A Message To Those Who Still Support The 21 Drinking Age And Other Ageist Policies

Here's a message to those who still support the 21 drinking age and other ageist policies:

(Mic drop)

The Law Of Eristic Escalation Revisited (Re-Post)

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

Just thought we should share this re-post of a very timeless article that remains just as relevant now.

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986), etc. illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.

P.S.  The Dutch seem to understand this better.  They even have a proverb:  "when you permit, you control", which is the antithesis of the American proverb, "when you permit, you promote".  Carl Jung would also likely have a field day with that as well.

One Tool To Replace Them All: The Curious Case Of Disorderly Conduct

About the catch-all legal concept of "disorderly conduct", we have often had mixed feelings about it.  But over time, I have come to realize that it does serve as a necessary and proper, albeit nuanced, tool as crowd control as well as a substitute that allows us to ultimately jettison from the books all "status offenses" and all of what the late, great Peter McWilliams called "consensual crimes" aka victimless crimes.  (Sorry not sorry, James Q. Wilson.)

One tool to replace them all, basically.  And additionally, we need to get tough on REAL crime, of course.  Common sense, basically.

Loitering, curfew, "underage" drinking or smoking, drunk but NOT disorderly, simple drug possession, vagrancy, and so many other things could easily be made redundant and removed from the law books.  Of course, once these things become littering, trespassing, vandalism, DUI, harassment, assault, or disturbing the peace, etc. THEN they would become and remain illegal.

When dealing with large and unruly crowds, of course, it's not always so simple or cut and dried, and in the moment, the concept of "disorderly conduct" sometimes needs to be invoked to restore order.  And all states have some flavor of this.

We believe that disorderly conduct should be 1) defined broadly enough to be fit for purpose, but not too broad, 2) be a mere violation/infraction for at least the first or even the first two offenses, albeit briefly arrestable for practical purposes, and 3) applied in a non-discriminatory manner, whether by race, gender, class, ability, orientation, etc., and especially age.

There are of course whole towns on the Jersey Shore right now who have youth curfews in part because New Jersey's juvenile injustice reform went too far in that regard, with the police having to follow such restrictive protocols in practice.

The gist of this whole issue being, collective punishment (to youth or anyone else) is inherently and irredeemably evil and needs to end yesterday.  And if the admittedly imperfect concept of "disorderly conduct" needs to remain on the books to prevent resorting to collective punishment, so be it.

For example, New Jersey in fact already has a fairly decent law on the books right now.  (Just apply it to all ages, basically.)  So there should be no excuse to resort to youth curfews or anything else. 

UPDATE:  To clarify, when I say a "violation or infraction", that means an offense that carries a civil or administrative penalty, thus no criminal penalties and no criminal record.  Some states currently do this for disorderly conduct, while others have it as a misdemeanor or the equivalent (which is a criminal offense, with criminal penalties and often a criminal record that can haunt you for the rest of your life).  We believe a modest civil penalty with no criminal record is appropriate for something like this.  Ditto for any other "consensual crimes" or "status offenses", and that is IF there must even be any such thing at all (a VERY big "if").

Does Cannabis Increase The Risk Of Stroke?

One recent meta-analysis study appears to have found a link between cannabis and stroke.  And even go so far as to claim that causation is likely. But there is less here than meets the eye, once again.  To quote the abstract of the study:

Meta-analysis demonstrated significant associations of cannabis (OR = 1.37, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.14–1.65), cocaine (OR = 1.96; 95% CI = 1.27–3.01), and amphetamines (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.40–3.53) with increased stroke risk, while no significant association was observed for opioids. Findings for cannabis showed some heterogeneity and small-study effects. MR analyses revealed that cannabis use disorder was associated with any stroke (OR = 1.11 [1.01–1.51]) and large artery stroke (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.01–1.80), and cocaine dependence was associated with cardioembolic stroke (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.02–1.14) and intracerebral hemorrhage (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.15–1.65). Genetically predicted substance use disorder overall was associated with any stroke (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.02–1.72) and intracerebral hemorrhage (OR = 7.79, 95% CI = 3.46–17.54). Problematic and dependent alcohol use was linked to large artery and cardioembolic stroke, whereas nicotine dependence showed no significant associations.

While this is pretty good confirmation of one of the many notorious risks of using/abusing cocaine and amphetamines, and to a lesser extent problematic and dependent alcohol use, for cannabis the results were actually pretty weak by good epidemiological standards in terms of the odds ratios (which were even weaker still for younger people).  Remember, a "meta-analysis" is simply a study that looks at many other studies and pools them all together, with all of the pitfalls that entails, and there was a lot of "heterogeneity" among studies to put it mildly, including several studies with null (i.e. statistically insignificant) or even "wrong" signed results mixed in.  And the reddest flag of all?  The null result for nicotine (i.e. tobacco) dependence flies in the face of what has long been known about the very real and dose-dependent health risks of nicotine, or at least smoking tobacco (a two-, three-, four-, or even six-fold increase in stroke risk depending on how much one smokes).  Even vaping nicotine may not be so benign after all in terms of stroke either.  That's like that old study that found that pork consumption was significantly associated with cirrhosis of the liver, but that alcohol was no longer significant once pork was adjusted for.  Riiiiight.

In other words, selection bias, reporting bias, residual or unmeasured confounding, "thumb-on-scale syndrome", and other statistical quirks could very easily be the reasons for these findings.  To say nothing of the pitfalls of both meta-analyses and Mendelian randomization as well.  The ever-insightful John Ioannidis would likely have a field day with this one!

So what should be the key takeaways from this study then? If you don't wish to have a stroke anytime soon:

• Don't use cocaine or amphetamines.  Or if you do, the less you use, the better.  (If you feel you need a stimulant/pick-me-up, best to stick with caffeine in moderation instead.)
• If you choose to drink, do so in moderation.
• Regardless of what one particular study says, the weight of the evidence says that if you smoke tobacco or otherwise use nicotine, you should quit ASAP.  Better yet, don't start!
• If you can't quit nicotine entirely just yet, at the very least quit smoking. "The more you smoke, the more you stroke".
• Opioids may not increase the risk of stroke, but they can kill you in other ways, so beware.
• If you are at high risk for stroke yourself, be extra careful about what substances you use, and how much and how often.  Seriously!
• When it comes to cannabis, less is more.  There is not a chronic, heavy user alive that would not benefit from at least cutting back a bit.  Think of it as a spice, not a food.
• As a wise man said, you really don't need to leave the solar system every time you get high either, by the way.  Try a more "down-to-earth" approach next time perhaps. 
• Remember that there are a number of other ways to use cannabis that don't involve smoking either, FWIW.
• Above all, don't panic!  You really need the extra stress like a hole in the head!  Which can take on a rather literal significance here.

