Drinking Age
Young and Wild and Free: Binge Drinking and the Minimum Legal Drinking Age in the U.S.
Daniela Avelar, ’15
Weis College House
February 22, 2015
Daniela Avelar is a Psychology Major and Italian minor from San Salvador, El Salvador. Outside of Junto Society, Daniela is the president of Psi Chi (the International Honor Society in Psychology) and vice-president of the Women’s Club Soccer team. She enjoys volunteering in service projects both in the United States and abroad. She really enjoys working with children and is planning on pursuing graduate studies in Developmental Psychology.
A few months ago, I ran into an article entitled “Should the U.S. lower it’s drinking age?” It immediately caught my attention, since it was a question I had been hearing frequently, especially amongst my college peers. I have often wondered about the answer to this question, especially since I am from El Salvador, a country whose legal drinking age is 18. I started reading the article, and I was shocked with the opening statements: “When asked what the minimum legal drinking age should be in the U.S., Dwight B. Heath says 8, or maybe even 6” (Griggs, 2014). My initial reaction was “6! Well, yes! Of course it sounds crazy!” The mere idea of imagining 6 year olds with beer bottles in their hands was not only absurd but also very concerning. I decided to keep reading to see what possible explanation he had for what seemed like a bizarre proposition. He explained that he favored a cultural model, like in France and Italy, in which parents educated children about alcohol and remove the mystique usually accompanied by it. This made sense, but, would this actually work? Would this be the best solution? Why is 21 the drinking age in the US but not in other countries? Why can an 18 year old have a drink in his country, but, upon coming to the United States, no longer be allowed to do the same thing? Or, conversely, why can an 18 year old from the U.S. travel to Europe and drink as much as they want, even though they cannot do so in their own country?
Questions like these have made many young adults in the United States question the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 21. They complain that it is not fair, and that it should be lowered. In fact, the average MLDA around the world is 15.9 (Hanson, 1997). In most countries the MLDA is 18, in fifty countries it is less than 18, and in only 12 countries (Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the United States) it is higher (Hanson, 1997). So why, then, is the minimum legal drinking age in the United States 21? Would it be beneficial to reduce the MLDA to 18? In this paper, I will briefly trace the history of MLDA in the United States, the reasons for changing it, and justification for keeping it at 21. I will also present the research and arguments for lowering the MLDA to 18, in particular the Amethyst Initiative, which has received a lot of media attention during the past few years. Finally, I will examine the relationship between the MLDA and binge drinking to explore the idea of whether lowering it to 18 would reduce or aggravate binge drinking in college campuses.
Before getting into the current MLDA debate, let us first consider some history as of how and why it has changed over the past few decades. In 1971, Congress reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 (Griggs, 2014). This change prompted them to also lower the minimum drinking age, since at this point, when Americans turned 18 they could vote, serve on a jury, and fight in Vietnam. In the following years, most states lowered their MLDA. However, a problem arose when research suggested that there was an increase in traffic accidents in states with lower MLDA. This realization, in combination with activism undertaken by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980 prompted state legislatures to reverse course. MADD grew quickly and acquired significant support across the country, which they use to pressure legislators to raise MLDA. On July 17, 1984, Congress passed a law that “withheld federal highway funding from every state that continued to allow people under 21 to buy alcohol” (Griggs, 2014). This new law indirectly forced states to raise their MLDA to 21. By 1995 all 50 states had raised it.
