Underage Drinking Project

My understanding is that the drinking age was increased to 21 based on the lobbying efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other similar groups. 21 used to be the age of majority until 1972, when voting rights for 18 year-olds became part of the Constitution. Prior to that, an 18 year-old could get drafted for Vietnam but couldn't vote or drink! Several states lowered the drinking age to 18 after the voting age changed, but MADD got involved with Congress, and soon it came to pass that states would lose highway funding money if they didn't raise the drinking age to 21.

In reality, MADD should be called "Mothers Against Drinking," and they are not a whole hell of a lot better in my opinion than the "Drys" of the 1920s who forced their idea of morality into the Constitution.

I wish there was a lobby representing 18-20 year-olds that had the power to influence Congress. As Bruno points out, this is one of the least politically active groups out there.

How many of you remember getting the lectures on drunk driving in high school? More often than not, it became a lecture on how bad drinking is in general. That makes it a great taboo. Why can't it be treated as something that has been a part of human history since recorded time, and as something that should be handled responsibly (with penalties for not acting responsibly)? Wine is as much a part of the culture of France as Impressionist art, and Czech and German beers are integral parts of their societies. Hell, if the Bible is your bag, J.C. turns water into wine to keep a wedding party going!

In Europe, by not treating drinking as a taboo, they don't have near the problems with abuse that we do here. Moreover, the penalties for DUI in Europe are VERY stiff, making responsibility all that more important. I hate the way drinking is presented to our young people; it just encourages irresponsibility.
 
Last edited:
I'm not passing judgment on the wisdom of Congress or the state legislatures to embrace MADD's lobbying efforts (I actually agree that it is questionable to have a situation where some servicemembers in the US can't drink, while other servicemembers serving abroad can).

But I think the real reason for the "national drinking age" was not so much a "morals" judgment made by Congress, it was that there was statistical evidence showing that more deaths were caused on the highway because underage drinkers were driving from states with a drinking age of 21 to other states where the drinking age was 18 (some states bought into the argument that 18 was okay, while others bought into the argument that 21 was the right number). Congress simply felt that it was more important to have a uniform standard to quell the number of "Friday night" roadtrips. In that respect, the acronym M.A.D.D. is correct ("drunk driving" is the real villian here, not "drinking").
 
But I think the real reason for the "national drinking age" was not so much a "morals" judgment made by Congress, it was that there was statistical evidence showing that more deaths were caused on the highway because underage drinkers were driving from states with a drinking age of 21 to other states where the drinking age was 18 (some states bought into the argument that 18 was okay, while others bought into the argument that 21 was the right number). Congress simply felt that it was more important to have a uniform standard to quell the number of "Friday night" roadtrips. In that respect, the acronym M.A.D.D. is correct ("drunk driving" is the real villian here, not "drinking").

You don't see the problem with that?

If you're concerned with drunk driving, increase the penalties for DUI/DWI. Congress could easily say "we won't give your state federal highway $$ if you don't have certain minimum penalties in your state criminal codes for DUI." That would solve their concerns, no?

Increasing the legal age, especially when you can still be called to go to war at 18, is offensive. "Nanny State" BS. Drunk drivers should be punished harshly, no question. MADD is not just against drunk driving...they are a neo-temperance movement.
 
Last edited:
You don't see the problem with that?

If you're concerned with drunk driving, increase the penalties for DUI/DWI. Increasing the legal age, especially when you can still be called to go to war at 18, is offensive. "Nanny State" BS. Drunk drivers should be punished harshly, no question. MADD is not just against drunk driving...they are a neo-temperance movement.

Actually I don't, sprog. I think 18-year-olds often do not spend a whole lot of time worrying about the consequences of their actions, so raising the penalties may not be the answer. I think telling bartenders simply not to serve someone under a "national drinking age" is a more-effective response.

Also, the whole "drunk driving" issue is not just about the harm to the liberty interests of the individual servicemember who is prepared to give his or her life for our country. There are the rights of accident victims to be considered as well. This is not an issue like voting rights where there is a diminished risk of harming the rights of others if the right to vote is exercised at the age of 18. In short, this is really a balancing act made by the people we elect to make those judgments on our behalf. While I may not agree with the ultimate "number" that Congress chose, I do support that they did choose a "number" for uniformity's sake.

That said, if the age were 18, I'd be fine with that. Actually, I'd support that for the reasons you likely have. But whatever the "legal" age is, it should be uniformly applied, IMHO, to minimize the harm that such unequal standards may cause.

