Down with Libby Dole and Ronald "get the government off of our backs, pro-States' rights"* Reagan.

* Pro-states rights, anti-government except in cases of arbitrarily choosing a higher drinking age that will be imposed on the states through withholding highway funds.

...have signed a letter calling on Congress to lower the drinking age to 18.

Congress!??
Is this a union of states or would you prefer a kingdom where everyone looks to the central government?

The idea of a Drinking License is amusing (will there be a written exam? what about a learner's permit, allowing the trainee adult to drink in the company of an experienced drinker?), but seems like it's unnecessarily complicated.

Regulating sales (at 18, not 21, if preferred) and coming down hard on drunkenness but not penalizing minor possession or moderate use by teenagers might seem a reasonable approach.

People have already forgotten that the initial move was from 18 to 19 due to the fact that many high school students are 18.

I wonder if the move has anything to do with universities having their own police forces while having liability in places like dorms?

The main reason the drinking age was raised in the 80s was to curb 18 to 20-year-old drinking and driving. (There was also some talk about how it was too easy for 16-year-olds to get alcohol from their 18-year-old friends, but that's another story.)

The concern with youthful drinking and driving is not without merit. However, I think the focus of the solution is wrong. It's not the drinking that's the real problem--it's the driving. You could easily tie this argument into the way that the built environment essentially requires you do drive in this country if you ever want to leave the house, but I'll try not to go there.

Personally, I'd be happiest if kids were allowed to drink at 16 but weren't allowed to drive without an adult in the car until 21. That approach would probably save more lives than anything, but it would never fly.

Outing myself as a person who remembers 18-yo drinking, Virginia had the right solution. At 18 you could buy beer served to you by a waiter/waitress/bartender in licensed establishment in an open container. At 21 you could buy whatever alcohol you wanted. It was a boon for restaurants, bars, college events. It allowed some drinking, but meant that it was somewhat controlled.

The real problem with the 21 age is that everyone knows they are going to drink before 21, so why not start now? Drinking as a privilege of senior year in HS wasn't so bad a wait.

Well, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is all up in arms about this. Think they are a worthwhile org?

http://www.madd.org/

I used to be very appreciative of the fact that you didn't have to be 21 to buy marijuana.

Think they are a worthwhile org?

No, because MADD has turned into a neo-prohibitionist group, even according to their own founder.

I had no idea you were such a strong advocate of strict anti-drinking laws, ElV.

That's a joke. Right? If you're trying to be funny with something, maybe try making it funny or at least sarcastic...or else it looks like you're proliferating a horribly dumb idea

Coming from a nation where the original drinking age was 21 having seen it lowered to 18 and having observed the results, I'm telling you, it was a mistake. Makes it way too easy for underagers to start binge drinking, putting everyone in just more danger. A lot of 16 year olds know 18 year olds. But how many 21 year olds do they know? 18 is not too young to drink, it's the influence that is the problem.

(I know some countries have sensible policies of 18 for beer and 21 for spirits. This seems a pretty decent compromise anyway)

Frankly I wish this had been around when I was 18. It would have been way easier to do 18 shots instead of 21. But live and learn. That poor SOB must have thought 10 people threw up in that bathroom.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com

If we didn't have such an unhealthy attitude toward drinking I don't think 'drinking age' would be an issue. As it is, our culture seems torn between treating drinking as a shameful, immoral act that violates the purity of our precious bodily fluids, and a great way to get laid.

My theory is that this binge and purge mentality encourages irresponsible drinking in young people (and it's also why people have such neurotic relationships with food and sex, but that's another story).

Lowering the age to 18 doesn't get rid of the clandestine binge drinking problem. It just pushes it down to high school (of course a lot of clandestine binge drinking goes on in high school even now).

But this could point the way towards a grand new education policy scheme: Drinking age is 18...if you attain a college-worthy GPA. Otherwise, 21. Implement that and you'll blow those other, way lamer, educational attainment proposals out of the water.