And there you have it.  Stay healthy, folks!

Et Tu, Democrats? "Project 2029" And A Social Media Age Ban

Once thought to be largely the province of Republicans (despite being bipartisan, bicoastal, and bipolar), it seems that now the Democrats (or rather, some of them) behind "Project 2029" (not to be confused with other initiatives also called "Project 2029") have gotten on board with ban on social media for anyone under 16, much like Australia and a growing number of other countries currently have.  (Spoiler alert:  it's NOT going well in the "Ghost of Christmas Future" aka Australia.  And yet they're doubling down.)

And don't think it would stop at 16 either!  This is an express train, baby!  That means 18 at the VERY least, then maybe 19 to "get it out of the high schools" (right!), and then eventually 21, using the drinking and smoking ages as specious justification (by 2030 at the very latest).  Or perhaps 25, based on junk neuroscience, or maybe even a permanent "generational ban" like the UK just enacted for tobacco products now.  All aboard the Overton Window Express!

They are currently strangely silent about age verification, but they shouldn't be. After all, it would be utterly toothless without it, and a privacy and cybersecurity nightmare for all ages with it.

To be fair, their "Kids Over Clicks" proposal is a "mixed bag" which includes a number of other things in addition to that, such as privacy by default and safety by design for all ages (which we certainly support!), a ban on surveillance advertising for all ages (now we're talking!), limits on data collection for children (good, now let's do it for ALL ages!), rules of the road for AI chatbots (probably good, but the devil is in the details), limited carveouts to update the Section 230 liability shield to make Big Tech pay for the damage they cause (again, devil is in the details, but could still be good if the carveouts are surgical), bell-to-bell cellphone bans in schools with limited exceptions (mixed feelings, and we don't endorse them unless they apply them to faculty and staff too, which you know they won't), and promoting the idea of a "smartphone-free childhood" until age 14 (meh, they likely drank the Jon Haidt Kool-Aid, but at least it's 14 and not higher, right?).

Ironically, if they did somehow get their entire wishlist granted, or at least the items that we support or largely support, then the 16 age limit would basically be redundant and unnecessary.  There is really NO legitimate purpose to that age ban that could not be sufficiently served by other, less blunt, crude, and restrictive means.  The problem of Big Tech is overall the sort of wicked problem that calls for a scalpel, NOT a sledgehammer, and yet they seem to simultaneously endorse both, because reasons.

Like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) advocates, we should adopt a "Privacy First" approach.  Any sentence about tech policy that doesn't start with "comprehensive federal data privacy legislation for all ages," is an incomplete and incoherent sentence. That, plus adding just a little bit more "friction" back into the system, will throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom for good.  So what are we waiting for?

P.S.  If they are really so serious about these social media platforms being so apocalyptically harmful for kids and teens, which would imply that they would still be quite harmful for adults too as they currently stand, then they should do a "safety recall" and summarily "quarantine" such platforms until they can be made safer.  What's that?  Don't like having YOUR rights taken away?  Then don't try to take away anyone else's.  Capisce?

What To Do About Online Gambling And Prediction Markets (Same Difference)?

With the rise of online gambling in recent years, first with the 2018 federal legalization of sports betting and more recently with "prediction markets" that get around state laws that still prohibit online gambling, two concerning developments have been noted especially this year.  The first is an apparent 60% rise in problem gambling (gambling addiction) diagnoses among Americans, with the largest increase in younger men, in the 39 states that legalized sports betting (while states that did not legalize saw a modest 30% decrease during that time).  The second is a call to, predictably (pun intended), raise the betting age limit from 18 to 21, particularly for prediction markets.  And the loudest voices for this effort come from....wait for it...major sports organizations.  

Leaving aside the idea that, according to rumors, most major sports are rigged and that rigging has only increased in tandem with the explosive and exponential growth of online sports betting in recent years, this is a classic, textbook, cynical selling out and deflection from the real problem at hand.  Much like how Big Alcohol ultimately supported the 21 drinking age, and even Big Tobacco (and Big Vape), after ostensibly fighting it for decades, ultimately came to support Tobacco 21 laws.  Natch.

We clearly need much better safeguards on all forms of online gambling, as well as offline gambling, no doubt about that.  But raising the age limit is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, and will not get anywhere near the root of the problem.  Such frictionless gambling is dangerous for all ages.  Here's a novel idea:  if we are really serious about it, perhaps we should do a "safety recall" on all of these platforms and summarily "quarantine" them for ALL ages until they can be made safer.  

After all, Warren Buffett famously called sports betting a "tax on stupidity", as it basically makes suckers out of We the People.  Some may call the lottery the "idiot tax" too, but this is far, far worse.  Despite the abysmal odds, there is only so much one can realistically lose at once in the lottery, and at least that money goes to education (i.e. antithesis of ignorance) in most states.

From sports to economy to politics and world events, these new prediction markets are certainly warping everything they touch, it seems, with all the ludicrous amounts of money riding on it.

And let us never lose sight of the fact that the world's oldest and largest casino is....WALL STREET.  Good luck regulating that!

In any case, the house always wins.  Always remember that.

Alternate History Of The Legal Drinking Age (Updated)

PART ONE

Recently I had been thinking a lot about alternate histories and alternate universes in regards to the 21 drinking age.  That is what would have happened if X, Y, or Z had changed but leaving everything else constant?  Here is what I came up with (updated) for the alternate timeline:

TL;DR:  NEVER ASK 57% of Michiganders what they voted for in November 1978!

