To be clear, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support such a thing at all, as it is excessive and overbroad. We also don't support general lockdowns either, given that they are also of dubious effectiveness and fly directly in the face of a supposedly free society and its Constitution. But it is true nonetheless that alcohol abuse (and alcohol-related domestic violence and child abuse) is a problem in nearly all lockdown countries regardless, and large gatherings are of course a very big no-no during the still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Now is clearly NOT the time to throw a kegger! Thus, we support the following done in the USA for the remaining duration of the pandemic, which we define as at until least 30 days after the number of new cases reaches and remains at zero, or for 90 days total, whichever is longer:
- Raise the taxes on alcohol, dramatically.
- Maintain and enforce a ban on non-essential gatherings of 500 people or more, with perhaps a lower, double-digit limit on indoor gatherings specifically (since those are riskier).
- Ban the sale of kegs to anyone who is not a licensed bar or restaurant owner.
- Put a cap on the amount of alcohol an individual can purchase per person per day, such as no more than one case or 30-pack of beer, one gallon of wine, or two liters of hard alcohol less than or equal to 100 proof or one liter of hard alcohol greater than 100 proof.
- Reopen bars and restaurants with "Swedish rules" for the first couple of weeks: restrict occupancy, table service only, outdoor seating preferred, no eating or drinking perpendicular (standing up). Delay the reopening of nightclubs and casinos until a few weeks after bars reopen.
- For the first couple of weeks, require restaurant and bar staff to wear masks, and patrons to wear masks while not eating or drinking.
- Crack down heavily on drunk driving, drunk violence, and domestic and child abuse.
- Put a moratorium on enforcement of the 21 drinking age for any 18-20 year olds who are drinking responsibly and following such protocols above. (Of course, the drinking age should be lowered to 18 yesterday.)
These are sensible policies which respect the Constitution. Prohibition was never the answer to regulating alcoholic beverages. The drinking age should be lowered to 18 as well. Sweden did the regulations effectively and we in this country should do the same.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. And interestingly, the only country that seems to be having a true "second wave" of the virus in any meaningful sense is Iran, a country where alcohol was already and still is very, very illegal and punishable by 70-80 lashes (flogging).
DeleteThat seems correct. The government of Iran is more interested in keeping power than providing its citizens with good quality health care.
DeleteHello Ajax,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever looked at India's drinking culture to see what the impact of their alcohol laws could be? Most Indian states have a drinking age of Twenty-One, and a few have Twenty-Five! Makes America look rather libertarian by comparison.
Yes, but I doubt the minimum age laws in India are enforced on a large scale.
DeleteYes I am aware of that. It does not seem to be very effective to say the least.
DeleteMost Indian states set it at 21 and a few even 25. Three set it at 18, and a few are completely "dry" with no alcohol allowed. And I am not aware that the stricter states are any better off.
DeleteIndeed, Edwin, I had read that in one of the states where it is 25, 90% of bar patrons are "underage" on a typical night. That gives you an idea of how these laws are enforced, lol.
DeleteIndeed, I doubt if those other few countries that have a 21 drinking age enforce it significantly. For example, I'm told that being carded in Indonesia is rare.
DeleteAjax, I'm coming to the conclusion that all this obsession with tough enforcement of alcohol laws is a PR stunt to keep certain interest groups happy, rather than being a rational, thought out policy. Here in the UK, we do it to keep Alcohol Concern and Public Health England happy. Over there in America, you do it to keep Mothers Against Drunk Driving happy. And so it's not really about the legal age, but the attitude towards enforcing it. Here in the UK, your have to be 16 to buy lottery tickets, but those who look under 25 are carded even in this case.
ReplyDeleteOne school of thought says you should lower the drinking age to 18 but enforce it rigorously. An alternative school of thought, one worth thinking about, is that you could keep it at 21, but take a far less nannying and patronising approach to enforcing it than you currently do, basically trust people to obey the law of their own volition, and only enforce it when actually necessary to prevent public disorder, or when the person in question misbehaves while drunk.
Basically, one may disapprove of 18-20-year-olds drinking, and think this is too young an age to start doing so, while at the same time exercising a sort of pragmatic tolerance and being realistic about the extent to which the drinking age can be effectively enforced.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat was basically what was the case in the USA in the 1980s and very early 1990s, they raised it to 21 but enforcement was relatively lax at first--until they dramatically ramped up enforcement in the 1990s and beyond. Needless to say, it didn't work very well.
DeleteSince the USA is already in the business of enforcing the drinking age rigorously, and I oppose any drinking age higher than 18 on principle, we should lower it to 18 and enforce that rigorously--but with more focus on those who sell and furnish alcohol to people under 18 rather than the underage youth themselves. It doesn't have to be a nannying or patronizing approach at all.
