In the USA today, people still seem to get their driver's licenses earlier than Europeans, as we have more of a car culture over here. But that gap is closing, since apparently fewer and fewer young Americans are gung-ho about driving or learning to drive these days, our rather persistent car culture and very limited public transportation notwithstanding.
Canada is probably the same way, despite also being a car culture with limited public transportation as well. And their drinking ages are 18 or 19 depending on the province. Meanwhile, their traffic fatality rates, both alcohol-related and otherwise, are in fact lower than those in the USA, in every age group in fact.
One can also say the same about Australia as well, whose drinking age is 18, is a car culture, and has even lower traffic fatality rates as well for all ages, both alcohol-related and otherwise.
And so while not completely irrelevant yet in that sense, the tired old drunk driving argument against lowering the drinking age to 18 is indeed far less relevant compared with the way it was one 1980s and 1990s. But honestly, the drunk driving argument never made sense to us. DUI is already illegal, and even more illegal now than it was in the 1980s. And doing so is dangerous at any age, not just under 21. And of course, it is perfectly possible to not mix alcohol and driving. Punishing all drinkers under some arbitrary age limit by depriving them of liberty on the mere supposition that they *might* get behind the wheel after driving (and thus in turn *might* harm innocent people) goes against everything a free society stands for, and is 100% un-American. And just like "flattening the curve", the best it does is kick the can down the road without actually solving anything. Studies by Dirscherl (2011), Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Dee (2001), as well as Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), et al., bear this fact out quite nicely.
Let America be America Again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
QED
Thanks. Whenever there is any public debate about the drinking age, you will get someone from MADD saying that the 21 drinking age "saves lives" in road fatalities. This is always their main argument. It needs to be pointed out in opposition that this is less relevant today as there are far fewer people under the age of 21 driving than there were in 1984.
ReplyDeleteDriving is more expensive. Gas is more expensive and car maintenance isn't cheap. Car insurance is notriously more expensive if you're in late teens-early 20's. I got my driver's permit when I was 16 but didn't get my full driver's license until 18, and I have a friend who didn't her driver's permit until 19 and her full license until 21 almost 22. Driving has it's conveniences for sure, but with Uber and Lyft as well as alot of activities moving online, there's less of a hurry to get your license and it's no longer seen as a coming of age rite of passage but the main thing is cost.
ReplyDeleteSome also delay getting a license because there won't be access to a car (or they'll have very limited access) after getting one.
DeleteAnd not saying I agree with the rationale, but given that the United States is huge country and that you'll need to drive to get around outside of urban settings it may have came down to banning young drinkers under 21 or banning young drivers under 21. Young adults have to go to work, so drinking is out of the equation.
DeleteCheck this out as it will strengthen your cause further.
ReplyDeleteIt appears binge drinking on your 21st birthday causes your brain to shrink. So much for the drinking age protecting 'brain development'. Another myth debunked.
Must see:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10235631/Sobering-thought-Binging-drinking-21st-birthday-causes-brain-white-matter-shrink.html
Wow, thanks for sharing that, Wayland. Further proof that there is nothing at all magical about turning 21.
DeleteA drinking age of 18 would be effective. Instead of looking at misinterpreted statistics or other data, this country should recognize that people who are 18 are responsible enough to drink alcoholic beverages. Public transport is very much limited or nonexistent in most of the U.S. It would be better if public transit was improved.
ReplyDeleteOutside of major urban areas (NYC for example) it is fairly limited. We do have Uber and Lyft but if you live in a rural area that's also limited. Widespread public transportation along with stricter standards for permissible BAC levels while driving is a good place to start first. 0.05 or lower for all drivers regardless of age would have huge safety and crash reduction benefits under 21 or over 21. The problem with drunk driving is not strictly limited to age, but rather this problem of people feeling that they're okay to drive even when it's visibly not so.
DeleteI was originally in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18, but banning those under 21 from driving (0.00 BAC) if they do consume alcohol, but that's actually more of a disservice, considering it's people between 21 and 25 that are responsible for most drunk driving incidents. An 18-year-old is responsible enough to drive home after having a beer, but it's when people go beyond their limits that the danger arises. So it's either a 0.00 BAC for everyone regardless of age or apply the same standard 0.05 or lower for everyone.
DeleteThat is a reasonable policy decision. A drinking age of 18 and a law which prohibits a person who is 18-20 years old from having a BAC higher than 0.00 is a food policy.