Michigan, as we know, was the first state (and therefore the most influential one) to raise the drinking age back to 21, in 1978.  They did it by a constitutional amendment ballot initiative on November 7, 1978, effective December 22, 1978, just in time for the holidays of course.  Earlier that same year, the state legislature had grudgingly passed, and Governor Milliken grudgingly signed, a bill to raise the drinking age to 19 for a three year trial period to study its effects, and then sunset it back to 18.  That would have taken at least some of the wind out of the sails of the still-nascent movement to raise the drinking age further, that is, had the ballot initiative not passed.  But that initiative got only 57% of the vote, which was hardly a landslide.  And while that particular initiative (like initiatives and referenda in most states) only required a simple majority to pass (a pitifully low bar to literally change the constitution at all, let alone to do so in a way that abridges civil rights), there are nonetheless three states that require a higher supermajority threshold (such as 60% in Florida) to alter a state constitution by popular vote.

Most states (all but three) currently require only a simple majority vote for a state constitutional amendment by initiative or referendum. The three states that require a supermajority for constitutional amendments: Colorado (55%), Florida (60%), and New Hampshire (67%).

So one way to have stopped that very first domino from falling would have been to somehow raise the threshold for altering Michigan's constitution by ballot initiative to 60% sometime prior to 1978.  Alternatively, had Michigan stuck with their original 1933 law to set the drinking age at 18 for beer and 21 for wine and hard liquor, and not raised it to 21 across the board in 1937 like they did, they would have been more like their neighbor Wisconsin, who eventually lowered it to 18 across the board in 1972 when they lowered the age of majority.  Just like Michigan would have done either way in 1972.  Thus, because of their history, there would have been far less appetite among Michiganders to raise it to 21 in 1978 had that been the case, and would probably have fallen short of even a 50%-plus-one threshold in that case.  Either way, the 1978 attempt to raise the drinking age to 21 would have flopped, even if only narrowly.

OK, so what would have happened next, had that fateful ballot initiative failed in November 1978?  Well, here are what things I think would have been most likely to occur, per the domino theory:

Michigan's drinking age hike to 19 would have gone into effect as planned on December 3, 1978, and then three years later in December 1981, it would have reverted back to 18 in time for the holidays.  The same celebrated decline in traffic fatalities would have most likely occurred either way due to factors other than the drinking age (including the famous bottle deposit raising the prices of beer).  In both timelines, the bottle deposit literally went into effect on the same day as the 19 drinking age!

(Also, unlike in the current timeline where the beer tax still has not been raised since 1966 (60 years ago!), the alternate timeline does include a few fairly modest beer (and also wine and liquor) tax hikes over the decades, including sometime during the crucial years of the late 1970s and very early 1980s.  For best results, let's make it 1978 for the first tax hike, especially for hard liquor.)

Disheartened by their failure in Michigan, the nascent movement to raise the drinking age to 21 would have lost momentum very quickly.  Thus, at least the other three of the first four states to raise it back to 21 would have most likely relented and not done so, and ditto for those after that. And no further states would have raised it to 20 either.

Massachusetts would have chosen the "Michigan Model" and raised it to 19 in 1979, with a sunset clause after a few years, instead of 20.  And since they wouldn't raise it to 20, New Hampshire doesn't do so either.  They either keep it 18 or raise it to 19.  And while Rhode Island raises it to 19 in 1980, they do not raise it further in the alternate history.

New Jersey possibly still raises it to 19 in 1979 (effective January 1, 1980), but in this version of events, they add a three-year sunset clause if they do, inspired by Michigan.  (More on NJ later, we will get back to this soon as this is highly significant later on).

But much more likely NJ sticks with a flavor of a compromise idea that almost passed but failed in our timeline:  keeping it 18, but delaying purchases until July 1 of the year that one turns 18 if one's birthday is earlier than that (either for all purchases, or better yet, for only off-premise purchases), to help keep it out of the high schools. Passed sometime in July or August of 1979, the impact is not immediate, but is somewhat noticeable in 1980.  Let's stick with that one for now.  Many other states ultimately follow suit, instead of going with 19 or 20.  

(This came to be called the "July 1st Rule.")

Illinois would have instead kept it at 19 for beer/wine and 21 for liquor, instead of raising it to 21 effective in 1980.

Pennsylvania's otherwise ill-fated attempt at lowering it from 21 to 19 in 1978 does NOT die in the legislature in November, but continues to be debated on and is finally voted on sometime in 1979, when inspired by Michigan and New Jersey, narrowly votes yes and lowers it to 19, at least for beer if not all alcohol (but, facilitated by their already wonky liquor laws, keeps it 21 for larger quantities like kegs and cases for the time being, with the 192 ounce rule applied to those under 21).  This was the last chance while the zeitgeist still remained relatively permissive, before it switched to restrictive.

Meanwhile, out west, at least some of the states that had kept it 21 since the end of Prohibition, especially California and Nevada, decided to lower it to 19 by the end of 1979, following PA's lead, and also "study" its effects for a few years.  There already seems to be a convergence towards 19, and many still maintaining at 18 (with or without the July 1st Rule).  And we aren't even out of the 1970s yet.

"Give 19 a chance!" becomes the new slogan.  And of course, Ontario, Canada also raises it to 19 as well in 1979, in both versions of events.  They of course had a more pressing reason to raise it:  the fact that their high schools still had 13th grade at the time (until 2003, when it was abolished).

The Overton Window has clearly shifted.  And the by now famous Dr. Richard Zylman, Professor at the Center for Alcohol Studies at Rutgers, is vindicated in his successful debunking of the pro-21 crowd's specious studies and talking points.  People are now finally listening to him for once!

Next, several other states that would have raised to 19 in 1979-1981, such as Florida, either keep it 18 (with or without the July 1st Rule) or raise it to 19 with a sunset clause.  Texas definitely keeps it 18, as no one tells Texas what to do!  Florida is nonetheless cool with 19 though, since Spring Break tourists are nearly all over 19 anyway.

Virginia, in both versions of events, passes a compromise bill to raise it to 19 for off-premise purchases but keep it 18 for on-premise purchases in July 1981.  And unlike in the current timeline, they never raise it any further.  Their neighbor Maryland, who otherwise would have raised it to 21 in 1982, decides to "give 19 a chance" and adopt the "Virginia Model" instead.  After all, since the Michigan and Illinois failed to raise it to 21 in this alternate history, Maryland never works up the appetite to do so themselves.  That's now three dominoes averted so far.

By 1982, other states start to think that Virginia has nailed the best compromise thus far (or alternatively, they adopt the July 1st Rule). And Minnesota, the very first state to raise their drinking age to 19 (in 1976) is the very next to adopt the "Virginia Model".