I want to add that I think 21 may be a good standard to have regarding what is an acceptable age to start consuming alcohol, and so you may want to have a law affirming this. But one must accept that any such law will be generally unenforceable, and so police and licensing authorities should not waste their time attempting to enforce it on a large scale. In practice, prosecuting someone for underage drinking takes up an enormous amount of police time and effort that could be better spent on actual crimes like robbery and burglary.
ReplyDeleteThis is not how things work in the United States of America. First and foremost, the drinking age of 21 is too high, it is unreasonable. Second, in the U.S., laws regarding alcoholic beverages are vigorously enforced. There is no lax enforcement of the drinking age and stores in this country scan the driver's licenses of young adults when buying alcoholic beverages. The drinking age should be lowered to 18 if the enforcement will allow for it. In the U.S., lines are cut straight when it comes to alcoholic beverages, there are is no leeway.
DeleteWhat state do you live in, may I ask?
DeleteOh speaking of enforcement, I once heard about a liquor store somewhere in the US (can't remember what state) that required people to present TWO forms of ID instead of just one.
DeleteI live in New York, and just today they carded me to buy beer. And I am 36 (though I do look at least ten years younger). They only asked for one form of ID, and didn't scan it, but I have seen and been to places that do in NY as well as in PA. But regardless, they make a point of carding anyone who looks under 30.
DeleteEdwin is correct, that is not how things work in the USA, at least not since the 1990s or so. As I noted above, regardless of whether we lower the drinking age to 18, there needs to be less focus on prosecuting young people for "underage" drinking and other victimless crimes, and more focus on tackling real crimes and drunk driving. And to the extent the drinking age should be enforced after lowering it, it should be on those who sell and furnish alcohol to people under 18.
So do you think most people have a tendency to ignore the 21 drinking age unless it's heavily enforced? It seems like it must be a very unpopular law if this is the case.
DeleteI should also emphasise that I was suggesting a more hands-off approach to enforcement for very practical reasons, not for libertarian ideological reasons.
DeleteIt is an unpopular law among the targeted age group (under 21), while it is unfortunately quite popular among Americans over 21, the latter outnumbering the former.
DeleteIf you want to know why the drinking age is popular among those over 21, look at this. It's about race, but the idea is the same. Just replace race with under/over 21.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/1mcCLm_LwpE
DeleteThanks for enlightening me. Basically, my point was that whatever you set the drinking age at, there will be practical problems with enforcement as well as prosecuting those who sell to those below the legal age. What if the person had a very authentic-looking fake ID or simply did a "force-purchase", that is, just left the money on the counter and walked out with the drink?
ReplyDeleteOf course, you could require two forms of ID instead of just one. There are also ways to discourage force-purchasing, such as setting a higher force-purchase price, so that it would be theft if a person force-purchased at the normal listed price. But it still demonstrates the sorts of very practical problems you will have with trying to enforce any drinking age.
Anyway, in the American context, I would argue that individual states should at least be able to set their own drinking ages without losing federal highway subsidies, even if 21 remains the national standard.
The "blood borders" argument is silly, as most such accidents occur as a result of differing taxes and prices for alcohol in different states, rather than as a result of differing age restrictions. And so the argument could be used to justify harmonising alcohol taxes across the entire country, which I would strongly oppose as someone who believes in individual states having autonomy.
Under your model, what would you do with states that still chose to keep their drinking ages at 21 even after 18 became the new national standard?
For states that still keep it 21, I am kinda on the fence about how the federal government should handle that. On the one hand, I support federalism, but on the other hand, I support youth rights even more. So that is a tough one IMHO.
DeleteAgreed, some states are more ageist than other states but I also believe that states should have sovereignty as well. I would have to accept the decisions of States if that is the case.
DeleteI'd in fact pass a new constitutional amendment stating that eighteen is the age of adulthood so that states that set drinking ages above this would be breaking the constitution.
DeleteExcellent idea!
DeleteDo you think 18-year-olds should be treated as full adults if they break the law and be sent to adult prisons, or should you be considered a 'juvenile' offender until you are 21? I address this in my blog post: https://waylandellis.blogspot.com/2020/08/adulthood-18-or-21-i-say-you-should-be.html
DeleteIf young adults aged 18-20 years old are placed into a juvenile detention, then this fact would be used to futher challenge the rights of young adults. I think that young adults should be placed into a separate section of a prison to isolate them from hardened criminals who are older.
DeleteIndeed, I would support such a Constitutional amendment, and would oppose any attempt to raise the "juvenile" justice age any higher than 18, as that would be a Trojan horse that would hurt the cause of youth rights.
DeleteEdwin, you are correct. That last bit is a good nuance, where young adults are tried and punished as the adults they are, but kept separate from older and more hardened criminals (though still not mixed in with anyone under 18 either). The UK currently does this with 18-25 year old offenders, I believe. Which is very different than treating them like juveniles.
Delete