Drinking Age Debate Opposed
The U.S. currently has the highest minimum drinking age of any country in the entire world. This is a radical social experiment both historically and internationally. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that such a high minimum drinking age, which criminalizes drinking by millions of citizens who are socially and legally adults, has many unintended consequences.
The high drinking age drives drinking “underground” into venues where it is not subject to the usual moderating norms of society. To the contrary, such unsupervised drinking environments encourage the rapid and excessive consumption of alcohol just as speakeasies did during National Prohibition. When people have to go to great effort to obtain alcohol beverages, they don’t sip and savor them but gulp them down while they have access to them.
Similarly, raising the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has made consuming alcohol a desirable “forbidden fruit” that’s now seen as a major symbol of maturity and independence. Empirical research has clearly demonstrated this fact.
There are numerous moral, constitutional, law enforcement and other arguments against such a high minimum drinking age. But these are important issues about which reasonable people can and do disagree.
Public policy issues should always be open to debate in a democratic society. Therefore, it disturbs some observers that the Marin Institute has launched an attack upon a congressional candidate for daring to suggest that the issue should be publicly debated.
In trying to prevent debate, the temperance group has attacked the candidate’s motives and integrity rather than the strength of his arguments. That kind of behavior might be expected from a playground bully but not from a powerful organization that desires legitimacy and respectability.
The goal of the Marin Institute, which is funded by the anti-alcohol Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is to reduce the availability and consumption of alcoholic beverages in American society. One of its major strategies is to stigmatize alcohol and marginalize adults of legal drinking age who choose to drink.
Exactly what constitutes the best minimum drinking age is an important issue. Let the debate begin.
For more about the minimum legal drinking age, visit Legal Drinking Age, Underage Drinking and the Underage Drinking section of Youth Issues.
To learn about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, visit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Reference:
- Marin Institute. Marin Institute Responds to Peter Coors’ Plan to Lower Drinking Age. Marin Institute press release, 6, 25, 04.
filed under: [pending]