Connecticut, who previously almost passed something like Virginia did but it got vetoed due to constitutional concerns, decides to try again following Virginia, with a new governor this time. It passes, and ultimately prevents the current timeline's age hike to a flat 19 (and then 20 and then 21) by taking the wind out of the sails.

The 1982 Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving convenes, but in the alternate timeline, Dr. Richard Zylman is one of the members.  When recommendation #8 out of 39 comes up, i.e. setting a national uniform drinking age of 21, Zylman quickly and openly pours cold water on that idea, and Dr. Morris Chafetz gets the courage to speak up and also refute that.  The idea gets scrapped, and Candy Lightner eats crow and gives up on that idea.  That recommendation gets replaced with a national uniform drinking age of 18 instead.

In 1982, New York narrowly decides against raising their drinking age to 19 in the alternate history.  The appetite to raise it simply was not there in the alternate version of events.  Especially since their drinking age has been 18 since 1934, and thus the status quo bias was quite strong.  (They might do a "July 1st Rule" though, but even that is iffy there.)

Meanwhile, New Jersey decides to let the 19 drinking age lapse and revert back to 18 on January 1, 1983.  (Alternatively, if they went with the aforementioned "July 1st Rule" in 1979 instead of 19, nothing changes.)  In the version of events that actually happened, of course, NJ raises it to 21 effective on that same date.  This was probably the most important domino of them all to avert, as most of the loudest voices for the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, such as Senator Frank Lautenberg who wrote it, were from.....wait for it....New Jersey.  Thus, even more wind taken out of the sails of the pro-21 movement and the windbags in charge of it.  And the gambling age in Atlantic City remains at 18 (the only reason they raised it to 21 in the current version of events a few months later in 1983 was because it would have been extremely difficult to enforce the new drinking age of 21).  And not coincidentally, the number and extent of "blood borders" began to greatly shrink, as opposed to grow like it does in the current version of events.

Later in 1983, Oklahoma and Alaska thus decide to NOT raise it to 21 and keep it at 18 and 19, respectively.  And when Alaska hikes their beer tax dramatically that same year, which happens in both versions of events, traffic fatalities plummet either way.  That influences other states (and the feds too) to raise their alcohol taxes in 1984-1985 and beyond, to a greater extent in the alternate version of events (since the non-existent drinking age hike obviously couldn't speciously take credit for the drop in crash deaths in Alaska).

OK, so what about MADD?  Well, they start out the same way in 1980, and briefly advocate for raising the drinking age to 21 starting in 1982-1983.  But since the appetite for it just isn't there anymore by then, they grudgingly and quietly put that issue the back burner where it has been simmering ever since, and basically become more akin to MADD Canada in that regard.  Founder Candy Lightner still has a falling out with MADD in the mid-1980s, and is thus forced to resign in either version of events, for reasons unrelated to the drinking age.

(And in any case, they were unable to convince President Reagan on the supposed merits of the 21 drinking age.  The idea is now dead in the water, much like it was, and still is, in Canada.)

Having NOT been swayed, the other major anti-drunk driving group, Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID), in the alternate history does NOT end up supporting the 21 drinking age, preferring to focus solely on drunk driving, for all ages, period.  The Overton Window simply will not allow it anymore.

In New York, no attempt to raise the drinking age higher than 18 (where it remains to this day) ever succeeds in the alternate version of events.  NONE.  Not in 1982, not in 1985, NOT EVER.  Capisce?  But ever since their founding in 1981, their legendary STOP-DWI program of drunk driving enforcement (later expanded to include ALL forms of reckless and dangerous driving as well) continues to successfully target the actual problem, and thus becomes a model for the nation.

New Jersey decides to follow New York's lead in 1983, and also makes their road test much more difficult as well.  The whole "Jersey Driver" thing ultimately becomes a thing of the past, at least for the most part.  And when future generations hear such jokes about them being such horrible drivers, the most common response is, "I don't get it".

With the "quick fix" of raising the drinking age to 21 now largely off the table, more and more states pass tougher DUI laws, faster and tougher in the alternate version of events, and crack down harder on drunk driving for all ages.  Alcohol-related traffic casualties plummet as a result, even faster than they did in the current version of events.

Vermont and Louisiana famously keep holding the line at "18 and not a day higher!" in both versions of events, and several more states and DC join them.  In the alternate timeline, they only need to stick it out a few more years tops before they are home free for good.

In 1984-1985, the feds decide to not only NOT coerce states to raise their drinking ages to 21, but after reading the studies by Colon and Cutter (1983) and Colon (1984), actually does the opposite and uses positive reinforcement to nudge states with higher age limits to reduce them to 18 or 19 to reduce or eliminate any remaining "blood borders".  That is, give states an extra 10% of federal highway funding per year for ten years for reducing (or maintaining) their drinking ages to 18, or 5% per year for five years for reducing (or maintaining) it to 19.  And if the 12 states that didn't lower it from 21 in the 1970s didn't end up lowering it by then, they sure would after that!  Yes, even Utah grudgingly lowers it to 19 for 3.2 beer at least.  And much like the lowering of the tobacco purchase/sale age in the 1950s through the 1970s, an increasingly frequent rationale given (at least publicly) was to "ensure stricter enforcement".

(The feds also decide to make drunk driving across state lines a federal crime as well.  Initially, the BAC limit is set at 0.10%, but is quickly lowered to 0.08% to match Canada.  States that lower their limits to 0.08% are soon rewarded with extra highway funding.  And thus, that becomes the standard in every state much, much sooner in the alternate version of events than in the current version.)

The legendary Peter Asch and David Levy's groundbreaking 1987 study also further confirms what the anti-21 folks have known all along:  the 21 drinking age is useless at best, and more like worse than useless.  The anti-21 side is fully vindicated now, and the pro-21 side is thoroughly discredited.  And their subsequent 1990 study does so a fortiori.

And by the end of the decade, all states are either 18 or 19 depending on the state, much like Canada.  And it remains that way from then onwards.  And eventually, 18 becomes more common than 19.  The remnants of the pro-21 crowd keep trying to raise it for a while into the 1990s, but they eventually give up and swallow their pride, along with their beer when they are finally done crying in it!