I strongly suspect that the real reason Congress went with 21 instead of 18 is because, under the constitutional principles of "Federalism" states have long enjoyed the right to make judgments over the "morals and welfare" of citizens within a particular state. However, if Congress were to go with 18 and require that states following the "21 Rule" to reduce their legal drinking age, Congress would quickly find itself embroiled in a HUGE morass of constitutional challenges to the law over issues of Federalism. As a result, Congress set the "national drinking age" at 21 by denying federal money to those states that did not go along with it under the theory that states with reduced drinking ages would have to pick up the tab to pay for increased accidents where drinking was a factor. But this argument supporting a national standard would not have been available if Congress had instead mandated states to REDUCE their legal drinking age to 18, because following the logic, accidents would actually increase. I'm probably not articulating this well, because I have to get back to my day job.
 
Last edited:
Actually I don't, sprog. I think 18-year-olds often do not spend a whole lot of time worrying about the consequences of their actions, so raising the penalties may not be the answer. I think telling bartenders simply not to serve someone under a "national drinking age" is a more-effective response.

Also, the whole "drunk driving" issue is not just about the harm to the liberty interests of the individual servicemember who is prepared to give his or her life for our country. There are the rights of accident victims to be considered as well. This is not an issue like voting rights where there is a diminished risk of harming the rights of others if the right to vote is exercised at the age of 18. In short, this is really a balancing act made by the people we elect to make those judgments on our behalf. While I may not agree with the ultimate "number" that Congress chose, I do support that they did choose a "number" for uniformity's sake.

That said, if the age were 18, I'd be fine with that. Actually, I'd support that for the reasons you likely have. But whatever the "legal" age is, it should be uniformly applied, IMHO, to minimize the harm that such unequal standards may cause.

I strongly suspect that the real reason Congress went with 21 instead of 18 is because, under the constitutional principles of "Federalism" states have long enjoyed the right to make judgments over the "morals and welfare" of citizens within a particular state. However, if Congress were to go with 18 and require that states following the "21 Rule" to reduce their legal drinking age, Congress would quickly find itself embroiled in a HUGE morass of constitutional challenges to the law over issues of Federalism.

Congress did not mandate that the states increase their drinking ages to 21 outright, they used their Commerce Clause power to include a minimum drinking age in the Federal Highway Act (via the National Minimum Drinking Age Act). Essentially, the law says that they will reduce a certain amount of federal funding for highways to states that do not have a 21 year-old minimum drinking age.

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are still at 18. These federal territories accepted the reduction in their highway funding.

They could easily revoke such a measure, which would leave it totally up to the states. They could also say "we won't give X amount of federal highway dollars to states unless the minimum drinking age is set to 18." Congress has that right, they control how federal money is spent (States are under no obligation to accept federal highway dollars, so could opt out if it bugs them). Will they ever do that? Highly doubtful.

I don't disagree on uniformity. But if an 18 year-old is an adult in all other senses, it seems to me logical that the ability to drink alcohol should be extended to them.
 
Last edited:
Congress did not mandate that the states increase their drinking ages to 21 outright, they used their Commerce Clause power to include a minimum drinking age in the Federal Highway Act (via the National Minimum Drinking Age Act). Essentially, the law says that they will reduce a certain amount of federal funding for highways to states who do not have a 21 year-old minimum drinking age.

Precisely correct. That's the whole Federalism issue. But if we start discussing the very boring Commerce Clause intricacies here amongst us lawyers, I suspect we risk inducing uncontrollable vomiting and seizures among the rest of the SAF crew here. Not to mention running the risk of being permanently banned from SAF for exceeding all moral tolerances of boring-ness!! :)

Can't wait for pennak and the other Esq.'s to chime in here!
 
Last edited:
You don't see the problem with that?

If you're concerned with drunk driving, increase the penalties for DUI/DWI. Congress could easily say "we won't give your state federal highway $$ if you don't have certain minimum penalties in your state criminal codes for DUI." That would solve their concerns, no?

Increasing the legal age, especially when you can still be called to go to war at 18, is offensive. "Nanny State" BS. Drunk drivers should be punished harshly, no question. MADD is not just against drunk driving...they are a neo-temperance movement.