DeleteI suppose, the only impact would be that for the first three years of legal drinking you need to either rely on either Uber, a designated driver, or some other form of public transit if you're going out to the bars/clubs or keep drinking at home. As stated, I would be in favor of a uniform standard for everyone regardless of age, but I guess it's a compromise.
DeleteWe do have a similar system here in Canada where young drivers under 21 or 22 or drivers who have had their licence or novice drivers regardless of age have to maintain a zero blood alcohol level. In this province (Alberta), there is no separate rules for young adults under 21 regarding consumption of alcohol and driving. It's 0.05 for all who are of legal drinking age.
DeleteIt may seem like a compromise at first, because you are trying to find a solution to the issue of teen or young adults drunk driving without banning them from drinking at all, but I'm skeptical of the message it sends. So at 20-years-old, you can't reasonably know your limits, so we can't trust you to drive home after having a pint with dinner, but on your 21st birthday you're all clear? It's cookie-cutter logic.
Unfortunately, that's the reality with setting arbitrary age limits. There has to be a cutoff somewhere. When the age of majority and voting age was 21, I'm pretty sure you had 20-year-olds that felt slighted against because they were reasonably mature enough. Now that it's more or less 18, the same sentinment is shared among 17-year-olds, so much so that lowering the voting age to 16 has been a topic of discussion for a while now. The driving age is mostly 16 here in the US, and I'm pretty sure 14 and 15-year-olds feel ready. If the drinking age was reduced to 18 in the US (which is honestly becoming a pipe dream) 16-17-year olds would feel left out. No matter what age you set some are not going to be happy. There's going to be individuals who are ready to exercise a right earlier, some later, some never.
DeleteYes, and I won't argue against age restrictions on activities where it's needed. The point is that there should not be arbitrary age restrictions among adults. Drunk driving is an issue that impacts all drivers on the road regardless of age, not just 18-21 year olds. If we're saying an individual can be trusted to handle alcohol at 18, then that should mean being responsible for whether they know they should drive or not. Adults are suppose to make responsible choices, so if 18 is the age of an adult, then the same rules around alcohol that applies to older adults applies to you. If not, then you're making the case that 21 is a better age to legally allow alcohol.
DeleteI think that a drinking age of 19 might be a more realistic option in lowering the drinking age in the U.S. The age of majority in two states is 19 as well. A law which would prohibit drivers who are 19-20 years old from having a BAC higher than 0.00 would be a good law as well.
ReplyDeleteSure, 19 is reasonable too. It allievates concerns about 18-year-olds buying booze for younger teenagers. Also, it's not that I don't agree that drunk driving does not impact all ages but in the US, 21 was originally implemented because teenagers were offing themselves driving in between border states with lower drinking ages. Yes, there's debates about the validity of that data, but that is the (if slightly faulty) reasoning and that's what prevents the needle from moving on this drinking age discussion. It's a compromise. 19, to keep it out of high school, but no operating a motor vehicle under age 21 if you have consumed alcohol. Is it slightly inconvenient? sure? but despite the limited public transit in the US we still have Uber, Lyft, and your traditional yellow cab. So people still have way less excuses to drive impaired. One of my childhood best friends lives in Ontario, Canada where the age is also 19 but they must maintain a zero BAC if they're under 22. She's 20, but doesn't have her license yet, but that doesn't stop her from having fun.
DeleteFor everyone it's different, but on average it takes 1 hour for a beverage like a beer or hard cider to pass through your system. Nothing would stop a 19-year-old from going to a bar to enjoy a beer.
DeleteWell, I mean 19 is not unreasonable either. It's 18 or 19 here in Canada, but 18 is still perfectly fine for me. If you're old enough to die for your nation, you're old to enough to drink, vote, smoke cannabis, own a gun, etc.
DeleteListen, I have no real dog in this fight. While our countries share many similarities, it also has many differences, and what works for one country may not work for another, given the different history. My main point, is that no matter what age is set 18, 19, or 21, adults should have equal treatment under the law and that there shouldn't have to be compromises made to gain the rights you are entitled to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe that a person who is 18 years old should have the same rights as a person who is 21 years old. The age of majority should also be 18. 19 is alright as well but 18 should be the preferable minimum age at which a person should be allowed to drink alcoholic drinks. A drinking age of 18 is backed up by history and actual science, thus concluding that is a better minimum age than 21.
