We didn't think this would actually happen, but it did. On July 8, 2010, the bill that raised the drinking age to 21 was unfortunately signed into law at noon. This new law, effective immediately with no grandfather clause, criminalizes the purchase and possession of alcohol by anyone under 21, just like it was for those under 18 before, except that 18-20 year olds are still allowed to work in bars and sell/serve alcohol. Selling to anyone under 21 is illegal now as well.
This time, they did not even leave it up to the people. (Not like those over 21 really should have a say as to what legal but outvoted young adults 18-20 put into their own bodies, especially if those over 21 are allowed to do it themeslves, but it still was elitist for the legislature to go over the people's heads.) It was passed unanimously by the Guam Senate with almost no debate at all, in spite of the fact that referenda for raising the drinking age in previous years (such as 2006) had failed. What little discussion occurred was primarily recycled and often outdated junk science from the mainland, combined with shaky (but emotional) anecdotal evidence from Guam. The deck was stacked, and the opposition didn't stand a chance.
We predict that, based on research we have previously cited, no lives will be saved as a result of this draconian law, at least not in the long run. They would have been better off getting tougher on DUI and raising the alcohol taxes than punshing all 18-20 year olds for the actions of the few. Like we previously noted, 94% of the island's DUI problem consists of drivers over 21, and would still remain even if they could somehow prevent everyone from drinking until 21. On the mainland, roughly 90% of young adults will drink before 21 despite the drinking age, so even that is just wishful thinking.
Also, this will most likely hurt Guam's economy, dependent on tourism as they are. Looks like tourism will probably decrease over there, while it will likely increase in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the last two places in the USA in which 18-20 year olds are allowed to drink legally, and no passport required. Fiji learned this the hard way in 2006-2009, when their drinking age was briefly 21. They have since lowered it as a result, and the sky did not fall. Thus, we hope the leaders of Guam will come to their senses within a few years as well after seeing that the costs of an unrealistically high drinking age outweigh any possible benefits.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
To Guam: Don't Raise the Drinking Age!
Guam (Guahan) is one of the few places in the United States that, along with Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, still has a drinking age of 18, but all that may soon change. Several politicians on the island want to raise the drinking age to 21, and the majority of adults (who are over 21) agree as well. They claim it will make the island safer and reduce various social problems. But we at Twenty-One Debunked feel that this move is a huge mistake.
Supporters of the proposed 21 law ignore several important facts while simultaneously touting junk science. First, Guam (as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) has lower teen drinking and past-month "binge" drinking rates than the mainland, as well as lower than the Northern Mariana Islands, where the age limit is currently 21. Ditto for self-reported driving after drinking in the past 30 days, according to the latest CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey data:
In addition, only about 6% of all drunk driving arrests in Guam are for drivers under 21. That means that even if you could somehow magically stop everyone from drinking until 21, 94% of the island's DUI problem would still remain.
Secondly, Canada has seen the same (or faster) decline in traffic fatalities as the United States despite not raising the drinking age to 21, and their teen "binge" drinking rates in most provinces remain comparable to the geographically and demographically similar northern States as well. In fact, most of the world allows 18 year olds to drink, without the sky falling in those countries.
Thirdly, if Guam thinks that a drinking age of 18 is not working in some way, the first thing that should be done is to enforce it (and other existing laws, such as DUI) better, not to ban all 18-20 year olds from drinking and thereby increase the number of "underage" drinkers. Also, jacking up the alcohol taxes (especially beer) would likely be beneficial as well, especially if the funds are used for education, treatment, and law enforcement.
Fourthly, it will merely force drinking by young adults underground, as well as create "forbidden fruit" and "feast or famine" mentalities about alcohol. This will make it a lot more dangerous than it has to be. The effects of a 21 drinking age are thus iatrogenic--the "cure" is worse than the "disease." This is part of the reason that several college presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18 on the mainland, even as the pro-21 folks are calling for more and more ancillary laws and pharisaical enforcement to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition. And we all know how that worked out.
Finally, 18 year olds are legal adults, for better or worse. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. And those that claim that the brains of 18-20 year olds are not developed enough to be given full adult rights need to think long and hard about the underdeveloped ethics of trying them as adults, executing them, letting them be police officers, letting them get married and raise their own children, among other things--all while denying them sovereignty over their own bodies. Makes you wonder how capable the brains of people over 21 (especially over 25) are of thinking in new ways.
To Guam, take it from us folks on the mainland: 21 does NOT work! On the contrary, those that claim that it does and advocate raising the drinking age are playing with fire.
Supporters of the proposed 21 law ignore several important facts while simultaneously touting junk science. First, Guam (as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) has lower teen drinking and past-month "binge" drinking rates than the mainland, as well as lower than the Northern Mariana Islands, where the age limit is currently 21. Ditto for self-reported driving after drinking in the past 30 days, according to the latest CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey data:
| Location | "Binge" Drinking (Grade 12) | Drove after drinking (Grades 9-12) | MLDA | Year |
| USA (overall) | 36.5% | 10.5% | 21 | 2007 |
| Puerto Rico (USA) | 33.2% | 7.3% | 18 | 2005 |
| Guam (USA) | 30.3% | 7.8% | 18 | 2007 |
| Northern Mariana Islands (USA) | 36.5% | 14.1% | 21 | 2005 |
| US Virgin Islands | 14.4% | 6.1% | 18 | 2003 |
| American Samoa | 26.1% | 7.8% | 21 | 2007 |
In addition, only about 6% of all drunk driving arrests in Guam are for drivers under 21. That means that even if you could somehow magically stop everyone from drinking until 21, 94% of the island's DUI problem would still remain.
