Posted on 04/13/2005 3:06:59 PM PDT by Sonny M
MONTPELIER, Vt., April 7 - Last fall, Richard C. Marron, a Republican state representative, was reading a newspaper column by the recently retired president of Middlebury College, John M. McCardell Jr.
One of Mr. McCardell's targets was the drinking age, which in Vermont, and every other state, is 21.
"The 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law," Mr. McCardell wrote, saying it had led to binge drinking by teenagers. "Our latter-day prohibitionists have driven drinking behind closed doors and underground."
Mr. Marron, a four-term legislator who is vice chairman of the appropriations committee, decided that the law needed changing, and he has introduced a bill to lower the drinking age to 18, setting off a debate about public safety, age discrimination and the rights of young people as well as whether it is possible to teach teenagers to drink responsibly.
"Now we have a legal age of 18 to do everything else, but you can't drink until you're 21," Mr. Marron said. "I'm not pushing it to the level of it being unconstitutional, but I do think it's a form of age discrimination. If we did something else, like said you couldn't use a public campsite until you're 21, we would have an equal-protection-of-laws issue."
Mr. Marron's bill is unlikely to pass, mainly because if it did, Vermont would lose $9.7 million in federal money for highway maintenance, grants available only if a state sets its drinking age at 21. And the state's public safety commissioner and health department, along with several legislators, argue that lowering the drinking age would simply worsen the problem of under-age drinking and drunken driving.
Still, 17 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors, and other legislators said they might be willing to consider such a bill if not for the loss of federal money. Even Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, might see some logic in the proposal if the federal highway money was not involved, said his spokesman, Jason Gibbs.
"Philosophically, it's difficult to reconcile the notion that you can enlist in the military, serve your country, go to war, but not go into your local pub and get a draft beer," Mr. Gibbs said.
While state health officials say that "a higher drinking age is safer," he added, the possibility that a lower drinking age could stem binge drinking is "certainly one that needs to be looked at very closely."
Mr. Marron, who says his ownership of a resort with a liquor license in Stowe, Vt., has no bearing on his support of the bill, said some teenagers drove to Canada, where the drinking age is 18.
States across the country raised the drinking age to 21 after the 1984 National Drinking Age Act tied that requirement to a percentage of federal highway money given to states.
In recent years, few legislative proposals have emerged to lower the drinking age, said Jonathan Adkins, a spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, which, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, strongly opposes such efforts. Vermont is simultaneously considering a bill to raise the cigarette-smoking age to 21, from 18.
Mr. Gibbs said the governor opposed the bill on smoking because 18 was the age of "pre-eminent personal responsibility."
The American Cancer Society has generally withheld support for such proposals, saying that there was not a lot of data on their effectiveness and that adoption might make cigarettes more of a forbidden fruit A survey of Vermont voters conducted by a state senator last month, before debate or hearings on the proposals, showed some support for lowering the drinking age (33 percent), but more for raising the smoking age (51 percent).
The forbidden-fruit argument is also made by advocates for lowering the drinking age.
"Before the age was increased, we had a very different environment," said Ronald D. Liebowitz, the current president of Middlebury College. "You had kids drinking beer and getting sick on beer, but you didn't have gross alcohol poisoning and binge drinking."
Mr. Liebowitz said many students "go off campus to private homes to drink and then, because this is a rural environment, they have to drive home."
Alex Koroknay-Palicz, 23, the executive director of the National Youth Rights Association in Washington, has been campaigning for the bill on Vermont college campuses, saying it is a matter of civil rights and safety for teenagers.
"Instead of doing it in a controlled situation, going to a bar with a drink limit or something, they're doing it at keg parties in places that are harder to control," Mr. Koroknay-Palicz said.
Statistics from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration show that the number of drunken drivers under age 21 involved in fatal crashes decreased by 61 percent from 1982 to 1998. The agency also estimates that 22,798 lives were saved from 1975 to 2003 by higher-drinking-age laws.
And in Vermont, Kerry Sleeper, the public safety commissioner, said all fatal crashes involving alcohol dropped to 25 in 2002, from 50 in 1986, the year the drinking age was raised.