And like Canada and Australia, drunk driving laws and enforcement continues to get tougher over time, and casualties continue to fall.  As for Zero Tolerance laws for DUI, starting in the 1990s, many of the same laws are passed in both versions of events.  Some are based on age, like Puerto Rico, some Canadian provinces, and some countries, while others are based on how long one has had their driver's license, like other Canadian provinces and Australian states.  And some are based on both.  The most common such laws in the alternate version of events are 0.00 to 0.02 BAC for the first three years of licensed driving or until 21, whichever is longer.  But the stated purpose is now different:  it's not because "you're too young!" and "it's illegal!", but rather because people should gain more experience with both driving as well as drinking before being allowed to mix the two, even in small amounts.  The goal is to separate drinking from driving entirely.

Drunk driving casualties for young and old alike continue to plummet even further, now reaching an all-time record low by the mid-1990s.  And they continue to fall after that as well, rather than stubbornly stall and stagnate like in the current timeline.

And while only Utah ultimately lowers their criminal BAC limit down to 0.05% from 0.08%, that doesn't stop many states from experimenting with Canadian-style brief administrative license suspensions and brief vehicle impoundments for drivers above 0.05%, albeit as a traffic violation. 

And while truly "random breath testing" (RBT) still remains unconstitutional to this day in the USA in both versions of events, that really just means that enforcement needs to be a bit more creative with sobriety checkpoints and roving/saturation patrols to approximate its effect.  The tools already exist (at least in the states that choose to allow them).  The real key is for such enforcement to be sustained, and create the perception of swift and certain punishment.  And in the alternate version of events, that is precisely what happens.

They even make a popular reality TV show out of it!  Called "Operation Rovin' Eyes", and complete with ride-alongs, it was an instant success.  It's birthplace was (where else?) New York, the ultimate pioneering state against drunk driving, and it has expanded to many other states from there. Legend has it, it was inspired by the Australian reality show "RBT", but it most likely pre-dated that show.

"Rovin' Eyes....are watching YOU!!!"

Alcohol taxes are raised more frequently and to a greater extent in the alternate version of events, albeit still not quite as high as Canada or Australia. 

Enforcement of the 18 (or 19, or mixed, depending on the state) drinking age over time has evolved to be quite strict, but primarily targeting the sellers of alcohol.  In fact, part of the reason why the former 21 age states lowered it was to "ensure stricter enforcement".  And underage drinking itself is almost everywhere decriminalized to a parking-style or traffic-style ticket offense, with no jail and no criminal record.

Hawaii's meth epidemic in the 1990s, while it still happens unfortunately, is at least somewhat blunted by keeping the drinking age at 18. 

In the alternate version of events, research, science, public policy, politics, and culture all remain far less warped than they would have become in the current version of events.  And states truly remain "laboratories of democracy," while being careful to avoid "tyranny of the majority" or mob rule as well (like what almost happened in Michigan in 1978!)

Fast forward to the 2020s:

"Tobacco 21?  What's that?  Never heard of it." (In other words, smoking and vaping ages remain 18, or in a vanishingly tiny few states and localities, 19.  Needham, MA doesn't even bother.)

It literally never even occurs to Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York to raise the smoking age to 21, especially since his father gave up after failing to the get the drinking age raised any higher than 18.  Similarly, Mayors Mike Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio of NYC never bothered to do so either.

Cannabis is legalized in much the same way as in the current version of events, but with one crucial detail different:  all states that legalize it choose 18 or 19 as their toking ages instead of 21, typically choosing to match their drinking and/or tobacco smoking ages.  And also, a greater number of states legalize it in the alternate version, including Hawaii after finally calling off their abominable Operation Green Harvest eradication and  interdiction program, and ultimately the federal government does the same.  Even Florida finally ends up doing so, when the ballot referendum gets over the necessary 60% of the vote to pass.

As for other countries, some differences can be seen there as well due to America's influence.  Take Canada, for example.  Ontario, shortly after abolishing 13th grade in 2003, decides to lower their drinking age from 19 back to 18, and when they legalize weed in 2018, they choose 18 for that as well.  Prince Edward Island never raises their drinking age from 18 to 19, and never adopts a Tobacco 21 law.  Saskatchewan eventually lowers their drinking age and cannabis age to 18 to match their neighbors.  Quebec keeps their age limit for cannabis at its original 18, and never raises it to 21.  Otherwise, Canada remains the same in both versions of events.

Japan lowers their drinking age and smoking age to 18 when they lower their age of majority to 18 in 2022.  And they at least end up considering legalizing weed at some point as well.

And Lithuania keeps their drinking age at 18, refusing to raise it to 20 in 2018.  Ditto for Sri Lanka, who keeps it at 18 instead of raising it to 21 in 2006.

Can you say, "Butterfly Effect?"

Oh, and by the way:  alcohol-related death rates, both on and off the highways, are really not very different between the two versions of events, at least in the long run.  In fact, they are most likely lower in the alternate version of events.  Ditto for alcohol-related problems in general as well.

NOTE:  Another pathway to this alternate timeline could have been if Minnesota had decided NOT to raise the drinking age from 18 to 19 in 1976.  They were the very first state to raise it from 18, so they likely influenced other states after that.  Alternatively, as their stated goal was simply to keep alcohol out of the high schools, they could have chosen to do something similar to what Virginia did five years later, namely, raise only the off-premise purchase age to 19 and keep it 18 otherwise.  Or they could have chosen the aforementioned "July 1st Rule", which would be even more surgical.  Additionally, another pathway could have been if at least some of the 12 states that kept it 21 throughout had decided to lower it to 18 or 19 in the early 1970s along with the age of majority, especially the highly influential states of California and Pennsylvania.

PART TWO

Previously, we explored what an alternate timeline would have looked like if the drinking age was NOT raised to 21 in the 1980s.  The most critical point in preventing that from happening in that timeline was Michigan (the first domino) NOT raising it to 21 in 1978.  And the result?  The Overton window did NOT shift in favor of 21, and with most states choosing to keep it at 18 or 19 depending on the state, the feds did NOT force or coerced and states to raise their drinking ages.  If anything, the feds used positive reinforcement to get the Dirty Dozen states that were 21 since the 1930s and 1940s to lower their drinking ages, and by the end of the 1980s, all states except Utah were either 18 or 19 depending on the state.  Some states had a split 18/19 age limit for different beverage types (i.e. beer vs wine vs liquor), while some others had a split 18/19 age limit for on-premise vs. off-premise purchases, or more often, limits on quantities and/or hours of sale for off-premise purchases if under 19, but otherwise set at 18.  The most common was states who set it at 18 across the board, but allowed "local option" to set it 19 for off-premise purchases and/or quantity limits, though some of the 18 states chose to preempt even that on principle.  (The higher age limit in states with graduated age limits was often called the "No Trickle-Down Law" or the "No Gray Market Law".)