Secondly, Canada has seen the same (or faster) decline in traffic fatalities as the United States despite not raising the drinking age to 21, and their teen "binge" drinking rates in most provinces remain comparable to the geographically and demographically similar northern States as well. In fact, most of the world allows 18 year olds to drink, without the sky falling in those countries.
Thirdly, if Guam thinks that a drinking age of 18 is not working in some way, the first thing that should be done is to enforce it (and other existing laws, such as DUI) better, not to ban all 18-20 year olds from drinking and thereby increase the number of "underage" drinkers. Also, jacking up the alcohol taxes (especially beer) would likely be beneficial as well, especially if the funds are used for education, treatment, and law enforcement.
Fourthly, it will merely force drinking by young adults underground, as well as create "forbidden fruit" and "feast or famine" mentalities about alcohol. This will make it a lot more dangerous than it has to be. The effects of a 21 drinking age are thus iatrogenic--the "cure" is worse than the "disease." This is part of the reason that several college presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18 on the mainland, even as the pro-21 folks are calling for more and more ancillary laws and pharisaical enforcement to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition. And we all know how that worked out.
Finally, 18 year olds are legal adults, for better or worse. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. And those that claim that the brains of 18-20 year olds are not developed enough to be given full adult rights need to think long and hard about the underdeveloped ethics of trying them as adults, executing them, letting them be police officers, letting them get married and raise their own children, among other things--all while denying them sovereignty over their own bodies. Makes you wonder how capable the brains of people over 21 (especially over 25) are of thinking in new ways.
To Guam, take it from us folks on the mainland: 21 does NOT work! On the contrary, those that claim that it does and advocate raising the drinking age are playing with fire.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
There They Go Again!
In a previous post, White Noise Syndrome, we have pointed out what was known for a long time: drunk driving (and related deaths) peaks at age 21. Now, yet another study has noticed this too, this time among college students. Captain Obvious, if you will. The researchers found that among 20 year old students, 20% admit to driving drunk, which rises modestly to 25% when they turn 21. But the conclusions the authors drew about it were nothing short of strange.
The authors actually feel that the study validates keeping the drinking age at 21! Their pretzel logic is that the increased availability of alcohol at 21 translates into more drunk driving than at 20, thus lowering the drinking age would be a bad idea. But this argument is specious at best. For example, the peak age for drunk driving is also 21 in countries with lower drinking ages such as Canada (18 or 19), Germany (16), Australia (18), and the UK (18), and this was true in the USA as well when the drinking age was 18 in most states. That is, DUI increases between age 18 and 21 even in the absence of increased availability at 21. Also, the aforementioned study also found that college freshmen drink more than upperclassmen, while drunk driving appears to increase with age--and even between 19 and 20 this increase occurs as well despite similar alcohol availability. One possible reason for this paradox is that freshmen are less likely to have their own cars, as are 18 year olds in general, and more likely to live on campus. Combine a 21 year old's greater likelihood of owning a car with the sudden increase in freedom to drink legally, and the study's results are hardly surprising. It is the Law of Eristic Escalation in action. One thing is for sure: no one magically becomes able to handle alcohol upon turning 21 if they were not able to handle it before. And with 1 in 5 college students overall admitting to driving drunk in the past year, it is quite obvious that if this is what they call success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.
Perhaps our country's misguided attempt to keep 18-20 year olds from drinking at all, which has clearly failed, is not the best way to prepare young adults for the reality of drinking that 90% of them will experience. All it is doing is delaying the inevitable at best, and making it more dangerous than it has to be at worst. If the drinking age was 18, young adults could get the partying out of their system before many of them get their first cars, and often while still living on campus. It would likely be done more safely than now, when it is done underground. There would be no need to go to far-off locations (which often involve drinking and driving) when they could drink in their dorms, apartments, or walk to and from the local bar. In fact, a 2005 study found that blood alcohol levels prior to driving among college students are higher from drinking at parties compared to all other locations, so more 18-20 year olds going to bars would probably mean fewer crashes, even among those who are foolish enough to drive. Then when they are a few years older, it would get to be "old hat" and there would be less desire to mix booze and car keys.
If anything, this study is a good argument for lowering the drinking age to 18, as well as cracking down harder on drunk driving. We currently waste far too many resources trying to keep 18-20 year olds from drinking, that could be better spent on DUI enforcement. But apparently the brains of people over 21 (especially over 25) are less capable of thinking in new ways.
As the late Ronald Reagan would say, "I can't help it, there you go again!"
