Defusing The Powder Keg (Part Deux)

Or, "Code Finally Cracked:  The July 1st Rule"

In a previous post, we discussed what the best ways to lower the drinking age would be, defusing the fears and objections of the pro-21 side.  Here, we add another simple, elegant, and surgical idea that a flavor of which apparently almost passed in New Jersey in July 1979 but unfortunately failed, and then later that year they raised it to 19 effective 1980 and ultimately 21 effective 1983, influencing other states, and as they say, the rest is history.

The idea was to not even raise it to 19, but rather to keep it at 18 but make it delayed until July 1st following one's 18th birthday if one's birthday is earlier than that.  Thus, it would be 18 or July 1st of the year one turns 18, whichever is later. (December birthdays, a gray area, could be treated as the following year.)  Twenty-One Debunked believes that this should apply only to off-premise purchases, NOT to on-premise service or drinking in general.

The intent of this "July 1st Rule" is quite clearly to keep alcohol out of the high schools (as much as one can in practice), and thus take the wind out of the sails of those who seek to set/keep the drinking age any higher than 18.  It would likely be about as effective in doing so as setting the drinking age at 19, 20, or even 21, without throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.  It would still be 18 overall, just with a bit of nuance added, a brief embargo. And for those few who graduated high school much earlier than their peers?  They could simply show a college ID, military ID, or some other proof of no longer being in high school.

(The significance of July 1st is that is after most if not all schools in the USA are out for summer, prom and graduation season is over, and most seniors would have already graduated.  And it is also just in time for Independence Day, July 4th.)

On-premise service would basically be a non-problem in that regard (except during school hours, perhaps, which could be restricted specifically during that time).  And needlessly delaying on-premise service for millions of people until July 1st and then suddenly unleashing it all at once would likely create chaos at the bars (and on the roads) right around the July 4th holiday, already the deadliest days on the roads.  The real issue here is the off-premise purchases, which 18 year old high school seniors bring back with them to school, having "liquid lunches" and especially to share with (or buy for) their younger friends.

As for high school "keggers" or "ragers", i.e. large, unsupervised parties with an over-abundance of alcohol, those could be kept more or less at current low levels (that is, with no significant increase) simply by keeping the purchase age at 21 (or perhaps 20 or 19) for large quantities (kegs, cases, liquor handles, etc.) specifically.  That is, have quantity limits per transaction for 18-20 year olds, and no more than one transaction per person per store per day.  By adding such "friction", this will further reduce the frequency and flagrancy of both keggers/ragers as well as simply buying for their younger friends.  The latter would already have pretty stiff penalties for doing so, of course.

For bars, pubs, and restaurants (and bowling alleys, etc), one could simply make it so that if there is a group of people sitting together, no alcohol can be served to anyone if there is anyone in the party under 18, unless there is at least one person over 21 for every four people under 18 in that same party.  And pitchers of beer, which are known to encourage excessive drinking, can also be limited to parties with at least one person over 21 as well.

Similar ideas (quantity limits and/or "July 1st Rule") could be adapted for the tobacco and cannabis age limits, which we also believe should be lowered to 18 as well.  The latter could also perhaps be graduated based on THC potency as well, which would also double as a clever way to "bring back mids".

Simple. Elegant. Surgical. So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  One possible gray area TBD would be "to-go cups", whether to treat them as on-premise or off-premise for the purposes of this rule, or to allow them with restrictions.  Same goes for "corking" unfinished bottles of wine from restaurants.

Defusing The Powder Keg

Or, "It's the Final Countdown!"

The 21 drinking age is an ageist and illiberal abomination that has NO place in a free society.  Its very existence to this day is evidence that we are living in the wrong timeline.  And the sooner it is jettisoned to the trash heap of history, the better.

Twenty-One Debunked has, unwaveringly and  uncompromisingly, since our founding in 2009, sought to speedily lower the legal drinking age (in every sense) to 18, and not a day later.  Period.  That is, the same rights that people over 21 currently enjoy, should be democratized to include 18-20 year olds as well, and yesterday is NOT soon enough!  That is our North Star for the near term, basically.  (And for the very long term?  Don't ask!) The relative purgatory and limbo of setting it at 19, 20, or a split/graduated age limit first has always been best considered a journey, NOT a destination. 

That said, doing so is a LOT easier said than done politically.   The Overton Window is clearly NOT in our favor, to put it mildly (that brief moment in the late 2000s notwithstanding, whose ship has long since sailed).  And while the objections to lowering it to 18 are essentially specious and spurious, they are not entirely pulled out of the ether, either.  So much "referred pain", as it were, is also present as well.  Not least of which is the Law of Eristic Escalation (i.e. Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos), which as a corollary, causes a "chaos deficit" to compound over time.  This sets a massive "powder keg" that is best defused carefully and gingerly, to avoid too much chaos unleashed all at once in the short term, and the reactionary backlash that would follow.  Plus, the fear of it would make it harder to get any bill that would lower the drinking age to have a prayer of passing.