Alternatively, many states and localities chose a "July 1st Rule", where the drinking age is 18 across the board, except that off-premise purchases are delayed until July 1st of the year one turns 18 if one's birthday is earlier than that.  And in many states and especially localities, that still exists.

A few states chose to keep it (or raise it to) 20 or 21 for very large quantities (kegs or multiple cases or multiple handles bought in the same transaction or same day), but those states were in the minority.  Many states did so temporarily in the 1980s, but most of them simply let it lapse eventually.  But Pennsylvania would almost certainly continue.  And it was not unusual for local laws to keep it.

Even Utah, the strictest state of all for obvious reasons, held their collective noses and grudgingly lowered their drinking age to 19 for weak beer and 21 for everything else by 1990, and then briefly 19/20, then finally a flat 19 across the board (except kegs) sometime during the 1990s.  Though they still retained their other bizarre and Byzantine liquor laws all the same in both timelines, of course.

So what would the 2020s look like in greater detail in this alternate timeline of events?

• Tobacco and nicotine age limits would remain at 18 in all but a very few states which are 19.  But many states choose to put a reasonable cap on the quantities that 18-20 year olds can purchase (per transaction, and only one transaction per day), to discourage them from giving or selling to their friends under 18.
• Cannabis is legalized in mostly the same states in both timelines (though a somewhat greater number of states do so in the alternate timeline), but all who do so choose 18 or 19 as their age limits, nearly always matching their drinking and smoking ages.  And like tobacco, most states choose to limit the quantities that 18-20 year olds can purchase per transaction and per day, and for the same reasons.
• And the federal government FINALLY gets around to legalizing it as well by 2024 if not sooner, with a federal age limit of 18 for cannabis sales (but no limit for use or possession) to match the tobacco sales age limit that still remains in effect.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, Firearms, and Explosives and the FDA both have joint (pun intended) authority to enforce it on vendors.
• Alcohol taxes (and prices) in the USA are somewhat higher as a rule in the alternate timeline, though still not nearly as high as in Canada.  Thus, in nearly all states, the typical six-pack of beer costs about a dollar or two more in 2025 dollars.  Likewise, the typical gallon of wine and the average liter of hard liquor also costs an extra dollar or two more in the alternate timeline.  Some states also experiment with "minimum unit pricing" (MUP) as well, but most states still only prohibit selling "below cost."
• In 2019, instead of raising the tobacco sales age to 21, which there is virtually zero appetite for, the feds instead decided to implement the Mark Kleiman's idea to raise the federal cigarette and other combustible tobacco taxes to $5/pack or the equivalent amount of tobacco, BUT allowing states and localities to fully rebate it against their own tobacco-specific taxes.  Result?  Low-tax states states raise and largely equalize their taxes with high-tax ones, smoking rates plummet for all ages (especially among youth), and the interstate smuggling black market dries up.  Win-win-win for everyone except Big Tobacco and their sycophantic lackeys.
• Vaping products have their nicotine levels capped by the FDA at the same levels as the EU, UK, and Israel, most flavors are banned, and ingredients are better regulated as of 2019.  The "vaping epidemic" slows to a crawl.
• The drinking age of 18 (or 19, or split) is very strictly enforced on vendors and servers.  For young drinkers themselves, underage drinking is illegal but decriminalized in nearly every state by now.  It is typically treated like a minor traffic violation or parking ticket.
• While a few bars and clubs here and there set their own age limits of 21 or higher to enter, such examples remain few and far between, and are looked upon with disdain by most Americans. And for places like Dave and Busters, or really any other businesses for that matter, it would literally never even occur to the managers to set any age limits higher than 18, if even that high at all.  Such baseless age segregation remains well outside the Overton window in the alternate timeline.
• Without that specious quick fix in their toolkit, they instead implement a zero tolerance policy for fighting, vandalism, theft, and disorderly conduct of any kind, strictly enforced.  And they are NOT KIDDING!
• It remains rare for any hotels or motels to refuse anyone over 18 due to age.  Ditto for most cruise ships as well.
• Drunk driving is taken very, very seriously for people of all ages, and increasingly tough laws are increasingly strictly enforced.  The same goes for drug-impaired driving as well.
• Most states by now set the BAC limit at 0.05%, but anything below 0.08% is usually a traffic violation instead of a criminal offense.  (New York only has to add two words, per se, to their existing but currently underappreciated 0.05% law, by the way.).  And Zero Tolerance laws exist as well, albeit usually based on how long one has had their driver's license rather than age alone.  And for ALL drivers, the limit is now 0.00% if one is driving recklessly.
• Social host liability laws, while existing in some places in limited form, never really seem to catch on in most of the USA.  Most people think such laws are insane and un-American in the alternate timeline.
• The combination of the lack of a 21 drinking age and lack of social host laws results in somewhat more in-person socialization between young people, and between generations, in the alternate timeline compared to the current timeline.
• Block parties make a comeback, or more accurately, never really went away.
• Helicopter parenting, while it still exists, tends to be at least somewhat less extreme.
• Community pubs will become more common.
• America is still very much a car culture either way, but "safe rider" programs are far more common in the alternate timeline.  And slowly but surely, at least some improvements are finally being made in public transportation.
• America's drinking culture still leaves a lot to be desired, much like in the rest of the Anglosphere, but over time it becomes at least somewhat healthier and less extreme overall.
• Certainly the college drinking culture is much safer and healthier in the alternate timeline, even though it is often just as wild.  The wildness peaks during and shortly after "frosh week" at the beginning of freshman year, getting it largely out of their systems early on, after which students tend to buckle down and study a bit more and keep the partying in it's proper place in their list of priorities, certainly by the time midterms roll around. Especially since all of the major universities have finally decided to tackle the grade inflation that had been building for decades.
• Many colleges and universities even have bars and pubs on campus, sometimes even in the dorms.
• Fraternities and sororities, while they still exist, largely wither on the vine as they have become increasingly obsolete, except for the more academic and service-oriented ones.
• High school, contrary to what some may fear, is NOT radically different between the two timelines, and in many ways improved.  Drinking and "binge" drinking rates are both at most a couple of percentage points higher (if at all) in the alternate timeline for grade 12, mostly due to greater honesty in surveys (which are always taken with at least a grain of salt in the alternate timeline).  They may drink slightly more frequently, but the less they do when they do on average.  For earlier grades, the difference is practically negligible.  And differences in cannabis use rates are also practically negligible in all grades, while tobacco and nicotine use rates are actually lower in the alternate timeline.
• And no, there is NO practical difference in "liquid lunches" among high school students between the two timelines.  By now, the drinking age (regardless of what it is) is VERY strictly enforced in that regard, and K-12 school grounds are strictly "dry" for all ages.  (This is still the USA, not Denmark, after all!)
• Unfortunately, the COVID pandemic still happens, and so do the lockdowns and related restrictions.  But such restrictions generally tend to be somewhat briefer and somewhat less extreme in the alternate timeline, as America has still not been quite as afflicted by "safetyism" as in the current timeline.  Not much change either way in the case and death rates regardless, though.  Turns out, as the saying goes, virus gonna virus, and humans gonna human.  
• And in the alternate timeline, since the 1980s we as a society have clearly fallen out of love with the "illusion of control", to the extent that we ever even really loved it at all.  That has got to be the single most defining feature that differs between the two timelines.
• Traffic death rates, both alcohol-related and otherwise, are actually rather lower in the alternate timeline compared to the current one, both among youth and adults alike.  And the relative decrease in feelings of alienation and loneliness among younger people leads to at least somewhat fewer suicides and mass shootings as well.
• IF Donald Trump still gets elected President in 2016*, and that is a VERY big "if", in 2024 he certainly ends up narrowly losing to Kamala Harris instead of narrowly winning, both by popular vote as well as the Electoral College.  That is because America's loneliness epidemic and feelings of alienation among younger Americans, especially young men, while still persistent, is at least marginally less pronounced in the alternate timeline, and the fence-sitters were less likely to be swayed towards Trump.  (And Trump's second failed coup attempt in January 2025 fails even more than it did on January 6th, 2021, as he is largely greeted by crickets this time around, and he ultimately ends up in prison where he belongs.)  It turns out the age-segregation effects of the 21 drinking age (and its ancillary laws and policies) in the current timeline were much more far-reaching than anyone could have predicted.  
• And the rest is history.  And the beat goes on.....

