any possible increase in these parties can (by definition) be prevented by keeping the purchase age at 21 (or 20) for bulk quantities like kegs and cases while lowering it to 18 for everything else.

One thing, however, is for sure: teenagers will get their hands on booze one way or another, and whether the drinking age is 18 or 21 is of little consequence to this fact. Where there's a will, there's a way. And where there's a swill, there's a sway. So consider this one debunked as well.

QED

Daredevil Behavior and the Teenage Brain

2009-09-17T06:47:00.000-07:00

Teenagers are often assumed to be risk-takers who engage in dangerous and idiotic activities. And that is often true. But compared to American adults, they are really not that bad.

It is often assumed that it is due to their "underdeveloped brains," which apparently continue to develop until at least age 25. This factoid is heard so often that it is taken as gospel. Indeed, numerous studies have revealed changes in the adolescent and young adult brain. So one must lead to the other, right?

But what if the supposed causation is not just inaccurate, but in fact is 100% wrong? Apparently, a new study of brain imaging suggests just that. They found that the more mature and "adult" the white matter of teen brains was, the more risk-taking behavior reported, the opposite of what was expected. Of course, the direction of causality is uncertain, but doesn't this blow a hole in the conventional wisdom?

Another study finds that, among 10-16 year olds, shortsightedness is not caused by impulsivity (lack of self-control), but rather by sensation-seeking. While 10-16 year olds did tend to think about the future less than adults do, and thus prefer immediate rewards to delayed ones, there was little change in shortsightedness after 16 (the study looked at 10-30 year olds). This is interesting since the parts of the brain that are related to sensation do not continue maturing after 16, but the parts responsible for self-control do. Still, shortsightedness changes little between the ages of 16 and 30.

The results of another study imply that, at least in terms of resistance to peer influences, 18 year olds are essentially just as competent as 23-30 year olds. This echoes older studies that found that results on tests that measure competence to stand trial seem to level off after age 16, similar to the way IQ typically does.

Another study found that the likely explanation of the relationship between age at first drink and subsequent drinking problems has to do with the quality of the parent-child relationship. In other words, the better the quality, the later drinking begins and the fewer drinking problems. Age at first drink may simply be a marker for later problems or lack thereof, since it appears to be a marker for the relationship quality. Still another study finds that child maltreatment is independently linked to adolescent "binge" drinking (5+ drinks/occasion), as was the pink elephant in the room (parental alcoholism).

What does all this have to do with the 21 drinking age? Plenty. Arguments supporting a drinking age higher than the age of majority do not appear to hold water upon closer examination.

The Tide is Turning

2009-08-31T07:06:00.000-07:00

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 30% of American adults believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and 5% believe it should be lowered to 16. This combination, 35%, is a record high, and this is one of the few times in decades that we broke the 30% barrier. And only 51% believe it should remain at 21, a record low. Adults under 40 were fairly even on whether the drinking age should be 18 or 21 (last year it was about half of men and about a quarter of women under 40 who wanted the age to be 18), another sign of progress. (Now, if only we could get young people to vote more!)

Also, 50% of adults believe that drunk driving laws are too lenient, while only 8% think they're too tough. That's one thing we at 21 Debunked do agree with the majority on.

It appears we are fast approaching a critical mass, if we have not achieved one already. Remember that it does not always take a majority to prevail, as Samuel Adams so eloquently noted.

Forty years ago, it was 1969. Lots of great things happened in that fateful year (Woodstock, the moon landing, the first Earth Day, etc.), but most relevant to the debate is the fact that the first two states to lower the drinking age (the first time around) did so that year. From 1970-1976, 30 states would lower their drinking ages, chiefly in 1972-1973, after decades of it being 21 in most states (some were 18 since the 1930s or remained 21 throughout). This occurred because the voting age and age of majority were lowered, due to the hypocrisy that 18-20 year olds were dying in Vietnam but were not allowed to have full adult rights, leading to much protest from that age group. Sound familiar? There was a huge mass of young people at the time, whose numbers would decline to political impotence in the 1980s (when the drinking age was raised to 21) and rise again in the late 1990s and especially the 2000s. Forty years later, the children of the Baby Boomers have come of age. There are now at least as many young Millennials as there were young Boomers in 1969, and they are a force to be reckoned with as there is strength in numbers.

