OPINION & EDITORIAL
Want to lower drinking age? Stop driving drunk
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Tim Williams:
- Want to lower drinking age? Stop driving drunk (April 24, 2008)
- Experts' verdict on porn: A hung jury (April 10, 2008)
- Taking the 'super' out of superdelegates (March 27, 2008)
- No matter how tasty, cheese won't solve problems (March 6, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Everyone agrees: Let 19-year-olds drink (February 28, 2002)
- Restrictions don't solve alcohol issue (January 28, 2008)
- The drive of shame (April 28, 2008)
- Global-warming prevention lacking (February 8, 2007)
- Mad at MADD (April 18, 2002)
Share This:
by Tim Williams
Thursday, April 24, 2008
What is it about alcohol that makes some people lose all cognitive function? After being dressed up as the ethanol scarecrow that would fight farm overproduction, oil dependence and global warming — despite much evidence to the contrary — a vocal minority in several states including Wisconsin has once again turned to alcohol to solve their problems. Seemingly as a half-hearted recompense to young soldiers fighting a war in Iraq most Americans no longer support, some want to lower the drinking age to 18 — for military personnel only.
The most bizarre proposal, however, is a bill introduced in Minnesota that would allow 18-year-olds to drink in bars and restaurants, but not to buy liquor in stores. Presumably supporters are afraid of uninhibited binge drinking at teen house parties, but wasn’t the whole point of the federal government strong-arming states into raising the drinking age to 21 to stop drunken driving? Overwhelming evidence shows raising the drinking age lowers fatal automobile accidents, which is why Ronald Reagan, who made big government public enemy No. 1, signed a constitutionally questionable 1984 law that ties 10 percent of federal highway funds to setting the drinking age at 21. A 2003 review by the Center for Disease Control showed increasing the drinking age lowered fatal accidents by 16 percent, and the National Traffic Highway Administration estimates 900 lives each year have been saved by the switch. While that might not seem like a huge number, it’s hard to argue against a proven safety measure.
Students can moan and groan all they like, but proposals to change the drinking age are doomed to failure as long as one out of six of adult motorists nationwide report driving under the influence, as found by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. According to a 2007 Gallop poll, 77 percent of Americans oppose lowering the drinking age. Until it’s no longer a given that someone at a party will drive home drunk, the visceral images of deadly car accidents will continue to stir outrage, even as we decide it’s OK to drive intoxicated ourselves.
Wisconsin tops the list of drunken drivers, with more than a quarter of motorists saying they have driven while intoxicated in the past year. Of course, analysts immediately hit on the obvious cultural factors at play here, with both Nina J. Emerson, director of the Resource Center on Impaired Driving at the University of Wisconsin Law School, and Paul Moberg, senior scientist at UW’s Population Health Institute, pointing to Wisconsin’s general acceptance of drinking being higher than many other states, according to an April 22 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article.
But this ignores the fact that even in Utah, a state where a majority of residents belong to a religion that prohibits the consumption of alcohol, one in 10 people reported drinking and driving. Clearly, the problem is Americans love their cars as much they love their booze. The United Kingdom — with the same .08 blood-alcohol concentration legal limit as all 50 U.S. states — had only 560 alcohol-related deaths in 2004 among its 60 million people, according to the British Medical Association. While the U.S. has five times the population, it had more than 20 times the alcohol-related deaths.
One oft-cited explanation for high U.S. traffic fatalities is that most international drivers first receive permits after they reach the legal drinking age. This makes little to no sense, however. The difference, if any, is usually less than a year, and traffic fatalities, sober and not, remain high for young people well after they turn 21, as any insurance or rental car agent will tell you. The only reason the drinking age won’t raise to 25 is the uproar would be even louder than if it were lowered to 18. It’s certainly true Europeans are less car-dependent, but the move to public transportation in this country has been slow and painful.
No, what Wisconsin needs is to correct its two-faced attitude toward drunken driving with harsh penalties even for first-time offenses — this is the only state where a first drunken driving incident is not criminal. While there are concerns ignition locks may not yet hold the answer, as a California Motor Vehicles Department study found they did not deter first-time offenders, we should look to innovations like these to keep alcohol-impaired drivers off the street. If we can do that, then maybe college students young and old can legally have a beer together.
