Over the past several decades the debate of the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has been a hot topic. After the end of prohibition in the United States in 1933, all states enacted an MLDA with most setting it at 21 years old. However following the 26th amendment passed by congress on March 23, 1971, which granted the right to vote to American citizens ages eighteen or older, 30 US states lowered their MLDA to 18, 19, or 20. By 1982, only 14 states had an MLDA of 21. Several years later, the federal government enacted the National Minimum Legal Drinking Act which required all states to set the MLDA to 21 by 1986 or face loss of federal highway funds. By 1988, all states had some form of an age-21 MLDA law. However, there are still many movements and recent events which trigger the debate.
In a case study linking past and current debates over the minimum legal drinking age, professors from The University of Minnesota explore the research that was conducted to identify the key messages and influences related towards changing the MLDA. The main influence listed is the raising of MLDA to 21 due to the financial pressure from the federal government in 1984. “Each state that raised its MLDA to age 21 has a unique story on how the age-21 MLDA was enacted, each with varying players, legislative processes, victories and defeats. However, these individual cases took place within a national social movement that had a high level of support among the general population and that was supported directly by research” (Toomey). Factors that possibly influenced the success of the movement were Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) which grew across the states during the early 1980s and influenced legislatures. Many of the messages used by these organizations were backed primarily by the research findings of the loss of lives resulting from the lower drinking age and the lives that would be saved by returning the MLDA to 21 (Toomey). Messages from the opponents, however, claimed that “...a lower drinking age should be more effective because youth could be taught how to drink responsibly” (Toomey). “Another popular argument was that if 18–20-year-olds fight and die in a war, they should have the right to drink alcohol. Similarly, if 18–20-year-olds have a right to vote and get married as an adult, they should also have a right to drink alcohol” (Toomey). Despite strong evidence that these claims do not give good enough reason to lower the drinking age, as it reduces alcohol use among individuals under age 21 and saves lives each year, they are still used as counter-arguments even today.
Dr. John McCardell, president of Middlebury College in Vermont, started a non-profit organization in 2005 called Choose Responsibility. The organization was founded to “...consider policies that will effectively empower young adults aged 18-20 to make mature decisions about the place of alcohol in their own lives.” As an organization, CR was successful in generating publicity and attention for their claims through radio, television, newspaper stories, and webcasts (Toomey). The organization continued to use claims fueled by the earlier reasoning such as if an individual is old enough to get married, vote, and join the military should be able to drink. Each of these arguments have been ‘rebuffed or exposed’ as inaccurate by scientific evidence.
The evidence to conduct this study was gathered by multiple professors from the University of Minnesota. The objective was to understand the research and influence that was conducted from both sides of the debate over the MLDA. In this short study, over 55 sources were used that were published decades between each other. Since this was a study that was concluded by taking information from established sources, I believe there is enough information to determine an actual and accurate analysis over the history of the MLDA debate.
In a more specific argument, the Amethyst Initiative argues that a minimum legal drinking age of 21 has created a culture of heavy alcohol use on college campuses by making drinking more extreme (Saylor). Despite the dramatic decrease in underage alcohol-related traffic injuries and fatalities in the United States since 1984, opposition coming from an initiative led by administrators from some of the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities continues. These administrators point to the heavy alcohol use among college students as a reason to rethink MLDA. This paper put together by Drew Saylor, a researcher at the Center for Behavioural Health and Technology at the University of Virginia, explores the argument: Does heavy use of alcohol on college campuses warrant a departure from current alcohol control practices and legislation?
Saylor explains that the current push for lowering the MLDA centers on college campuses would prove ineffective, and could even worsen the problem of college binge drinking. On top of this, previous experiences with lowering the MLDA indicate that there are extreme repercussions in terms of increased alcohol use and its related consequences. Saylor goes on to offer a better solution: “Instead of removing one of the most researched and supported policies in the alcohol control arsenal, we should seek to add to and improve this effort with increased enforcement, additional legislation, and efficacious interventions” (Saylor).
By addressing the underlying causes and origins of the debate over MLDA, Saylor gives herself a great base to explain the reasoning behind why it is in place and the extent of the research that has been done to back it up. For each argument that the opposers make, she refutes it with multiple sources such as surveys and studies done by schools and organizations.
As of 2015, alcohol consumption and binge drinking has declined among teens. “The overall prevalence of current drinking among high school students in the U.S. declined steadily between 1991 and 2015 - from just over 50% in 1991, to around 45% in 2007 and 33% in 2015.” Despite this, the issue of underage drinking remains. The topic of whether or not lowering the MLDA will reduce violence and addiction in teenagers will also remain in circulation, despite overwhelming evidence against it.