And America shall once again become the "shining city on a hill" that we were meant to be all along.  An America to be truly proud of.  If only we were in that alternate timeline.

*P.S.  Ideally the DNC would NOT have totally screwed over Bernie Sanders, and he could have beaten Trump in 2016.  That, and the Democratic Party establishment would not have eaten its young either.  After all, Trump was literally supposed to lose, by design.  But that, of course, would have probably been yet another alternate timeline, albeit one that is largely the same as the one discussed above, but perhaps with a few more subtle differences added on.  Also, perhaps the voting age would have been lowered to 16 as a result of a greater focus on youth rights in general, and would have the same effect on preventing Trump's reelection as it successfully prevented Bolsonaro's reelection in Brazil.

P.P.S.  Of course, had Jimmy Carter been re-elected in 1980 instead of Reagan, America would now REALLY be more like Canada in so many ways, only better, having dodged the very worst of neoliberalism and all of that nonsense.  And Carter could have pulled it off had he not screwed up in the presidential debate less than two weeks before the election, as he was well ahead in the polls just before the debate.  But it was far more parsimonious to simply leave the 1980 election unchanged in the above alternate timeline, with Reagan as the winner, so as to isolate the drinking age as the variable of interest, unconfounded by that very pivotal and fateful election.  Regardless, had Michigan failed to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1978, either way, it would have been extremely unlikely that either Reagan or Carter would have ever been swayed (let alone gung-ho) in that direction.

Defusing The Powder Keg (Part Deux)

Or, "Code Finally Cracked:  The July 1st Rule"

In a previous post, we discussed what the best ways to lower the drinking age would be, defusing the fears and objections of the pro-21 side.  Here, we add another simple, elegant, and surgical idea that a flavor of which apparently almost passed in New Jersey in July 1979 but unfortunately failed, and then later that year they raised it to 19 effective 1980 and ultimately 21 effective 1983, influencing other states, and as they say, the rest is history.

The idea was to not even raise it to 19, but rather to keep it at 18 but make it delayed until July 1st following one's 18th birthday if one's birthday is earlier than that.  Thus, it would be 18 or July 1st of the year one turns 18, whichever is later. (December birthdays, a gray area, could be treated as the following year.)  Twenty-One Debunked believes that this should apply only to off-premise purchases, NOT to on-premise service or drinking in general.

The intent of this "July 1st Rule" is quite clearly to keep alcohol out of the high schools (as much as one can in practice), and thus take the wind out of the sails of those who seek to set/keep the drinking age any higher than 18.  It would likely be about as effective in doing so as setting the drinking age at 19, 20, or even 21, without throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.  It would still be 18 overall, just with a bit of nuance added, a brief embargo. And for those few who graduated high school much earlier than their peers?  They could simply show a college ID, military ID, or some other proof of no longer being in high school.

(The significance of July 1st is that is after most if not all schools in the USA are out for summer, prom and graduation season is over, and most seniors would have already graduated.  And it is also just in time for Independence Day, July 4th.)

On-premise service would basically be a non-problem in that regard (except during school hours, perhaps, which could be restricted specifically during that time).  And needlessly delaying on-premise service for millions of people until July 1st and then suddenly unleashing it all at once would likely create chaos at the bars (and on the roads) right around the July 4th holiday, already the deadliest days on the roads.  The real issue here is the off-premise purchases, which 18 year old high school seniors bring back with them to school, having "liquid lunches" and especially to share with (or buy for) their younger friends.

As for high school "keggers" or "ragers", i.e. large, unsupervised parties with an over-abundance of alcohol, those could be kept more or less at current low levels (that is, with no significant increase) simply by keeping the purchase age at 21 (or perhaps 20 or 19) for large quantities (kegs, cases, liquor handles, etc.) specifically.  That is, have quantity limits per transaction for 18-20 year olds, and no more than one transaction per person per store per day.  By adding such "friction", this will further reduce the frequency and flagrancy of both keggers/ragers as well as simply buying for their younger friends.  The latter would already have pretty stiff penalties for doing so, of course.