Mr. Sleeper and other opponents of the new bill acknowledge that it is not clear if the decrease in crashes can be attributed to the higher drinking age or to stepped-up enforcement, education and measures like lowering the illegal blood alcohol level to 0.08. But they say the higher age has helped.
Barbara Cimaglio, Vermont's deputy commissioner for alcohol and drug abuse programs, said brain research showed that 18-year-olds were not as responsible as 21-year-olds. Because many 18-year-olds are still in high school, Ms. Cimaglio said, lowering the age would make alcohol more available to 15- , 16- and 17-year-olds.
Representative Loren T. Shaw, Republican of Derby, bases his opposition on personal experience. "I started drinking when I was 15," said Mr. Shaw, 63, who said he stopped at 25. "All I cared about was booze, stock cars and women. I lost a lot of friends due to drunken driving."
Many legislators probably share the view of Representative Thomas S. DePoy, Republican of Rutland.
"I don't really know if the age is relevant," Mr. DePoy said. "I think it's just going to boil down to the mere fact that this state needs the transportation funds."
Katie Zezima contributed reporting from Boston for this article.
Before I turned 21 (actually high school and onward) I was drinking.
I'm actually proud to say that this stupid law had no effect on me, and I have always said its a dumb law, and have not only encouraged others to disregard it, but to also disrespect it.
I think 18 year old is should be the drinking age, and yes, I have helped, and assisted, many kids under 21 get alcohol, and I have and will do it again.
Change the law, keep it, its a joke anyway.
I'm 19..never had a drink in my life (besides religious reasons).
I guess some pay attention to the law :)
Never has a pol explained to me why they trust my 19 year old nephew to defend our country in Iraq, but not to enjoy a cold beer when he returns home.
If my 18-year-old soldiers can stop a bullet, legally, why can't they hoist a cold one, legally?
Many post commanders authorize troops age 18-21 to enjoy beer on post. And the 12-hour rule is strctly enforced. The "Beer-Only" rule is a good thing.
Sonny M, same with me, I was sitting up to the bar at 16, I can not tell you all how much I regret that, it started that young and lasted 30 years... I did not do well by drinking
Our 19 year old had a cold one with his Dad when he came home from Afghanistan.
Um, Mr Marron, send your 18 year old out to rent a car anywhere and call me with the results. That’s one example.
-PJ
Oh - or rent a hotel room.
Grew up when most states were 18. This is another one of those issues like raising the speed limit over 55. The libs predicted carnage on the road, fact is highway deaths went down. How can we trust someone with the vote and not a Budwieser.
When I was in college we were still allowed to drink, that was before the federal government took over the drinking laws through the back door of collecting TOO MUCH IN TAX and then offering to pay it back only if the states did what the federal government wanted them to do.
The fact is that the law is virtually ignored. Having laws which are ignored and uninforced teaches people to pick and chose which laws they will obey.
In this case that was the intention. Nobody really expected to stop 18-year-olds from drinking. They wanted to stop 16-year-olds. The reasoning is that a lot of 16-year-olds hang out with 18-year-olds, and could get beer from them, but you don't have a lot of 21-year-olds going to teen parties. The 18-year-olds in college would have older friends who could get them beer.
Having laws that we expect people to break, and that we enforce only rarely, is a bad thing.
This post is not intended to suggest support or opposition of drinking laws in general (I have a firm position which I'm not stating). I'm just saying that if you have a law enforce it, and you shouldn't prohibit ONE thing if you really wanted to prohibit something else.
... or get a FFL or a hazmat endorsement on your CDL. Heck, you might have to be 21 to get a CDL - see, I came up with several...
Depends on where you are - it's illegal to refuse to rent a car to any licensed driver 18 or over in New York.
It would have been difficult for a person to drink more than I did when I was 18. Of course the law should be changed.
[Having laws that we expect people to break, and that we enforce only rarely, is a bad thing.]
AMEN!!!