Sprog, I think I would agree with you if every vehicle was equipped with a breath-analysis that would prevent a car from being started if the driver blew a very low limit. Of course, such a rule would be the worse sort of a nanny state. Indeed, most drunks never get caught and the odds are low that they will, until they have an accident and then it is too late. The hard reality is that alcohol abuse is rampant among the 18-21 year group and such abuse causes huge problems and not just for the individual but also for his/her family and others. Alcohol can be quite addictive when abused. Alcoholism is a terrible thing and it gets started at this age. On a personal note, I went to school in Eastern Washington State, 8 miles from Idaho which had a lower drinking age (20) for beer and wine. That 8 mile road was littered with car accidents, many of them fatal, including students I knew. And they didn't just kill themselves -- they killed and maimed others. We are not France (thank God) -- the culture here seems to encourage alcohol abuse (France doesn't). We have to change the culture.
 
On a personal note, I went to school in Eastern Washington State, 8 miles from Idaho which had a lower drinking age (20) for beer and wine. That 8 mile road was littered with car accidents, many of them fatal, including students I knew. And they didn't just kill themselves -- they killed and maimed others. We are not France (thank God) -- the culture here seems to encourage alcohol abuse (France doesn't). We have to change the culture.
I went to school at the 19 year old end of that road. (the drinking age in Idaho was 19) If the age had been the same in both states, as it is now, those accidents would not have been happening. If the drinking age had been 19 in both states, I don't believe the drinking and driving problem would have been significantly different than it is now with both states at 21.


Why 21? 30 year olds usually have better judgement than 21 year olds. Maybe 40 would be better? Or we could treat all "adults" like adults.
 
Sprog, I think I would agree with you if every vehicle was equipped with a breath-analysis that would prevent a car from being started if the driver blew a very low limit. Of course, such a rule would be the worse sort of a nanny state. Indeed, most drunks never get caught and the odds are low that they will, until they have an accident and then it is too late. The hard reality is that alcohol abuse is rampant among the 18-21 year group and such abuse causes huge problems and not just for the individual but also for his/her family and others. Alcohol can be quite addictive when abused. Alcoholism is a terrible thing and it gets started at this age. On a personal note, I went to school in Eastern Washington State, 8 miles from Idaho which had a lower drinking age (20) for beer and wine. That 8 mile road was littered with car accidents, many of them fatal, including students I knew. And they didn't just kill themselves -- they killed and maimed others. We are not France (thank God) -- the culture here seems to encourage alcohol abuse (France doesn't). We have to change the culture.

Again, I'm not advocating for the removal of DUI penalties. Drinking alcohol is a separate matter from DUI. People should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies once they are adults, and they should rightfully be punished if their behavior negatively affects others (i.e. DUI, drunken assault, etc.).
You are, for all intents and purposes, a legal adult at 18 for all matters save for this. I think it problematic that this is the case.

Criminalizing the consumption of alcohol for 18-21 year-olds is clearly not the way to change the culture. Teenagers still have the highest percentage of DUI deaths, and that was the impetus for the increase in age. Alcoholism is bad, but not every person who takes a drink becomes an alcoholic. The majority do not, in fact. Public health education is the best way to address alcoholism, but you'll still have alcoholics. Incidentally, smoking is the number one preventable cause of premature death in this country, and you can buy cigs at age 18.

We are not France, but it wouldn't hurt to learn a thing or two from them on this. They could learn things from us on religious tolerance (google ""laïcité"). We can always learn from other cultures, because America doesn't have the best approach on every issue (but we do other things better than any other kid on the block).
 
Last edited:
I went to school at the 19 year old end of that road. (the drinking age in Idaho was 19) If the age had been the same in both states, as it is now, those accidents would not have been happening. If the drinking age had been 19 in both states, I don't believe the drinking and driving problem would have been significantly different than it is now with both states at 21.


Why 21? 30 year olds usually have better judgement than 21 year olds. Maybe 40 would be better? Or we could treat all "adults" like adults.

The short answer is that science now widely understands that the teenage brain is actually not physically matured yet. See, e.g., http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

So an 18 may well be a legal adult. But, in fact, they are not really full grown adults. That's fine, of course, when it comes to voting rights where their impact on the body politic is not a life and death matter, but I don't want them to have legal access to addictive, mind-altering substances when I am on the road with them. I understand that than 18 year can join the military and fight, die and kill for his country, but it is apples and oranges to say that all 18 years should therefore be able to drink at 18. Heck I would be happy with a rule that 18 year soldiers and Marines could drink but any other 18 year old could not At least members of the military have an understanding of discipline.
 
The short answer is that science now widely understands that the teenage brain is actually not physically matured yet. See, e.g., http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

So an 18 may well be a legal adult. But, in fact, they are not really full grown adults. That's fine, of course, when it comes to voting rights where their impact on the body politic is not a life and death matter, but I don't want them to have legal access to addictive, mind-altering substances when I am on the road with them. I understand that than 18 year can join the military and fight, die and kill for his country, but it is apples and oranges to say that all 18 years should therefore be able to drink at 18. Heck I would be happy with a rule that 18 year soldiers and Marines could drink but any other 18 year old could not At least members of the military have an understanding of discipline.

But who funded that study? We know that interest groups fund studies so the results come out the way they want.

I'm hoping LITS can answer this, but in the cadet regs it was stressed during 3/c summer that cadets were not allowed to consume alcohol until 21, despite federal, state, or other nations laws. That means that even though the drinking age is 19 in Canada, cadets 19 or older were not supposed to drink. I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that regulations, since the under-21 junior enlisted were allowed to drink.
 
Precisely correct. That's the whole Federalism issue. But if we start discussing the very boring Commerce Clause intricacies here amongst us lawyers, I suspect we risk inducing uncontrollable vomiting and seizures among the rest of the SAF crew here. Not to mention running the risk of being permanently banned from SAF for exceeding all moral tolerances of boring-ness!! :)

Can't wait for pennak and the other Esq.'s to chime in here!

patentesq. You have opened the proverbial can of worms here. The list of coercive legislation that depends on the Spending Clause as constitutional justification is quite long and getting longer (my staff is often tasked with defending it). It is very common for Congress to tell the states what to do pursuant to its power under the Spending Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, Congress may secure a State's consent to suit as a condition of the State's receipt of federal funding.FN1 See *1664 College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 686, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) (“Congress may, in the exercise of its spending power, condition its grant of funds to the States upon their taking certain actions that Congress could not require them to take, and ... acceptance of the funds entails an agreement to the actions”); Atascadero, 473 U.S., at 247, 105 S.Ct. 3142 (suggesting that a federal statute can “condition participation in the programs funded under the [statute] on a State's consent to waive its constitutional immunity”). It has almost always been sustained by the courts in doing so.

This may come to a head this term. The Supreme Court agreed to decide this question when it took cert in Obamacare or "the Affordable Care Act". One of the questions presented is whether Congress went too far in coercing the states when it imposed huge new burdens on the states in the Medicaid provisions of that legislation. (Most people don't know that Medicaid participation (the program for the poor) is voluntary with the states). Everyone was stunned when they took cert on that question. And course, the "individual mandate" is justified under the Commerce Clause. It will be interesting.
 
Last edited:
But who funded that study? We know that interest groups fund studies so the results come out the way they want.

I'm hoping LITS can answer this, but in the cadet regs it was stressed during 3/c summer that cadets were not allowed to consume alcohol until 21, despite federal, state, or other nations laws. That means that even though the drinking age is 19 in Canada, cadets 19 or older were not supposed to drink. I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that regulations, since the under-21 junior enlisted were allowed to drink.

That cite was only an example. Google "teenage brain development" and you will see lots of references. As they say in the legal biz., this is "not open to reasonable dispute." Can't speak to the regs you cite and why they decided to ban cadet use. My guess is that alcohol caused such problems in barracks that the simple broad ban was the easiest way of dealing with it. Those regs, of course, probably have real teeth behind them, e.g., expulsion
 
Disregarding all "should ___ be able to drink" and such arguments, here are some observations and suggestions from a USMA yuk.

OBSERVATIONS:
cadets see drinking not as a social outing but as a way to cram in as much fun and stress repression in a weekend as possible...this leads to disastrous problems. My 1st semester TL plebe yr was kicked out after passing out on the 1st floor and the person that found him couldn't wake him up. Thank G-d he did wake up. The "if you're not 21 don't drink" 10 sec of a safety brief by the CO before a weekend is a procedural joke no one expects to be followed. During health and welfare 2 weeks ago a fair bit of alcohol was discovered. Underage drinking is the reason USMA will no longer hold AMT summer training; there were far too many alcohol violations (and such partying caused only a very small percentage of AMTers to pass the exam).

SUGGESTIONS: I think cadets should have more education about the dangers of over-drinking/ binge drinking and what precisely are the consequences at the academy for underage drinking both off and on post. More cadets need to hear from the big brass that they don't support underage drinking, because most cadets think that in practice it is socially acceptable. Accepting the realty that some cadets will always underage drink because they've been doing it for yrs before coming to the academy, underage cadets need to be included in alcohol briefing that discuss improper use of alcohol.
 
Disregarding all "should ___ be able to drink" and such arguments, here are some observations and suggestions from a USMA yuk.

