A group of college presidents wants a public debate on the negative effects of the current drinking age on binge drinking and alcohol related deaths.

Here is the case in a nutshell:

For Reference, Here are Some Drinking Ages Worldwide:

I found this interesting article online that addresses drunk driving:

While this research is not new, it is worth revisiting. In 1993 traffic safety experts convened from six countries to report on progress against the drinking and driving problem. Statistical records kept from 1982-1992 for alcohol-related traffic fatalities in each of the following countries show the following trends:

United Kingdom: 50% Decline
Germany: 37% Decline
Australia: 32% Decline
The Netherlands: 28% Decline
Canada: 28% Decline
United States: 26% Decline

This downward trend in drunk driving across the board shows quite clearly that the 21 year-old drinking age in the United States was, at best, the least effective measure to limit drunk driving amongst these developed countries and, more likely, is falsely credited as the key to changing social mores that in fact changed across all industrialized countries with no drinking age changes.

Amongst these six countries only the US raised the drinking age (in 1984) to curb drunk driving; others adopted policies that recognized drinking and driving as an especially dangerous outcome of irresponsible drinking behavior. Rather than target drinking, they targeted behavior. Nearly all countries stepped up intoxicated driving enforcement and lowered legal BAC level.

Not a single country outside of the US lowered the drinking age, and yet every last one of them managed to reduce alcohol-related fatalities at higher rates than the US. It would seem that the drinking age then is the least effective way to reduce drinking and driving.

Another interesting point to make is. . . I remember when states, one-by-one, raised the drinking ages to 21 back in the mid 80’s. The Federal Government told states that if they didn’t raise their drinking age to 18 they would lose 10% of Federal Highway funds.

Here’s a little irony though:

Traditionally active duty U.S. military personnel could consume alcoholic beverages, while on any federal military installation, regardless of the drinking laws of the state in which their base was located.

However, in the 1980s, Congress was lobbied to prevent this. “Federal law (United States Code) requires military installation commanders to adopt the same drinking age as the state in which the military base is located. The only exception to this rule is if the base is located within 50 miles of Canada or Mexico, or a state with a lower drinking age, the installation commander may adopt the lower drinking age for military personnel on base.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) codification of this legislation specifies that on bases within 50 miles of“Mexico or Canada, the minimum drinking age on that DoD installation shall be the lowest applicable age of the State in which the DoD installation is located or the State or jurisdiction of Mexico or Canada that is within 50 miles of such DoD installation.

The minimum drinking age on a DoD installation located outside the United States shall be 18 years of age. Higher minimum drinking age will be based on international treaties and agreements and on the local situation as determined by the local installation commander.”

So what do you think?

If a U.S. citizen can vote, marry, go to war, be criminally charged as an adult, be an air traffic controller, etc at age 18 . . . should they be able to have a beer? Personally I am torn. I see both a dogmatic and a pragmatic logic to the debate.

Please leave a comment, we’d love to hear your perspective!