Drinking laws causing more harm than good

7:39 PM Wednesday, February 3, 2010

I recently served as a juror. I met a fellow there who wore a tradesman’s uniform and was one of the hard-working, common-sense people who are so important to our society. Had I been a defendant, I would have been happy to have him as one of my jurors, even though he was a criminal. You see, this responsible and honest man keeps beer in his refrigerator in his own home, but he is under the legal drinking age of 21.

I recently flew home from London and sat next to a young man who turned out to be a U.S. soldier who was flying home to his fiancé after spending a year overseas. I bought him a beer; he deserved it. If we were in America, we could both be arrested for that. Although he could drink freely in Europe, it would be another year before he and his bride could even have a wedding toast.

Here was a dedicated, responsible U.S. soldier who was about to be married and start a family, yet he and his bride could not share a glass of wine.

The National Drinking Age Act of 1984 requires that all states raise their minimum drinking age to 21 or suffer a 10 percent reduction of federal highway funding. This neatly avoided any real debate on its merits either by the voters or our representatives. It’s rather like a schoolyard bully who takes your money and then offers to give some back only if you do what he says.

The reason behind the Drinking Age Law is presumably to reduce the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities among young people. But just looking at highway fatalities at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s website, www.iihs.org, the number of teen highway fatalities actually increased after implementing the law (from 6,805 in 1983 to 7466 in 1986). After that, the number gradually decreases to around 5,500 per year since 1995, far below where it was before the act.

There are clearly other factors making teenagers safer, not the drinking-age laws. As far as alcohol-related traffic deaths, that percentage has been decreasing steadily since 1982 for all age groups.

In almost the entire world, the drinking age is 16 to 18 years old, not 21, and only nine countries have drinking ages even above even 18. Are American young adults any less responsible than those in the rest of the world?

The penalty for underage drinking in Ohio is up to a $1,000 fine and 1 year in jail. The penalty for possessing small amounts of marijuana in Ohio is limited to $100 and no jail time is permitted. Is it a good social policy to encourage marijuana use among our young adults?

A shocking change in college drinking habits is the dramatic shift away from beer and wine to more potent distilled spirits, which is easier to conceal. And the new drinking routine is not to have several drinks over an evening; it’s binge drinking before going out. So our current policy is promoting several types of irresponsible drinking.

It’s time to put an end to this arbitrary, ineffective, and stupid law. Eighteen-year-olds fight and die for our country, they are held accountable to adult laws, they are taxed as adults, and they are granted all of the rights and freedoms of adults (except one).

These young adults are dedicated to protecting our country and are serving society in every way, but they lack virtually any political clout, so it’s up to us to speak for them.

This law is accomplishing nothing but making our young adults into criminals, and is even driving them to other bad behaviors. Let’s let our young adults be adults.

Of course, Congress is currently busy with heavy topics, but it wouldn’t take much to change this law. Tell your federal senators and representatives to repeal the National Drinking Age Act of 1984 so the states can go back to common-sense drinking-age laws.

David Black is a lifelong resident of Clark County and the father of two teenagers.

Share this article