OBSERVATIONS:
cadets see drinking not as a social outing but as a way to cram in as much fun and stress repression in a weekend as possible...this leads to disastrous problems. My 1st semester TL plebe yr was kicked out after passing out on the 1st floor and the person that found him couldn't wake him up. Thank G-d he did wake up. The "if you're not 21 don't drink" 10 sec of a safety brief by the CO before a weekend is a procedural joke no one expects to be followed. During health and welfare 2 weeks ago a fair bit of alcohol was discovered. Underage drinking is the reason USMA will no longer hold AMT summer training; there were far too many alcohol violations (and such partying caused only a very small percentage of AMTers to pass the exam).

SUGGESTIONS: I think cadets should have more education about the dangers of over-drinking/ binge drinking and what precisely are the consequences at the academy for underage drinking both off and on post. More cadets need to hear from the big brass that they don't support underage drinking, because most cadets think that in practice it is socially acceptable. Accepting the realty that some cadets will always underage drink because they've been doing it for yrs before coming to the academy, underage cadets need to be included in alcohol briefing that discuss improper use of alcohol.

Amen. Every year, some college kids die as a result of alcohol overdose. Alcohol is a metabolic depressive that has particularly adverse effects on underage drinkers, people who are still growing. http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/fa...=google&utm_medium=search&utm_content=alcohol
It just isn't cool.
 
I think cadets should have more education about the dangers of over-drinking/ binge drinking and what precisely are the consequences at the academy for underage drinking both off and on post

There's a fair amount of education now for over/binge drinking, but as I said there's nothing about underage drinking.

More cadets need to hear from the big brass that they don't support underage drinking, because most cadets think that in practice it is socially acceptable.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Underage drinking goes unmentioned.

Accepting the realty that some cadets will always underage drink because they've been doing it for yrs before coming to the academy, underage cadets need to be included in alcohol briefing that discuss improper use of alcohol.

They already are, but even in those there's nothing saying not to underage drink.
 
But who funded that study? We know that interest groups fund studies so the results come out the way they want.

I'm hoping LITS can answer this, but in the cadet regs it was stressed during 3/c summer that cadets were not allowed to consume alcohol until 21, despite federal, state, or other nations laws. That means that even though the drinking age is 19 in Canada, cadets 19 or older were not supposed to drink. I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that regulations, since the under-21 junior enlisted were allowed to drink.

I suppose Canadien (and German, et al) brains develop faster than us Americans.:rolleyes:

Disregarding all "should ___ be able to drink" and such arguments, here are some observations and suggestions from a USMA yuk.

OBSERVATIONS:
cadets see drinking not as a social outing but as a way to cram in as much fun and stress repression in a weekend as possible...this leads to disastrous problems. My 1st semester TL plebe yr was kicked out after passing out on the 1st floor and the person that found him couldn't wake him up. Thank G-d he did wake up. The "if you're not 21 don't drink" 10 sec of a safety brief by the CO before a weekend is a procedural joke no one expects to be followed. During health and welfare 2 weeks ago a fair bit of alcohol was discovered. Underage drinking is the reason USMA will no longer hold AMT summer training; there were far too many alcohol violations (and such partying caused only a very small percentage of AMTers to pass the exam).
I somewhat agree with this but my observations from a long time ago lead me to believe that the fact that it is illegal leads to binge drinking. If one can have a drink anytime the novelty does wear off (for most) and their is less tendency to overindulge at every opportunity. Now I am sure I exercised better judgement at 21 than 18 but I also know I exercised much better judgement by the time I reached 30 and I really don't think I was slower to develop than my peers.

I have looked at some of the research that is"not open to reasonable dispute." and I think the age 21 is somewhat arbitrary.

Do you know any 21 year olds that go get plastered on their b-day because it is finally legal? Good judgement? At least they are not hiding it and are more likely to have some sober support.
 
They already are, but even in those there's nothing saying not to underage drink.
Do they need to be told when to blow their nose too?

If they don't know they are not supposed too drink under age they probably don't belong there. They know the consequences so can the "I didn't know routine".

Look, I don't like the rule and a few other rules in society but I still obey them and understand there are consequences if I don't. Have I broke some rules along the way, you bet and when I got caught I paid the consequences.
 
Do they need to be told when to blow their nose too?

If they don't know they are not supposed too drink under age they probably don't belong there. They know the consequences so can the "I didn't know routine".


I'm not following you. The consequences of binge drinking are well known, but we're still given briefings about it.

If nobody tells cadets not to underage drink, that just adds fuel to the reasoning that it's acceptable to do as long as you don't get caught.
 
Back
Top