This has been a controversy for decades, with most studies saying "yes", at least for moderate drinkers. Such a relationship is thought to be primarily due to reductions in cardiovascular disease. However, methodological problems such as confounders and the "sick quitter" effect (not to mention the wrath of the neoprohibitionists) have hampered the ability to draw any firm conclusions until now.
A recent study found that, among 55-65 year olds at least, moderate drinkers lived the longest, followed by light drinkers, followed by heavy drinkers, followed by abstainers. You read that right--for some reason, even heavy drinkers outlived teetotallers! This was true even after controlling for numerous traditional and non-traditional confounders, including smoking, obesity, sociodemographic factors, former problem drinking status, and health problems at baseline. While controlling for these attenuated the relationship somewhat, it still remained strong, confirming previous studies that also found a U-shaped or J-shaped curve for mortality. It appears that the ancient Greeks were right after all.
But before you go out and buy a bottle of Jack to celebrate, remember that there are several caveats to these findings. First of all, the study only looked at 55-65 year olds, so attempting to generalize these findings to younger (or older) age groups can be problematic. No health benefits from alcohol have ever been conclusively proven for people under 40 (though one study suggests that there might be some), and many (but certainly not all) experts believe that the well-known risks (dependency, injuries, liver damage, etc.) outweigh any theoretical benefits that may occur from drinking before that age, especially for heavy drinking. People over 65 would likely show significant cardiovascular benefits from light drinking, but this age group can run the risk of falls and other injuries from drinking as well. Also, there are many folks (of all ages, and we all know them) who really should avoid the bottle like the plague. The fact that the study included only people over 55 means that it inherently excluded many severe alcoholics and/or drunk drivers who would most likely have died before reaching that age, and thus reduced the number of life years in the population. Finally, the study failed to distinguish between different patterns of drinking--you should realize that there is a huge difference between having two drinks each night of the week (Continental-style) versus having all 14 drinks on a single night (British-style). The latter is very dangerous indeed, don't do it!
While this study is not directly relevant to the drinking age issue, we feel that studies like this are important to show that alcohol is not an unmitigated evil like MADD and their ilk claim it to be. Booze does indeed have a dark side that we all need to be aware of, but there are good things about it as well.
We at Twenty-One Debunked present this for informational purposes only and in no way intend this to be an encouragement for anyone to drink. We are not a "pro-alcohol" organization, but rather we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. But if you do choose to drink, remember that moderation is the key, and of course never drink and drive.
UPDATE: Take a look at this review in the British Medical Journal on the apparent inverse relationship between light to moderate drinking and cardiovascular disease.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
More About Guam
As you already know, much to our chagrin Guam was in the news for hastily raising the drinking age to 21 in July 2010. That makes them the first part of the USA to change the drinking age in over two decades. They were in the news again recently in August. The first is that they will actually get tougher on DUI by requiring a mandatory overnight jail stay and will prosecute cases within 48 hours, instead of the former policy of "catch and release" that made it such a joke before. (This we certainly applaud, by the way.) The second was the fact that the arrest rate for DUI had been skyrocketing since 2007, especially for younger drivers. Aside from being the major impetus for the latest change in DUI criminal procedure, this fact was also used by some to retrospectively justify the drinking age hike to 21.
But the latter claim does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, it falls flat on its face. The stats from the Guam Police Department show the following numbers, in a population of about 175,000 residents:
Clearly arrests have risen for all ages, and doubled for those under 21 in two years, though the share of arrests under 21 has essentially plateaued since 2008, after jumping from 2007 to 2008. Back in 2005, it was only 6%. However, arrest rates can be quite deceiving, as the table of fatalities below so clearly shows:
Here we see a very different picture indeed. It does not appear that alcohol-related fatalities have been rising for any age group. Quite the opposite in fact, a whopping 64% decrease overall, and thus the reason for rising arrests is most likely greater enforcement and targeting of younger drivers, as opposed to more drunk driving. You read right that in 2008 and 2010, there have actually been zero traffic fatalites of those under 21. The 2010 data only include the first half of the year (up to June 30), during which the drinking age was still 18, so one can thus project 20 total deaths and 4 total alcohol-related deaths for the whole year, and either zero or one death under 21, had the status quo remained.