Sorry, but this is a horrible idea. It will just create another divide between the well-educated and the poor. Also, how the hell do you enforce a two-tier drinking age? Would you have to show the bartender BOTH your license and your high school transcript? Even a sticker on your license is a violation of your academic privacy; why does the world get to know that you had a poor GPA in HS? Couldn't this be seen as discrimination against people with learning disabilities? Or late bloomers?

Also, do you really want to dangle drinking as the reward for education? The central part of creating a better drinking culture is getting rid of the idea that drinking is a big, cathartic, multi-beverage event, but rather an enjoyable part of adult life that is best enjoyed with some degree of moderation. Your idea would encourage 18-year-old HS graduates to think of that summer after graduation as a marathon of drinking. (Not that they don't already, but by making it a reward for good grades, the state is essentially saying, have another kid, you earned it.)

And those who don't make the cut either get dealt a blow to their ego or wear their poor grades and illegal status as a badge of honor, and continue to drink--it's not like they won't have at least one friend who is legal to buy.

I know this was just a half-serious fleeting thought, but I really expect better from you Ezra.

Lowering it to 18 seems as if it would increase binge drinking on college campuses as it would solve the problem of Freshman finding someone to buy booze for them (not everyone gets invited to those fraternity parties). They're not binge drinking because they had to wait 3 years "to drink" they're binge drinking because they never learned limits. I've always thought 14 to drink, 18 to buy made the most sense. At 14 you can teach them about limits early under parental oversight (as slim as that may be for many) and before they start driving.

I had no idea you were such a strong advocate of strict anti-drinking laws, ElV.

I really have no opinion. I just thought you would like them. Many liberals look at private organizations as "part of the system" as they do the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

In the big scheme of things, whether the drinking age is 18 or 21 a very small issue.

By the way, the Virginia solution seems like the best possible one. There would still be plenty of kids who would drink at parties and what not, but bringing young drinking into the light and putting it under some small level of supervision seems like the best answer. College bars would rake in money, and some kids would learn to appreciate the pace you set when drinks cost money and are not being poured from cheap plastic bottles.

In the big scheme of things, whether the drinking age is 18 or 21 a very small issue.

Attitudes like that are exactly the way that dumb laws get passed-- because people are unwilling to get involved in the "very small issues" because they don't believe the issues are worthy of their precious time and attention.

No, zoning laws and drinking ages aren't sexy and aren't worth 3 hours of radio ranting about "How The LIEberals are ruining America!", but it's the sort of thing that requires attention from engaged citizens.

Isn't this a state issue?

As a Canadian lawyer who practiced in a border town, I am thankful for the higher drinking age in the US. Canadian border towns are magnets for the 19-21 crowd, who come in large numbers and spend money here. And when they get drunk they tend to do stupid things - some of them criminal...and I've made a fair bit of money off of that.

This is why some people are terrified of Liberals. A Drinking License? umm... No. Any candidate that suggested this would immediately lose any support I ever had for them.

"Sorry, but this is a horrible idea. It will just create another divide between the well-educated and the poor. Also, how the hell do you enforce a two-tier drinking age?"

I agree with you this would be bad if applied to every bar and club. But there is no reason this couldn't operate at college bars on campus. The bars are usually within walking distance of the dorms, thus negating the need to drive. My college used to serve alcohol at it's college bar and started slowly again doing that my senior year. I could easily buy alcohol in high school and college before I was 21, especially if I didn't shave for a few days.

"Isn't this a state issue?

Posted by: El Viajero | August 19, 2008 1:44 PM"

A state that violates this loses federal interstate highway funds. Since Hawaii isn't connected to our interstate highway, they are just about the only state with a drinking age of 18.

What is society's stake in all this?

Does teen drinking cause interpersonal violence that wouldn't otherwise exist? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

Does teen drinking combined with driving make it more dangerous to be anywhere near a road (on foot or in a vehicle?). The evidence seems conclusive that it is more dangerous for everyone.

