I put my rental tuxedo back on its hanger this morning, trying unsuccessfully to restore the shirtfront to its pristine, ironed state with my hand, then removing the boutonniere from the lapel of my jacket, its white petals crushed and curled inward as a result of overindulgent, drunk hugging.
Weddings are an appropriate time to drink, with the successive toasts, high spirits and an excess of alcohol. Today, however, the occasion has passed, and it’s time to reflect with a (mostly) sober mind on our nation’s views on drinking.
Although the majority of the wedding’s attendees were older than 21, I noticed some hadn’t quite made it there.
These 18 to 20-year-olds are legally considered adults in nearly every way, except they can’t purchase or consume alcohol. I think that’s an arbitrary, perhaps harmful, distinction.
Much of today’s literature unequivocally concludes that raising the minimum legal purchasing age, or MLPA, has greatly increased safety and protected the development and well-being of young minds and bodies.
A little research shows this is not quite the case.
Although one cannot argue against alcohol’s detrimental effects on the still-developing brains of teenagers, studies funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network have confirmed that our brains continue to change and grow until our late 20s.
In that respect, raising the drinking age by three years doesn’t prevent that damage — it only postpones it.
We can reject claims of preventing alcohol-related auto accidents on the same grounds.
Studies like “The Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Legislation on Youthful Auto Fatalities, 1970-1977” conclude changing the drinking age to 21 has curbed drunk driving and resulting fatalities. But Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit organization, points out that in 2002, 21-year-olds suffered twice as many drunk driving fatalities as 18-year-olds.
They say changing the legal drinking age may only “[distribute] deaths over the life cycle to the point at which it becomes legal to drink alcohol — age 21.”
Furthermore, other studies like those cited in “The Legal Drinking Age: Science vs. Ideology” by David Hanson, professor emeritus of sociology at State University of New York at Potsdam, surmise that states with higher purchasing ages also had a higher number of single-vehicle fatalities compared to states with a lower MLPA.
Admittedly, supporters of 21 as the MLPA seem to have some facts working in their favor.
National studies conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics in the ‘70s found teens between 16 to 21 drank less frequently in states with a higher MLPA.
However, this does not confirm that a lower drinking age caused higher rates of alcohol consumption among high school students. One could just as easily argue that the opposite relationship of causality is true.
In fact, looking at our own state and regional differences in attitudes toward alcohol would lend credence to that belief.
Louisiana fervently fought changing the drinking age to 21 because our culture already viewed imbibing favorably. A lower drinking age did not cause that view, and as we’ve seen and Hanson also noted in New York, raising the drinking age did little to change the drinking climate of our state.
If anything, a higher MLPA has had a negative impact. Research conducted and compiled by Indiana University, Bloomington and State University of New York College at Potsdam points to the reactance theory as the cause of high amounts of underage drinkers.
They postulate that a higher proportion of underage college students overdrink precisely because they refuse to comply with what they see as an unjust denial of an adult right, and this theory has been confirmed by other studies like the one conducted by the University of South Dakota.
That being said, lowering the minimum drinking age is a reasonable and achievable goal, but must be preceded by a large shift in how our culture views and depicts alcohol consumption. We can no longer preach abstention until 21 while our personal lives and media manage to communicate positive views of drinking and negative, imitable behavior.
Also, like most things, a great degree of education is necessary before making a successful and safe transition. We should place greater emphasis on parental and school involvement, rather than relying on laws to imbue teenagers with a sense of right and wrong.
Genetics, availability of alcohol (i.e., can underage drinkers readily find it in their home), peer behavior, parental involvement and views, regional attitudes and even economy all affect a person’s likelihood of developing harmful drinking habits.
If we use education and model responsible consumption to combat prevailing attitudes regarding alcohol, there is no reason that 18-year-olds in the future will not be able to partake in all of the same freedoms and responsibilities given to 21-year-olds — including alcohol consumption.
