History Speaks for Itself
We have already seen the tragic results of this experiment age in the early 70s, when 29 states lowered their drinking ages to more closely align with the newly reduced military enlistment and voting age. These drinking age decreases brought about such an increase in alcohol traffic fatalities and injuries that, by 1983, 16 states had voluntarily raised their drinking age back to 21. This brought about an immediate reduction in drinking and driving traffic fatalities.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
These laws are good in theory (just like prohibition ), but in practice they fail (just like prohibition did). People under twenty-one want to drink,and they won't let the law stop them (just like prohibition). Instead of protecting the youth, it has forced drinking underground where it is unregulated (just like prohibition).
I see a pattern here.
Ideally it would be best if people under 21 didn't drink, but that's not going to happen.
Realistically, the main problem with drinking is drunk driving . That should be dealt with as the problem.
We obviously are in short supply of drunk drivers killing people if anyone believes the age should be lowered. The consumption of alcohol is already out of control. It's mind blowing to realize there are individuals who support this. Good grief what's next? sex and alcohol in public? I don't have to experience the awful grief of losing someone I love to a drunk driver in order to see how ridiculous this question is.
Prior to the voting age change, some states had drinking ages of less than 21. NYS allowed the consumption of any alcoholic beverage from the age of 18. Some states allowed beer only. And some of those states allowed 3.2 beer only.
What needs to be done is a study of those states that went from an age of 21 to 18, and only those states. Compare the accidents, arrests and fatalities, both before and after the age change, of those between the ages of 18 and 21 with the rest of the driving population on a per mile basis. Also compare the statistics of the 18 to 21 age group under the two different drinking limits as a raw number. Consideration should also be given to cross border drinking, ie NJ to NY
Until I see some statistics like this, I'm not going to be swayed by theories.
A bad law implemented for good reasons is still a bad law. If even a single person's liberties are trampled upon in the name of prevention can we still claim to respect individual liberties?
The focus of your numbers are purely from a drinking and driving standpoint though other crimes can be linked to drinking. The reason the law "works" is that it tramples upon enough people to be measurable but not enough to cause actionable outrage. The damage causing actions are already illegal and tying them to intoxication by invoking harsher punishments to impaired individuals we be the best public action. Otherwise, I feel there is some root cause (parenting, education, enforcement) that needs to be looked at.
Some other numbers (part = percentage + absolute ratio)
What part of the population have children?
What part of the adult/child populations commit crimes while intoxicated (actual and estimated)?
What part of the adult/child populations drink?