Lately 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:
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 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), it is not that unusual for various states to require a higher supermajority threshold (such as 60%) to alter a state constitution by popular vote.
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%. 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.
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 in December 1978, and then three years later in December 1981, it would have reverted back to 18. The same decline in traffic fatalities would have most likely occurred either way due to factors other than the drinking age (including the bottle deposit and liquor tax hikes raising the prices of beer and liquor, respectively).
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 still raises it to 19 in 1979 (effective January 1, 1980), but in this version of events, they add a three-year sunset clause, inspired by Michigan. (More on NJ later, we will get back to this soon as this is highly significant later on).
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. This was the last chance while the zeitgiest still remained relatively permissible, 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 we aren't even out of the 1970s yet.
"Give 19 a chance!" become the new slogan. And of course, Ontario, Canada also raises it to 19 as well in 1979, in both versions of events.
The Overton Window has clearly shifted.
Next, several other states that would have raised to 19 in 1979-1981, such as Florida, either keep it 18 or or raise it to 19 with a sunset clause. Texas definitely keeps it 18, as no one tells Texas what to do! Florida is 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. Their neighbor Maryland, who otherwise would have raised it to 21 in 1982, decides to "give 19 a chance" and adopt the "Virginia Model". 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. And Minnesota, the very first state to raise their drinking age to 19 (in 1976) is the very next to adopt the "Virginia Model".
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 strong.
Meanwhile, New Jersey decides to let the 19 drinking age lapse and revert back to 18 on January 1, 1983. 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.
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.
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 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, 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".
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.
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.
(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%. 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 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 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 "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.
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. And underage drinking is 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 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 ends up doing so.
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. 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 to 18 when they lower their age of majority to 18 in 2022.
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.
UPDATE: 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. 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.