Will designated driver programs work for teens? No evidence I've seen, but I doubt it - teens think they are exempt from danger (and the brain development data seem to prove this - well into the twenties, especially for males.)

Will public consumption only in licensed businesses help control excessive consumption? Teens already drink in private settings routinely because of the law.

Since the US hasn't 'figured it out' on the best age for drinking, perhaps it is time for some hard data on practices/laws in other countries to see if anything works elsewhere. I suspect (but nothing stronger) that the harsher laws on drinking and driving together at any age that seem to dominate Europe may lead to better outcomes, but where's the data?

Hint: any approach that teens see as directed solely at them will be resisted and ignored, so perhaps treating them as adults without differentiation - accompanied by strong legal/social sanctions on bad behavior - is the only thing that will manage behavior effectively.

I used to work in a first-year dorm, and was essentially responsible for the safety and well-being of my group of residents. We're talking kids who had just turned 18 or 19, and you can't even imagine the number of alcohol-related calls to EMS we phoned in during the year. The first-year dorms had more serious alcohol-related emergencies than the upperclassmen, even those living off-campus.

My school was once the party school to end all party schools, but we're technically a dry campus now. It's not perfect, but it's better than it was before. We still have juniors and seniors buying booze to share with freshman. We still have kids getting fake IDs to buy their own. Changing the drinking age isn't going to change any of that - 16 will be the new 18, since 18 will be the new 21.

Would it be so difficult for these schools to train their residential staffs to enforce the alcohol policies? Would it be so difficult to form neighborhood coalitions with students living off-campus so they don't end up jeopardizing the rest of the non-student population in those communities?

I intended to mention above that the current situation puts parents in a very difficult situation. If they participate in any way in supervision of drinking of their teens, they open themselves to crushing legal liability. This seems social counterproductive at best. In loco parentis doesn't work socially or legally, and parental control has been warped by criminal responsibility laws and court decisions.

What's a parent (or teen) to do?

Logical Answer?: The legal liability for teen and adult actions should rest on the shoulders of those who consume alcohol or drugs and do dangerous things.

Isn't this a state issue?

I always figured it was an act, but between the above question, and the fact that you thought touting MADD would act as some sort of gotcha, I guess it's true. You really are that fucking stupid.

Having initial drinking experiences out in the open (at bars or college-sponsored parties) is safer. The stats for people who die every year from alcohol consumption are people sitting in their dorms rooms drinking straight vodka because it's illegal for them to drink elsewhere and -- esp. if they have puritanical parents -- they don't know what it can do or their limits. No one ever died from drinking keg cups of Natty Light.

As a sop to the fascists at MADD, make drinking and driving zero tolerance (.02 BAC) until you're 21. Violation = multi-year loss of license, record, no hardship exceptions, etc. Problem solved.

A state that violates this loses federal interstate highway funds. Since Hawaii isn't connected to our interstate highway, they are just about the only state with a drinking age of 18.

Thanks for the update on that. However this raises another issue of the feds bullying states by threatening funds and grants forcing them to do things the feds cannot force them to do in court.

I would like to see that stopped. Either grant the funds or don't, but no strings.

Thanks for the update on that.

"Update"? El V, that's been the federal law since 1984.

Since Hawaii isn't connected to our interstate highway, they are just about the only state with a drinking age of 18.

Sorry, but you're mistaken about this. While there is no bridge to Hawai'i, there are certainly Interstate highways, and Hawai'i caved to the national drinking age just like every other state.

I even did a google, found this from 1986:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE103FF934A25755C0A960948260

This was already tried in the 70's and was so manifestly a mistake that they started backtracking immediately.

Whoever's advocating a repeat, should sober up and research the thing a little.

We've been down this path before.

(and the brain development data seem to prove this - well into the twenties, especially for males.)