The authors actually feel that the study validates keeping the drinking age at 21! Their pretzel logic is that the increased availability of alcohol at 21 translates into more drunk driving than at 20, thus lowering the drinking age would be a bad idea. But this argument is specious at best. For example, the peak age for drunk driving is also 21 in countries with lower drinking ages such as Canada (18 or 19), Germany (16), Australia (18), and the UK (18), and this was true in the USA as well when the drinking age was 18 in most states. That is, DUI increases between age 18 and 21 even in the absence of increased availability at 21. Also, the aforementioned study also found that college freshmen drink more than upperclassmen, while drunk driving appears to increase with age--and even between 19 and 20 this increase occurs as well despite similar alcohol availability. One possible reason for this paradox is that freshmen are less likely to have their own cars, as are 18 year olds in general, and more likely to live on campus. Combine a 21 year old's greater likelihood of owning a car with the sudden increase in freedom to drink legally, and the study's results are hardly surprising. It is the Law of Eristic Escalation in action. One thing is for sure: no one magically becomes able to handle alcohol upon turning 21 if they were not able to handle it before. And with 1 in 5 college students overall admitting to driving drunk in the past year, it is quite obvious that if this is what they call success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.
Perhaps our country's misguided attempt to keep 18-20 year olds from drinking at all, which has clearly failed, is not the best way to prepare young adults for the reality of drinking that 90% of them will experience. All it is doing is delaying the inevitable at best, and making it more dangerous than it has to be at worst. If the drinking age was 18, young adults could get the partying out of their system before many of them get their first cars, and often while still living on campus. It would likely be done more safely than now, when it is done underground. There would be no need to go to far-off locations (which often involve drinking and driving) when they could drink in their dorms, apartments, or walk to and from the local bar. In fact, a 2005 study found that blood alcohol levels prior to driving among college students are higher from drinking at parties compared to all other locations, so more 18-20 year olds going to bars would probably mean fewer crashes, even among those who are foolish enough to drive. Then when they are a few years older, it would get to be "old hat" and there would be less desire to mix booze and car keys.
If anything, this study is a good argument for lowering the drinking age to 18, as well as cracking down harder on drunk driving. We currently waste far too many resources trying to keep 18-20 year olds from drinking, that could be better spent on DUI enforcement. But apparently the brains of people over 21 (especially over 25) are less capable of thinking in new ways.
As the late Ronald Reagan would say, "I can't help it, there you go again!"
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Finally, Some Good News from Britain!
(NOTE: This blog is from a primarily American perspective)
The United Kingdom (which happens to be America's mother country) has had a long history of binge drinking. By long, we mean nearly a thousand years. And by binge drinking, we mean drinking to not only get drunk (or "pissed" as they like to say), but to fall down.
The British drinking culture, which was the main influence on its former colonies around the world, has generally ebbed and flowed along with the zeitgeist. For a variety of reasons, binge drinking and alcohol consumption in general has increased dramatically over the past few decades (especially the 1990s) among both teenagers and adults alike. Most notable among those reasons was the steadily falling price of booze relative to personal income since the 1960s, the rising number and density of alcohol outlets, and the practice of "loss leading" promotions by these outlets. Since around 2000, the news media (especially the tabloids) have been hawking scare stories on a regular basis about the country's apparently worsening drinking problem, especially stories about young people. Of course, we all know that good news doesn't sell nearly as well as bad or frighening news.
However, it appears that things are actually changing for the better, at least among young people. Since about 2003, teen drinking in England is down significantly, especially among 11-15 year olds. This appears to be driven in part by fewer people under 18 buying their own alcohol directly, which is likely a result of tougher enforcement of Britain's long-standing drinking age of 18. By tougher we mean that enforcement went from practically nonexistent to quite significant, though the age limit is still less enforced than America's 21 drinking age and there are numerous exceptions to the UK limit. Think of it like the way we treat cigarettes in the USA. Also, 16-24 year olds are drinking less frequently and less heavily in 2008 than they were in 1996. Unfortunately, however, there has been little to no progress overall among adults over 25 for some reason, and alcohol-related deaths (mostly liver disease, which has a lag time of many years) remain higher than in the 1990s. Though that may change as the current cohort of teens and young adults ages in the future.
In addition, the British Crime Survey shows that violent crime has generally declined since the 1990s as well, including crimes committed by offenders perceived by victims as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Suicides have dropped as well. This trend is unlikely due to tougher gun control laws passed in the 1990s--the use of guns in crimes has actually risen since 1998 despite overall violent crime falling. It also calls into question the conventional wisdom that the 24-hour extended drinking laws (effective 2005) have ushered in disaster on the streets of England.
Most notably of all, this occurred without raising the drinking age to 21, as some people in the UK had suggested doing. Right-o, old chap?
The United Kingdom (which happens to be America's mother country) has had a long history of binge drinking. By long, we mean nearly a thousand years. And by binge drinking, we mean drinking to not only get drunk (or "pissed" as they like to say), but to fall down.
The British drinking culture, which was the main influence on its former colonies around the world, has generally ebbed and flowed along with the zeitgeist. For a variety of reasons, binge drinking and alcohol consumption in general has increased dramatically over the past few decades (especially the 1990s) among both teenagers and adults alike. Most notable among those reasons was the steadily falling price of booze relative to personal income since the 1960s, the rising number and density of alcohol outlets, and the practice of "loss leading" promotions by these outlets. Since around 2000, the news media (especially the tabloids) have been hawking scare stories on a regular basis about the country's apparently worsening drinking problem, especially stories about young people. Of course, we all know that good news doesn't sell nearly as well as bad or frighening news.
