Legal Age 21 Erodes Respect for Law
The consumption of alcohol by Americans under the legal drinking age is common and widespread. Yet few of the young people who choose to drink underage give more than a passing acknowledgment to the fact that each time they open a beer or mix a drink they are committing a crime. By banning an entire group of young adults from engaging in a behavior that is universally understood as a symbol of adulthood, the 21 year-old drinking age fosters rampant violation of and disrespect for law—one study estimates that only two in every 1,000 instances of underage drinking results in arrest or citation. How many more dollars, and how much more manpower, will be required to make enforcement effective? What would be the real cost, and not just in dollars, of merely doubling or tripling the arrest and citation rate—and bringing that rate to 4 or 6 out of every 1,000 violators? In many ways the climate surrounding the 21 year-old drinking age is analogous to that during Prohibition in the 1920s—it is easy to see the culture of speakeasies, rum runners and bathtub gin mirrored in the keg parties, pre-gaming, and beer pong of today.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I am a 19 year old sophomore at a state school. I earn straight A's and am in the Honors Program at my University. I vote , pay my taxes , and I have always followed the law to the letter in MOST every regard.
But I drink every single weekend.
Underage drinking on college campuses is so mainstream that the sheer volume and ease of underage drinking today would blow the minds of most of the people who grew up in the 70's. Underage drinking is rarely considered as "doing anything wrong" by most of my peers - I know many underage people who refuse to smoke (legally), speed, or even utter curse words but will consume alcohol with abandon on a Saturday night. Those individuals with a desire to drink will do so, regardless of age, on a college campus. At a party, there is no difference in behavior or levels of consumption between those freshmen who are 18 and the 22 year old seniors - the age of the attendees only becomes known when the "beer run" is needed.
That being said, I am responsible about my drinking. Fortunately my parents were savvy enough to help me make informed decisions regarding alcohol and introduced it to me early. Also, the mere thought of driving drunk, regardless of my age OR level of intoxication, has never crossed my mind - my early education from my intelligent and realistic parents has made sure of that. When I turn 21, the veil of mystery will be lifted and I will no longer be forced to break the law in order to do what I feel is my right as a mature, intelligent, capable adult. There is an inability to apply this erosion of law to others as other laws (save for perhaps marijuana legalization ) have failed to reach the same stigma with those that it affects. The simple fact is that this is not considered a true "law" in the same way something like theft is - the arbitrary nature of it seems to negate it's viability in the minds of even the most honest and well-behaved college students.
Why, then, should the drinking age be lowered if people are going to drink anyway? Respect for law-makers and enforcers is certainly an obvious benefit. In addition, the 18 year old drinking age (or graduated drinking "licenses") enables schools , parents, and community members to take a greater part in realistic, intelligent, honest discussions with their minors about responsible drinking. When a child is away at school, the opportunity for parental education is gone. It's time to be realistic.
My question is this: How in the world does the legal age of 21 erode respect for LAW? That is like saying that drugs being illegal erodes respect for LAW. That is like saying having a speed limit erodes respect for law.
My belief is that respect for Law is something that should be taught at home but is left out in our society. When our Children see us not respecting the law, they will learn that and as a result not respect it.
People are going to break the law whether it is 18 or 21 for drinking, just the same as they do for under-age driving, smoking, etc. Changing the Law won't change that.
Actually, part of the reason that the speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 on the interstates was because the 55 limit was widely disregarded, wasn't enforced, and many felt it did breed disrespect for the law. I remember a newspaper columnist (it might have been Bob Greene) making that very argument, after observing that he wasn't able to find out what the speed limit really was-- the speed where you would actually get a ticket.
The issue is that laws should not be arbitrary. And if they are perceived to be arbitrary, then people will not have respect for them whether they obey those laws or not. It is a simple issue of fairness, because how can an arbitrary law be just? Would you have respect for a law that said that red haired people must sit in the back of the bus? Of course you would not!
Where I live, I can guarantee that 8 out of 10 vehicles going down the road are exceding the speed limit. It is apparent when you are going down the road in a 70 mile an hour zone with the cruise set at 70 and people are "blowing your doors off" and blaring down on the horn as they pass by.
Where I live, the drinking problem is not with people 18 to 20, it is with people 12 to 17. I and many countless others will fight this law to keep it in affect to the very end. It has been proven affective. You do not end something that has proven affective, you keep it going.
Case and point really!! They raised the speed limit to 65 to stop the lawless disregard for the speed limit and it did not help. I have driven the roads of our country as a professional driver before and seen the utter disregard for the speed limit. It did not help near as much as expected.
The same goes with lowering the drinking age. All it will do is make it easier for those that have a extreme problem with alcohol (18-20) to easier access it. It will not stop binge drinking any more than raising the speed limit stopped speeding.
According to statistics, the age at which people first try alcohol is somewhere around 14. That is not good. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA67/AA67.htm
Don't know where you are driving, but for the most part the speed limits are obeyed where I live-- and if you do see speeding, it might be 75 in a 65 zone, but you sure don't see the situation you would regularly see in the 1980's where everyone on the road would be doing 30 mph over the limit. I also think the speed limit is more effectively enforced now.
Furthermore, as a society, I don't think people are as sympathetic to speed limit scofflaws to the extent that they were when the speed limit was 55.
Incidentally, in that report you cite they note that the average age of first alcohol use in 1965 was 17 1/2. Remember, in 1965, drinking in some states was legal at 18. The data in that report doesn't go back far enough, but it looks like the average age of first alcohol use has been going *down* since the nationwide 21 age requirement was imposed.
You will have to admit that 55 for many roads is an obnoxiously slow speed. And all that law did was criminalize every person who went 56+ on roads that were clearly capable of handling speeds up to 65. Just because it's law doesn't necessarily mean its just. Remember at one time we isolated a particular group of people and made it that they had to sit in the back of the bus. It didn't matter if that individual of a certain skin color was good or bad; he had to sit in the back because of that skin color and nothing else.
Have you considered the fact that once alcohol becomes legal for a certain group of people, it no longer has a veil of mystery or attractiveness like before. More people will be drinking in general, but the quantity in which they drink will go down. 18-20 year olds are clearly capable of drinking responsibly if given the chance, I and many others are proof of that. Instead of arbitrary concepts like "21 means 21" we should focus on "Don't drive MEANS don't drive!"
Even if "one study estimates that only two in every 1,000 instances of underage drinking results in arrest or citation," that forms no basis for lowering the drinking age. Only a very small fraction of inmpaired drivers are arrested or cited. Since drivers in their teens and early 20s have the highest rates of automobile accidents, including fatal accidents, does it really make sense to make alcohol legally and much more readly available to a large proportion of this high-risk element?
Having failed to meaningfully address the scandalous on-campus binge-drinking problem, the academes of the Amethyst Project now point to what is in large measure a consequence of their own institutionalized failure as justification for abandonment of a standard that most studies show to have been beneficial in reducing death and serious injury on the highways. This is not an "egghead" approach; it is just a boneheaded approach!