Thirty years ago this month, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was enacted in July 1984, which coerced the states into raising their drinking ages to 21 by 1987 or lose 10% of their federal highway funding. While Ronald Wilson Reagan (666) was originally against such a fascist power grab, he was nonetheless persuaded by Candy Lightner and the rest of MADD to go along with it, and of course 1984 was an election year, after all. While some states put up a fight and challenged it in the 1987 Supreme Court case South Dakota v. Dole, they lost, and all 50 states and DC eventually capitulated by 1988. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, however, decided to keep their drinking age at 18 despite the highway funding penalty, although Guam eventually raised it to 21 in 2010 as well. And as they say, the rest is history.
So what has changed in the past three decades? Public opinion sure has not, according to a recent study. Americans appear to be just as prudish about the issue as they were 30 years ago, with 74% of adults being against lowering the drinking age to 18. This is what we are up against, people. However, other things have changed since 1984. Alcohol-related traffic deaths are way down for a variety of reasons, such as safer cars and roads, tougher drunk driving laws, tougher enforcement, better education, and the fact that drunk driving is no longer anywhere near as socially acceptable as it once was. Teen drinking is also at a record low as well. While the pro-21 crowd likes to credit the 21 drinking age for these trends, that argument rings hollow considering that Canada saw similar or greater trends despite NOT raising the drinking age to 21. Also, several studies cast doubt on the idea that raising the drinking age actually saved any lives, most notably Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), which found that any supposed lifesaving effect was essentially just a mirage all along. But logic has never exactly been the pro-21 crowd's forte, to put it mildly. And there is still that ever-popular moral panic about teen drinking these days, undoubtedly due in part to the idea that while young people are drinking less today than they did 30-40 years ago, apparently the more they do when they do. Or something. Thus, that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
So after three decades of the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, can young Americans FINALLY have their civil liberties back now? Apparently not, according to the neo-prohibitionists. FEH.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Monday, May 26, 2014
Have a Safe and Happy Memorial Day!
Today is Memorial Day, often known as the unofficial first day of summer and National BBQ Day. But let's remember what it really is--a day to honor all of the men and women of the armed forces who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. And that of course includes all of those who died serving our country before they were legally old enough to drink. Let us all take a moment of silence to honor them.
As for Candy Lightner, the turncoat founder of MADD who had the chutzpah and hubris to go on national TV in 2008 and publicly insult our troops, may her name and memory be forever blotted out.
And as always, arrive alive, don't drink and drive. It's just not worth it.
As for Candy Lightner, the turncoat founder of MADD who had the chutzpah and hubris to go on national TV in 2008 and publicly insult our troops, may her name and memory be forever blotted out.
And as always, arrive alive, don't drink and drive. It's just not worth it.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Happy 5th Birthday, Twenty-One Debunked!
On May 5, 2009, Twenty-One Debunked was born as a spinoff of the True Spirit of America Party, which was founded a month prior. During the past five years, we have fought tooth-and-nail to lower the legal drinking age to 18 in the USA. We have presented reams of evidence showing that the 21 drinking age simply doesn't work anymore if it ever really did, and that it is the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition. And it has been an uphill battle, and one in which we must redouble our efforts if we wish to succeed.
So where do we go from here? Aside from fighting harder, we can learn a valuable lesson from Prohibition in the 1920s. In the years leading up to Prohibition, women overwhelmingly supported it, but by 1933, over 70% of women had turned against it, and the rest was history. We can also observe a similar trend as cannabis prohibition comes to an end--there is even a group now called "Moms for Marijuana". It seems to be a necessary precursor to change of that sort for women to support such a change. Yet unfortunately there is no such trend for our movement to lower the drinking age to 18, which is really quite a "sausage fest" it seems. The majority of women still support keeping the drinking age at 21. And that needs to change yesterday if we are to win.
We need to get the word out about our movement to women, especially mothers. Even those who support keeping the drinking age at 21 intuitively know on some level that it has been an abject failure, and we as a movement need to build on that intuition and take the thunder away from the neoprohibitionists like MADD. We need to address any legitimate concerns that those on the fence may have about young adults and alcohol, and show that these concerns can be better addressed with a drinking age of 18 combined with the other components of our proposal. And it would also be good if our movement had a mothers' organization that could act as a counterweight to MADD. If the cannabis legalization movement can do it, so can we.
Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
So where do we go from here? Aside from fighting harder, we can learn a valuable lesson from Prohibition in the 1920s. In the years leading up to Prohibition, women overwhelmingly supported it, but by 1933, over 70% of women had turned against it, and the rest was history. We can also observe a similar trend as cannabis prohibition comes to an end--there is even a group now called "Moms for Marijuana". It seems to be a necessary precursor to change of that sort for women to support such a change. Yet unfortunately there is no such trend for our movement to lower the drinking age to 18, which is really quite a "sausage fest" it seems. The majority of women still support keeping the drinking age at 21. And that needs to change yesterday if we are to win.
We need to get the word out about our movement to women, especially mothers. Even those who support keeping the drinking age at 21 intuitively know on some level that it has been an abject failure, and we as a movement need to build on that intuition and take the thunder away from the neoprohibitionists like MADD. We need to address any legitimate concerns that those on the fence may have about young adults and alcohol, and show that these concerns can be better addressed with a drinking age of 18 combined with the other components of our proposal. And it would also be good if our movement had a mothers' organization that could act as a counterweight to MADD. If the cannabis legalization movement can do it, so can we.
Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Case Closed? Not So Fast
A new study by William DeJong claims that the debate on the 21 drinking is over, and that the evidence is overwhelming that the policy saves lives and reduces teen and young adult drinking. His literature review, titled Case Closed: Research Evidence on the Positive Public Health Impact of the Age 21 MLDA in the United States, looks at research conducted mostly from 2006 to the present. While on the surface DeJong's paper appears to be decently written, upon closer examination one can see several flaws that undermine his thesis.
First and foremost, his treatment of Miron and Tetelbaum's groundbreaking 2009 study (which thoroughly debunked the supposed lifesaving effect) is sorely lacking. He literally devotes a mere two sentences to casually mentioning and blithely dismissing its results. DeJong seems to think that the reason that the coerced states saw no significant effect while the voluntary-adopting states did was due to enforcement differences and/or cohort or other differences between the two groups of states. That's very funny considering how Miron and Tetelbaum took great pains to control for just about every conceivable variable that would likely have a significant effect, in addition to state and year fixed effects. Additionally, even if the handful of voluntary adopters did enforce the 21 drinking age to a greater extent, even they saw that their fairly weak lifesaving effect lasted no more than a year or two following the law change (while it actually seemed to throw gasoline on the fire in many of the coerced states). Miron and Tetelbaum also found that the effect of raising the drinking age on high school drinking was fairly small, likely due to reporting bias, and basically confined to the voluntary-adopting states. All of which puts a massive hole in DeJong's theory to say the least. Strike one.
Secondly, while DeJong does talk a bit about Europe and New Zealand, he does not devote a single word to Canada. As Twenty-One Debunked has noted repeatedly, Canada saw a similar or faster decline in alcohol-related traffic deaths as the USA despite NOT raising the drinking age to 21. And while young Canadians do tend to drink a bit more than their American counterparts on average, the rates of "binge" drinking in Canada are roughly equivalent to the demographically and geographically similar US states that they share a border with or are otherwise fairly close to. Canada also boasts a lower alcohol-related death rate than the USA as well as less crime and violence, and the alcoholism rates in the two countries are roughly equivalent. That's another huge hole in his theory that cannot be easily explained away. As for New Zealand, note that we have already debunked the fairly outdated studies that DeJong refers to. Strike two.
But probably DeJong's biggest flaw of all is his logic or lack thereof. He claims that the evidence to date supports the idea that not only should we not lower the drinking age, but that enforcement should be toughened. Leaving aside all the studies that debunk the supposed benefits of the 21 drinking age, his logic is based on shaky ground. He takes various outdated correlations and presumes them to be causation, he blithely dismisses any evidence to the contrary, and essentially denies that there is any good alternative policy aside from tougher enforcement. Which is very funny considering how much research (including some of DeJong's own previous research) finds that social norms marketing techniques are at least as effective in reducing high-risk drinking among college students as tougher drinking age enforcement is. Strike three, yer out!
Unfortunately, DeJong does appear to be right about one thing. The movement to lower the drinking age to 18 has been losing a great deal of momentum over the past few years, and since about 2011 is now essentially on the back burner once again compared to other, more pressing issues like the economy and of course cannabis legalization. Scratch that, the movement is now on life support, and the coroner is just waiting to be called. So we need to redouble our efforts, like yesterday. And let's hope that DeJong's declaring the debate to be over actually has the opposite effect and re-ignites the drinking age debate once again. Now let's get to work!
Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
First and foremost, his treatment of Miron and Tetelbaum's groundbreaking 2009 study (which thoroughly debunked the supposed lifesaving effect) is sorely lacking. He literally devotes a mere two sentences to casually mentioning and blithely dismissing its results. DeJong seems to think that the reason that the coerced states saw no significant effect while the voluntary-adopting states did was due to enforcement differences and/or cohort or other differences between the two groups of states. That's very funny considering how Miron and Tetelbaum took great pains to control for just about every conceivable variable that would likely have a significant effect, in addition to state and year fixed effects. Additionally, even if the handful of voluntary adopters did enforce the 21 drinking age to a greater extent, even they saw that their fairly weak lifesaving effect lasted no more than a year or two following the law change (while it actually seemed to throw gasoline on the fire in many of the coerced states). Miron and Tetelbaum also found that the effect of raising the drinking age on high school drinking was fairly small, likely due to reporting bias, and basically confined to the voluntary-adopting states. All of which puts a massive hole in DeJong's theory to say the least. Strike one.
Secondly, while DeJong does talk a bit about Europe and New Zealand, he does not devote a single word to Canada. As Twenty-One Debunked has noted repeatedly, Canada saw a similar or faster decline in alcohol-related traffic deaths as the USA despite NOT raising the drinking age to 21. And while young Canadians do tend to drink a bit more than their American counterparts on average, the rates of "binge" drinking in Canada are roughly equivalent to the demographically and geographically similar US states that they share a border with or are otherwise fairly close to. Canada also boasts a lower alcohol-related death rate than the USA as well as less crime and violence, and the alcoholism rates in the two countries are roughly equivalent. That's another huge hole in his theory that cannot be easily explained away. As for New Zealand, note that we have already debunked the fairly outdated studies that DeJong refers to. Strike two.
But probably DeJong's biggest flaw of all is his logic or lack thereof. He claims that the evidence to date supports the idea that not only should we not lower the drinking age, but that enforcement should be toughened. Leaving aside all the studies that debunk the supposed benefits of the 21 drinking age, his logic is based on shaky ground. He takes various outdated correlations and presumes them to be causation, he blithely dismisses any evidence to the contrary, and essentially denies that there is any good alternative policy aside from tougher enforcement. Which is very funny considering how much research (including some of DeJong's own previous research) finds that social norms marketing techniques are at least as effective in reducing high-risk drinking among college students as tougher drinking age enforcement is. Strike three, yer out!
Unfortunately, DeJong does appear to be right about one thing. The movement to lower the drinking age to 18 has been losing a great deal of momentum over the past few years, and since about 2011 is now essentially on the back burner once again compared to other, more pressing issues like the economy and of course cannabis legalization. Scratch that, the movement is now on life support, and the coroner is just waiting to be called. So we need to redouble our efforts, like yesterday. And let's hope that DeJong's declaring the debate to be over actually has the opposite effect and re-ignites the drinking age debate once again. Now let's get to work!
Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
FebFast is Here
Similar to last year's 40-Day Challenge, Twenty-One Debunked is participating in the fairly new Australian tradition of FebFast. To wit, it involves no drinking at all during the entire 28 days of February. Or one can choose the "half-arsed" option, and go a mere two weeks without drinking. Just about any drinker would benefit from a good detox period, and the benefits include improved health and energy, a better bank balance, and a better quality of life overall. As the FebFast folks would say, it's just the tonic for you.
If you have read a previous version of this post, please disregard the second paragraph. The idea outlined therein was admittedly silly and kind of takes away from the overall mission of Twenty-One Debunked. I'm sure that anyone who wants to see a cached version will just Google it anyway, but remember that it is no longer the case, and we apologize for such inane logorrhea (i.e. diarrhea of the mouth or keyboard).
If you have read a previous version of this post, please disregard the second paragraph. The idea outlined therein was admittedly silly and kind of takes away from the overall mission of Twenty-One Debunked. I'm sure that anyone who wants to see a cached version will just Google it anyway, but remember that it is no longer the case, and we apologize for such inane logorrhea (i.e. diarrhea of the mouth or keyboard).
