Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drinking age still debated
JS Online ^ | July 17, 2005 | RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Posted on 07/18/2005 10:19:10 AM PDT by Last Dakotan

Two decades ago, few in the booze business believed it would happen here, in the beer capital of the world. Sobering Facts College students spend $5.5 billion a year on alcohol, more than they spend on textbooks, soft drinks, tea, milk, juice and coffee combined. Source: Harvard School of Public Health study 12th-graders who reported consuming alcohol in the last 30 days dropped to 48% in 2004 from 66% in 1985. Source: University of Michigan study

While other, more sober states caved in to the federal government's order to raise their drinking ages to 21 or lose a portion of highway funds, Wisconsin - insulated by the thick biceps of the Tavern League - would not be easily blackmailed.

It was 1985. Debate swirled. Would the economic loss from cutting 19- and 20-year-olds out of the legal drinking equation outweigh highway withholdings? Would bumping up the age cut teen traffic deaths and eliminate the "blood borders" - the so-called stretches of highway where teens from other states with higher drinking ages sometimes crashed and died driving home after a night of drinking in Wisconsin?

Twenty years after Wisconsin acquiesced, like every other state, the drinking age is still hotly debated.

Supporters say the law has saved thousands of lives and created a healthier, safer environment on college campuses and throughout society.

Opponents say it has forced teens to drink in secret, leading to reckless binge drinking and unsupervised, sometimes dangerous house parties. They say it's a civil rights violation and an insult to military members trained to kill but not trusted to consume alcohol.

Their complaints are getting attention.

Legislators in Vermont are considering a bill to lower the legal drinking age to 18. Wisconsin lawmakers are considering dropping the age to 19 for military members. Already some U.S. cruise lines have dropped the age to 18 for drinking beer and wine on excursions outside U.S. waters.

Each side comes to the debate with statistics to back up its argument.

Alcohol-related traffic deaths of drivers under 21 dropped by 17% immediately after states increased their minimum drinking age, says Alexander Wagenaar, a professor of epidemiology with the University of Florida who has studied alcohol issues for three decades.

"Raising the age to 21 is probably the single most effective prevention effort that we've done for teen drinking in the last 30 years," said Wagenaar, who estimates that as many as 20,000 lives have been saved in car crashes alone as a direct result of raising the drinking age.

But studies also show that more people ages 21 to 24 were killed after the bump in the drinking age, suggesting that the law simply delayed the deaths, according to John McCardell, president of Middlebury College in Vermont, who believes college campuses need to be more progressive in exposing students to responsible drinking.

"It would be hard to say with a straight face . . . that the law has had the effect of reducing drinking on campuses in an appreciable way," McCardell said. "I would argue it's had the opposite effect." Teenage crashes dropped

Statistics from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Safety back Wagenaar's findings, said Dennis Hughes, the DOT's chief of safety policy analysis.

The alcohol-related crash rate for 19-year-olds dropped from 22 per 1,000 licensed drivers in 1985 to 5 in 2003, the latest year for which data is available, according to DOT figures. And when Wisconsin raised its minimum drinking age from 18 to 19 in 1984, the alcohol-related crash rate for 18-year-olds fell from 21 per 1,000 licensed drivers to 12. By 2003, that rate had dipped to 5 alcohol-related crashes per 1,000 licensed drivers.

"The numbers for highway safety are irrefutable, and we've reaped those benefits for a long time," Hughes said. "A lot more kids are surviving their teens."

Kari Kinnard, too, sees benefits to the higher minimum drinking age. As president of MADD Wisconsin, Kinnard pays close attention to the issue. Kinnard says recent studies on the human brain show that it doesn't fully develop until age 21.

"Supporting evidence just keeps coming in that the right decision was made to move the drinking age," Kinnard said.

The higher drinking age has meant fewer injuries and deaths at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said Susan Crowley, director of PACE (Policy, Alternatives, Community and Education), a 10-year, $1.2 million program aimed at curtailing underage drinking. The study is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

"Without a doubt, we've seen (the 21 minimum drinking age) improve the health and safety on campus," Crowley said.