I was going to mention this. I mean, what does it mean to be an adult? As Ezra says, there is some notion that serving in the armed forces qualifies one for adulthood. But to me anyway, I never felt like I was truly an adult until at least my senior year of college. Then, drinking, while still fun, was moderated and getting blasted become embarrassing. I started drinking around 15 and got really lucky that some of the stupid ass things I did didn't hurt anyone or myself.

To be honest, I could probably even say it took until I was 24 for me to fully feel like I was an "adult" in the traditional sense of having to support oneself solely. If there was ever time for one to not be responsible, its when one has financial support of parents.

This is not to say I support moving the drinking age one way or the other, but that as others have said, there are larger societal factors beyond age that contribute to the problem of drinking and that if we think its really a problem, we ought to think about differing ways to address them.

El Vi:

South Dakota even took the Federal Government to court over the issue, but it lost. [I still cherish the hypocrisy of the "States Rights" Reagan administration arguing that it had the right to overrule states on drinking ages--even though the 21st amendment would seem to give that right to states. Makes one wonder if all that states rights rhetoric had something to do, no, it couldn't be. Nevermind.]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEED91439F933A25750C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

''People still want to have some independence and to be able to control their own destiny,'' said Craig Eichstadt, an Assistant Attorney General in South Dakota, which has sued the Federal Government over the 1984 National Drinking Age Act. The state contends that the law violates the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which ended Prohibition and gave states the right to set drinking standards. After losing its case in two Federal courts, South Dakota appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where the case will be heard later this year, Mr. Eichstadt said.

''What we have said, and there are some scientific and statistical studies to back this up, is that these 19- and 20-year-olds are going to drink in any event,'' said Mr. Eichstadt. ''And they are much more likely to do it in a dangerous environment, like riding around on a country road, than if they are able to go into a bar and drink in a more controlled atmosphere.''

The drinking age anomaly (you're an adult, but don't get to make your own decision) has to be seen in the gradual, consistent and continuous efforts towards infantalizing adults in the USA. It's health nannies on the left, religious nuts on the right and just plain old nonpartisan bullies like MADD working towards a goal that they morally share: removing the notion that you, as an adult, are allowed to make your own decisions.

This isn't petty. Your entire political system is built around the philosophical credo set down by the Founders that free people should be left to make free decisions about how they lead their lives and how they govern their society. That noble philosophy is being nibbled to death from left right and middle as legions of people are all for freedom except the freedom to do what they specifically don't want you to do.

The drinking age should be 18. Not because it makes sense for it to be there, (and I don't give a tiny, tiny damn whether it makes sense or not). It should be there because you are a legal adult at 18 and telling a citizen, "yeah, but..." on their rights absent harm to others for which the individual can be held legally responsible is a TERRIBLE habit for a democracy to get into.

Unfortunately, nobody's looking at the tragedy of the commons as it applies to rights; everybody figures they can have their sacred cows east just a bit of the grass of your rights, not realizing that every other agenda monkey out there is doing the same thing, leaving nothing left now, or for the future.

Clearly it should be 18. After all that's what Europe and every other industrialized country does.

Atrios had a pretty good idea too. You can have a drinking license or a drivers license, but not both. They'd all choose drinking license and use public transportation or bikes, thus lowering their carbon footprint.

Ezra:

Is this the statement in question? If so, your statement link should point there, not to a shoddy newsday recap (which, I might add, offers a link for MADD that takes the reader to... newsday's definition of MADD, rather than the MADD site. Print news is for suckers.). Looking at the statement itself makes it clear that the university presidents are simply asking for

an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.

To consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.

To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.

... which is in line with many of the commenters' opinion that the signers of the statement should "should sober up and research the thing a little."

After all that's what Europe and every other industrialized country does.

OK....that's what I was waiting for. I just didn't think it would take this long to worship at the alter of Europe. I expected this much sooner.

That's a terrible, terrible, incredibly dumb idea, Ezra. Let's reward the higher classes, like yourself - who I bet was a very good student - by lowering the drinking age for -them- while restricting the freedoms of those entering the work force or the military.

Wow, Macauley Culkin has really put on the weight!