I am often amazed by people who seem to believe that the mere passing of a law will cure the social ills of the world. The failure of prohibition has proven that this approach does not work. The real reason we gave up the 55 mile an hour speed limit was the police saying that there were so many violators that they could not enforce the laws. Yet MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) persists in insisting that a 21 year old drinking age will solve the problem of Binge Drinking. The fact that we have had a 21 year old drinking age for many years and Binge Drinking continues to be a problem has no effect on their belief that their approach works.
The problem is that there are too many people who operate on belief rather than evidence. They let their beliefs govern policy decisions and win arguments because they claim to be looking out for a greater good. The problem with this approach is that it often leads to more problems than it solves. There was a study of prohibition that found that many people started drinking during that era because they were told that they couldn’t [I wish I could remember where I read this]. I do know that I grew up in an era when New York and Louisiana were the only states with an 18 year old drinking age. Most of us didn’t even think of Binge Drinking because we could get a drink any time we wanted one. There was no “Forbidden Fruit” aspect to the consumption of alcohol. There was no sense of getting away with something.
When MADD quotes the statistics from the era of the lower drinking age are they adjusting the data for the fact that there were differing drinking ages in different states? This fact alone could account for many of the drunken driving deaths. For example: Pennsylvania never lowered its drinking age; New Jersey had a 19 year old drinking age and New York had an 18 year old drinking age. Pennsylvania kids would cross the border to either New York or New Jersey to drink. Then they would drive home and get into accidents. If they had been allowed to drink in Pennsylvania they might have stayed in someone’s home and never have been on the road. In addition there is a high likelihood that they might have had less to drink because it was legally available. Add to this that fear of getting caught drinking illegally often dissuades those who get into medical trouble through drinking from seeking help for themselves or their friends.
Looking at all of this convinces me that maintaining a 21 year old drinking age is an effort in futility. In addition, maintaining this artificially high age may actually exacerbate the problem. Remember, laws only work when the people they apply to believe in them.
1 comment:
I've made the same arguement so many times in my life for the lowering of the drinking age. If the 21 year old drinking age made sense and it was preventing a problem of kids getting into accidents drunk then why is it that countries with lower drinking ages like Germany, Ireland and France have FEWER accidents and DUI's than the United States does. I believe you're right this truely is an effort in futility. Same goes for all the drug laws which have never prevented anyone from doing drugs, just illegalized them creating a whole new set of problems. Most notably the rise of underground drug rings and gangs. I'll never understand why the country is in the mindset that if you say NO YOU CANNOT DO THIS that people will actually listen.
The whole country doesn't go around killing each other because the vast majority of people believe it's wrong. People don't stop smoking marijuana or drinking under the age of 21 because they do not believe in the law.
Seems very liberal to me, but in this case liberal is very logical. Legalize all drugs tax them, lower the drinking age to at least 18 and we'd see a lot of problems wash down the drain.
Post a Comment