Tim Williams (twilliams@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in English.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 10:42am):
I completely agree. My roommate is from a small town and EVERYONE drives drunk there. Even though they've had numerous classmates killed by drunk drivers (each other) that doesn't seem to make a difference. I love to drink but would sooner cut my arm off than get behind the wheel. I don't understand what is so hard to get. Wisconsin is the #1 state in the nation for drunk driving. We need to be much more strict, and licesnes should not be earned back so damn easily.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 11:23am):
Personally, I like the Wisconsin rule that allows you to drink with your parents at restaurants once you turn 18. It's like a drinking learner's permit. Learning to drink in college, as we all know, involves beer bongs, beer pong, and puke... lots of puke.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 3:15pm):
Anon. 11:23, you're wrong.
The "rule" in WI, as you call it, allows underagers to drink with their parents at age 16. HOWEVER, once the individual reaches the age of 18, (s)he is an adult and is no longer allowed to have such a privilege. If you're 16 or 17 you can drink with your parents. If you're 18, 19, or 20, you have to wait until you can do it legally. Great rule, eh?
Not so much. This only makes is so that underage minors learn to drink and then think they can do it when they're on their own in college before they reach the proper age. This results in beer bongs, beer pong, puke and tickets. You forgot the tickets. For doing something that was okay to do with their parents when they were in high school, adult college students receive tickets for doing it on their own.
Think.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 8:00pm):
3:15, I think you're wrong. If you can drink with your parents when you're 16, why not 18? Who gives a damn? I need you to dig up the verbiage of the law.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 10:50pm):
If you choose to booze, you lose.
Anonymous (April 28, 2008 @ 4:45pm):
DRINKING AGE 18 TODAY, DRINKING AGE 18 IN THE PAST, DRINKING AGE 18 FOREVER!!! All HAIL THE FUTURE 28TH AMENDMENT!!
Ben Webster (April 28, 2008 @ 7:57pm):
"Overwhelming evidence shows raising the drinking age lowers fatal automobile accidents"
Not true in all states, if even most states. And I would argue that states that really enforced under-21 drinking laws saw an increase in 21-24 age-group drunk-driving accidents.
All increasing the drinking-age from 19 to 21 has done is move drinking underground.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19 won't solve any issues regarding drunk-driving, but it WILL move the debate from the federal government to the place it belongs: to college campuses and to state governments.
Once a young man or woman is 18 or 19, their parents generally have little control over their drinking habits. The current drinking-age law no more stops twenty year-olds from drinking now than our first attempt at prohibition stopped forty year-olds from drinking in the 1920s. Lowering the drinking age won't necessarily make people more responsible, but it will bring into the public eye an issue that is not going to go away, regardless of any law: our binging culture.
I would like to see a couple states have some leeway on this issue. If something isn't working, you make changes.
Ben
Anonymous (May 6, 2008 @ 12:06pm):
Well, let's see....
by the time that your 18, you have all your rights. voting, being able to die for our country, smoke, pierce or tattoo your body, drive a car, have sex, and pay your own bills live on your own and order crap off the t.v. but somehow, we have to wait 4 more years until we can consume or buy alcohol. i mean yeah minors will get caught and get an m.i.p but it does get erased off your record when you turn 18. they can try all they want to stop minors from gettin alcohol but still we will do it anyways. i dont see what the big deal is to change the leagal age 18.
Anonymous (May 8, 2008 @ 10:50pm):
Alcohol should be illegal, plain and simple.
Anonymous (May 12, 2008 @ 3:06pm):
There's nothing in there about age 16, or a window between 16-17 v. 18-20, just under 21:
125.02
...(8m) "Legal drinking age" means 21 years of age.
...(20m) "Underage person" means a person who has not attained the legal drinking age.
---
125.07 Underage and intoxicated persons; presence on licensed premises; possession; penalties.
(1) Alcohol beverages; restrictions relating to underage persons.
(a) Restrictions.
1. No person may procure for, sell, dispense or give away any alcohol beverages to any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age.
2. No licensee or permittee may sell, vend, deal or traffic in alcohol beverages to or with any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age.
Anonymous (August 19, 2008 @ 12:27pm):
Nice article, it boils down to personal responsibility.
Anonymous (August 21, 2008 @ 11:49pm):
If "Underage person" describes a person under 21, then we should not be allowed to die for this country, to vote, or to be considered a "legal" adult. Im not for it or against it but our government needs to either consider everything at 18 as "legal" or raise the age to 21. I mean is that not paradoxical?
Anonymous (August 21, 2008 @ 11:49pm):
If "Underage person" describes a person under 21, then we should not be allowed to die for this country, to vote, or to be considered a "legal" adult. Im not for it or against it but our government needs to either consider everything at 18 as "legal" or raise the age to 21. I mean is that not paradoxical?
Anonymous (August 21, 2008 @ 11:59pm):
Sounds very paradoxical, either you are considered a legal adult at age 18 with ALL your rights or you are considered legal at age 21. Simple as that.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