Monday, January 20, 2014
What About Weed? (Part Deux)
With the recent legalization of recreational cannabis (for those over 21) in Colorado and Washington, and likely at least a few more states to follow, we at Twenty-One Debunked feel the need to update and clarify our official stance on the cannabis issue. Previously, Twenty-One Debunked has been officially neutral on the issue of cannabis legalization, with our only position being that if and when it becomes legal, the age limit should be 18 instead of 21. In the meantime, our affiliated political party, the True Spirit of America Party (TSAP), has always been 100% in favor of legalization. However, after careful evaluation and deliberation, as of January 2014 Twenty-One Debunked has decided to take up the cause of cannabis legalization as well, albeit as a lower-priority issue relative to our main cause of lowering the drinking age to 18. Our new stance on cannabis can be delineated as follows:
To all the prohibitionists and drug warriors out there, we have one question for you: How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history? Because we wouldn't know anything about that.
- Cannabis should be legal for everyone 18 and older, period.
- No one of any age should be arrested, jailed, or given a criminal record for simple possession or use of cannabis.
- Passing around a joint or bong should not be treated any differently than passing around a tobacco cigarette or a bottle of beer.
- While not completely safe for everyone, cannabis is a safer alternative to alcohol by just about any objective scientific measure, and as harm-reductionists we need to get the word out about that fact.
- While driving under the influence of cannabis can be dangerous and should remain illegal, drunk driving is much worse, and the penalties should reflect that fact.
- As with alcohol, blood THC limits for driving should be based on science, not zero-tolerance.
To all the prohibitionists and drug warriors out there, we have one question for you: How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history? Because we wouldn't know anything about that.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Should Bars Set Their Own Drinking Ages?
In response to the latest news about a NYC bar setting a minimum age of 25 for patrons, we at Twenty-One Debunked realize that we haven't been all that clear about whether bars should be allowed to discriminate based on age. And it's perfectly legal too, believe it or not. We have mixed feelings about the issue overall, and if the founder of Twenty-One Debunked ever owned a bar, he would not set the age limit any higher than the legal drinking age (whatever it may be at the time). In principle, it is ageist to do so, and it is far better to crack down on all troublemakers regardless of age and put better safeguards in place for everyone.
However, there are some fairly strong arguments in favor of allowing bars to set a higher age, particularly if the legal drinking age is lowered to 18. First, it is worth noting in that some countries with a drinking age of 18, such as Sweden, several bars (and especially nightclubs) set an age limit of 20, 23, or even 30 in some cases. Puerto Rico, with a drinking age of 18, has bars that are 21 to enter as well. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that when many states lowered the drinking age to 18 in the 1970s, at least some bars lost business (and even went out of business) due to the supposedly rowdy 18-20 year olds flooding the bars and scaring off the older patrons. The irony of the Brooklyn bar was that the age was raised to 25 because the 21-24 year olds were apparently the ones causing too much trouble, so it seems that raising the legal drinking age to 21 just shifted the problems to a slightly older age group. Finally, there's the free market argument that private businesses should be allowed to do as they please, within reason of course. While none of these arguments by themselves are strong enough, when put together they make a rather compelling case in favor of allowing bars to remain free to choose their own minimum ages. And most importantly, if bars are allowed such freedom, they would be much more likely to get on board with our movement to lower the drinking age since they would not feel "forced" to accomodate "rowdy teenagers" if they don't want to. So there's a strong argument from practicality as well.
Thus, while Twenty-One Debunked believes that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18, we feel that individual bars should be allowed to choose a higher minimum age if they wish. And if they did, it would be more likely to be 21 rather than 25, since 21-24 year olds would likely be a lot mellower if they grew up under a drinking age of 18 than if they grew up under the status quo.
However, there are some fairly strong arguments in favor of allowing bars to set a higher age, particularly if the legal drinking age is lowered to 18. First, it is worth noting in that some countries with a drinking age of 18, such as Sweden, several bars (and especially nightclubs) set an age limit of 20, 23, or even 30 in some cases. Puerto Rico, with a drinking age of 18, has bars that are 21 to enter as well. Also, there is anecdotal evidence that when many states lowered the drinking age to 18 in the 1970s, at least some bars lost business (and even went out of business) due to the supposedly rowdy 18-20 year olds flooding the bars and scaring off the older patrons. The irony of the Brooklyn bar was that the age was raised to 25 because the 21-24 year olds were apparently the ones causing too much trouble, so it seems that raising the legal drinking age to 21 just shifted the problems to a slightly older age group. Finally, there's the free market argument that private businesses should be allowed to do as they please, within reason of course. While none of these arguments by themselves are strong enough, when put together they make a rather compelling case in favor of allowing bars to remain free to choose their own minimum ages. And most importantly, if bars are allowed such freedom, they would be much more likely to get on board with our movement to lower the drinking age since they would not feel "forced" to accomodate "rowdy teenagers" if they don't want to. So there's a strong argument from practicality as well.