Raising the MLDA to 21 appears to have had positive consequences. In 1982, 61% of drivers between 16 and 20 years old who were killed in car wrecks had positive blood-alcohol levels (McCartt, Hellinga, & Kirley, 2010). By 1995, this percentage had dropped to 31%. The tremendous decrease in traffic fatalities during this time period was attributed to the change in MLDA. Thus, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 500 lives are saved by the 21 year old MLDA (NHTSA, 2013). It is important to consider, however, that the decrease in teenage deaths related to traffic accidents could be also attributed to an increase in seat-belt use and a stronger enforcement of DUI consequences (Paglia, 2014). In contrast to the U.S., in 1999 New Zealand lowered its drinking age from 20 to 18. Studies conducted regarding car accidents have found that 15 to 19 year old drivers are now more likely to be involved in alcohol-related car crashes (Kypri et al., 2006). This study suggests that lowering the MLDA has serious repercussions. It is possible that if the U. S. were to lower the MLDA back to 18, something similar would happen and the number of alcohol-related traffic accidents involving young drivers would return to or exceed previous levels.
Further supporting the 21 year old MLDA, research suggests that a person’s brain does not reach full development until his/her early- to mid-20s (Zeigler et al., 2005). Therefore, alcohol consumption before the brain reaches this stage can lead to persistent deficits in cognitive abilities. Additionally, teenagers get drunk faster than adults do and to make matters worse, they do not know when to stop drinking, which leads them to binge drink more than adults do (Zeigler et al., 2005; MADD, 2015).
Although the law that raised MLDA to 21 yields many positive outcomes and seems to play a crucial role in reducing the number of traffic injuries and deaths due to drunk driving, there are still many proponents for lowering it to 18. They see the efforts made by MADD as well intended but “wrongly intruding into an area of personal choice,” arguing that 21 year old MLDA is “a gross violation of civil liberties” (Paglia, 2014). It seems contradictory that at 18, young people can vote, marry, and serve in the military, yet they are not allowed to buy alcoholic drinks (Paglia, 2014; Amethyst Initiative, n.d.). There are 30 states that allow parents to give alcohol to their children in their own home, but this is prohibited in the other 20 states (Choose Responsibility, n.d.). Parents who adhere to these laws are barred from introducing their children to alcohol even in a controlled and supervised environment. This in turn makes it more likely that teenagers’ initial drinking experiences occur in contexts with no supervision (Choose Responsibility, n.d.). Heath, a researcher of cultural attitudes towards alcohol, finds that children are generally safer the younger they start drinking because it eliminates the mystery and intrigue about alcohol (Griggs, 2014). By prohibiting alcohol consumption until 21, it makes teenagers more curious to experiment. Heath is a proponent of cultural models like those in France and Italy in which parents give small quantities of wine to their children during meals. This provides parents the opportunity not only to educate their children about alcohol, but also to counter the “forbidden fruit syndrome” associated with alcohol being banned until 21 and thus to reduce binge drinking without supervision or guidance.
In 2008 John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College, spoke to the Annapolis group, a group of approximately 120 liberal arts colleges presidents (Amethyst Initiative, n.d.). Several of the presidents in this group recognized a common belief that the MLDA of 21 was not working. They desired to reopen public debate of MLDA to evaluate its effects on young people. They knew that underage drinking was a problem in their campuses and that current policies were not being effective. Several alcohol education and prevention programs present abstinence as the only legal option for people under 21 (Amethyst Initiative, n.d.). This, however, has not resulted in positive behavioral changes among young people. Instead, it has led many young adults to use fake IDs, which is against the law and involves ethical compromises. An online survey at a large university found that 21% of students reported they have a fake ID, out of which 93.5% reported using them and 29.1% had gotten caught at least once (Martiniez & Sher, 2010). Perhaps more important is that there is a strong association between having a fake ID and binge drinking. The MLDA has created a culture of clandestine binge drinking, which is very dangerous because it occurs under no supervision (Amethyst Initiative, n.d.; Griggs, 2014). McCardell argued that colleges should be given a chance to educate students about drinking responsibly. They decided to draft a statement expressing their concerns and their desire to reopen a debate about MLDA, which became known as the Amethyst Initiative (Amethyst Initiative, n.d.). It aimed to prompt debate, conversation, and evaluation of the current situation, its effectiveness, and the consequences it is having on young adults. It also proposed that teenagers should be able to obtain an alcohol permit if they: were 18 years old, graduated from high school, and completed an alcohol-education course. McCardell has obtained 136 signatures from college presidents supporting the Amethyst Initiative (Amethyst Initiative, n.d.; Griggs, 2014). Although F&M is part of the Annapolis Group, F&M did not sign the Initiative.