Delete19 is better than 21, to be sure. Though 18 is better still, and I for one refuse to compromise. When you start out with a compromised position, you will ultimately have to compromise even further. You really can't meet tyranny in the middle.
DeleteThere is a significant Neo-Prohibitionist sentiment in this country. People forget about the harmful impacts of junk food and a regular consumption of soft drinks. All the attention is given to alcoholic beverages while ignoring those two other things. This is why there's a significant percentage of people in this country who have diabetes or are obese. Added to this, there is no regulation of fast food companies to determine what is appropriate for a meal items.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's the irony of it all. People should make healthy choices, but in a free country, that's a choice not coercion. That's not to say that there shouldn't be reasonable limits on certain freedoms. No freedom is absolute, especially when that freedom clearly has the potential to cause significant harm to others. Otherwise, as long as you are not directly hurting someone else, I err on the side of letting people do what they want, even if there is harm to THEMSELVES. As a young adult, (age 20) I'm already permitted to do lots of potentially harmful activities. I'm allowed the freedom to buy a gun, the freedom to be in the porn industry, to gamble all my money away, (I live in an 18+ state), enlist in the US army and be sent off to die in war. I'm allowed to drive a fast moving machine known as a car at high speeds down the highway. I can rack up debt via credits and student loans, I'm allowed to have relationships with people twice my age, I can get permanent tattoos, consent to life changing surgery, etc. So yes I find it strange that where it pertains to alcohol and drunk driving, young adults are the ones in need of more protection when it's an issue that impacts everyone, but that's literally the only reason that is used to justify banning those under 21 from drinking. So I'm just viewing it as a get your foot in the door strategy with allowing drinking at 18, but keeping the same zero tolerance policies. Policies can still be revised, although admittedly much harder than the first time it's implemented.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAn 18 year old is an adult.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteClearly you didn't read the article. The drinking age doesn't 'save lives' much anymore as far fewer people under the age of 21 are driving today anyway.
DeleteThe drinking age of 21 doesn't save lives. A drinking age should acknowledge and respect the rights of young adults. Alcoholic beverages do not cause harm when consumed responsibly. A person who is 18 years old would know how to drink responsibly and act responsibly when it comes to drinking. Alcoholic beverages are not harmful substances.
DeleteWayland and Edwin are correct.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletehttps://www.niaaa.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/early-drinking-linked-higher-lifetime-alcoholism-risk
DeleteMADD1984: The drinking age doesn't stop people starting to drink before age 21. We know that. It may actually do more harm than good as dozens of studies have shown. You're oversimplifying an issue that in the real world is anything but simple. Why don't you read through this website and you will see that most of your arguments have already been debunked.
DeleteOrganizations such as MADD promote junk science, which is misinterpreted statistics. A person should not need their brain to be fully developed to be able to drink alcoholic beverages. A person who is 18 years old has a sufficiently developed brain when it comes to drinking alcoholic beverages. A person who drinks alcoholic beverages responsibly at 18 is unlikely to become an alcoholic. The drinking age should be lowered to 18 and the National Legal Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 should be repealed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteMADD1984: Your arguments may look reasonable on paper. But the real world is complicated. It's not enough just to look at how things are supposed to work in theory. One has to look at how things work in practice, and look realistically at the costs and benefits of any policy. You say the drinking age is a safeguard. Others would say it's a forbidden fruit, like Alistair Cooke:
Deletehttps://waylandellis.blogspot.com/2021/12/alistair-cooke-was-right-about-drinking.html
It's the old central planning argument again and the usual failures thereof. Government just doesn't have sufficient knowledge of human nature or real-world situations. That's why so many well-intentioned interventions have ended in such disaster.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIt's unreasonable if one is legally an adult at 18 and is assumed fully responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, yet at the same time is still denied some adult freedoms. I covered this topic in some depth last year:
Deletehttps://waylandellis.blogspot.com/2020/08/adulthood-18-or-21-i-say-you-should-be.html
It's unenforceable because there are dozens of ways to get around drinking age laws. Fake IDs are usually practically impossible to detect. It can also be very difficult for police to prove the age of a person they arrest for underage drinking. These are just two examples. I could come up with many more.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWell the technology needed is expensive and every bar and liquor store would need to have it in order for it to be effective. Even then an ID may still be faked by modifying a genuine ID of the required type.