More students are abstaining from drinking and are willing to admit they don't drink. Fewer students are being taken to detox, and fewer students report negative consequences as a result of their own or others' alcohol consumption, Crowley said, pointing to statistics gathered in the last five years.

Others, such as Richard Keeling, an expert on the effects of the 21 minimum legal drinking age, caution against crediting the drinking age for such progress.

PACE strategies such as cracking down on house parties and increasing fines for alcohol-related offenses are likely more responsible for changing behavior than a higher drinking age, Keeling said.

As a medical doctor, the former director of health services at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and past editor of the Journal of American College Health, Keeling said the 21 minimum drinking age has had a "great many negative consequences." Teenagers are going to drink no matter what the legal age is, Keeling said.

"The pattern for underage students is more dangerous," said Keeling, who now runs a consulting firm in New York. "Afraid of being caught, they drink a lot in a short period of time. They do it less often but more intensely." Case for supervised drinking

Much of the problem stems from lack of supervised drinking experience, said McCardell, the Middlebury president. That's where colleges could help. They could and should play an active role in teaching young people to drink responsibly, McCardell said.

"You have to give them some exposure," McCardell said. "That doesn't mean sending everybody out to get drunk. But if you're serious about teaching somebody biology, you're going to include a laboratory. College campuses could be little laboratories of progressiveness."

Brendan O'Connell, a senior at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, says some type of supervised exposure to alcohol at a younger age would be hugely helpful to young adults. O'Connell tells stories of friends who drink themselves sick on their 21st birthdays. Bars offer free shots, and birthday revelers don't know when to stop, he said.

"It's almost like a holiday. It's something you've been waiting for," he said. "I've been to 21st birthday parties where I've had to drag my friends home. It's pretty bad."

U.S. Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) is one politician willing to consider alternatives to the 1984 act that coupled states' drinking ages with federal highway dollars. Petri has been working to persuade his colleagues that change is worth considering.

"If we're concerned about alcohol-related fatalities - and we should be - we should focus on alcohol-related fatalities," he said. "We need to leave greater flexibility to states to figure out the most effective way, rather than tell them we know all the answers."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: alcohol; beer; drinkingage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
Tying the drinking age to federal highway funds was a blatantly unconstitutional overstep of Federal authority.
1 posted on 07/18/2005 10:19:13 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

Yes it was.

My opinion-if you are old enough to serve your country, you're old enough to be served alcohol. JMHO.


2 posted on 07/18/2005 10:20:21 AM PDT by RockinRight (Democrats - Trying to make an a$$ out of America since 1933)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
In high school I drank. The fact is, the difficulty of getting alcohol didn't deter drinking at all. It did, however, give me a built in excuse to drink more heavily.


Scared Bunny Blog
Not for the timid

3 posted on 07/18/2005 10:21:35 AM PDT by sharktrager (My life is like a box of chocolates, but someone took all the good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
... was a blatantly unconstitutional overstep of Federal authority.

Yeah, but we're used to those by now... :-(

4 posted on 07/18/2005 10:22:25 AM PDT by Zero Sum (Marxism is the opiate of the masses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
In Ohio, a 1983 referendum to raise the beer age from 19 to 21 failed by a 2-1 margin. So of course our wonderful Dimocratic senators vote in favor of the MADD-pushed federal blackmail. This push meant that MADD was no longer an anti-drunk driving group...it became a prohibitionist group.

Fortunately, we no longer have Dimocratic senators.

-Eric

5 posted on 07/18/2005 10:22:42 AM PDT by E Rocc (Anyone who thinks Bush-bashing is banned on FR has never read a Middle East thread >:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
"My opinion-if you are old enough to serve your country, you're old enough to be served alcohol. JMHO."

Old enough to take a bullet for Uncle Sam, but not old enough to take a shot with your uncle Sam.
6 posted on 07/18/2005 10:23:38 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Wrong premise, right idea... A more valid premise would be that if you are old enough and responsible enough to vote for POTUS, then you are old enough to have a beer (or wine, or gin&tonic)


7 posted on 07/18/2005 10:23:38 AM PDT by Illuminatas (Being conservative means never having to say; "Dont you dare question my patriotism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
And, sad to say, it was our beloved former President Ronald Reagan who pushed this very hard.

