There's No Benefit To The 21 Drinking Age

We need to tell the truth and see the forest for the trees.  There is literally NO overarching net benefit to society in setting the drinking age so ridiculously high at 21.  Zip, zilch, nada.  At least compared with a properly enforced drinking age of 18.

The 21 drinking age has been the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, and that is no exaggeration.  As the the famous Miron and Tetelbaum study has shown, the specious notion that the 21 drinking age saves lives was really just a mirage all along, and that was not the only study to reach this conclusion either.  This ageist abomination also appears to have only a minor impact on teen drinking, small enough to be accounted for by increased underreporting in surveys, while forcing alcohol underground only makes it far more dangerous than it has to be.

And plenty of other countries have seen massive decreases in both teen drinking as well as traffic fatalities without raising the drinking age to 21.  That includes our neighbor to the north, despite being a car culture like the USA.  Ditto for the UK, which had historically been even more of a drink-to-get-drunk culture than the USA.  Ditto for Australia, also historically a car culture and drink-to-get-drunk culture.  Even Germany, with a drinking age of 16 for beer and wine and 18 for distilled spirits, has seen such progress.  Now that really says something.

So what actually does work to reduce alcohol-related harms for all ages?   We have known the answer for decades now, and it's really not rocket science:

• Increasing alcohol taxes, or otherwise increasing the price of alcoholic beverages
• Restricting alcohol outlet density and/or trading hours (albeit with some nuance)
• Cracking down on drunk driving, drunk violence, and drunk and disorderly conduct
• Improving educational intiatives
• Improving access to treatment

All of these are far more effective, and in many cases cost-effective, than the 21 drinking age and other dubious measures.  As for young people specifically, there is nothing that the 21 drinking age can accomplish that cannot also be replicated with a drinking age or purchase age of 18 that is strictly enforced on vendors.  The British experience with both alcohol and tobacco, as well as the American experience with tobacco, illustrates that very well.  Ditto for Puerto Rico.  This is especially true when paired with an alcohol tax hike, particularly on beer.

"But America is different", you say.  "Americans can't handle a lower drinking age", you say, even if the rest of the world can.  Hey, would you like to be a bit more specific as to exactly why Americans are somehow inferior to our European, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. counterparts that would justify such a ridiculously high drinking age?  Thought so.  And by the way, the logical conclusion to such a specious argument would be to bring back Prohibition for ALL ages, not just people under 21.  Think about it.

Thus, there is no good reason to keep the drinking age any higher than the age of majority.  And in most states, that age is 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.