If the current groundswell continues, perhaps we can consider 2009 to be like the new 1969, and so on. Only now Vietnam is spelled "Iraq" (or perhaps "Afghanistan"). Thus, we may lay the events on a timeline and make a prediction that the first state or two to lower the drinking age will do so in 2009-2011. Those will be the "guinea pigs," and how the feds handle it in 2011 will be crucial to the movement's success--that will be the wild card. If a large number of states follow suit, that will likely occur in 2012-2013. If so, a few more may do so in 2014-2016, and hopefully the Millennials won't sell out like the Boomers did back in the day.

Of course, this is all just speculation, but it can happen. What better time than now?

Our Modest Proposal

2009-08-24T16:34:00.000-07:00

While the first post outlines our purpose and views, and should be read, some folks may still be confused about details. Here is precisely what we at Twenty-One Debunked (a subsidiary of the True Spirit of America Party) propose, in concrete terms, to further the cause of justice and help reduce America's drinking problem:

Lower the drinking age to 18, period. No compromises, except perhaps to have the age for kegs/cases/other very large quantities be 20 or 21.
Raise the beer tax and liquor tax to its 1951 and 1991 inflation-adjusted values, respectively, and make the beer tax proportional to alcohol content. (No tax hike for microbrews.) Use the funds to pay for education, treatment, and DUI enforcement.
Crack down hard on DUI, increase penalties, lower BAC limit to 0.05%. Have graduated (but stiff) penalties based on BAC, with serious jail time for high BAC offenders. Lose license forever on second offense above 0.08, regardless of age. No more excuses.
Keep Zero Tolerance age at 21, and/or make it for anyone who has had a license for less than 5 years, regardless of age.
Increase honest alcohol education, which should begin long before 18.

Lower-priority measures that we support include the following:

Restrict alcohol advertising to no more than what is allowed for tobacco.
Regulation of alcohol outlet density.
Price floors on off-premises sales.
Free or low-cost taxi service to and from bars and/or improved late night public transportation.
Increased alcohol treatment.
Make driver licenses tougher to get and easier to lose, and the road test much tougher.
Make it a federal crime to drive drunk across state lines, punishable by many years in federal prison.

What we do NOT support:

Special restrictions on 18-20 year olds that do not apply to those over 21 (except perhaps on bulk quantities of alcohol) or any kind of strings attached, including "drinking licenses".
Dram shop and social host laws of any kind.
Loopholes that allow DUI offenders to get off easily (e.g. plea bargain for "reckless driving").
Harsh criminal penalties for underage drinkers of any age.
Blue laws.
Public drunkenness laws based solely on BAC or the mere fact of drinking.*
Laws that completely prohibit parents from giving their own children alcohol.
Any laws that require that the Constitution be violated in order to adequately enforce them.**

*We do support laws against drunk violence and disorderly conduct, and tougher enforcement thereof.
**We do not consider implied consent laws to be against the constitution, and have no problem with stiff penalties for test refusals for drivers (but no one else).

Latest Brain Studies Demonstrate The Same Old Flaws

2009-08-14T11:14:00.000-07:00

Potentially adding fuel to the fire of the drinking age debate is a new study of 18-20 year old first-year university students in Spain, that looked at the effects of so-called "binge" drinking on the brain. In this study, 95 students (42 "bingers", 53 controls) were given tests of attention and working memory, and their specific brain waves were monitored with electrodes. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of actual performance, but the electrophysiological test suggested that more attention was expended to complete a given task among the "binge" group, as well as other electrophysiological differences. This is a lot more nuanced and less certain than the media are implying, and hardly represents "dain bramage."

The biggest flaw in this study was the fact that there was no over-21 comparison group. So we simply cannot infer anything at all about age from this piece of research. Absolutely zilch. A better method would have been to have three groups: 15-17, 18-20, and 21-24 years of age. But no study that we know of meets this standard. This would help to settle the nagging question of whether or not it actually is worse to drink at 18 rather than 21. Or perhaps some people are afraid of the possibility that their rationale for keeping the drinking age at 21 would be debunked if such a comparison was done. As yet, there is essentially ZERO hard evidence that drinking at 18 is significantly worse than doing so at 21, ceteris paribus, but a plethora of evidence showing that excessive drinking is unhealthy at any age. To be fair, however, the purpose of the study was not to test the rationale for the drinking age, but rather the effects of alcohol on a particular segment of the population.

