The Determination and Implication of Minimum Legal Drinking Age Introduction MLDA, short for Minimum Legal Drinking Age, was set to twenty-one years old by National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which specified that only young adults who have reached age 21 can legally purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages. By 1988, all states had adopted the new MLDA. The law was designed to combat drunk driving of young adults, and now there are strong statistical proofs that current MLDA law is successful in saving lives and improving health: 16% median decline was recorded in motor vehicle crashes; drinking during the previous month among 18-20 aged group declined from 59% in 1985 to 40% in 1991 and so on (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2016). A lot of studies have also been conducted regarding MLDA in past years. Wagenaar and Toomey (2002) reviewed empirical studies of MLDA published from 1960 to 1999, they found that although many issues were examined about their relationships with MLDA, only alcohol consumption and vehicle crashes had inverse relationship with MLDA, which means an older legal drinking age will result in less traffic crashes and alcohol consumption. Recently, research has made much more progress. Some find that besides mortality in crashes, which is often the research objective and key factor in policy making regarding MLDA, non-fatal injuries and crimes due to alcohol are also important factors to be considered in setting and 1
evaluating MLDA (Carpenter & Dobkin, 2011); Some prove that college students who got first drunkenness at an early age (i.e. 13 or below) is much more likely to have unplanned and unprotected sex in college than those who do not drink until 19 or above (Hingson, Heeren, Winter & Wechsler, 2003); Some have shown that MLDA has persistent effects on people s drinking patterns latter in life, the ability to legally purchase alcohol before 21 may result in certain types of problematic drinking patterns such as more frequent binge drinking 1 and less frequent non-heavy drinking (Plunk, Cavazaos-Rehg, Bierut & Grucza, 2013). Although there is not much evidence or study supporting further raising the current MLDA 21, this paper argues that it at least should not be lowered. The reasons for maintaining the current MLDA 21 and benefits comparing to a MLDA 18 can be roughly categorized in three aspects: less injuries (car accidents, non-fatal injuries etc.), better prevention of misconduct (unwanted & unprotected sex, crimes etc.) and healthier long term habits. The following parts of the paper will discuss these three aspects in detail. Maintaining an older MLDA results in less injuries McCartt, Hellinga and Kirley (2010) provided with data and analysis in terms of alcohol-related driving. In their researched time span of 1982 to 1995, for 16-20 age group drivers who were fatally injured, the percentage with positive Blood Alcohol 1 If consumed in a single setting, five drinks meets the clinical definition of binge drinking or heavy episodic drinking. 2
Concentration (BAC) declined from 61% to 31%, more significant than that of older groups. This means MLDA law did work effectively in reducing the chance of young drivers under 21 years old to get injured or even killed when driving because of drinking alcohol. Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 900 lives are saved every year due to MLDA 21 laws (Fell, 2008). Besides fatal injuries which often occur in car accidents, the link between non-fatal injuries and MLDA is also examined by several researchers. A regression discontinuity analysis performed by Callaghan, Sanches, Gatley & Cunningham (2013) shows that compared to young adults slightly younger than the MLDA, those who are just older than MLDA appear more often in inpatient and emergency department of hospitals, with 10.8% increase in alcohol-use disorders, 7.9% increase in assault, 51.8% increase in suicides related to alcohol. Similar to the results of this Canadian research, American researchers Carpenter & Dobkin (2011) also find that the rates of visiting emergency department and staying in inpatient hospitals increase significantly in the age 21 of American young adults, by 408 and 77 per 100,000 person-years, respectively, which are all substantially larger than the increase of death rate (8 per 100,00 person-years). Both facts and research of fatal and non-fatal injuries prove that maintaining a MLDA 21 is effective in protecting the well-being and safety of young people under 3
21, and other people s in certain scenarios (e.g. highway accidents). It may be reasonable to assume that with the development of society and increase in human life expectation, the further raise of MLDA is necessary when the time is mature. Maintaining an older MLDA results in better prevention of misconduct Hingson et al (2003) surveyed 11,739 full-time 4 year college students on their unplanned and unprotected sex. Even controlled for history of alcohol dependence and frequency of heavy drinking (not to mention age, race, marital status etc.), college students who got first drunkenness at an early age (i.e. 13 or below) showed 1.5 times the chance of having unplanned sex and 1.7 times of unprotected sex compared to those who do not drink until 19 or above. Thus, with the enactment and enforcement of MLDA 21 laws, more college students start drinking in an older age. This will lead to less unplanned or unprotected sex, which is quite beneficial to reduce unplanned pregnancy and slow down the transmission of Sexual Transmitted Disease (STD). Alcohol involvement in crimes is not rare. Greenfeld (1998) prepared reliable statistics regarding alcohol s role in crime: nearly 36% of convicted offenders had been drinking alcohol when committing offense. Thus preventing early acquisition of alcohol, i.e. setting up MLDA 21 is important to guide young adults away from committing crimes. As a matter of fact, Carpenter & Dobkin (2011) observed an 11% increase in arrest rate exactly at age 21, and these offense are often nuisance and violent crimes, which are commonly linked to alcohol. Now assume lowering MLDA 4