Young kids really don't like the stuff, and would be much more likely to grow into gradually. My own kids (both over 21) are good examples. They could both have whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it at home. Mostly except for wine for one of them (which resulted from her being served wine all over Europe when she was 14) neither of them took advantage at all until they were more than 16. Did they ever overdo it? Sure, but they we smart enough to call ME to come get them.
And it's insane that kids at college cannot drink without breaking a law.
ML/NJ
I recall reading on FR a long time ago, probably in 2000 at the time of the last-minute revelation of George W. Bush's DUI in 1976, that something like 84 members of Congress had been stopped for drunk driving in the previous two years (of course none of them were penalized--Congressional immunity). There is a bit of hypocrisy involved.
All they'll lose is 9.7 million, hell they could make that back on a 1 cent tax extra on every six pack sold.
States across the country raised the drinking age to 21 after the 1984 National Drinking Age Act tied that requirement to a percentage of federal highway money given to states.
This and many other laws like it are nothing short of "BLACKMAIL" by the federal government. The States have rights, but only if they want to get back the money that is paid out of there state in taxes. So in effect the federal government is blackmailing the state out of its rights. This should not be legal. The federal goverment should have no power to do this. And as a method of retaliation...I would suggest that the states pass a law that takes possesion of said "Lost federal funds" directly from the payrolls of it citizens. Or how about scooping up the money made by federal taxes on Gas.
Interesting, you know I always found it funny, when I was 14-16, it was much easier to go find some weed instead of alcohol... Maybe that lead me to take a different path at that age.
At least if kids start drinking underage at the age of 16 because their high school senior buddies buy, their PARENTS will be the ones to do the punishing, not government. Government punishments when it comes to stuff like this are always hamhanded and silly (think zero-tolerance laws).
This may be the only thing Vermont's government could do right. It would be great to see at least one state doing the right thing on principle. And NH would probably soon follow suit--it could be a great rallying point for the Free Staters there!
Bump to that. It'll never happen, but bump to it anyway.
It was worrisome to a lot of us when Reagan let the authoritarians talk him into it in the first place. Now it's standard federal practice to blackmail states with highway funds.
I think this is great.
We should, on the same day, lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the driving age to 21.
In Wisconsin, the law allows children (regardless of age) to have beer or wine at home or in a restaurant when in the presence of their parents. I occasionally allow my daughter (age 11) to have a small amount of wine with me because it is a good opportunity to show by example how to be responsible with alcohol.
The message is that alcohol should never be a vehicle for drunkenness.
Boy, this a thread full of bumps. :)
I don't think a drinking age has ever made sense, except to the WCTU members here...and the lawyers who make a buck off it.
Vermont should just make their law like the one in Wisconsin. The drinking age in Wisconsin is 21 (in order to receive the Federal highway bribes) but there are exceptions: minors may consume alcoholic beverages while accompanied by a parent, legal guardian, or spouse who is of legal age. Establishments still have the right to refuse to serve minors, but few exercise the right.
You're right, though, that it won't happen here.
-PJ
Ping!
frunk - to cover my mis-type lets call that friggin drunk
When you become 21, the supply becomes basically unlimted(you can pretty much buy all you want, without criminal threats hanging above you, unlike when you are 19 or 20). From my own experience, at 21, I cut way down on any binge episodes.
I'm certain that if I casually surf the news I can locate a hundred examples of similar accidents caused by people over the age of 21.
Haven't been carded since I turned 16. Take a guess as to when I started hanging out in bars.
So why not ban cars?
It also becomes a romanticized rite of passage. I suspect binge drinking would drop a lot if the age was dropped back to 18.
Mods please change title. It should be:
Vermouth Considers Lowering Drinking Age to 18
I can't argue with that logic. Excellent point.
When I was in the Navy (in Florida, at the time), the drinking age was 18, 17 with a military ID. They changed that to 19 and 18 respectively while I was there. I came home on leave to Washington State and went into a liqour store to buy some whiskey. The gal asked me for my ID. I handed her my military ID, which showed my age as 18. She looked at it, and said "active duty military? Close enough."
ping ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.