What About the 21-Year-Old Drinking Age?

Taking a formal position on whether the current minimum drinking age should be changed is one that at first glance seems easy to defend. To make such a decision, however, and do so based on fact rather than emotion--something we Americans are not prone to do, by the way...we want what we want and we want it right now...is clearly an act that should result from a formal vetting process; there are pros and cons on both sides of the issue that need to be discussed and then considered.

That said, I believe that having a frank and thoughtful discussion on the subject is a good thing. This can be argued in light of the fact that no one under the age of 25 was alive the last time this topic was aired publicly and completely. As a result, many under the age of 21 now see the 21-year-old drinking law as “arbitrary and capricious” and resulting from the efforts of old timers who are looking to cramp the style of contemporary young people.

There are many groups qualified to weigh in on the debate, although I am not prepared at this time to do so on the “pro change side” or the “maintain 21 side” of the debate. Think about what has changed as regards what we know about alcohol and those who consume it today as opposed to the last time it was publically debated in 1984. Although it is true that the then Reagan administration held highway safety dollars hostage until individual states signed on to the 21-minimum drinking age law, the issue was publicly debated and the latest science on both sides was on the radar screen of the popular media. Whether the age remains the same, is lowered or—and this is not proffered facetiously—raised to 25 (hey...car rental companies have discriminated against under 25 drivers for years) based on the new brain research, I, for one, think that INCASE can champion this discussion.

So much has been learned about alcohol, its affects on the body, how it affects the behavior of those who consume it, risk facts for alcohol use disorders, not to mention the development of the human brain. Suffice it to say that at the end of the day, increased access to more (rather than less) evidenced based information vetted via the scientific method regarding this topic is a good thing.

What do you think?
Robert