The minimum drinking age of 21 and traffic safety

¶ … United States, there is no official national minimum drinking age, but in a practical sense, there is a nationalized consensus among all 50 states to maintain the minimum age of 21 for the legal consumption of alcohol. That is attributable to the fact that the federal government has made that a necessary criterion for state eligibility for significant federal highway funds in keeping with traditional uses of Congress' spending power. Some of the arguments against the age of 21 as a minimum drinking are that: (1) the minimum drinking age is excessively paternalistic; (2) the use of federal funds to force states to comply with federal policies is unconstitutional; and (3) drinking is no different from other responsibilities that do not require a minimum age of 21. For example, 18-year-olds are eligible for military service and that they are considered "adults" in various other ways in connection with rights and privileges granted only to adults.

However, supporters of the minimum drinking age argue that because the evidence is so overwhelming that teenage drivers already represent the highest risk of all drivers in terms of vehicular accidents and fatalities, it makes sense to prohibit them from drinking simply because it is much more difficult to prevent teenagers from driving under the influence of alcohol if they can purchase and consume it legally.

Background

Both driving and drinking (separately) are activities that people without experience typically do less intelligently and competently than they do later with more experience. For example, new drinkers frequently misjudge the amount of alcohol that can safely consume in a given time period and often become much more intoxicated than they intend to (NHTSA 2005; Fisher, 2006). Naturally, the combination of inexperienced drinkers driving without much driving experience compounds the dangers of drunk driving tremendously (CDC, 2007; NHTSA 2005). As a result, the federal government strongly encourages all 50 states to maintain a minimum drinking age of 21, mainly because of the risk that lower drinking ages will dramatically increase the numbers of inexperienced drivers (who may also be inexperienced drinkers) driving under the influence of alcohol.

Reason #1 -- Teenagers are already the Most Dangerous Drivers on the Road

Approximately 50,000 Americans are killed in drunk driving accidents on the nation's roads and highways and teenage drivers are responsible for a disproportionate number of drinking-related traffic accidents and fatalities in comparison to their proportionate representation in the total driving population. There are several reasons for this. Teenage drivers account for an extremely disproportionate number of both minor and serious vehicular accidents for several reasons (NHTSA 2005): First, they are, by definition, the most inexperienced drivers on the road since most people begin to drive as teenagers. Second, vehicular accidents are responsible for one-third of all deaths among teenagers, far more than any other single cause (CDC, 2007; NHTSA 2005). New drivers account for the most traffic accidents and receive the most moving violations precisely because driving is also a complex activity that requires considerable experience to do well and safely (NHTSA 2005; Schmalleger, 2009).

Highway Systems Much Safer and Pay for More State Police Services

Because all 50 states choose to follow the federal recommendations to maintain the minimum drinking age of 21, the federal funds for which they are eligible pay for a tremendous amount of necessary services that would otherwise be a drain on state resources or that might not even be capable of being provided. Because the individual states comply with the minimum drinking age of 21, federal highway funding eligibility allows every state to maintain the best and safest possible roads and to hire, train, and maintain much larger and better equipped state highway patrol agencies than they could possibly do without federal funding assistance. The choice by states to reduce their state minimum drinking ages would compromise the safety of their state highway systems by depriving them of billions of dollars in highway funds fro the federal government.

Counterargument #2 -- The Constitutional States' Rights Issue

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves the right to the individual states to govern themselves in matters not ceded to Congress or the federal government under the Constitution (Freidman, 2005). Opponents of the nationalized uniform drinking age of 21 object to the fact that this is de facto control by the federal government over what are supposed to be sovereign state's rights under the Tenth Constitutional Amendment (Dershowitz, 2002). They argue that it is unacceptable for the federal government to impose its authority on the individual states by pressuring them or threatening them with withdrawing their eligibility for federal highway funding.

According to that view, the federal money provided to state highway departments is crucial to maintaining infrastructure and to paying the salaries of state highway patrol agencies and the administrative agencies that maintain the safety of state highways. By linking the eligibility for federal highway funds to complying with federal "suggestions" for the minimum drinking age of 21, the federal government is, in effect. They argue that this mechanism is the same as establishing a national or federal law of a minimum drinking age that violates the sovereignty of states' rights and the Tenth Constitutional Amendment.

Rebuttal # 2 -- The Congressional Spending Power is Perfectly Constitutional

Actually, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about the federal government using it spending power to provide strong incentives to comply entirely voluntarily with federal recommendations (Dershowitz, 2002). In fact, this is a very common method relied upon by the federal government in connection with safety standards and other issues that Congress deems important enough to encourage voluntary compliance by states but without violating the constitutional limits of federal imposition on state sovereignty (Edwards, Wallenberg, & Lineberry, 2008; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005).

