Let the Children Drink!

By Sutton R. Stokes, 7-30-08

	Caption: Photo by Flickr user Augie Schwer, shared under a Creative Commons License.

Exhibit A in the argument that political-party platforms don’t have much significance in the real world: the Montana Democratic Party’s adoption of a plank endorsing reduction of the state’s drinking age from 21 to 18. It’s hard to imagine the legislature ever moving ahead with this idea, not least because it would cost the state a boatload of federal highway funds, but also because it would cause all the simple-minded moralists among the electorate — i.e., the majority — to pop their eyeballs out of their heads on long stalks and flap their tongues out of their slackened jaws while making that old Navy-ship “awooogah” alarm noise.

Still, as fondly as I remember the thrill of illegally purchasing alcohol before I turned 21, I have to say that I think reducing the drinking age has some merit. There are those who claim — and who can apparently wave around hefty studies “proving” it — that setting the drinking age at 21 has reduced drunk-driving deaths among teenagers. My retort is that the current law makes it more difficult for young people to learn to drink responsibly in the first place, and even pushes kids toward bingeing.

Consider college students, for example. Once upon a time, boys and girls, there was no such thing as a “dry campus” — well, except for in Utah and Saudi Arabia — and alcohol was even served at official school functions like art openings, dedications, and that sort of thing. Some people got trashed, of course, but the rest found themselves drinking in public around adults they respected, a situation I tend to think helped them learn their limits in relatively low-risk surroundings.

Now, though, underage college students who want to feel a buzz at one of these events (a natural human urge since time immemorial) have to go about it in secret. Since they can’t just sip on a few drinks while mingling, they have to consume enough beforehand — or on occasional trips to their cars or dorm rooms — to “last,” meaning loooooong pulls from that plastic bottle of cheap vodka, in the interest of maximum time efficiency.

Is this really what we want our kids learning in college?

Meanwhile, accepting for the sake of argument that the current drinking age might be reducing traffic fatalities, it is nonetheless also training people to accept that there are some laws we all just feel free to break. Even if their access is restricted and they can’t drink as often as they might like, very few young people wait until they are 21 to have their first sip. The rest scheme about how to get around this particular law of the land and might therefore develop a “cafeteria” approach toward other laws: “I’ll take that one and that one, but not that one,” etc.

Finally, even the drunk-driving-reduction claim is assailable on logical grounds. If we really want to reduce drunk driving in general, maybe we should reduce the drinking age even further — to, say, 16, like in some European countries — and raise the driving age to 18 or even older. After all, what makes better sense: (1) learning your limits with alcohol before getting behind the wheel for the first time, or (2) getting a few years of driving under your belt, acquiring the associated false self-confidence many young drivers feel, and only then having your first experience with the firewater?

Denver Henderson, the sponsor of the reduced-drinking-age platform plank, says he just wants to be fair to young people in the military. If you’re old enough to die for your country, he argues, you’re old enough to enjoy a legally sanctioned oat soda. I wonder if there’s a possible compromise here. What if we made a rule that anyone holding a military ID is allowed to drink in the enlisted clubs on military bases?

Such a solution would help with unit cohesion, if nothing else. When I was in the Coast Guard, it well and truly sucked that some of the guys I sanded and painted with all day, and who had my back during tense vessel boardings, could only order root beer if the crew decided to stop by the club on base after work. As a result, those of us with apartments had to invite everyone over and illegally supply the booze, which is all fun and games until you notice that a couple of the damn amateurs have used a garden hose to construct a three-story beer bong from your balcony down to the sidewalk, not three parking spaces away from where your neighbor, the Florida state trooper, is testing the lights on his cruiser before leaving for a night shift.

I would also argue that — since younger military members are more likely to live on base — allowing them to drink there might even reduce the likelihood of their driving drunk. Sure, some of them would get a few beers in their bellies and decide to hit the town, but that type of personality probably would have hit the town either way. I’m guessing there are probably a lot more sane, reasonable 18- or 19-year-olds who might just like to enjoy a few cold ones while watching a game on television in the enlisted club, or join in the general good cheer at official base celebrations, such as after a change of command. (And no, it is not possible to enjoy yourself at events like these without drinking, but thanks for playing anyway.)

So, please join me in a toast: Support the troops! Let them get drunk!

For more like this, read the rest of the Missoula Notebook.