Thus, while Twenty-One Debunked believes that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18, we feel that individual bars should be allowed to choose a higher minimum age if they wish. And if they did, it would be more likely to be 21 rather than 25, since 21-24 year olds would likely be a lot mellower if they grew up under a drinking age of 18 than if they grew up under the status quo.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Happy Drink Nothing Day!
You have probably heard of Buy Nothing Day. Celebrated on Black Friday, the day
after Thanksgiving and the biggest shopping day of the year, this
self-explanatory holiday is meant to be a protest against consumerism. But
perhaps you didn't know that the biggest drinking day of the year is
the day
before Thanksgiving. That's right, it's not New Year's Eve,
but Thanksgiving Eve, also known as "Blackout Wednesday."
Thus, three years ago we at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to create our own protest holiday, Drink Nothing Day. It is designed as a way for people 21 and over to show solidarity with those under 21 by not drinking any alcohol that day. To observe this holiday, which can only logically be done by folks over 21, one must not drink any form of alcohol at all during the entire 24 hours of that date, as well as the following day until sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner (or until the sun goes down, whichever occurs earlier). Then, one may drink, but one must give thanks that prohibition no longer applies to him or her. Other ways to observe include wearing two black armbands: one to symbolize those soldiers who died before being able to drink legally in the very country they served, and another to symbolize those under 21 who were killed by a drunk driver over 21.
We will continue to observe this holiday until the drinking age is lowered to 18 in all 50 states. And remember, whether you choose to observe it or not, never drink and drive. If you plan to drink, don't drive, and if you plan to drive, don't drink. It's just not worth the risk.
Thus, three years ago we at Twenty-One Debunked have decided to create our own protest holiday, Drink Nothing Day. It is designed as a way for people 21 and over to show solidarity with those under 21 by not drinking any alcohol that day. To observe this holiday, which can only logically be done by folks over 21, one must not drink any form of alcohol at all during the entire 24 hours of that date, as well as the following day until sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner (or until the sun goes down, whichever occurs earlier). Then, one may drink, but one must give thanks that prohibition no longer applies to him or her. Other ways to observe include wearing two black armbands: one to symbolize those soldiers who died before being able to drink legally in the very country they served, and another to symbolize those under 21 who were killed by a drunk driver over 21.
We will continue to observe this holiday until the drinking age is lowered to 18 in all 50 states. And remember, whether you choose to observe it or not, never drink and drive. If you plan to drink, don't drive, and if you plan to drive, don't drink. It's just not worth the risk.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
NYC Raises Tobacco Purchase Age to 21
Much to our chagrin, Mayor Bloomberg has finally signed the bill that would raise the tobacco purchase age to 21 in New York City. He was originally against such a move in 2006, but the City Council finally convinced him, which was really not that difficult to do considering his history as a jerk and a nanny-stater.
The bill, which bans the sale of tobacco products and e-cigarettes (but not paraphernalia) to anyone under 21, takes effect in 180 days from today, which will be on May 19, 2014. NYC Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio will be in power then, and it remains to be seen how he will handle such a law. We hope he will listen to reason and repeal it before it goes into effect.
As we have previously noted unequivocally while the issue was first being discussed, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support raising the age limit for cigarettes to 21. The one bright spot to the new law is that, unlike with alcohol, it does not apply to possession or use of tobacco (currently no age limit), or to the sale of paraphernalia (which will remain 18). However, that does not make it any less ageist, and it will only expand the city's already extensive black market for untaxed/out-of-state/stolen/counterfeit cigarettes. What allegedly works in the small town of Needham, MA (which is debatable) would be unlikely to work in a place like NYC. While another bill was passed today to increase penalties for black-market sellers, it does not get to the root of the problem: extremely high cigarette taxes compared to surrounding areas. And the 21 age limit only pours gasoline on the fire. I would bet that cigarette retailers in Westchester County (where the age is 18) and Long Island and New Jersey (where it's 19) would probably be the greatest beneficiaries of the new law, in addition to the mobsters and terrorists that profit from the black market in the city.