For bars, pubs, and restaurants (and bowling alleys, etc), one could simply make it so that if there is a group of people sitting together, no alcohol can be served to anyone if there is anyone in the party under 18, unless there is at least one person over 21 for every four people under 18 in that same party.  And pitchers of beer, which are known to encourage excessive drinking, can also be limited to parties with at least one person over 21 as well.

Similar ideas (quantity limits and/or "July 1st Rule") could be adapted for the tobacco and cannabis age limits, which we also believe should be lowered to 18 as well.  The latter could also perhaps be graduated based on THC potency as well, which would also double as a clever way to "bring back mids".

Simple. Elegant. Surgical. So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  One possible gray area TBD would be "to-go cups", whether to treat them as on-premise or off-premise for the purposes of this rule, or to allow them with restrictions.  Same goes for "corking" unfinished bottles of wine from restaurants.

Australia, The Ghost Of Christmas Future

Twenty-One Debunked has always (within reason) supported taxation over prohibition, whether age based or otherwise.  Morally, ethically, practically, and constitutionally, it is the better idea on balance.  That goes for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and just about everything else, with the exception of things (like certain "dangerous and unusual" weapons, or extremely dangerous and irredeemable drugs like fentanyl, for example) that meet the threshold of "extraordinary justification" to ban them.

All that said, taxes really do have their limits though.  One cautionary tale about taxes is Australia, a sort of "Ghost of Christmas Future", as British libertarian Christopher Snowdon calls it.  Their cigarette and other tobacco taxes are ridiculously sky-high, highest in the whole wide world in fact, and even worse, nicotine vapes, pouches, and snus are banned there as well.  And the result?  A massive, and increasingly violent, black market that would make even NYC's look like Disneyland in comparison.  Organized crime syndicates, including some extremely vicious ones, are literally laughing all the way to the bank.

Turf wars, firebombings, and gangland shootings have all increased.  And now these syndicates are reportedly even branching out into yet another product with some of of the highest taxes in the world:  alcohol, particularly hard liquor.

And, irony of ironies, smoking still hasn't come down anywhere near like the government had hoped it would as a result.  If anything, it seems to have increased in very recent years with the practically exponential growth of the black market.  Turns out, if you tax it too much (or ban it, in the case of vapes, pouches, and snus), black markets are more than happy to supply the demand, vitiating and undermining the policy's own ostensible purpose (to say nothing of the revenue losses).  The Australian government has essentially completely lost all control over tobacco now.  

Can you say, "own goal"?  Dunning, meet Kruger.  Natch.

And now the government, especially in the state of Victoria, has announced that they are cracking down on those selling illicit tobacco and nicotine products.  Anything except, of course, the obvious solution: reducing such taxes back to 2016 levels, let alone (gasp!) legalizing and reasonably regulating reduced-harm nicotine and tobacco products like vapes, pouches, and snus.  Granted, the black market is so entrenched now that crackdowns would be needed regardless.  But that is all the more reason to do both/and, not either/or.  Seriously, forest for the trees, people!

And now over to you, Britain, with your new "generational ban" on tobacco products, on top of your already high taxes and thriving black market.  Ignore Australia at your own peril.

P.S. Black markets of any sort practically never ask for ID.  Thus, it is daft to think that policies that dramatically increase the black market would actually reduce youth smoking significantly.

The Kenkel Tax Revisited

In 1993, economist Donald S. Kenkel thought of a rather ingenious idea: lower the drinking age to 18, and also raise the alcohol tax by 12% to 86% (midpoint 49%) of the current price at the time.  To quote him in the abstract of his paper, emphasis ours:

The legal drinking age targets a group at a high risk of alcohol-related problems. This paper argues that taxation could achieve the same benefits as the legal drinking age at a substantially lower social cost. Existing empirical research suggests that simultaneously lowering the legal age to 18 and taxing alcohol purchases at between 12 to 86 percent of the current price would achieve the same results as the current legal age. Levying a special teen tax only on young adults would minimize its social costs. Teen tax revenues between $564 million to $4.03 billion measure the net social gain of replacing the current prohibition on young adults' alcohol purchases with a taxation policy.

Note that sentence in bold right there.  This is, of course a rather unorthodox idea, and we have noted in the past (and now) that raising alcohol taxes should be done across the board, not just for one age group.  That is, the "teen tax" idea, which we prefer to call a "Kenkel tax", while lowering the drinking age to 18, is still head and shoulders better than the 21 drinking age.  We could perhaps even give some to the extra revenue to groups like MADD to buy them off as well and get them on board with it.

If we go that route, it would be best to repackage the idea a bit as a discount for people over 21, rather than a tax on 18-20 year old young adults.  That is, the list price by default would be the price that 18-20 year olds would pay, and the "over-21 discount" would be taken off at the register, much like sales tax but in reverse.  Doing so would put it on the very same spectrum as things like senior citizen discounts, which are well tolerated in our society.

It would also be essentially self-enforcing, since retailers would obviously want to get the extra money!

Of course, a LOT has changed since 1993, not least being the gradual erosion of alcohol taxes by inflation, especially in more recent years.  The last time the federal alcohol taxes were raised was in 1991, and if they were adjusted for inflation, they would be more than double what they are now.  So perhaps one could raise the alcohol taxes across the board to what they were in real dollars in 1991, and then on top of that, add an additional 12%+ or so to the new tax-inclusive price, which then can be taken off at the register as a discount for people over 21.  Or any combination.

This idea can also dovetail nicely with minimum unit pricing (MUP), which is a complementary policy to taxes.  Though it would probably be best practice to set a two-tier MUP, with stronger beverages (more than 20% ABV) having a higher MUP than weaker beverages, to avoid obvious perverse incentives of price hikes on beer, wine, and cider inadvertently steering heavy drinkers more towards distilled spirits, as seen in Scotland.  Thomas Jefferson literally predicted that over two centuries ago.

Twenty-One Debunked is by no means wedded to this idea, but we will still support nonetheless it if it means that we can FINALLY lower the drinking age to 18 sooner than later.

Bonus points for doing this idea with the gas tax as well.  That is, raising it across the board, while giving a partial rebate or "prebate" to licensed vehicle registrants over 21, and an even greater rebate or "prebate" to those over 25.  But hopefully not until gas prices come back down from current wartime highs!