Pages

Sunday, November 12, 2023

Should The Drinking Age Be Abolished?

In a nod to Wayland Ellis, Will Wilkinson, and the late Mark Kleiman, the question sometimes comes up:  Should we not only lower the drinking age to 18, but abolish it entirely?  That may sound radical in 21st century America, but that's precisely the point:  the Overton window has shifted way too far in the ageist and neoprohibitionist direction, and to pull it back towards rationality, all options need to be on the table.  And we must resist the urge to make ANY sort of concessions to MADD-type zealots.

Never, ever, start out with a compromised position, as one will inevitably have to compromise further.  Just look at the success, or lack thereof, of Choose Responsibility.  The pro-21 crowd ate them for lunch.

For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not officially endorse abolishing the drinking age entirely, though we really would not oppose it either.  Currently the idea is a largely academic thought experiment since it is exceedingly unlikely to occur in the USA, at least in the next few years.  We really only officially endorse lowering the drinking age to 18, but the abolition idea, on principle, is a great way to go on offense rather than be stuck playing defense.  After all, the best defense is a good offense, and vice-versa.   And by basing the argument purely on liberty and civil rights rather than utilitarianism, it also escapes the "Neanderthal Trap" where on defense we are stuck in the utterly unenviable position of having to justify to the naysayers that Americans are not in fact Neanderthals who cannot be trusted with freedom when compared to the ostensibly more mature and cultured Europeans, Canadians, etc, and also have to show that it wasn't the chicken or the egg, but rather the dinosaur, that really came first.  

Put the pro-21 side on defense, for a change.  Have the burden of proof fall on THEM to show that the alleged benefits to setting the drinking age so unrealistically high are so incredibly large for both the individual and society that it somehow overrides the basic civil rights of millions of young adults.  Because they can't prove that.  And none of their itty-bitty effect sizes in their specious studies can change that.

"If it saves one life, it's worth it," right?  Well, then.  Making the speed limit 21 and the drinking age 55 would save even more lives by their very own logic, so why don't they do that?  They can take as long as they like with their mealy-mouthed answers.  (And if they inevitably cry "pragmatism!", they have already lost the argument without even realizing it.)

It is also worth noting that many countries, especially in Europe, don't even really have a true drinking age at all, but rather just a purchase age.  And still others only have a drinking age in public but not in private.  Much like how in the USA, many states don't have a true smoking age for tobacco either, but rather only a purchase age, and even those that prohibit underage possession/consumption generally only enforce it in public places when done flagrantly or when enforced secondarily.  (And until just a few short years ago, it was 18 in nearly every state.)  So not having a true drinking age, while retaining a purchase age (which in any case, should still not be any higher than 18), is actually not nearly as radical as one may think. 

And the worst case scenario for abolishing the drinking age (but retaining a purchase age) would be....Denmark.  You know, one of the happiest countries in the world.  The horrors, right?

So what to do about drunk driving then?  Simply crack down harder on actual drunk driving:  increase enforcement, close loopholes, and toughen the penalties for such reckless and dangerous behavior for all ages.  Do the same for drunk violence, drunk vandalism, and drunk and disorderly conduct.  As for excessive drinking in general, which is a problem for all ages, we should do the one thing that is unambiguously proven to work at least at the margin:  raise the excise taxes on alcoholic beverages significantly.  It's really not rocket science.  Other than that, hands off for the most part.

If you're still worried about drunk driving, tackling the driving side of the equation would clearly save far more lives than focusing laser-like on the drinking side.  But that would make too much sense, right?

Another Kleiman-inspired idea would be to effectively deny alcohol to known problem drinkers via something like South Dakota's 24/7 Program, or perhaps the Banned Drinker Register currently used in some local parts of Australia.  Ditto for voluntary exclusion (one could perhaps call it "86 Me")  like some states do for problem gamblers as well.

But collective punishment via utterly illiberal and ageist laws like the 21 drinking age?  That has no place in a free society, period.  If we must have some flavor of a drinking age, it should be no higher than 18.  Seriously.  And not a day later!

QED

UPDATE:  To clarify, if for whatever reason we somehow must have a true drinking age, it should not be any stricter than that found in Alberta, Canada. 

10 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello,

    I want to apologise for not commenting on your posts more often. I hope you don't mind.

    As regards the topic of this post, the main argument for the repeal of drinking age laws boils down to the fact that they are simply unenforceable. It's one thing to have a recommended minimum age to consume alcohol. However, one must be aware of the practical limits of legal enforcement. There are many ways for an underage person to buy alcohol: Fake IDs, force-purchasing, disguises, to name but a few. Basically, one has to trust the public to do what is right regarding these things. Endless surveillance and bureaucracy will never work in the end.

    Anyway, thanks again for taking such a bold stance on the issue.


    Regards,

    Wayland

    ReplyDelete
  3. We need to face reality. Much of liberal America has totalitarian tendencies and fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true. We have seen the proverbial mask come off in recent years, revealing just how many "liberal" people have totalitarian tendencies and fantasies.

      Delete
  4. No, the legal drinking age should not be abolished. The legal drinking age should be 18 or 19 but it should not abolished. I also would not mind a legal drinking age of 20 as well because that is the age of majority in the Bible. I think that the legal drinking age should be set no lower than 17 because people who decide to drink alcoholic beverages should understand the negative health effects of abusing alcohol. A person who is 17 has almost finished high school and taken health classes that discuss alcohol. Lowering the legal drinking age to 18 should be allowing them to drink alcoholic beverages on their accord and encouraging them to make responsible decisions when it comes to alcohol. The notion that the legal drinking age must be 21 to save lives is a fallacy. It's a fallacy because those who are 18, 19 and 20 years old are old enough to make responsible decisions regarding alcohol, therefore it saves lives as well, even more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On second thought, I believe that a legal drinking age of 14 is not a bad idea. In Germany for instance, girls and boys who are 14 years old are allowed to drink alcoholic beverages when they are supervised by their parents. In Germany, this law works effectively because it teaches daughters and sons who are 14 years old the importance of drinking responsibly. Add to that the hundreds of years of tradition of alcoholic beverages in Europe and in East Asia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Well-said. While that is WAY outside the Overton Window in the USA, eventually in the more distant future that may be a goal worth pursuing.

      Delete
    2. Countries that do not have a legal drinking don't have any extra large problems compared to countries with a legal drinking age. Which is to say, that a public policy of not having a legal drinking age works in countries outside the U.S., but which I doubt would work in the U.S. or be pursued.

      Delete