As a result, Twenty-One Debunked is calling for an all-ages boycott of all tobacco products in the five boroughs of NYC, beginning on May 19, 2014 when the law takes effect (and lasting until repeal). If you live in the city and smoke, be sure to (legally) buy your smokes elsewhere--or better yet, quit. Tourists should also avoid buying tobacco while visiting. The more die-hard boycotters might even want to include alcohol on the do-not-buy list, for obvious reasons. Watch the tax revenue shrink precipitously.
For this and many other reasons, we hereby say "good riddance" to lame-duck Nanny Bloomberg when he finally steps down on New Year's Eve. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
The bill, which bans the sale of tobacco products and e-cigarettes (but not paraphernalia) to anyone under 21, takes effect in 180 days from today, which will be on May 19, 2014. NYC Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio will be in power then, and it remains to be seen how he will handle such a law. We hope he will listen to reason and repeal it before it goes into effect.
As we have previously noted unequivocally while the issue was first being discussed, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT support raising the age limit for cigarettes to 21. The one bright spot to the new law is that, unlike with alcohol, it does not apply to possession or use of tobacco (currently no age limit), or to the sale of paraphernalia (which will remain 18). However, that does not make it any less ageist, and it will only expand the city's already extensive black market for untaxed/out-of-state/stolen/counterfeit cigarettes. What allegedly works in the small town of Needham, MA (which is debatable) would be unlikely to work in a place like NYC. While another bill was passed today to increase penalties for black-market sellers, it does not get to the root of the problem: extremely high cigarette taxes compared to surrounding areas. And the 21 age limit only pours gasoline on the fire. I would bet that cigarette retailers in Westchester County (where the age is 18) and Long Island and New Jersey (where it's 19) would probably be the greatest beneficiaries of the new law, in addition to the mobsters and terrorists that profit from the black market in the city.
As a result, Twenty-One Debunked is calling for an all-ages boycott of all tobacco products in the five boroughs of NYC, beginning on May 19, 2014 when the law takes effect (and lasting until repeal). If you live in the city and smoke, be sure to (legally) buy your smokes elsewhere--or better yet, quit. Tourists should also avoid buying tobacco while visiting. The more die-hard boycotters might even want to include alcohol on the do-not-buy list, for obvious reasons. Watch the tax revenue shrink precipitously.
For this and many other reasons, we hereby say "good riddance" to lame-duck Nanny Bloomberg when he finally steps down on New Year's Eve. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Friday, November 15, 2013
To Puerto Rico: Don't Raise the Drinking Age!
There has been a recent proposal in Puerto Rico to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. If it passes, it would leave only the Virgin Islands as the last remaining holdout where the drinking age is 18, since Guam raised it to 21 in 2010 (much to our chagrin). Aside from the tired old canards about "safety" and "protecting young people" (from themselves), there is also that pesky 10% highway funding penalty that Puerto Rico has had to deal with every year since 1988, and their flagging economy can clearly use a boost. And this was not the first time such a hike in the drinking age was proposed: in the 1990s, there were two failed attempts to raise the drinking age to 21, which most of the people did not support.
While we believe that such a law is unlikely to pass, Twenty-One Debunked would still like to urge the island to avoid making the same mistakes as the mainland. That is, Puerto Rico should keep the drinking age at 18, while strengthening and enforcing it better. To do so, they should:
While we believe that such a law is unlikely to pass, Twenty-One Debunked would still like to urge the island to avoid making the same mistakes as the mainland. That is, Puerto Rico should keep the drinking age at 18, while strengthening and enforcing it better. To do so, they should:
- Increase retailer compliance checks to help keep booze out of the hands of people under 18.
- Increase the penalties for selling or furnishing alcohol to people under 18.
- Increase alcohol education programs in schools and elsewhere.
- Bring back the successful community coalitions formed in the 1990s to fight underage drinking and other alcohol problems.
- Crack down harder on drunk driving, drunk violence, and drunk and disorderly conduct among all ages.
- To reduce traffic deaths and other alcohol-related problems, and raise much-needed revenue at the same time, raise the alcohol taxes (especially beer) and the gas tax.
- Above all, never back down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
