New Group Calls for 18-20 Year-Olds Drinking License

The time has come to consider changes to the current minimum drinking age law concludes a report from Middlebury College President Emeritus John McCardell after an exhaustive review of the issue. In the report titled “The Effects of the 21 Year-Old Drinking Age” McCardell’s new non-profit group called “Choose Responsibility” advances its proposal to allow states, without federal penalties, to license young adults 18 to 20 to purchase and consume alcoholic beverage. The license would be granted by the state only upon successful completion of an alcohol education course and would be retained only so long as the holder observed alcohol laws and regulations of the state.

Driving these recommendations are a series of “Conclusions and Principles” McCardell and his team came to after detailed analysis of the research and issues surrounding the drinking age. They analyzed the issue in historical and international contexts and took a close look at the key research. The report effectively challenges the primary claims in support of the 21 year old age law and advances the reasons for lowering the drinking age with equally compelling logic and facts. The final conclusions and principles include:

· While rates and numbers of alcohol-related fatalities have declined since the drinking age law was changed, the downward trend actually started before the federal mandate was enacted. Also, the data suggest a shift in fatalities from 18-20 year-olds to 21-24 year-olds, and there has been some recent deceleration in the alcohol-related fatality rate among 18-20 year-olds.

· Since the law changed, fewer young adults drink, but many continue to do so. More important, those who choose to drink are drinking behind closed doors and are increasingly doing so immoderately. Research shows that so-called binge drinking rates have increased among 18-20 year olds and remain relatively high among 21-24 year-olds.

· Many teens are using false ID to purchase alcohol, breeding disrespect for the law.

· Adults who serve young adults and/or institutions that allow drinking are violating the law. Parents are marginalized and first exposure to alcohol is now often unsupervised.

· When the drinking age was 18, alcohol-related fatalities increased among 18-20 year-olds; when it changed to 21, fatalities increased among 21-24 year-olds. Current law can no more plausibly claim to have saved lives than it can be charged with postponing fatalities. There is data to support both claims. Therefore it’s just as plausible to claim the law has failed as it is to claim it has succeeded.

· Most other countries set a lower drinking age – age or under – and there is no evidence to show a significant relationship between drinking age per se and frequency of alcohol-related fatalities in those countries.

· Current US law establishes, with the single exception of the drinking age, that 18 year-olds are adults. The 21 year-old drinking law abridges the age of majority.

The white paper's proposals are just as detailed as it’s dismantling of the 21 year-old law. Words matter, the authors insist, and they recommend an end to the use of condescending terms like kids and instead referring to those turning 18 as adults, when they are considered such for virtually all other activities. Similarly, stated goals of public policy should not be in terms of proscription or prohibition, but moderate and responsible use. Education about alcohol, like driver's education, should involve factual information, demonstrated competence, and parental oversight, not simple abstinence-only programs. Here, the report follows many of the recommendations of educator David Hanson and criticizes the positions of Harvard's Henry Wechsler and others who reject the notion that young adults can be taught to drink responsibly.

McCardell's process for obtaining a drinking license is extensive. It includes fifteen two- hour classes and four three-hour outside-the-classroom sessions. Classroom education would include information about alcohol and its effects, an historical overview of alcohol in the US, international comparisons, information about intoxication, drunken driving and other negative consequences. Then too, students will learn about alcohol laws, responsible vs. immoderate drinking, alcohol's effect on the brain, short- and long-term effects, drinking habits, standard drinks and more. Though the paper criticizes some of MADD's policy positions and rhetoric, it also advocates a MADD-created module about the movement to reduce drunken driving. In addition to a final exam, the process would include non-classroom activities such as visits to a court for a drunken driving case, community forums, witnessing an AA session and other exposure to the acute ramifications of irresponsible use. To obtain a drinker's license, young adults would have to complete the education course, turn 18 and graduate high school. That's an imperfect compromise, the authors' acknowledge, since many high school seniors turn 18 before they graduate. But they make it to keep alcohol away from younger students.

This proposal effectively lowers the drinking age, but with a careful combination of education, licensing and enforcement. Consequences of violation will be stiff and clearly stated. For example, providing alcohol to anyone under 18 would result in revocation and those caught drinking under age 18 will forfeit the ability to earn a license before age 21. The white paper provides sample legislative language, and suggests that Congress allow states to apply for a waiver of the highway funding condition in the current law. Last but not least, McCardell envisions a broad "paradigm shift" in the US as a result of these changes. In his view, attitudes about drinking should become "more reasoned and mature," behaviors more responsible, and awareness of alcohol and its effects more widespread.

"Choose Responsibility" will soon start testing public opinion and raising funds for campaigns to support new legislation. The group will not accept funds from the alcohol beverage industry. But most industry executives have felt a need to remain officially neutral on the drinking age, at least in public, ever since the federal mandate. When asked if he sensed a groundswell of support among other university leaders, probably the only group of people who have the credibility to mount a serious challenge to as emotional an issue as the drinking age McCardell said "I am hoping that my willingness to take a position will encourage others. The responses I've gotten so far have ranged from enthusiastic support and willingness to speak out, to quiet support and unwillingness to speak out. No one yet has said 'you're wrong, you've mischaracterized the issue, 21 works' though I'm sure some feel that way." This should be a very interesting discussion. For more information you can visit the website, www.chooseresponsibility.org.