Around midnight Sunday morning, I presented the bouncer at Mellow Mushroom with my driver’s license. He said, “Happy Birthday,” and placed my very first trophy as a legal consumer of alcoholic beverages around my wrist. That wristband represented my transition from an underage drinker to a “responsible adult,” a phrase many would question when applied to certain people who have reached the age of 21. My newfound legality led me to question the necessity of the drinking age law. I don’t feel any more responsible or mature than I did a week ago. According to John McCardell, professor emeritus of Middlebury College and proponent of a lower drinking age, the legal drinking age being 21 years in all 50 states is primarily the result of a threat to slash federal road funding for states whose legal ages are below 21. Mothers Against Drunk Driving take much of the credit for raising the drinking age. The group managed to pressure the federal government into enacting punishments for those states that refused to raise their legal drinking ages. Most people have already heard some of the main arguments against keeping the drinking age 21. Of course, a popular argument recently is, “I can fight and die in Iraq, but I can’t order a drink.” Usually people younger than 21 years old defend themselves by listing all the rights and responsibilities they have – the rights to marry, have sex, vote, adopt children, purchase shotguns, etc. – and finishing with some variation of the phrase “but I can’t drink.” Other than these typical rights and responsibilities arguments, there are a variety of sociological arguments against the drinking age. From a sociological perspective, underage drinking is a “victimless” crime – that is, there is no legal complainant involved. For this reason it is grouped with other victimless crimes including prostitution, drug use and gambling. In my criminology class, Ed Shihadeh, sociology professor, outlined the numerous problems presented by victimless crimes. First, the police cannot fully enforce the drinking-age law. Just ask any campus resident, underage drinking is rampant, despite LSUPD’s best efforts to catch offenders. This inability to enforce the drinking age invariably leads to a more cynical view of the law by the public. Students frequently refer to LSUPD as “glorified security guards,” a dangerous misperception. Second, alcohol is frequently termed a “gateway drug” when used by teenagers. In a 1994 study released by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) of Columbia University, underage drinkers are “50 times more likely to use cocaine than nondrinkers.” It appears the illegality of underage drinking introduces teenagers to the world of crime, leading to a mentality whereby young people justify further criminal actions by thinking they have already committed a crime. Finally, underage drinkers who are arrested and ticketed are branded with a “deviant” label, which – according to sociology’s labeling theory – can exacerbate criminal behavior by creating an entrenched commitment to crime. Obviously, there are numerous reasons not to lower the legal drinking age. Insurance companies calculate premium costs based on numerous factors including the insured person’s age. For instance, car insurance premiums decrease significantly beginning the month in which the insured turns 21, which pleasantly surprised me and my parents when we saw my insurance bill. The age of 21 is tied, in the law, to a heightened level of responsibility so insurance companies set that as the age of increased maturity. Of course, 21 is an arbitrary age set by the law, while 18 also serves as a legal age of maturity. Why is it that insurance companies use the drinking age as their responsibility benchmark rather than the age at which people can adopt a child, take charge of the health and education of another human being by adopting a child. Of course, turning 21 does not magically lead to more responsible behavior, so it is difficult to argue for the perpetuation of the drinking-age status quo based solely on the insurance companies’ policies. Imagine telling half of the University’s undergraduate population they cannot vote. There would be immediate outrage with freshmen taking POLI 2051 shouting about their competence regarding the electoral process and why they are educated enough to vote. Now apply that same reasoning to something more inherently linked to the college experience. Essentially, the drinking age ensures half of the University’s undergraduate population can drink, while the other half is not quite responsible enough. It would be tremendously difficult to lower the drinking age, as it has become an accepted part of American culture. It appears, however, that a second look at the drinking age is necessary to determine if it remains an effective deterrence and has more benefits than detrimental characteristics. As for me, I’ll be thinking about all the underage drinkers and how unfair the law is over an ice cold beer.
—–Contact Jack Collens at jcollens@lsureveille.com