Anyone who believes these laws stop 18-20-year-olds from drinking is beyond delusional. Kids need to be taught how to drink responsibly. An outright ban actually interferes with that.

8 posted on 07/18/2005 10:24:10 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Forget Blackwell for Governor! Blackwell for Senate '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

I have no problem with the drinking age being 21. However if they are too young to drink then they are too young to VOTE or be conscripted.


9 posted on 07/18/2005 10:24:18 AM PDT by Ouderkirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
The higher drinking age has meant fewer injuries and deaths at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said Susan Crowley, director of PACE (Policy, Alternatives, Community and Education), a 10-year, $1.2 million program aimed at curtailing underage drinking. The study is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

As a former Madison student, I hereby testify to the fact that the drinking age of 21 does not apply in any way, shape, or form to the students. If you want alcohol, it's about as easy to come by as a gallon of milk. Most weekend house parties selling cups will grant access to just about anyone, so that an 18-year-old can drink their face off unsupervised.

The RWJ Foundation is worse than MADD, by the way.
10 posted on 07/18/2005 10:26:52 AM PDT by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

How about tying it to military service. Old enough to serve, old enough to drink.


11 posted on 07/18/2005 10:29:06 AM PDT by Meldrim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illuminatas

OK better analogy.


12 posted on 07/18/2005 10:29:22 AM PDT by RockinRight (Democrats - Trying to make an a$$ out of America since 1933)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
The alcohol-related crash rate for 19-year-olds dropped from 22 per 1,000 licensed drivers in 1985 to 5 in 2003, the latest year for which data is available, according to DOT figures. And when Wisconsin raised its minimum drinking age from 18 to 19 in 1984, the alcohol-related crash rate for 18-year-olds fell from 21 per 1,000 licensed drivers to 12. By 2003, that rate had dipped to 5 alcohol-related crashes per 1,000 licensed drivers.

These numbers are meaningless out of context. What happened to drivers of all ages over the same time frame, or more specifically, what are the rates for drivers who were just above the legal age? There is no doubt that drunken driving has dropped significantly for all drivers of the last several decades, without having all those stats, these mean nothing.

13 posted on 07/18/2005 10:30:15 AM PDT by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

South Dakota took that to the Supreme Court and lost, which was unbelievable to me at the time.


14 posted on 07/18/2005 10:31:46 AM PDT by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
One of the games the MADD crowd plays is to overstate the drunken driving statistics by the use of the "alcohol related" phrase. If in addition to the driver if any of the passengers has any alcohol in their blood stream the accident is deemed "alcohol related".

So say you are stone sober and driving a drunk friend home and you are rear-ended, your accident will be alcohol related and used as a statistic against drinking.

15 posted on 07/18/2005 10:32:33 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk
I have no problem with the drinking age being 21. However if they are too young to drink then they are too young to VOTE or be conscripted.

Amen.

I don't see any difference between this age-based double standard versus an example whereby say, blacks, were allowed to drink and be drafted, yet not be allowed to vote. I believed this at age 18. I believe it even more strongly at age 37.

16 posted on 07/18/2005 10:32:36 AM PDT by AngryJawa (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoDak
South Dakota took that to the Supreme Court and lost, which was unbelievable to me at the time.

Give it a little time and a couple new justices.

17 posted on 07/18/2005 10:34:33 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Fortunately, we no longer have Dimocratic senators.

Coulda fooled me.

18 posted on 07/18/2005 10:35:15 AM PDT by Zero Sum (Marxism is the opiate of the masses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

"Fortunately, we no longer have Dimocratic senators. "

In Ohio, one has to question whether that's really a victory!


19 posted on 07/18/2005 10:35:25 AM PDT by Buck W. (Yesterday's Intelligentsia are today's Irrelevantsia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan; HolgerDansk

Drinking ping.


20 posted on 07/18/2005 10:36:36 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson