Time to lower the drinking age?
Newsday.com reports that “College presidents from more than 100 schools” are calling for the national drinking age of 21 to be lowered to 18, arguing that lowering the drinking age would curb binge drinking. Indiana University is not part of the petition, although IU President Michael McRobbie “strongly believes people should be able to consume alcohol when they’re 18″, according to IU spokesman Larry MacIntyre. Herald-Times columnist Mike Leonard wrote a commentary on the topic that was published on Sunday.
(Read more after the leap)
According to Newsday.com, “In 1984, Congress voted to penalize any state that set its legal drinking age lower than 21 by rescinding 10 percent of that state’s federal highway funding.” Whether setting the legal minimum at 21 is a good policy or not, it should be set by the states, not the federal government. In a nation of 300 million people that stretches from one end of the continent to another, the drinking age should not be set by 535 legislators in one city on the East Coast. Blackmailing states with threats of funding cuts if their internal policies are not what Congress deems appropriate is in direct opposition to the spirit of the Tenth Amendment. To review:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The philosophical arguments against having 21 as the minimum drinking age are familiar to most people. How is it that someone can fight, kill and die in a war at 18, but he is not mature enough to enjoy a beer in his living room? At 18, people are considered to be legal adults - but they cannot legally consume alcohol.
The biggest problem with lowering the drinking age is that many high school seniors would be legally able to purchase alcohol. Lowing the drinking age may be simple common sense, but one side effect could be an increase in teen drinking, which would not be a good thing. So I propose a compromise: lower the drinking age to 18, but only if the person who wishes to purchase or consume alcohol has a high school diploma or GED. Indiana already has a different format for younger drivers, so this would be relatively easy to implement. If you are 18 and no longer in school, bring in your diploma or GED and get a new license. Otherwise, you have to wait.
This post is also available at ConservaTibbs.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:32 am
You make an interesting argument in the 10th Amendment. It is correct to use the 10th Amendment, but not for the drinking age issue. You see, the Feds have not set the drinking age. Any state can buck the Feds here and set it to 18, they just pay a penalty in the money they get from the Feds for roads.
It is that money for the roads that should have the 10th Amendment applied. States receive millions of dollars each year to build and maintain roads that are not part of the Interstate system. This, from my point of view, is unconstitutional Federal spending.
Without that funding, the Feds would not have the stick to “encourage” the States to raise their drinking age. The same stick was used for the speed limit under Carter and largely removed later.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Joel - The argument you make in your second paragraph is the subject of many flame wars on road enthusiasts forums such as M.T.R. The underlying thought process is roads in sparsely populated areas connecting population centers would never be built, nor maintained under a system of “every state for themselves”. I don’t totally agree with it but then again I’m biased as Indiana is a “donor state”.
As we all know these transportation bills (ex. SAFETEA-LU) are loaded with “pork” or “earmarks” and until it is passed and published in the Congressional Record we on the outside don’t really know what is in there.
NOW - back to the topic. Speeding head-on into “old fogeydom” back when I was 18 I’m not sure if I’d been mature enough to handle alcohol, and several 18 year olds I’ve seen don’t seem to show any signs of maturity, of course it could be me getting old but I digress. Though you have the converse - at 18 you’re considered old enough to vote, and 18 year old men are old enough to be drafted into the military if needed.
The “Lindsay Lohan” effect? She drank like a fish until she turned 21, then apparently (if you believe the tabloids) she quit drinking after turning 21. 18-21 year olds drink because they know its illegal, and when its legal there won’t be the thrill of drinking and getting caught. Personally I don’t buy the argument but there it is.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I really am not concerned about whether or not the various road would or would not be built. It is a State issue Constitutionally. We shouldn’t be breaking the constitution for a “good” thing. That is why we have all kinds of programs that are unconstitutional.
On the drinking age thing. Back when I was in college, there was an article written by Ed Koch that I found fascinating: he argued that prohibition lowered crime rather than raised it. He argued that while mob crime went up, domestic violence, drunk driving deaths, etc. went down–and those more than balanced out the mob fights.
I’m not sure I agree with the argument, but it certainly provides an interesting point to ponder.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Joel - on the constitutional issue, Congress sticks their nose into the transportation issue and use one clause as their justification - Interstate Commerce
August 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Yep, I know. It is tenuous, but I can accept it. But it only flies for the Interstate system. And to my way of thinking, they should either take hold of the Interstate system and run it, or get out of it altogether. The way that they do it today is to use it as a stick/carrot to the States to force the States to behave the way they want them to.