Take the following two authors and researchers: Philip J. Cook (author of Paying the Tab: The Costs And Benefits of Alcohol Control) and Wayland Ellis (author of Abolish the Drinking Age: The Conservative Case Against Alcohol Regulation). The two can be considered to be each other's foil in many ways in regards to alcohol. Cook is American, pro-21, pro-regulation, leans a bit more liberal than conservative, and leans more communitarian than libertarian. In contrast, Ellis is British, anti-21, anti-regulation, conservative by British standards, and leans quite libertarian even by American standards.
And yet, there is one thing that they both agree on: the single most effective public policy measure to reduce alcohol-related harms is higher alcohol prices, such as through higher alcohol taxes. Cook arrives at that conclusion enthusiastically while Ellis arrives at it perhaps a bit grudgingly, but the conclusion is the same regardless despite their otherwise polar opposite views on the drinking age and alcohol regulation in general. Now that really says something!
And it pans out, given the reams upon reams of research evidence that arrive at that same conclusion in a wide variety of times, places, demographics, and functional forms. Twenty-One Debunked generally agrees more with Cook than Ellis on most of the topics under discussion with the notable exception of the drinking age of course. Especially since Cook's own 1984 study with Tauchen was one of the now-outdated studies that convinced the feds to force states to raise the drinking age to 21 in the first place. We agree with Cook on some things, Ellis on others, and clearly agree with both on the issue of alcohol taxes. Alcohol prices relative to inflation and income are currently at a record low in the USA, in no small part because taxes are at at a record low as well. And there really is no overarching benefit to society for alcohol to be that cheap, while there is plenty of proven and serious harm from the excessive drinking (among all ages) that such cheap alcohol encourages.
Twenty-One Debunked supports lowering the drinking age to 18, while also raising and equalizing the federal alcohol taxes across the board to $24/proof-gallon, equal to the inflation-adjusted 1991 level for distilled spirits. That would be a little more than an extra dollar for a six-pack of beer or an extra dollar on a fifth of liquor. That could be done more gradually by first raising it to $16/proof-gallon and then to $24 a year later. Additionally, we would also be fine with (though not necessarily wedded to) the idea of setting a minimum price of $0.50-0.75 per standard drink or at least banning the practice of retailers selling alcohol below cost (already banned in many states). Cook would support the latter idea of a price floor while Ellis would most likely not, but both would at least support higher alcohol taxes.
So what are we waiting for?
Twenty-One Debunked supports lowering the drinking age to 18, while also raising and equalizing the federal alcohol taxes across the board to $24/proof-gallon, equal to the inflation-adjusted 1991 level for distilled spirits. That would be a little more than an extra dollar for a six-pack of beer or an extra dollar on a fifth of liquor. That could be done more gradually by first raising it to $16/proof-gallon and then to $24 a year later. Additionally, we would also be fine with (though not necessarily wedded to) the idea of setting a minimum price of $0.50-0.75 per standard drink or at least banning the practice of retailers selling alcohol below cost (already banned in many states). Cook would support the latter idea of a price floor while Ellis would most likely not, but both would at least support higher alcohol taxes.
So what are we waiting for?
