As I was coming of age in mid-1970s, the drinking age was often 18 or 19, depending on the state in which you lived. The drinking age had been lowered in most states as the Vietnam War was ending. The same argument was used then, as is sometimes heard now: If you are old enough to die for your country, then you should be old enough to take a drink.
During the conservative Reagan era of the 1980s, things changed yet again. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) raised public awareness about the dangers of alcohol-related deaths and argued that teenagers were more prone to engage in such risky behaviors. MADD succeeded in lobbying Congress to pass new draconian restrictions on federal highway funds, mandating that states must raise their minimum drinking age in order to continue receiving such federal dollars. President Reagan soon caved into political pressure and signed the bill, despite the fact that the proposed law contradicted his rhetoric about "new federalism."
Now, we find ourselves in a similar position today as in the early 1970s. America is once again involved in a very unpopular and convoluted war, while young men (and women) are often dying from insurgent attacks in a dangerous foreign land. Though there is no longer a draft, the Vietnam and Iraq wars have some important demographic similarities otherwise. For starters, it does not seem fair or just to send someone off to fight for their country when they cannot even have a legal drink. After all, taking that first drink of alcohol is a long-standing rite of passage. Should a young adult be denied that first drink before facing enemy fire and possibly death? I think not.
If we can entrust young adults to elect the President of the United States, then they should at least be allowed to have a beer and celebrate (or bemoan) the outcome of that election. If we as a society can require young adults to serve on juries and thus determine guilt or innocence of perpetrators, then those jurors should have the right to indulge in a drink of alcohol after the trial is over. For that matter, if we are going to allow young adults to get married, then shouldn’t they be allowed to have a drink at their reception in celebration?
Most importantly, binge drinking seems to be encouraged by our current laws. If a young adult drinks only one beer they are facing the same possible legal sanctions in many states as if they had consumed a twelve pack. There's really no legal incentive for young people to engage in moderate drinking (as opposed to binge drinking) under current law. In fact, it’s just the opposite.
The same thing is true with drunk driving, as many states now have laws that hold underage drivers to a much more strict blood alcohol standard, with only minute amounts of alcohol in the system leading to criminal DUI charges for teenagers. Many young men and women are getting a criminal record also, simply for engaging in a long-standing American tradition: Having a drink at a college party.
As a growing number of college administrators have noted, prohibiting alcohol among 18 to 20 year olds has likely contributed to more alcohol abuse among college students. The new alcohol prohibition has had the unintended consequence of driving drinking underground – in homes, cars, basements, wooded areas, etc. Rather than drinking in a controlled public environment such as a bar, restaurant, or open party venue, students are now drinking without any appropriate supervision.
As Middlebury College President John McCardell has noted, "The 21-year drinking age has not reduced drinking on campuses, it has probably increased it. Society expects us to graduate students who have been educated to drink responsibly. But society has severely circumscribed our ability to do that."
It's time to end the new alcohol prohibition. Just as the first prohibition of the 1920s was a dismal failure, so too is the current one. All that is really being accomplished by the new prohibition is driving such drinking underground (away from oversight by parents, bartenders, law enforcement, and other authorities), while actually fueling lawlessness and other forms of extreme misbehavior.
One of these days, maybe we will have some politicians who are not simply baby-boomer hypocrites playing on people's fears, but will actually stand up for what is clearly the best public policy on the issue.