The Amethyst Initiative’s parent organization, Choose Responsibility, also founded by McCardell, designed an alcohol education program based on a MLDA of 18. The program aims to provide “accurate, truthful, and unbiased alcohol education… and acknowledge the social reality of alcohol in America” (Choose Responsibility, n.d.). It would not advocate abstinence or consumption, but create a basis for making responsible choices. It would include at least 40 hours of instruction in a classroom setting and community involvement (like DUI court hearings and safe ride taxi programs) taught by a certified alcohol educator. At the end of the program, students would have to pass a final exam and if completed successfully, they would receive a license “entitling the recipient to all the privileges and responsibilities of adult alcohol purchase, possession, and consumption” (Choose Responsibility, n.d.). Choose Responsibility argues that federal legislation should not penalize states that decide to pilot test this program.
As stated previously, many believe that the MLDA has deprived young people of safe places where they could drink socially and instead has led to reckless binge drinking at parties with no adult supervision (Paglia, 2014). Some have gone so far as to state that the “MLDA of 21 in the U.S. appears to be not only ineffective but actually counter-productive. Although it was passed with the best of intentions, it has had some of the worst of outcomes” (Choose Responsibility, n.d.).
Binge drinking is a serious concern and it must not be taken lightly. It is a word we hear frequently on college campuses, but what is binge drinking? Binge drinking is defined as five or more drinks in a row for men and four or more for women (Wechsler et al., 1995). For the typical adult, if this amount of alcohol is consumed in 2 hours, their blood alcohol content would be 0.08 (NIAA, 2004). This definition is not a clinical method, but instead a measure used in research to indicate risk of alcohol-related problems (Wechsler & Nelson, 2001). Alcohol abuse is “one of the most important contributors to preventable morbidity and mortality in contemporary America” (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995). It is linked to high risk of acute health problems, car accidents, unsafe sex, assault, aggression, and alcohol-related psychological disorders. According to the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), more than 1,800 college students die each year from alcohol-related injuries and an additional 599,000 get injured (NIAAA, 2013). Furthermore, more than 690,000 students are assaulted and more than 97,000 are victims of sexual assault or date rape by a student who has been drinking. Approximately 25% of students experience academic consequences due to alcohol, like falling behind in classwork, missing classes, and receiving lower grades. Other consequences of high alcohol intake include vandalism, property damage, getting in trouble with the police, and suicide attempts (NIAAA, 2013; Wechsler & Nelson, 2001).
Wechsler conducted multiple studies examining drinking behaviors among undergraduate students across the country. The results from his surveys shed light into the gravity of the situation and how it has been changing over the last few decades from a “harmless pastime to a public-health concern” (McMurtie, 2014). In his 1993 survey sampling 140 campuses, he found that 44% of students (50% men, 39% women) binged at least once in the 2 weeks prior to answering survey (Wechsler et al., 1995). The number of binge episodes in the United States increased from 1.2 billion in 1993 to 1.5 billion in 2001, and young adults had the highest rate of binge drinking episodes (Naimi et al., 2003).
People who engage in binge drinking three or more times in a period of two weeks are identified as frequent binge drinkers, those who had less than 3 episodes in the same time period are identified as occasional binge drinkers, and those who do not engage in this behavior are nonbinge drinkers (Wechsler & Nelson, 2001). If we follow this definition, when examining the data from the 2013 NCHA survey, 23% of F&M students would have been identified as binge drinkers, 28.5% occasional binge drinkers, and 35.2% nonbinge drinkers. Thirteen percent of students responded that they do not drink.