Fighting the drinking age

The Amethyst Initiative, an organization of college presidents and chancellors, is calling for a new debate on the drinking age.

They showed up in July 2008, accumulated 135 signatories, sparked plenty of scorn from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and sputtered out without much of an impact.

During the last year, state legislatures in Wisconsin and South Carolina considered making an exception to the drinking age of 21 for military personnel. Signatures were collected in Missouri to put the question of lowering the drinking age on the ballot. Nothing changed in those cases either.

In the case of alcohol, like that of any other dangerous mind-altering substance, there are no good solutions. There is no easy way to square the rights of society to be safe from those using alcohol irresponsibly with the right of individuals to make their own decisions – stupid or otherwise.

Yet, America’s decision to maintain a high drinking age and promote abstinence as the only legal option while those under 21 continue to drink anyway is hardly the worst solution. Recently, plenty of advocates have been pushing for a change of policy, but a major shake-up hardly seems on the horizon.

One reason is that most Americans remain opposed to lowering the drinking age. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 77 percent of Americans would oppose a federal law that would lower the drinking age to 18 in all states. The same poll also found that 60 percent of Americans think underage drinking laws should be stricter.

This is somewhat surprising. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimates that 11 million Americans drink underage. A significant number of those now opposed to lowering the drinking age probably thought such a law should not apply to them or their friends when they were younger.

However, it is easy to trust oneself and the people you know. Many Americans, who are aware of how easy it easy it is to ignore the current law, are probably content to see the higher drinking age help police round up what are assumed to be the rowdier drinkers. 

This makes it easier for groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to lobby for the current drinking age largely unopposed. And, despite all the group has done to fight drunk driving, it has made some pretty fantastic claims about lives saved by the drinking age even though Canada, with a lower drinking age, has seen a similar decline in alcohol-related fatalities.

Of course, the real reason movements to lower the drinking age never gain traction is because of youth indifference. How is an organization like the Amethyst Initiative, made up of college presidents, supposed to change anything when college students who can vote show little sign of flexing their political muscles?  

To be fair, it is a lot easier to sneak into a bar or find someone older than 21 willing to purchase alcohol than it is to mount a political campaign.