As for the percentage under 21, since alcohol involvement is not given for the under 21 data, we assumed the worst (that all of them involved booze) and calculated the number of under-21 deaths as a percentage of total alcohol-related deaths. This gives 7.4%, but if we assume that half of the under-21 deaths involve booze (a reasonable estimate given the all-ages data), we get a mere 3.7%. Thus, drivers under 21 are overrepresented in arrests, but underrepresented in fatalities. Put another way, even if all under-21 drinking was to somehow magically disappear, over 96% of the deaths would most likely still occur.
How does this compare with the rest of the nation, where the drinking age has been 21 since 1988? Well, research shows that in 2008, drivers under 21 accounted for 12% of total fatalities and 13% of alcohol-impaired fatalities. Clearly worse than Guam by any measure, but remember that 21-24 year olds are the worst of all in terms of overrepresentation in drunk driving deaths, a fact that is true in almost every developed nation in the world regardless of drinking age. Thus, these data are hardly a ringing endorsement for a 21 drinking age.
But the latter claim does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, it falls flat on its face. The stats from the Guam Police Department show the following numbers, in a population of about 175,000 residents:
| Year | Total DUI Arrests | Under 21 | % Under 21 |
| 2007 | 790 | 58 | 7.3% |
| 2008 | 677 | 70 | 10.3% |
| 2009 | 1146 | 116 | 10.1% |
| 2010 (first half) | 382 | 41 | 10.7% |
Clearly arrests have risen for all ages, and doubled for those under 21 in two years, though the share of arrests under 21 has essentially plateaued since 2008, after jumping from 2007 to 2008. Back in 2005, it was only 6%. However, arrest rates can be quite deceiving, as the table of fatalities below so clearly shows:
| Year | Total Fatalities | Alcohol Related | Under 21 | % Under 21 |
| 2007 | 24 | 11 | 1 | 9% |
| 2008 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 2009 | 13 | 9 | 1 | 11% |
| 2010 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0% |
| Avg. | 15.7 | 7.7 | 0.57 | 7.4% (3.7%) |
Here we see a very different picture indeed. It does not appear that alcohol-related fatalities have been rising for any age group. Quite the opposite in fact, a whopping 64% decrease overall, and thus the reason for rising arrests is most likely greater enforcement and targeting of younger drivers, as opposed to more drunk driving. You read right that in 2008 and 2010, there have actually been zero traffic fatalites of those under 21. The 2010 data only include the first half of the year (up to June 30), during which the drinking age was still 18, so one can thus project 20 total deaths and 4 total alcohol-related deaths for the whole year, and either zero or one death under 21, had the status quo remained.
As for the percentage under 21, since alcohol involvement is not given for the under 21 data, we assumed the worst (that all of them involved booze) and calculated the number of under-21 deaths as a percentage of total alcohol-related deaths. This gives 7.4%, but if we assume that half of the under-21 deaths involve booze (a reasonable estimate given the all-ages data), we get a mere 3.7%. Thus, drivers under 21 are overrepresented in arrests, but underrepresented in fatalities. Put another way, even if all under-21 drinking was to somehow magically disappear, over 96% of the deaths would most likely still occur.
How does this compare with the rest of the nation, where the drinking age has been 21 since 1988? Well, research shows that in 2008, drivers under 21 accounted for 12% of total fatalities and 13% of alcohol-impaired fatalities. Clearly worse than Guam by any measure, but remember that 21-24 year olds are the worst of all in terms of overrepresentation in drunk driving deaths, a fact that is true in almost every developed nation in the world regardless of drinking age. Thus, these data are hardly a ringing endorsement for a 21 drinking age.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
California Passes Social Host Law
Much to the chagrin of 21 Debunked and all those who love liberty and oppose the 21 drinking age, today California joined the majority of states and passed a social host liability law. This means that if you furnish alcohol to someone under 21 and they happen to get killed or injured, you can be sued, and there appear to be no limits on how much you can be sued for.
We have already discussed in previous posts why we oppose such laws. First of all, it is just another attempt to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, the 21 drinking age. Secondly, 18-20 year olds are legal adults in all other ways, and should be responsible for their own actions, drunk or not. Third, such laws have not been proven to save lives, and would probably just force alcohol even further underground, leaving party hosting to only the bold and reckless. Finally, in a country without meaningful tort reform, it will enrich greedy trial lawyers while causing many families to possibly even lose their homes in lawsuits, as social host awards are typically in the millions of dollars. We can just see them salivating like Pavlov's dog at the prospect.
We at 21 Debunked feel that suing the host (who is at most only peripherally involved, by definition) because the drunk driver does not have deep enough pockets is really quite low to say the least. Parasitic even, especially when the dollar amounts are ludicrously high as they usually are. The worst of all are those stupid drunk drivers who sue the host for their own injuries, a group for whom we have no sympathy. Thus, we do not support social host laws of any kind. But we do think that drunk drivers of any age who kill or seriously injure others should be sued for everything they have and, if that is still not enough to cover the damages, be forced to work off their debt in prison the rest of their lives.
Interestingly, social host laws (as well as dram shop laws, which are the same thing only applied to bars/restaurants instead) appear to exist in only two countries, the USA and Canada. We Americans are well-known for our ethic of hyper-individualism, as opposed to a more communitarian or "brother's keeper" ethic found in most other countries, including many in Europe. Thus, America is the last place one would expect to find such laws, but for some reason it is almost the only place they are found. Perhaps the fact that our society is so litigious compared to the rest of the world, and increasingly so, is at least part of the reason. Or maybe it is for the same asinine reasons that the drinking age is arbitrarily set at 21, a full three years higher than the age of majority. Whatever the reason, such laws are un-American, obsolete, and incompatible with the values upon which our nation was founded, and should thus be stricken from the books at once.
We have already discussed in previous posts why we oppose such laws. First of all, it is just another attempt to prop up the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, the 21 drinking age. Secondly, 18-20 year olds are legal adults in all other ways, and should be responsible for their own actions, drunk or not. Third, such laws have not been proven to save lives, and would probably just force alcohol even further underground, leaving party hosting to only the bold and reckless. Finally, in a country without meaningful tort reform, it will enrich greedy trial lawyers while causing many families to possibly even lose their homes in lawsuits, as social host awards are typically in the millions of dollars. We can just see them salivating like Pavlov's dog at the prospect.
We at 21 Debunked feel that suing the host (who is at most only peripherally involved, by definition) because the drunk driver does not have deep enough pockets is really quite low to say the least. Parasitic even, especially when the dollar amounts are ludicrously high as they usually are. The worst of all are those stupid drunk drivers who sue the host for their own injuries, a group for whom we have no sympathy. Thus, we do not support social host laws of any kind. But we do think that drunk drivers of any age who kill or seriously injure others should be sued for everything they have and, if that is still not enough to cover the damages, be forced to work off their debt in prison the rest of their lives.
Interestingly, social host laws (as well as dram shop laws, which are the same thing only applied to bars/restaurants instead) appear to exist in only two countries, the USA and Canada. We Americans are well-known for our ethic of hyper-individualism, as opposed to a more communitarian or "brother's keeper" ethic found in most other countries, including many in Europe. Thus, America is the last place one would expect to find such laws, but for some reason it is almost the only place they are found. Perhaps the fact that our society is so litigious compared to the rest of the world, and increasingly so, is at least part of the reason. Or maybe it is for the same asinine reasons that the drinking age is arbitrarily set at 21, a full three years higher than the age of majority. Whatever the reason, such laws are un-American, obsolete, and incompatible with the values upon which our nation was founded, and should thus be stricken from the books at once.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Zero Tolerance Laws in Canada
On August 1, 2010, Ontario will join a few other Canadian provinces (not to mention the USA) in implementing zero-tolerance laws for drinking and driving. In Ontario's case, the age limit will be 22, and the BAC limit will be 0.00%. It is a traffic infraction rather than a criminal offense. The penalty will be an automatic 24-hour roadside suspension of one's license, plus a fine of up to $500 and a suspension of up to 30 days upon conviction. For those over 22, the limit will remain 0.05 for a traffic infraction and 0.08 for a criminal offence of DUI.
Ontario has, and will retain, a drinking age of 19. In Canada, the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province. Thus in Ontario, one can drive at 16, drink at 19, but will not be allowed to mix the two until 22 or until one has had a license for at least two years, whichever is longer.
We at Twenty-One Debunked, who unequivocally abhor drunk driving but believe the drinking age should be 18 and not a day later, have mixed feelings about the new law. On the positive side, though it may or may not actually save lives, it does send a strong message that drinking and driving simply do not mix. It provides a reason (or even an excuse) for young drivers to refuse a drink from their buddies at a bar or party without looking or feeling awkward. It also helps to appease the fears among older adults about young people drinking and driving, and can help pre-empt more extreme measures, such as raising the drinking age. On the negative side, it still remains a form of age discrimination, regardless of how well-intentioned it is, and the unrealistically low BAC limit provides no safeguards against false positives. There is a significant margin of error of +/-0.01-0.02 in BAC readings, meaning that it is theoretically possible for someone who had nothing at all to drink can test positive and lose his or her license for up to a month.
Thus, we recommend keeping the law, but raising the BAC limit to 0.02, or at least automatically subtracting 0.01 or 0.02 from any breathalyzer reading if they still wish to retain the absolute zero limit. Also, we think all fairly novice drivers (less than 5 years of licensed driving experience) should be held to the same standard regardless of age, as is currently done in the Netherlands with a BAC of 0.02. In addition, we recommend that if there must be age limits, the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and the zero tolerance age should be 21. Finally, we must never lose sight of the fact that (in the USA) the average BAC in fatal crashes is 0.16 overall and 0.14 for drivers under 21. We need to see the forest for the trees, and focus enforcement where it matters most. For those with high BACs, regardless of age, judges need to throw the book at them before they ever kill someone.
Ontario has, and will retain, a drinking age of 19. In Canada, the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province. Thus in Ontario, one can drive at 16, drink at 19, but will not be allowed to mix the two until 22 or until one has had a license for at least two years, whichever is longer.
We at Twenty-One Debunked, who unequivocally abhor drunk driving but believe the drinking age should be 18 and not a day later, have mixed feelings about the new law. On the positive side, though it may or may not actually save lives, it does send a strong message that drinking and driving simply do not mix. It provides a reason (or even an excuse) for young drivers to refuse a drink from their buddies at a bar or party without looking or feeling awkward. It also helps to appease the fears among older adults about young people drinking and driving, and can help pre-empt more extreme measures, such as raising the drinking age. On the negative side, it still remains a form of age discrimination, regardless of how well-intentioned it is, and the unrealistically low BAC limit provides no safeguards against false positives. There is a significant margin of error of +/-0.01-0.02 in BAC readings, meaning that it is theoretically possible for someone who had nothing at all to drink can test positive and lose his or her license for up to a month.
Thus, we recommend keeping the law, but raising the BAC limit to 0.02, or at least automatically subtracting 0.01 or 0.02 from any breathalyzer reading if they still wish to retain the absolute zero limit. Also, we think all fairly novice drivers (less than 5 years of licensed driving experience) should be held to the same standard regardless of age, as is currently done in the Netherlands with a BAC of 0.02. In addition, we recommend that if there must be age limits, the drinking age should be lowered to 18, and the zero tolerance age should be 21. Finally, we must never lose sight of the fact that (in the USA) the average BAC in fatal crashes is 0.16 overall and 0.14 for drivers under 21. We need to see the forest for the trees, and focus enforcement where it matters most. For those with high BACs, regardless of age, judges need to throw the book at them before they ever kill someone.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Guam Raises Drinking Age to 21
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
