Why 21? The reasons for lowering the drinking age

Arguing for lowering the drinking age in a college newspaper is like calling for an end to exams or the abolition of grades. It's not a tough sell. Still, ours is a campus rife with discussion of the use and abuse of alcohol. From posters publicizing Alcohol Initiative events to administrators' statements about the importance of our collective drinking problem to countless Prince articles and campus forums, the topic is never far from our minds. And yet the law that sets the drinking age at 21 is almost never discussed. Passed in 1984, it has become an accepted part of our culture rather than a piece of legislation to be questioned and changed. While some may suggest that college students have selfish motives for advocating a lower drinking age, it would be in the best interests of all members of the community to take a second look at this law.

Setting the age of alcoholic responsibility at 21 is arbitrary. As Americans above the age of 18, we can drive, be drafted, pay taxes, purchase cigarettes, be tried as adults, serve on juries and vote. But we can't drink. Changing the drinking age to 18 would not only place it in line with the allotment of other rights and obligations, it would also be more logical in terms of contemporary life. At eighteen, most American teenagers leave home, whether to join the workforce or go to college. It is at this time, not when we turn 21, that we become independent, taking responsibility for ourselves on a day-to-day basis in a way that few of us have before. Legislators should recognize this turning point in the lives of young people and use it as an opportunity to grant us the additional responsibility of legal drinking.

A byproduct of the law's being so out of line with reality is that it is rarely obeyed and infrequently enforced. There is underage drinking on every college campus in this country, in large amounts and on a regular basis. Even students who have a general respect for the law find the drinking age so disconnected from their own lives that they feel free to ignore it. Their decision is reinforced by the fact that so few teenagers are arrested, prosecuted or even chastised for drinking. Everyone, from students to college administrators to parents to law enforcement officials, seems to have tacitly accepted that the drinking age is not worth enforcing. This decision by society to ignore the law undermines the strength not only of the legislation but of the government. It makes legislators and policemen look ineffectual and capricious, passing and enforcing laws which will ultimately be ignored, left to be used for political capital and to fill space in law books. More importantly, it teaches young people the dangerous lesson that we can decide for ourselves which laws are important.

The major arguments for setting the drinking age at 21 are health and safety related. Some have argued, for example, that 18 year olds are not responsible enough to handle alcohol, that they would be more likely to binge drink or suffer from alcohol poisoning if the law were changed. This strikes me as absurd. Such problems are common on most campuses today. Changing the legal age to 18 would make alcohol more available and less taboo, thus taking some of the novelty and excitement out of getting drunk at a room party or passing out at an eating club. Similarly, arguments that teenagers are more likely to drive drunk are illogical. If people are careless and stupid enough to get behind the wheel when intoxicated at 18, they will be no less so at 21. The real answer to this problem lies in education and public awareness campaigns, not in a higher drinking age.

Movements on Princeton's campus to open dialogue between students and administrators about alcohol abuse and to increase the availability of health services are admirable and important. But while we work towards addressing our problems in the current framework, we should also question that framework itself. If we did, we would likely find that setting the drinking age at 21 benefits no one. We at Princeton have tried many different paths in attempting to address alcohol related issues. New ideas like lowering the drinking age may seem counterintuitive and even unpalatable, but they are, ultimately, reasonable. When it comes to solving the problems of alcohol abuse, it is time we started listening to reason. Katherine Reilly '05 is from Short Hills, NJ. She can be reached at kcreilly@princeton.edu.