So here is a potential "menu of options" to defuse the powder keg and its associated fears, and make the age-lowering bill easier to pass, and all of which should have a sunset clause built in so as not to defeat the purpose:

• Keeping the Zero Tolerance driving BAC age limit at 21 for the time being, or better yet, expanding it to include the first two or three years of having a driver's license, or 21, whichever is longer, largely similar to some other countries with lower drinking ages.  And keep that in place for the first couple of years at least.  (To defuse the fear of DUI.)
• Keeping the purchase age limit for kegs, cases, and other large quantities of alcohol at 21 for the time being, reasonable limits on quantities purchased per transaction, and no more than one transaction per person per store per day for people under 21.  And keep that in place for the first year or couple of years.  (To defuse the fear of high school keggers, as well as high school drinking more generally.)
• Phasing down the drinking age, or at least the purchase age (especially on-premise at bars and restaurants), by one month each day.  That is, 20 years 11 months, 20 years 10 months....until it is 18 years and 0 months.  And that phasedown will take all of....36 days to complete.  (Hat tip to a guy on Facebook many years ago who came up with that idea, which we call "The Final Countdown", like the famous song by Europe.) (To defuse the fear of overall chaos in general, especially at bars and surrounding areas.)
• Best done through explicitly allowing "local option" to do so, and ideally kept only for a limited time, perhaps we could also set only the off-premise purchase age (but NOT drinking age, furnishing age, or on premise purchase age!) to 19 without conditions, and 18 only with a college or military ID, or proof of high school diploma or GED.  (To further defuse any remaining fear of high school drinking and straw purchasing for younger friends.)
• For the same reason, alternatively, consider a "July 1st Rule", where off-premise purchases can only be made after July 1st of the year that a person turns 18, except if they have a college or military ID, or proof of high school diploma or GED.  Also ideally done via local option as well.  New Jersey almost did some flavor of this in the late 1970s, but they chose a flat 19 instead, and then ultimately 21.
• "25 Mile Rule": To alleviate fears of "blood borders", for on-premise service in any bar or restaurant within 25 miles from the border of a neighboring state with a higher drinking age, no out-of-state IDs will be accepted for anyone from that state for anyone under that age, except 1) students within a college town (or a 5 mile radius from campus) showing valid college ID, 2) overnight guests being served in a hotel where they are staying.
• Perhaps temporarily (for the first few months or first year or so) keep the off-premise purchase age at 21 (or 20) for hard liquor, or any beverages exceeding 15% or 20% ABV, similar to what Finland (off-premise) and Norway (both on and off-premise) currently do.  (To further defuse fears.)
• (Holds nose while grudgingly saying this) Continue allowing bars and clubs to set their own age limits higher than the legal drinking age, which many already do, and/or set a higher cover charge for younger folks.  (To defuse the (mostly apocryphal) fear of young people engaging in rowdiness, chaos, "pregaming", and arriving already at least half-drunk and not buying much at the bar.)
• And be sure to include a severability clause!

Indeed, while we are NOT wedded to any of these, and would rather NOT start out with any compromised position lest we have to compromise further, we endorse and strongly encourage at least the first three items on the list in the short term.  And of course, it should go without saying that it should be accompanied by a renewed crackdown on drunk driving, drunk violence, drunk vandalism, and drunk and disorderly conduct, for ALL ages.  For DUI specifically, combining sobriety checkpoints (subject to constitutionally-correct protocols), roving and saturation patrols, and especially "fish in a barrel" aka "Jack in the box" (police waiting patiently outside of bars for would-be drunk drivers to stumble to their cars, and gotcha!) would essentially make obsolete any concerns of increasing drunk driving, even if the drinking age was lowered to 18 overnight in one fell swoop.

Simple.  Elegant.  Surgical. 

So what are we waiting for?  "It's the Final Countdown!"

What About 19?

One question that our movement frequently has to field is whether lowering the drinking age to 19 is a better idea than lowering it to 18.  And our answer is always the same:  unless 19 also happens be the age of majority, there is no good reason why the drinking age should be any higher than 18, period.  And in 47 states and DC (Alabama (19), Nebraska (19), Mississippi (21) are the odd-ones-out), the age of majority is 18.  And if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

Yes, but....won't that result in 18 year olds buying alcohol for their younger friends?  Surely 19 would be better in that regard since most 19 year olds are out of high school, right?   Wrong.  The argument is technically true, but it nonetheless misses the point by a long shot.  Last I checked, people under 18 are still getting their hands on alcohol even with a drinking age of 21, and banning 18 year olds from drinking solely to prevent them from supplying their younger friends is inherently unjust.  Besides, there are other ways to discourage 18 year olds from supplying their younger friends with booze or throwing high-school keggers:

• We could put a cap on how much alcohol an 18-20 year old can purchase in one transaction or day.  For example, no kegs or cases, and no more than an 18 pack of beer, 1 gallon of wine, or one fifth of liquor per transaction, and no more than one transaction in any 24 hour period.
• We could ban 18 year olds from purchasing alcohol during the school day, and ban any high school student from showing up to school under the influence of alcohol.
• We could toughen the penalties for buying or furnishing alcohol to people under 18.
• We could ban off-premise sales to 18 year olds unless either a) a person 19 or older is present with them, or b) they show a college or military ID, or a high school diploma or GED. 

And none of these things would really create an undue burden on anyone, while still preserving most if not all of the purported benefits of setting the drinking age at 19 or higher compared with 18.  As for that last item on the list, we had thought of that one very recently.  It seems that back in 1981, Virginia had experimented with raising only the off-premise (i.e. store) purchase age to 19 while leaving it at 18 for on-premise (i.e. bar and restaurant) sales.  But they barely even gave it a chance, as two years later in 1983, they raised it to 19 for on-premise sales as well, and then to 21 in 1985.  Granted, setting the off-premise purchase age higher than the on-premise age may have created a perverse incentive to drive after drinking, especially in rural areas.  But giving 18 year olds the option to buy alcohol off-premise when accompanied by someone over 19 would remove that perverse incentive, while still reducing the supposed "trickle-down" effect since a person under 18 would still have to find someone 19 or older to make the transaction possible.

In other words, there is no good reason to set the drinking age any higher than 18.  Period.