The use of the federal spending power by Congress to incentivize state compliance in no way imposes federal authority over state sovereignty precisely because every state always retains the option to forego eligibility for federal funding to which it is not otherwise entitled and to regulate matters such as the minimum drinking age entirely at the state level, such as by choosing to lower the minimum drinking age (Edwards, Wallenberg, & Lineberry, 2008; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). At no time is any state obligated to comply with the federal guidelines for federal highway fund eligibility or to give up any sovereign rights established by the Tenth Constitutional Amendment. Furthermore, there is no issue of "withholding" or "withdrawing" any federal funds from states that choose not to comply with federal guidelines pertaining to the drinking age eligibility. Those monies are supplemental to any other federal funds and would not be offered except as an incentive to follow federal recommendations about the minimum drinking age. States do not have to comply if they prefer to lower the drinking age.

Reason # 3 -- Adults Younger than 21 are not as Responsible as Adults over 21

At the age of 18 or 19, most young people lack the fundamental abilities to make good decisions, especially about things such as taking risks and considering all of the consequences of their choices and actions. Young people regularly do things in their youth that adults know not to do and that they usually regard as foolish when they look back on their lives later. Young people are also much more susceptible to the influence of peer pressure and to impulses such as the need to display bravado and machismo (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). Typically, 18-year-olds are much more likely to get into fights and that relates to driving behaviors equally. Whereas older people learn not to antagonize one another or get into situations and circumstances where they end up having something to prove, people younger than 21 often drive competitively and race one another on the streets if they perceive a "challenge" from another driver. Especially when combined with alcohol consumption, those tendencies can prove deadly.

The fact that older teenagers and young adults are physiologically mature belies the fact that they are psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually immature compared to adults in their mid to late twenties (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). In fact, the regions of the human brain responsible for higher reasoning, critical judgment, and (especially) contemplation of the future consequences of actions and decisions are usually not fully developed until the mid twenties (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). This is an extremely important consideration in both driving and drinking behaviors even in isolation.

An 18-year-old is much more likely than an older person to take unnecessary risks while driving, to overestimate his or her abilities to "multitask" while driving, and to make bad decisions behind the wheel in connection with risk assessment and safety, even without the introduction of alcohol into the equation. Similarly, an 18-year-old is much more likely to overestimate his or her ability to consume liquor without becoming excessively intoxicated and to recognize the degree to which alcohol impairs physical and cognitive abilities. In combination, this makes younger drivers who drink and then drive under the influence of alcohol much more dangerous than older drivers who drink and then drive under the influence.

Counterargument # 3 -- Other Dangerous Responsibilities do not Require Being 21

The counterargument is that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, largely on the basis of the incongruence of allowing 18-year-olds to serve in the military and die in defense of their country while prohibiting them from drinking. That argument is based on the assumption that if 18-year-olds are sufficiently mature to serve in the military and to carry and operate deadly weapon systems, they should be mature enough to drink responsibly. In fact, in some states, police officers do not even have to be 21 to be hired in law enforcement (Schmalleger, 2009). It seems ridiculous that a 20-year-old who is a sworn police officer with governmental authority and arrest powers is not capable of being trusted enough to drink a beer. Finally, the minimum drinking age is already widely ignored precisely because by the age of 18, most people have already tried alcohol and many already establish adult drinking behaviors without any problems.

Rebuttal # 3 -- The Minimum Drinking Age is not Addressed at those Individuals who Are the Most responsible in their Age Group

It is absolutely true that individuals younger than 21 years of age who join the armed forces and who qualify to serve in positions of public trust (such as police officers) are probably capable of making mature enough decisions about drinking and driving to e-trusted to consume alcohol before they turn 21. However, the problem with lowering the drinking age is that it does not only apply to those relatively rare 20 or 19 or 18-year-olds who happen to be mature enough to drink responsibly and to avoid ever drinking and driving. It would also lower the drinking age for all of the other teenagers who are not that mature and who would be much more likely to drink and drive and kill themselves and others.

Conclusion -- Maintaining the Drinking Age at 21 is the Only Practical Solution

In theory, the problem with teenagers drinking and driving is not necessarily an issue of the minimum drinking age, since teenagers who drink but who do not also drive do not present the same problem. It is true that teenagers who do not drive are affected by the minimum drinking age that is (admittedly) predicated almost entirely on the connection between teenage drinking and teenage driving. However, it is justifiable simply because there are no other methods of addressing the problem, as well as by virtue of the risk-to-benefit considerations and the nature of the two competing interests.

Specifically, drunk driving is a social problem precisely because people (even adults) cannot always be counted upon to comply with laws prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol; and granted, teenagers may also choose to violate both laws simultaneously. However, prohibiting the sale or serving of alcohol to teenagers undoubtedly reduces the incidence of teenagers driving under the influence in comparison to what the situation would be if they were legally entitled to drink alcohol. While it cannot guarantee that teenagers will not drink alcohol and drive, maintaining the minimum age of 21 for drinking is the most effective and practical method of mitigating the risk and ensuring that it does not occur much more often than it would otherwise. Finally, the fact that many teenagers do begin drinking before they turn 21 does not mean that the minimum age requirement serves no valid purpose. It is a very effective deterrent to the sale of alcohol to younger people and the consequences of lowering the drinking age would be millions of teenagers potentially driving drunk instead of perhaps thousands "only."