Other flaws included small sample size, and not enough information to determine whether the results are of any practical significance. The lack of behavioral performance differences between the two groups suggests that the answer is not very much, but still warrants more study before jumping to any conclusion either way. Subjects were only required to refrain from using alcohol or drugs for at least 12 hours, so acute and transient effects (such as hangover, which can last for up to 36 hours) cannot be ruled out. Also, this was a cross-sectional study, so we do not know whether or not the purported effects were acutally innate characteristics that predated (or even predisposed for) the "binge" drinking. Tobacco smoking was also not controlled for. In other words, this study is preliminary at best.

It is also interesting to note that the average age of onset of drinking in the "binge" group was 14, and 15 in the nonbinge group.

The reason this blog uses scare quotes on the word "binge" is by convention: we do not feel that the definiton used (6+ standard drinks on at least one occasion in the past month, at a pace of 3+ drinks per hour) was an adequate one. That was equivalent to about 4+ American drinks, and undercounting and underreporting can also confound the results as well. Given the small sample size, there could be a few students that drank much more than the others, and more than they led on, and skewed the results. Some could have been dishonest about alcohol use disorders, which were an exclusion criterion, and could also have skewed the results.

Another recent study, done on college students in Belgium, also found similar electrophysiological differences, but again no behavioral differences for some reason. In this study, there were no differences in alcohol consumption or electrophysiological results at baseline, but both changed significantly in the "binge" group when measured 9 months later, but not in the control group. However, we should keep in mind that the binge group averaged 12.5 units (about 9 American drinks) per binge session, and two such binge sessions per week, which is quite extreme. Number of (American) drinks per week averaged a whopping 35 units (25 American drinks) in the binge group, while the control group drank about one drink per week. And some participants drank as recently as three days before the tests as well, potentially conflating short and long term effects, though this was ostensibly controlled for. One good thing about this study, however, was that the sample size was significantly larger than the aforementioned one, and there was both a before test and and after test.

Still another study in 2007, this time of 21-25 year olds (you know, folks who are legally allowed to imbibe) who were self-identified heavy drinkers (more than 25 drinks per week), found that subtle brain changes are not exclusive to those under the magic age of 21. The heavy drinkers did not exhibit significant neuropsychological test differences, but PET scans showed subtle differences. Of course, this study did not gain nearly as much attention as the others previously mentioned.

Drinking ludicrous amounts of alcohol is dangerous, period. Regardless of age. That, if anything, should be the moral of the story. Keeping the drinking age at 21 only encourages such extremes, especially for college students.

We at 21 Debunked provide this for informational purposes only and do not in any way advocate drinking of any kind, underage or otherwise.

Looks promising for South Carolina (Updated)

2009-08-04T13:34:00.000-07:00

Two recent lower (county level) court rulings have declared South Carolina's drinking age of 21 unconstitutional. The state's constitution says that “Every citizen who is eighteen years of age or older ... shall be ... endowed with full legal rights and responsibilities, provided that the General Assembly may restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons until age twenty-one.” (emphasis added). Also cited was a SC Supreme Court decision in May 2008 that struck down a law banning handgun possession by 18-20 year olds. If these rulings are upheld on appeal, then the age for possession and consumption of alcohol would automatically revert to 18, like it was 25 years ago. But the age for sale would remain 21, unless the legislature decides to lower it. And the results of the court cases would only be binding in the affected counties unless the SC Supreme Court upholds the appeal as well.

However, the legislature could always change the state constitution, but only with voter approval.

While limited, this is clearly a step in the right direction. Domino effect you say? One can only hope.

UPDATE: We may have spoken too soon. On August 26, 2009, a circuit court upheld the drinking age of 21, unfortunately. The judge said it would create an "absurd result" to allow possession and consumption, but not sale, to 18-20 year olds. (But the SC constitution clearly says "sale" and nothing about possession or consumption). Honestly, the real absurdity is the fact that 18-20 year old legal adults are allowed to go to war, vote, get married, raise kids, and even (as of 2008) carry handguns in SC, but not drink--period. And we (the USA) stand alone among the developed world in maintaining this absurdity.

However, the latest ruling can still be appealed further if so desired, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court. It is too early to throw in the towel just yet.

The drinking age must be lowered, in the interest of justice. What better time than now?