Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21?

Recommend (4) Comments (2)

There is strong evidence that MLDA 21 laws have reduced underage drinking but have not eliminated it. The MLDA 21 laws ----- and there are at least 16 components of these laws that vary state-by-state ---- need to be enforced if we are to experience further reductions. Getting laws on the books can only go so far in their effect.

Moreover, there is no evidence that lowering the drinking age to 18 for those who complete an education program will reduce the problem. In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. Take driver’s education programs in the high schools as an example. They were designed to teach young drivers about the dangers of driving and give them the skills and knowledge to drive responsibly. A recent article in Injury Prevention 200249 states: “The international literature provides little support for the hypothesis that formal driver education is an effective safety measure. It is argued that such an outcome is not entirely unexpected given that traditional programs fail to address adequately the age and experience related factors that render young drivers at increased risk of collision.” The article goes on to say that “driver education does teach safety skills but students are not motivated to use them,” “driver education fosters overconfidence,” and that “driver education fails to adequately address lifestyle issues.” Studies sponsored by NHTSA have all shown that the crash rates of young drivers who completed driver education courses were no different from crash rates of young drivers who did not. One study concludes that the overall effect of driver education is that it provided licensing earlier for novice drivers and resulted in an increase in crashes for that group. Based upon this experience, it does not seem logical that a 40 hour alcohol education program would work to reduce underage drinking problems or even irresponsible drinking.

Another example to the contrary is the failure of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program to reduce drug usage by youth. Numerous studies have concluded that the DARE program, which teaches the risks associated with drug use by youth (including tobacco and alcohol), failed to show any effect on youth drug usage. One comprehensive study of a 5-year follow-up on the effects of DARE concluded: “No significant differences were observed between intervention and comparison schools with respect to cigarette, alcohol, or marijuana use during the 7th grade, approximately 1 year after completion of the program, or over the full 5-year measurement interval.”