However, it appears that things are actually changing for the better, at least among young people. Since about 2003, teen drinking in England is down significantly, especially among 11-15 year olds. This appears to be driven in part by fewer people under 18 buying their own alcohol directly, which is likely a result of tougher enforcement of Britain's long-standing drinking age of 18. By tougher we mean that enforcement went from practically nonexistent to quite significant, though the age limit is still less enforced than America's 21 drinking age and there are numerous exceptions to the UK limit. Think of it like the way we treat cigarettes in the USA. Also, 16-24 year olds are drinking less frequently and less heavily in 2008 than they were in 1996. Unfortunately, however, there has been little to no progress overall among adults over 25 for some reason, and alcohol-related deaths (mostly liver disease, which has a lag time of many years) remain higher than in the 1990s. Though that may change as the current cohort of teens and young adults ages in the future.
In addition, the British Crime Survey shows that violent crime has generally declined since the 1990s as well, including crimes committed by offenders perceived by victims as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Suicides have dropped as well. This trend is unlikely due to tougher gun control laws passed in the 1990s--the use of guns in crimes has actually risen since 1998 despite overall violent crime falling. It also calls into question the conventional wisdom that the 24-hour extended drinking laws (effective 2005) have ushered in disaster on the streets of England.
Most notably of all, this occurred without raising the drinking age to 21, as some people in the UK had suggested doing. Right-o, old chap?
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Real Terrorists of the Road
What if we were to tell you that there was an epidemic of adults going around killing thousands of children and teenagers every year, and maiming hundreds of thousands more? What if the innocent victims were statistically more likely to be victimized by such adults than to be victimized by people their own ages? What if the killers were able to get off with relatively light punishments, and were still allowed to engage in the very behaviors that led to such tragedies?
You probably think there would be an outrage, as there should be. But America just predictably responds with a collective yawn and a shrug to the problem of drunk driving adults over 21 killing and maiming people under that age. A new study shows that, with respect to alcohol-related crashes, children and teens are statistically more likely to be victimized by adults over 21 than vice versa, and more than from drunk drivers under 21. Think about that next time you read about yet another "teenager killed in a drunk driving crash."
Remember, the drunk driver that killed MADD founder Candy Lightner's 13 year old daughter was 46. A teenager was killed by an adult. And what age group lost the most civil liberties as a result of MADD's activism? 18-20 year olds. Honestly, does that really make any sense?
It's time we got much tougher on the real terrorists of the road. Our children and teens--that is, our future--deserve nothing less.
You probably think there would be an outrage, as there should be. But America just predictably responds with a collective yawn and a shrug to the problem of drunk driving adults over 21 killing and maiming people under that age. A new study shows that, with respect to alcohol-related crashes, children and teens are statistically more likely to be victimized by adults over 21 than vice versa, and more than from drunk drivers under 21. Think about that next time you read about yet another "teenager killed in a drunk driving crash."
Remember, the drunk driver that killed MADD founder Candy Lightner's 13 year old daughter was 46. A teenager was killed by an adult. And what age group lost the most civil liberties as a result of MADD's activism? 18-20 year olds. Honestly, does that really make any sense?
It's time we got much tougher on the real terrorists of the road. Our children and teens--that is, our future--deserve nothing less.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
New Zealand Revisited
(NOTE: This blog is from a primarily American perspective)
It's official. New Zealand has a drinking problem. While America does too, if you scrape the bottom of the barrel you will actually find quite a few countries that are worse than the good old USA in terms of dangerous and excessive drinking, and NZ appears to be one of them. And it appears to be getting worse over there as time goes on.
New Zealand has always had such a problem to some extent. Google "six-o-clock swill" and you'll quickly see that it goes back at least a century. But the recent increase can be traced back to 1989, when the Sale of Liquor Act dramatically liberalized the booze laws. Trading hours for booze became 24/6 (still no Sunday sales), up from the previous 10 pm closing times, and the looser licensing laws caused number of outlets to more than double from 1989 to 2009. Booze prices also shrank relative to average incomes, and "loss leading" became a common practice. In 1999, on the same day the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18, they began allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, accelerating the rise in outlet density, and with the simultaneous addition of Sunday sales, it was now 24/7. All this in a country that is generally soft on crime and tolerant of extreme drinking and drunken violence.
The Law Commission has apparently come up with a few recommendations to tackle the problem. In their report, they include the following, among others:
Besides, raising the age limit would be a major victory for the pro-21 crowd in this country as well if the drinking age was raised, reducing the chances that our drinking age will be lowered any time in the near future. It would only reinforce the specious claim that lowering the drinking age in America would be a disaster, since it would seem that NZ tried it and couldn't handle it. Nevermind that NZ is a very different culture from the USA, and that other factors were at work--neoprohibitionists apparently can't be bothered with pesky facts.
Instead, we propose the following for NZ in addition to the Law Commissions recommendations (aside from the drinking age), and these will likely work in other countries with a serious drinking problem:
Interestingly, the New Zealand Medical Association agreed in 2006 that the drinking age should remain 18, since there was no clinical evidence that alcohol was more harmful to an 18 year old than a 20 year old. But they did say that the current drinking age needs to be enforced better, and also called for tighter advertising restrictions on alcohol. Unfortunately, they appear to have flip-flopped on the drinking age issue this time around.
