|
A Report
from the
Inter-Association
Task Force
on Alcohol
and Other
Substance
Abuse Issues
|
Twenty-One is the "Drinking Age"
What Does That Mean?
One of the major challenges
facing higher education is the lack of public consensus regarding the
minimum drinking age in the United States. The facts are quite clear,
most people believe that the law says that individuals who are not 21
should not drink. There are three other countries in this world that follow
a 21 drinking age: Malaysia, South Korea, and Ukraine, but in fact, only
31 of the 50 states in the United States wholly prohibit such drinking.
The other states have a patchwork of varied laws with exceptions for special
circumstances such as drinking for religious or medical purposes, in private
clubs, when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian and so forth.
But while most U.S. citizens believe the law of the land is a minimum
drinking age of 21… most also don’t enforce it.
The law really has
nothing to do with drinking, but deals instead with “purchase and possession”
of beverage alcohol. Perhaps more to the point is that the major reason
that the states enacted such laws was not a belief in the 21 minimum drinking
age but that they face losing a certain percentage of federal monies that
they would otherwise receive annually for highway construction and repair.
In effect, the U.S. Congress was unwilling to alienate voters between
18 and 21, so they used fiscal leverage on state legislators to impose
legislation on that vocal and active portion of the electorate. As a result,
all states have some law in effect that talks about 21 as the minimum
age for purchase and possession, which is far easier to enforce than a
ban on drinking.
The lack of national
consensus regarding the 21 age purchase and possession law is exemplified
by the fact that only 31 states have passed laws prohibiting drinking
and the long list of exceptions that currently exist in state law. On
top of that, there seems to be a lack of desire to enforce the 21-year
drinking age in many communities. The only time legislative intervention
is effective is when it is supported by the majority of our citizens who
feel it is a just law. Currently, there doesn’t seem to be a national
consensus on the 21 drinking age.
This lack of consensus
is reinforced by the fact that at the age of 18, a citizen in our country
may vote, enter into contracts, marry without parental consent, serve
in the Armed Forces, and be considered a fully functioning legal adult.
But these same individuals are told that they cannot purchase or possess
alcoholic beverages until they are 21. The justification for this inequity
is the concern over the high incidence of impaired driving and fatalities
in the 18–21 age group. Researchers will point to the fact that traffic
fatalities are down in the targeted age group but that is also true in
the other age groups during that same time period. Drinking by young people
has also declined, but not as much as among the population at large. In
fact, some of the states with the strictest laws regarding underage drinking
have had the highest increases in that activity.
In conclusion, without
national public consensus regarding the 21 drinking age, young people
will continue to be sent mixed messages about alcohol con-sumption. Colleges
and universities are in no better position than any other part of society
to enforce a law that is not supported by the majority of citizens.
|