With the recent introduction of a bill that would lower the state drinking age to 18 years of age("House holds drinking age debate," Feb. 6), the New Hampshire legislature has reignited the perennial drinking age debate. In 1984, when the federal government established 21 as the national drinking age, it seemed that the issue had been decided once and for all.
It has since become clear, however, that the debate is not yet over.
One of the greatest obstacles preventing Americans from coming to a consensus on the drinking age is that the two most clearly defined sides in the debate view the issue from fundamentally different perspectives: one side characterizes the drinking age as an issue of freedom, while the other sees it as an issue of safety.
In America, we have long been aware of the need for our laws to strike a balance between promoting safety and protecting freedom. Lately, the conflict between these values has manifested itself in the debate over presidential wiretapping. Americans have been forced to ask themselves how much of their freedom of privacy they are willing to sacrifice for the sake of national security. Their opinions about the use of wiretaps vary widely.
The drinking age debate seems to produce a more narrow spectrum of opinion -- namely, that the drinking age should be either 18 or 21 -- which makes it even more challenging to find a compromise. On one side are individuals who argue that 18-year-olds are adults, and therefore deserve all the rights that American adults possess, including the right to drink alcohol. These individuals are always quick to point out that 18-year-olds have the very adult right to choose to fight and die for their country.
On the other side of the debate are those who cite statistics showing that when the U.S. instituted a national drinking age of 21 in 1984, the number of fatal alcohol-related car accidents fell 32 percent among 16- to 20-year-olds. For these individuals, the deaths prevented by a higher drinking age (MADD estimates that 25,000 lives have been saved since 1984) are worth the infringement of 18- to 20-year-olds' rights.
Both sides make legitimate arguments. The problem is, in fact, that it seems impossible to judge which argument is more legitimate. Because the two sides are arguing from different premises, comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges: there is no objective way to rank the two. The same is true of safety and freedom. I personally believe that freedom should come before concerns about safety -- but I could write a whole column explaining how the majority is oppressing the minority by setting the drinking age at 21, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to someone who believes that preventing death should be the first priority of government. So is there any way to talk about the drinking age without simply going in circles?
One thing I believe both sides can agree upon is that the current law simply isn't effective. According to a 2001 study performed by the University of Michigan, 73.3 percent of high school seniors had consumed alcohol at some point in the last year. About 52 percent had been drunk.
These numbers suggest that the current law against underage drinking is an utter joke. Based on my experiences in both high school and college, the law is only a minor obstacle to obtaining alcohol, and the chances of being punished for breaking the law are comparatively small.
American society runs smoothly thanks to its reliable system of law and order. Excessive and unpunished law-breaking undermines faith in this system, and breeds disrespect for the law. When 73.3 percent of a specific demographic is disregarding a law, the system is broken.
For this reason, I believe that the time has come for a national referendum on the drinking age. A vote would either reaffirm the mandate for government to enforce a 21-and-up law, or confirm, as the lack of law-abiding suggests, that the majority of Americans find the current drinking age unfair and nonsensical. Either way, it is then up to the government to enforce this decision consistently. Whether the age is 18 or 21, advocates of safety and freedom alike must agree that the shoddy enforcement that has accompanied drinking laws until now is no longer acceptable. Our justice system depends on a consistent administration of the law.