What exactly were the effects of lowering the drinking age from 20 to 18 in December 1999? It turns out that those who claim it was a disaster haven't the foggiest idea of cause and effect. Carnage on the highways? Unlikely to be causal. According to the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group, the reporting of nonfatal injury crashes by police had improved since 2001. Teen traffic fatalities fluctuated a great deal due to their small numbers, but the rates generally remained below their 1999 values from 2000-2008. Increase in youth crime and violence? That had been rising since 1992, seven years before the drinking age was lowered, and actually declined around 1998-2002 before resuming its upward trend. Again, unlikely causation.
(Take a look at our May 2009 blog post about New Zealand for more information about the issue of their drinking age)
In other news, NZ's driving age (currently 15) was raised to 16 effective in mid-2011, and it will also be a bit tougher to get a license. To that, we say good--if any age limit should be raised over there, the driving age is it. Kiwis tend to have higher fatality rates compared to Aussies or us Yanks, and their driving age is ridiculously low compared to most other countries. They are already debating whether to raise it further to 17. But while they're at it, why not get tougher on drunk driving and reckless driving for all ages?
It's official. New Zealand has a drinking problem. While America does too, if you scrape the bottom of the barrel you will actually find quite a few countries that are worse than the good old USA in terms of dangerous and excessive drinking, and NZ appears to be one of them. And it appears to be getting worse over there as time goes on.
New Zealand has always had such a problem to some extent. Google "six-o-clock swill" and you'll quickly see that it goes back at least a century. But the recent increase can be traced back to 1989, when the Sale of Liquor Act dramatically liberalized the booze laws. Trading hours for booze became 24/6 (still no Sunday sales), up from the previous 10 pm closing times, and the looser licensing laws caused number of outlets to more than double from 1989 to 2009. Booze prices also shrank relative to average incomes, and "loss leading" became a common practice. In 1999, on the same day the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18, they began allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, accelerating the rise in outlet density, and with the simultaneous addition of Sunday sales, it was now 24/7. All this in a country that is generally soft on crime and tolerant of extreme drinking and drunken violence.
The Law Commission has apparently come up with a few recommendations to tackle the problem. In their report, they include the following, among others:
- Have a "one-way door" (no entry) policy for pubs and nightclubs after 2am
- Require all pubs to close by 4am
- No off-premise sales after 10pm
- Restrict "irresponsible" promotions that encourage excessive drinking
- Raise the alcohol excise tax by 50%
- Raise the drinking age from 18 to 20
Besides, raising the age limit would be a major victory for the pro-21 crowd in this country as well if the drinking age was raised, reducing the chances that our drinking age will be lowered any time in the near future. It would only reinforce the specious claim that lowering the drinking age in America would be a disaster, since it would seem that NZ tried it and couldn't handle it. Nevermind that NZ is a very different culture from the USA, and that other factors were at work--neoprohibitionists apparently can't be bothered with pesky facts.
Instead, we propose the following for NZ in addition to the Law Commissions recommendations (aside from the drinking age), and these will likely work in other countries with a serious drinking problem:
- Set a price floor for alcohol, especially at off-licenses, and ban the practice of "loss leading" (selling below cost).
- Restrict or ban alcohol advertising, especially on TV and radio.
- Increase the penalties for drunk driving, and step up enforcement.
- Lower the general blood alcohol limit for driving to 0.05, and the under-20 limit to 0.02 or less (the limits are currently 0.08 and 0.03, respectively).
- Hold parents accountable for what their under-18 kids do, especially if the parents supplied them with alcohol beforehand.
- Put more cops on the street, and get tough on real crime, especially drunk violence.
- Ban drinking in the street by all ages, or allow very limited designated areas to do so.
- Restrict the number and density of alcohol outlets, especially in cities.
- Increase alcohol education and public awareness campaigns.
- Exempt microbreweries from any new tax hikes (they are generally not part of the problem, and they would have the hardest time absorbing such price increases). Otherwise, tax the hell out of alcohol, especially RTDs (alcopops).
- Do NOT raise the drinking age! Just enforce it better, especially for off-premise sales, and close the existing loopholes on furnishing alcohol to minors under 18 (which the Law Commission also recommends).
Interestingly, the New Zealand Medical Association agreed in 2006 that the drinking age should remain 18, since there was no clinical evidence that alcohol was more harmful to an 18 year old than a 20 year old. But they did say that the current drinking age needs to be enforced better, and also called for tighter advertising restrictions on alcohol. Unfortunately, they appear to have flip-flopped on the drinking age issue this time around.
What exactly were the effects of lowering the drinking age from 20 to 18 in December 1999? It turns out that those who claim it was a disaster haven't the foggiest idea of cause and effect. Carnage on the highways? Unlikely to be causal. According to the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group, the reporting of nonfatal injury crashes by police had improved since 2001. Teen traffic fatalities fluctuated a great deal due to their small numbers, but the rates generally remained below their 1999 values from 2000-2008. Increase in youth crime and violence? That had been rising since 1992, seven years before the drinking age was lowered, and actually declined around 1998-2002 before resuming its upward trend. Again, unlikely causation.
