More Evidence That Targeting Actual Problem Drinkers Works

As South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program has been studied and exported to more and more places, both in the USA and abroad, its success is becoming increasingly evident.  A recent study further confirms the program's effectiveness very well indeed.

This program, where people convicted of (and/or out on bond for) alcohol-related offenses such as DUI, drunk violence/assault, and stuff like that are required to be tested twice daily or continuously for alcohol for a period of time, usually 120 days, is essentially a way to coerce abstinence among known problem drinkers by revoking their "license to drink".  Those who fail a test or fail to show up for the test are swiftly, certainly, and yet modestly penalized, typically with a day or two in jail and perhaps a small fine.  The results have been impressive, with significantly reduced death rates among participants.  Previous studies have also found reductions in recidivism as well as reductions in all-cause death rates among the general population and reductions in domestic violence and related deaths.  In other words, it's cheap, well-targeted to actual problem drinkers, and highly effective and beneficial in many ways.

Twenty-One Debunked supports this idea, and has for a while now.  Another promising idea, would be similar to what parts of the Northern Territory of Australia, as well as parts of Western Australia, currently have:  something called the Banned Drinker Register (BDR).  It is exactly what it sounds like, and targets actual problem drinkers individually only, with no collateral damage to non-problem drinkers.  This can also be paired with the 24/7 Sobriety Program for those convicted of drunk driving, drunk violence, drunk vandalism, or repeated disorderly conduct violations.  In addition, problem drinkers can also have themselves voluntarily added to the blacklist for a fixed period of time, much like problem gamblers are currently allowed to do. (Call it "86 Me" or something like that.)  The late Mark Kleiman would certainly have approved of that as well.  And aside from the downside of ID checking of all buyers that would be required to enforce the BDR (not radically different from the status quo), it is actually the most libertarian policy that there is.  Libertarian purists, of course, would probably only support the South Dakota style 24/7 program and the voluntary blacklist, and that would be fine with Twenty-One Debunked either way.  It's certainly more libertarian than Choose Responsibility's highly quixotic proposal.

In other words, there is no need to punish the many for the excesses of the few.  And swift and certain justice need not be excessively severe, thus resulting in less crime AND less punishment at the same time.

Additionally, we know now that, while all policy measures have their hard limits, the most time-tested, efficient, effective, and cost-effective one of all is to simply raise the price of alcohol, generally via taxation.  Wayland Ellis has pointed that out several times, and it is the one thing that he and the polar-opposite Philip N. Cook can agree upon.  The late Mark Kleiman also made a similar argument years ago.  Alcohol taxes and prices have been lagging behind inflation for decades in the USA, so therefore the lowest-hanging fruit to make headway against America's growing drinking problem is to raise such taxes.  In fact, if set high enough, practically no other alcohol regulations or restrictions are needed at all. And dovetailing with the aforementioned ideas, even this one's burden falls primarily on the heaviest drinkers, as simple math would have it.  So as long as it is not ridiculously high, it is also well-targeted.

And of course, 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.

So Where Do Very Underage Drinkers Get Their Booze?

All 50 states and DC have a legal drinking age of 21 thanks to federal coercion, but apparently there are some parts of the country where the average age of onset of drinking is as low as 12.  Think about that for a moment--that's nine years below the legal age, and that's the average in some communities!

So with all of this very underage drinking going on, with numerous kids starting to drink nearly a decade before they are legal, where are they getting all that booze?  The answers can be found in a survey of kids in one such community in South Dakota.  And 37% of the kids surveyed said that friends over age 21 would buy it for them, while 8% got strangers to buy for them and 4% had other means.  But wait--wasn't raising the drinking age to 21 supposed to stop kids under 18 from getting their older friends to buy for them?  Guess not.

Of course, the average age of onset in the USA as a whole has generally been in the 16-17 range since 1965 despite fluctuations in the legal drinking age.  And the average age at first drink actually dropped from 16.6 in 1980 to 16.2 in 2002.  Even 8th graders (13 year olds!) can apparently their hands on alcohol more easily than even cigarettes, which have an age limit 18 in 46 states (and often poorly enforced).  There seems to be little to no correlation between the legal drinking age and the average age of onset of drinking.  But if not that, what does explain why some communities drink earlier (and/or more so) than others?  Like the above-referenced article points out, a combination of socioeconomic disadvantage, low alcohol prices, and the drinking patterns of their parents and grandparents seems to be the main culprit.  And there is nothing at all surprising about that.

A community group has made recommendations to address the problem.  Such recommendations include restricting alcohol advertising in the area, raising alcohol taxes, working with retailers on pricing and the placement of alcohol in stores, and increasing compliance checks on retailers by law enforcement.  We at Twenty-One Debunked believe that these commonsense measures are a good idea overall, and would support them even more if the drinking age was lowered to 18 as well.  Remember that the success story of Puerto Rico did not require a drinking age of 21 to succeed.  And nor did America's experience with tobacco use reduction over the past few decades require an increase in the smoking age to 21.

What Will South Dakota Do? (Updated)

The latest state in which there is an attempt to lower the drinking age is South Dakota. Which, as you may know, was the second to last state (followed only by Wyoming) to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1988 under federal duress and coercion. State Rep. Tim Rounds (R) currently has a proposal to let 19-20 year olds drink beer in bars if accompanied by someone over 21. Even that is rankling people like MADD, though. Rounds says he will drop the proposal if it will cost the state federal highway funding, which it likely will (it is unlikely that he found a loophole in the federal law).

Here's some advice, Mr. Rounds. You don't start out with a compromised position like this one. You will only have to compromise further. Obama learned this lesson the hard way when it came to healthcare (in 2003 he actually wanted single-payer, similar to Canada, and probably most Americans would have agreed). We know Rounds had a plan that was even more liberal than his current one last year.

If it passes, this will do good to pave the way for further changes in the drinking age, so let's cheer him on. We at 21 Debunked look forward to the day when in all 50 states, all 18-20 year olds will have the same rights as those over 21. In every way.

UPDATE:  Tim Rounds is still moving forward with the proposal as of January 2009, though he faces an uphill battle in the legislature.  Unfortunately, it appears to be too much of a compromise, and it is unclear whether even that would get around the federal highway funds coercion.  His latest plan would create special bars for 19-20 year olds to drink only beer and only on premises, though he dropped the requirement of being accompanied by someone over 21. 

Unfortunately, he added a provision that would make it a felony DUI for anyone under 21 to drive with even the slightest amout of alcohol in one's system.  It is already illegal to do so in all 50 states for those under 21, and it seems excessive and out of proportion to make it a felony (read: life-destroying) offense to drive after a single drink.  While we at Twenty-One Debunked do not support any kind of impaired driving, however slight, we think there is a significant difference between one beer and ten, and that the law should reflect that difference.  And what about false positives?

FEB. 2010 UPDATE:  The bill has officially been killed by the legislature, unfortunately.