The Logical Conclusion Of Social Host Liability Laws

We at Twenty-One Debunked have a long history of opposing the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age and all of its ancillary laws, especially social host liability laws where hosts are liable for any harm that guests cause after leaving the premises after consuming alcohol, DUI or otherwise.  We have always considered such laws to be an affront to personal liberty and especially its flip side, personal responsibility, and also believe that such laws have a chilling effect on social interactions and community in general.  Even if these laws briefly had some merit at one time, that train has long since left the station.

And now, just like we predicted but did not say out loud for fear of giving the authoritarians any ideas, some mainstream news outlets are claiming that, in Canada of all places, the same logic can be applied to hosts whose guests inadvertently contract COVID on their premises.  Of course, the legal basis for this assertion is flimsy at best, never been tested, and it is practically impossible to prove who gave such a widespread virus to whom.  But alas the Overton window has a way of shifting unexpectedly, as we have learned repeatedly, and new precedents can be conjured out of thin air at least for a time.  

And clearly the authors of this idea seem to be inspired by social host liability for alcohol, as they mention such laws almost in the same breath as well.  They should really be careful what they wish for!  Especially in our notoriously overly litigious society, much more than Canada.  What next, how about if the guest goes on to infect someone who infects someone who infects someone who dies and/or (in the USA) gets a six or seven figure hospital bill?  How many degrees of separation before the host is no longer liable?  What about the flu or other infections?  Slopes are indeed much slipperier than they appear.

Such nascent precedents must absolutely be rejected and nipped in the bud before they begin, lest there be a permanent chilling effect on social interaction well beyond the end of the pandemic, with massive collateral damage.  The end of socialization portends the end of civilization, after all.  And any judge who enforces them needs to be removed from the bench at once, forever.  (At the very, very least!)

Interestingly, even for alcohol, the only two countries that have social host liability are the USA and Canada.  Even countries that have more of a "brother's keeper" and communitarian ethic simply do not have such laws or precedents.  One could argue that the USA in particular needs such laws to keep our hyper-individualism in check, but that is a circular argument and begging the question.  Kinda like, you know, the 21 drinking age itself.

Latest Ancillary Law Study Has Major Plot Twist

A new 2016 study by MADD members James C. Fell and Robert Voas, among others, looked at the impact of various ancillary laws related to the 21 drinking age on traffic deaths involving drivers under 21.  Or more accurately, it looked at the effects of such laws on the ratio of "alcohol-related" to non-alcohol traffic deaths among that age group, biased as that may very well be.  Twenty different laws were studied, and the ones that showed statistically significant reductions were as follows:

Possession of alcohol (-7.7%)
Purchase of alcohol (-4.2%)
Use alcohol and lose your license (-7.9%)
Zero tolerance 0.02 BAC (-2.9%)
Age of bartender ≥21 (-4.1%)
State responsible beverage service program (-3.8%)
Fake ID support provisions for retailers (-11.9%)

Two other laws were also statistically significant, though not particularly large in practical terms:

Dram shop liability (-2.5%)
Social host civil liability (-1.7%)

And now for the plot twist:  There were two laws associated with significant increases in alcohol-related fatal crash ratios:

Prohibition of furnishing alcohol to minors (+7.2%)
Registration of beer kegs (+9.6%)

Yes, you read that right.  Two ancillary laws that would be expected to greatly enhance the supposed effectiveness of the 21 drinking age actually had a perverse effect.  And this calls into question whether even any of these laws, including the 21 drinking age itself, actually save any lives at all.  Let that sink in.

As for zero-tolerance laws, one should recall Darren Grant's landmark 2010 study that thoroughly debunked their effectiveness in reducing traffic fatalities.  As for use-and-lose laws, under which a person under 21 can have their driver's license suspended or revoked for simply drinking in their own home even when no driving is involved, they clearly seem to work at cross-purposes with DUI laws, and would likely be made irrelevant with tougher DUI laws in the first place.

Additionally, another recent study in 2014 by some of the same authors as the first one found that social host liability laws apparently had no significant effect on traffic deaths.  Combined with the weak results in the aforementioned study, this blows yet another hole in the pro-21 argument, as one would expect such laws to give more "teeth" to the 21 drinking age.  As for the apparently strong results of the anti-fake ID laws, that could simply be because the 21 drinking age itself (and apparently some of its ancillary laws) may actually increase fatalities in the long run, and reducing the use of fake IDs may take some of this dangerous edge off.  Thus, the effects of such fake ID laws may not necessarily be a net benefit compared to a drinking age of 18.

Thus, these new studies should be seen as the final nail in the coffin for the 21 drinking age.   Looks like Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) were right in that the supposed lifesaving effect of that ageist abomination was really just a mirage all along.

California Passes Social Host Law

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.

Social Host Laws Revisited

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.