(Take a look at our May 2009 blog post about New Zealand for more information about the issue of their drinking age)
In other news, NZ's driving age (currently 15) was raised to 16 effective in mid-2011, and it will also be a bit tougher to get a license. To that, we say good--if any age limit should be raised over there, the driving age is it. Kiwis tend to have higher fatality rates compared to Aussies or us Yanks, and their driving age is ridiculously low compared to most other countries. They are already debating whether to raise it further to 17. But while they're at it, why not get tougher on drunk driving and reckless driving for all ages?
Monday, April 12, 2010
New Scare About Young Adult Drinking
This one is so easy to knock down it is almost a straw man, but we will do what we always do when junk science is encountered. That's what we're here for, after all.
A new study reports that there is a correlation between benign breast disease and frequent drinking in young women aged 15-22. One headline, "Underage Drinking Tied to Breast Disease Risk," is misleading because it includes women up to two years over the legal drinking age of 21, and not all drinkers were equal. The risk was only statistically significant for those who drank three or more times per week, with the highest risk for daily drinkers. Even so, the confidence intervals were very wide, suggesting possible residual or unmeasured confounding. And the effect was not explained by age of onset of regular drinking. That's right--no correlation with age of onset, and therefore nothing magic about the drinking age of 21.
Once again, it appears moderation is the key, regardless of age. That should be the take-home message for this study, not "don't drink a drop until 21, then do what you will," which is apparently what one of the authors implied when discussing the results. But moderation appears to be a forgotten virtue in the land of extremes that is America, no doubt spurred on by the 21 drinking age.
We at 21 Debunked provide this for informational purposes only and do not in any way advocate drinking of any kind, underage or otherwise.
A new study reports that there is a correlation between benign breast disease and frequent drinking in young women aged 15-22. One headline, "Underage Drinking Tied to Breast Disease Risk," is misleading because it includes women up to two years over the legal drinking age of 21, and not all drinkers were equal. The risk was only statistically significant for those who drank three or more times per week, with the highest risk for daily drinkers. Even so, the confidence intervals were very wide, suggesting possible residual or unmeasured confounding. And the effect was not explained by age of onset of regular drinking. That's right--no correlation with age of onset, and therefore nothing magic about the drinking age of 21.
Once again, it appears moderation is the key, regardless of age. That should be the take-home message for this study, not "don't drink a drop until 21, then do what you will," which is apparently what one of the authors implied when discussing the results. But moderation appears to be a forgotten virtue in the land of extremes that is America, no doubt spurred on by the 21 drinking age.
We at 21 Debunked provide this for informational purposes only and do not in any way advocate drinking of any kind, underage or otherwise.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
High Gas Prices Save Lives
It's now official. Traffic fatalities in 2009 were at their lowest since 1954, and in 2008 were at their lowest since 1961. This was despite the fact that now the population is much larger, there are much more cars on the road, and much more vehicle miles traveled than back then. Similar trends have been noted in preliminary data from Canada as well. While many factors likely contributed to this lifesaving trend, perhaps the most salient one of all was gas prices, which had been rising steadily since 2004 and spiked dramatically in 2008.
Gas prices are now known to have a significant effect, and are thus now emerging as one of the most cost-effective ways to save lives on the road. Carefully controlled studies have found this to be true, and the fatality rates of 2008 and 2009 confirm this. While 2009 had lower gas prices than 2008, the driving habits learned in 2008 had yet to be unlearned, and this was likely prolonged by the recession. Similar effects of gas prices (and recessions) occurred in 1974-1975, 1980-1983, and 1990-1993. Contrary to popular opinion, the price elasticity of gasoline is not zero, or even close to zero, and it seems to rise dramatically when prices go above $3.00/gallon. Longer-term elasticites are about twice as strong, suggesting the effect builds over time.
The effects on fatalities are not limited to reduced vehicle miles traveled; while that drops too, even controlling for this we can see a decrease in deaths. "Discretionary" driving declines the most when gas prices rise, and most fatalities occur from this type of driving, including the majority of alcohol-related fatalities. Speeding and aggressive driving also decline in an effort to save fuel and money. Thus, the price elasticity for gasoline demand actually understates the effect on fatalities.
By that logic, it seems that one of the best ways we can reduce traffic fatalities (both alcohol and non-alcohol) would be to raise the gas tax. Of course, that would make a lot of people mad. But if it saves even one life, it's worth it, right? Isn't that what groups like MADD have said about things like the 21 drinking age? Judging by the lack of enthusiasm about raising the gas tax, it appears that the pro-21 crowd doesn't practice what they preach. Or maybe it's all about liberty for "just us," not all.
If we know higher gas prices save lives, not to mention the planet, what are we waiting for?
Gas prices are now known to have a significant effect, and are thus now emerging as one of the most cost-effective ways to save lives on the road. Carefully controlled studies have found this to be true, and the fatality rates of 2008 and 2009 confirm this. While 2009 had lower gas prices than 2008, the driving habits learned in 2008 had yet to be unlearned, and this was likely prolonged by the recession. Similar effects of gas prices (and recessions) occurred in 1974-1975, 1980-1983, and 1990-1993. Contrary to popular opinion, the price elasticity of gasoline is not zero, or even close to zero, and it seems to rise dramatically when prices go above $3.00/gallon. Longer-term elasticites are about twice as strong, suggesting the effect builds over time.