to 18, it is very likely that the surge will appear at age 18 instead. It is fair to argue that the MLDA 21 at least works effectively in preventing alcohol related crimes for people younger than 21. Maintaining an older MLDA results in healthier long term habits Plunk et al (2013) concluded from their studies that the ability to legally purchase alcohol before the age 21 is associated with certain types of problematic drinking behaviors, such as more frequent binge drinking and less frequent non-heavy drinking. On the other hand, statistics from CDC fact sheets show that drinking among people aged 21 to 25 declined from 70% in 1985 to 56% in 1991 after adoption of MLDA 21. With above evidence, it is logical to claim that by implementing MLDA 21, healthier drinking patterns and habits are encouraged and formed unconsciously for young people below the age of 21, and in the absence of such MLDA, a harmful and unhealthy way of drinking is likely to formulate. Counter Argument Amethyst Initiative, led by John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College called for a reexamination of current MLDA in 2008. This movement was supported and signed by more than 100 college presidents and chancellors. The major quest of this movement was to lower MLDA to 18, and supporters argued that current MLDA of 21 actually forced young adults to seek alcohol otherwise (e.g. from parties, 5
senior students etc.), thus resulting in more dangerous drinking than it would have been if MLDA was 18. There are also opinions believing that by proper education on alcohol and granting license for those who have attended such courses, the MLDA can be lowered to 18 without negative consequences. Moreover, the underage drinking problem, in the existence of MLDA 21 law, can not be neglected. According to National household Survey (1999), there are still a certain percentage of young people under 21 who reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days, especially for 18-20 age bracket (see Figure 1. in appendix). The proportion of young drinkers (age less than 21) who reported binge drinking is also higher than that of adults (see Figure 2.). These results seem to suggest that current MLDA 21 fails to utterly prevent underage drinking problems. However, researchers proposed otherwise compared to Amethyst Initiative and the above opinions. Carpenter & Dobkin (2011) proved that one of the central claims of Amethyst Initiative was incorrect: a large and compelling body of empirical evidence shows that setting the minimum drinking age at 21 clearly reduce alcohol consumption and its harms. According to McCartt et al (2010), there is no evidence that MLDA 21 can be even partially replaced by alcohol education. Moreover, the underlying underage drinking problem is also not a result of MLDA 21. If the MLDA 6
is modified to 18, there will still be underage drinking problems. Conclusion The enactment and enforcement of MLDA 21 laws have been proved to be beneficial to both young adults and the public, in short terms and long terms. In this case, the MLDA should not be lowered. As to whether it is necessary to further raise MLDA in the future requires more empirical evidence and research. Appendix Figure 1. Drinking Among Age Groups Below 21 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005, p.2) 7
Figure 2. Binge Drinking Among Youth and Adult Drinkers (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005, p.3) Annotated Bibliography 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2016). Alcohol and Public Health, Fact Sheets. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets.htm. 2. Wagenaar, A.C., & Toomey, T.L., (2002). Effects of Minimum Age Drinking Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supp No.14, pp.206-225. 3. Carpenter C. & Dobkin C., (2011). The Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Public Health, Journal of Economics Perspectives, 25(2), pp.133-156. 8
Authored by two professors from Economics Department, this article is interesting in its main idea of estimating and comparing the dollar value of consumer surplus and costs (harms to drinker and others) resulted from lowered MLDA. If the consumer surplus outweighs the costs, then lowering MLDA can be justified, otherwise current MLDA is more reasonable. The authors estimate additional alcohol consumption as indicator for consumer surplus, and increased acute harms (death, non-fatal injuries and crimes) as indicators for costs. Their findings strongly suggest that maintaining a MLDA 21 is better than setting it to 18. 4. Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M.R., & Wechsler, H., (2003). Early Age of First Drunkenness as a Factor in College Students Unplanned and Unprotected Sex Attributable to Drinkin. Pediatrics, 111(1), 34-41. 5. Plunk, A.D., Cavazaos-Rehg, P., Bierut, L.G., & Grucza, R.A., (2013). The Persistent Effects of Minimum Legal Drinking Age Laws on Drinking Patterns Later in Life. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(3), pp.463-469. 6. McCartt, A.T., Hellinga, L.A., & Kirley B.B., (2010). The effects of minimum legal drinking age 21 laws on alcohol-related driving in the United States. Journal of Safety Research, 41(2), pp.173-181. 9
7. Fell, J.C., (2008). An Examination of the Criticisms of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 Laws in the United States from a Traffic-Safety Perspective. 8. Callaghan, R.C., Sanches, M., Gatley, G.M., Cunningham J.K., (2013). Effects of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age on Alcohol-Related Health Service Use in Hospital Settings in Ontario: A Regression Discontinuity Approach, Am J Public Health, 103(12), pp.2284-2291. The objective of this article is to assess the impact of MLDA on hospital-based treatment for conditions in which alcohol is involved. The data was based on hospital administrative records in Ontario from April 2002 to March 2007 and the methodology is regression-discontinuity analysis. Results have shown that young adults, once given legal permission to alcohol, will end up with increased possibility of being affected by alcohol related conditions, including alcohol-use disorders (10.8% increase), assault (7.9% increase) and suicides related to alcohol (51.8% increase). 9. Greenfeld L.A., (1998). Alcohol and Crime, An analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime. 10. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, (2005). Drinking in America: Myths, Realities, and Prevention Policy. 10