DeleteAnd when you arrest underage drinkers who are not driving it can be hard to prove age.
Just because there are other arbitrary age limits that discriminate against adults, that doesn't make them right. If you are considered a legal adult at 18, then you should gain every adult freedom by 18. Alternatively, you may want to raise the age of legal adulthood itself, practical considerations aside.
I covered this at length in my article. You should read it:
https://waylandellis.blogspot.com/2020/08/adulthood-18-or-21-i-say-you-should-be.html
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this issue. My position is not that 21 is necessarily the wrong age restriction. (Realistically, any restriction higher than 20 is excessive, even in marginal cases.) Rather, my view is that these things ought to be left up to individual states and not the Federal government. Basically, the issue is complicated, and tying to impose one model on an entire country in this way does not take into account all sorts of practical differences between different states.
Basically, central planning of any sort seems to have a long record of terrible results, because the real world is highly complex and remote politicians and planners with their simplistic solutions cannot possibly account for every real world situation or understand human nature, which as we know is extremely complex.
Mises.org did a great illustration of the failure central planning using a computer game:
https://mises.org/library/caesar-iii-and-ubiquitous-failure-central-planning
I must confess: Sometimes I wish your hypothetical utopian world existed and that we could solve every social problem with a well-intentioned state intervention. I've even myself flirted with the idea that a drinking age of 21, along with some other well-designed policies, would magically eliminate teen drinking. But sadly, this isn't the way human nature works. I considered every possible scenario and generally had to conclude, to quote Robert Martinson, that Nothing Works. You just have to walk away and leave people alone to decide things of their own accord.
DeleteA drinking age of 21 is discriminatory against people who are 18-20 years old. A person should not have wait to until they are 21 years old to drink alcoholic beverages. A person who is 18 years old should be allowed to go to bars to drink or to go Stores to buy alcoholic beverages. A person who is 18 years old should be treated as an adult when it comes to alcoholic beverages.
DeleteI agree.
DeleteNo trolls allowed! You have been warned.
ReplyDeleteI agree. They don't want to debate my well-reasoned arguments. They just go after those they think they can wind up.
Delete@MADD1984, 21 is unrealistic. Even in countries where it's 18, there's enough trouble. People are adults well before 21, many work full time and pay taxes, some are married, we can vote and be elected to state offices, we can go to war, drive cars, etc. to say that we would not be responsible enough to have a beer is disingenious at best. I think you'll get in a bad place to even base rights off of statistics. Young people between the ages of 16 and 19 are more 3X more likely to get into car accidents than drivers 20 or older yet we don't ban teenagers from driving cars either (although they can't rent cars nor have cheaper insurance). Every year 3,000 young Americans die by firearms suicide, and in most states, you can buy firearms at 18, and possess them as young as 14. 18-24 year olds barely vote, yet it is still a protected right under the 26th Amendment. Statistics should only be one part of the equation. Societal needs and freedom should also matter.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe reason I think it's an unwarranted burden on our liberty is because you've limited the issue of drunk driving to just us. Do young adults drink and drive? yes they do, and it's mainly young adults who are freshly legal to drink (21-24 year olds) but you're not calling for raising the drinking age to 25. If you cared about reducing drunk driving, then strict standards should apply to all drivers, not just young ones. You're limiting the issue to just 18-20 year olds and making it seem that's an issue that vanishes upon turning 21. I at 20, am not any more rash or impulsive then someone who is only a matter of months older than me at 21. So to me, it seems like you want to punish young adults while letting the older ones do as they please, which is why these Mother's Against Drunk Driving groups I'll never take seriously.
Delete@MADD1984 Not even the statistics support your cause anymore, as this article demonstrates. Anyway, you can't be bothered to answer my well-elaborated points, so I think it's clear who's won the argument.
DeleteVery well-said, Wayland. We have a clear winner. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Delete@MADD1984 18 for everything. Firearms, smoking (weed and tobacco) booze, gambling, voting, contractual liability, running for office, marriage, driving without restriction, jury duty, military, sexual activity etc. It works just fine where I live, the world has not ended, young adults are not killing off everyone en masse.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteVery much agreed.
DeleteAmen to that! As it should be. I always liked the Alberta model. (Now if only Alberta can finally vote out Premier Kenney, the ultimate man without a country who both sides of the political spectrum loathe so passionately now.)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI just deleted all comments from trolls, and will continue to do so going forward.
ReplyDelete