The effects on fatalities are not limited to reduced vehicle miles traveled; while that drops too, even controlling for this we can see a decrease in deaths. "Discretionary" driving declines the most when gas prices rise, and most fatalities occur from this type of driving, including the majority of alcohol-related fatalities. Speeding and aggressive driving also decline in an effort to save fuel and money. Thus, the price elasticity for gasoline demand actually understates the effect on fatalities.
By that logic, it seems that one of the best ways we can reduce traffic fatalities (both alcohol and non-alcohol) would be to raise the gas tax. Of course, that would make a lot of people mad. But if it saves even one life, it's worth it, right? Isn't that what groups like MADD have said about things like the 21 drinking age? Judging by the lack of enthusiasm about raising the gas tax, it appears that the pro-21 crowd doesn't practice what they preach. Or maybe it's all about liberty for "just us," not all.
If we know higher gas prices save lives, not to mention the planet, what are we waiting for?
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Lincoln (Nebraska) Miracle that Wasn't
You have probably heard about the supposed miracle that has happened in Lincoln, Nebraska. At the University of Nebraska--Lincoln, a combination of tough laws, heavy-handed enforcement, and strong public support (from community members over 21) has led to a decrease in "binge" drinking and associated consequences since 1997. Or at least that's what they're telling us.
UNL is a dry campus, and has been such for a while, but the surrounding town has been anything but dry. But then the crackdowns happened, apparently with a special focus on underage drinking. Police, college officals, and landlords all teamed up to reduce underage drinking and out of control parties, and the consequences meted out for either are severe (at least compared to other college towns). Lives and careers have been ruined to one degree or another as a result. In fact, it's become a virtual witch-hunt that would likely make McCarthy himself blush.
The crackdowns are actually part of a larger anti-alcohol program known as A Matter of Degree, funded by grants from the neo-temperance Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and directed by Dr. Richard Yoast. Ten colleges around the country, including UNL, participated in the AMOD program since 1997 and it is still ongoing.
So was it worth it? Well, if you dig a little deeper you will find that according to its own police department, the city of Lincoln had a record high number of DUI arrests in 2009. In fact, 2008 and 2009 were the two worst years, even surpassing the old record from 1992. Of course, analyzing arrest rates poses a chicken-or-egg problem; it could simply be tougher enforcement, not more drunk driving. However, student surveys show that the percentage of students who report driving after drinking actually doubled from 2003 to 2006. We speculate that many of the parties have simply shifted outside of the city limits, so party-goers drive there, get drunk, and drive back. If that's success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.
And the decrease in "binge" drinking according to surveys was from 62% of students in 1997 to 45%, meaning that they went from well above average to merely average. No better than average in fact, and average is still quite high. Remember too that correlation does not equal causation. Part of it could be that prospective students who are most likely to be party animals simply choose other colleges instead after hearing about what a police state Lincoln has become. And high school student drinking in Lincoln is still a persistent problem, one that most likely will remain as long as the police continue disproportionally targeting 18-20 year olds. (Of course, Lincoln is clearly not the only place in the country where this is an issue)
As for the crackdowns purportedly reducing crime, LPD crime statistics for the city as a whole appear to debunk that claim as well, at least for the most serious crimes like homicide, rape, and aggravated assault.
Thus, it appears that it was a rather hollow victory overall. While there are some good aspects to their overall strategy of reducing high-risk drinking, it would probably be best if Nebraska decided to lower the drinking age to 18 (it actually used to be 19 until the 1980s) and targeted the actual troublemakers rather than those who are simply drinking and/or at the wrong place at the wrong time. But the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation would never even consider that, given their apparent bias against alcohol.
In fact, the rather expensive AMOD program itself is highly questionable at best. A 2004 study found that in the first five years of implementation, little to no change in high-risk drinking (or its consequences) was seen in the aggregate. Five out of the 10 schools that participated (including UNL) did see some improvement, but it was hard to tease out what actually caused what due to all the variables involved. The RWJF, of course, put a positive spin on the results, as does the neo-temperance crowd overall. But the rest of us can clearly see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
So let's make a toast to Richard Yoast.
UNL is a dry campus, and has been such for a while, but the surrounding town has been anything but dry. But then the crackdowns happened, apparently with a special focus on underage drinking. Police, college officals, and landlords all teamed up to reduce underage drinking and out of control parties, and the consequences meted out for either are severe (at least compared to other college towns). Lives and careers have been ruined to one degree or another as a result. In fact, it's become a virtual witch-hunt that would likely make McCarthy himself blush.
The crackdowns are actually part of a larger anti-alcohol program known as A Matter of Degree, funded by grants from the neo-temperance Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and directed by Dr. Richard Yoast. Ten colleges around the country, including UNL, participated in the AMOD program since 1997 and it is still ongoing.
So was it worth it? Well, if you dig a little deeper you will find that according to its own police department, the city of Lincoln had a record high number of DUI arrests in 2009. In fact, 2008 and 2009 were the two worst years, even surpassing the old record from 1992. Of course, analyzing arrest rates poses a chicken-or-egg problem; it could simply be tougher enforcement, not more drunk driving. However, student surveys show that the percentage of students who report driving after drinking actually doubled from 2003 to 2006. We speculate that many of the parties have simply shifted outside of the city limits, so party-goers drive there, get drunk, and drive back. If that's success, we'd hate to see what failure looks like.
And the decrease in "binge" drinking according to surveys was from 62% of students in 1997 to 45%, meaning that they went from well above average to merely average. No better than average in fact, and average is still quite high. Remember too that correlation does not equal causation. Part of it could be that prospective students who are most likely to be party animals simply choose other colleges instead after hearing about what a police state Lincoln has become. And high school student drinking in Lincoln is still a persistent problem, one that most likely will remain as long as the police continue disproportionally targeting 18-20 year olds. (Of course, Lincoln is clearly not the only place in the country where this is an issue)
As for the crackdowns purportedly reducing crime, LPD crime statistics for the city as a whole appear to debunk that claim as well, at least for the most serious crimes like homicide, rape, and aggravated assault.
Thus, it appears that it was a rather hollow victory overall. While there are some good aspects to their overall strategy of reducing high-risk drinking, it would probably be best if Nebraska decided to lower the drinking age to 18 (it actually used to be 19 until the 1980s) and targeted the actual troublemakers rather than those who are simply drinking and/or at the wrong place at the wrong time. But the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation would never even consider that, given their apparent bias against alcohol.
In fact, the rather expensive AMOD program itself is highly questionable at best. A 2004 study found that in the first five years of implementation, little to no change in high-risk drinking (or its consequences) was seen in the aggregate. Five out of the 10 schools that participated (including UNL) did see some improvement, but it was hard to tease out what actually caused what due to all the variables involved. The RWJF, of course, put a positive spin on the results, as does the neo-temperance crowd overall. But the rest of us can clearly see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
So let's make a toast to Richard Yoast.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Emperor Is Naked
We should have written about this last year, but we recently learned that MADD has severed all ties with the Century Council, and all of the reasons why. For those who don't know, the Century Council (TCC) is an organization dedicated to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking, that is funded entirely by America's leading distillers. Cynics, however, would say that the organization is just a political ploy to deflect blame from the alcohol industry. MADD's Dear John letter to them noted that the primary reason for the split was the Century Council's initial opposition to mandatory ignition interlocks for first offenders, a group MADD rightly referred to as "ticking time bombs" since they have already driven drunk 88 times on average before being caught. For that particular issue, we at Twenty-One Debunked tend to agree with MADD. Ignition interlocks are the mimimum that should be imposed on drunk drivers, and in fact we think the laws against DUI should be much tougher. Usually only extremely die-hard libertines or those with vested interests would be opposed to that, and TCC has since officially switched to neutrality on the ignition interlock issue.
However, another less-publicized reason noted in the letter was that TCC allegedly condoned drinking before the age of 21, despite the organization's generally unequivocal stance supporting the 21 drinking age. This was based solely on a quote by TCC's president, taken way out of context, concerning an ad campaign designed by college students through the American Advertising Federation's student competition to reduce excessive drinking. The actual quote was, "[t]he behavior is taking place, the best thing we can do is reduce the harm." Despite the TCC reaffirming its support for the 21 drinking age, MADD still was not satisfied since their refusal to retract that specific quote (though clearly true) could somehow be perceived as "undermining" the drinking age or "condoning" underage drinking. Now that's just lunacy--even the slightest hint that one can see cracks in the facade of prohibition is somehow bad?
Just go to any college campus (except perhaps Brigham Young or Bob Jones) and you will see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. The 21 drinking age simply doesn't work--the majority of 18-20 year olds still drink. And while fewer of them now drink regularly than they did back in the 1970s, which may or may not have anything to do with the drinking age, the more they do when they do. And the problem of truly dangerous drinking, though always there, is arguably worse in colleges today. Forcing alcohol underground only makes it that much more dangerous (and appealing), a lesson we should have learned in the 1920s but somehow conveniently forgot when it comes to today's young people. We need better solutions, the kind that can only work with a lower drinking age. What better time than now?
However, another less-publicized reason noted in the letter was that TCC allegedly condoned drinking before the age of 21, despite the organization's generally unequivocal stance supporting the 21 drinking age. This was based solely on a quote by TCC's president, taken way out of context, concerning an ad campaign designed by college students through the American Advertising Federation's student competition to reduce excessive drinking. The actual quote was, "[t]he behavior is taking place, the best thing we can do is reduce the harm." Despite the TCC reaffirming its support for the 21 drinking age, MADD still was not satisfied since their refusal to retract that specific quote (though clearly true) could somehow be perceived as "undermining" the drinking age or "condoning" underage drinking. Now that's just lunacy--even the slightest hint that one can see cracks in the facade of prohibition is somehow bad?
Just go to any college campus (except perhaps Brigham Young or Bob Jones) and you will see that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. The 21 drinking age simply doesn't work--the majority of 18-20 year olds still drink. And while fewer of them now drink regularly than they did back in the 1970s, which may or may not have anything to do with the drinking age, the more they do when they do. And the problem of truly dangerous drinking, though always there, is arguably worse in colleges today. Forcing alcohol underground only makes it that much more dangerous (and appealing), a lesson we should have learned in the 1920s but somehow conveniently forgot when it comes to today's young people. We need better solutions, the kind that can only work with a lower drinking age. What better time than now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
