From: Engs, Ruth C. [Ed.], "Controversies in the Addition's Field." Chapt. 10: David J. Hanson, "The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered"
Back to table of contents Home Page | Article List | Questionnaires | Books | Search my Files | Health Hints | Resume
CHAPTER 10 The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered
David J. Hanson, Ph. D.
There is extensive evidence that the consumption of alcoholic beverages has occurred in most societies throughout the world and has probably occurred since the Paleolithic Age and certainly since the Neolithic Age (Knupfer, 1960). The records of all ancient civilizations refer to the use of alcoholic beverages. Such accounts are found on Egyptian carvings, Hebrew script, and Babylonian tablets (Patrick, 1952). The Code of Hammurabi (cir 2225 B.C.) devoted several sections to problems created by the abuse of alcohol and in China, laws that forbade making wine were enacted and repealed forty-one times between 1100 B.C. and 1400 A.D. (Alcoholism and Drug Research Foundation of Ontario, 1961). These and other sources of evidence indicate that concern over alcohol use and abuse are not unique to present societies.
The place of alcohol in American society since the colonial period has clearly been ambivalent. "Drinking has been blessed and cursed, has been held the cause of economic catastrophe and the hope for prosperity, the major cause of crime, disease and military defeat, depravity and a sign of high prestige, mature personality, and a refined civilization" (Straus and Bacon, 1953). This ambivalence is reflected in the changing drinking age laws and drinking ethos as indicated in Table 10.1.
Organized efforts to limit drinking or the role of alcoholic beverages have existed in the United States since the early 1800s. However, alcohol has been the only substance whose proposed prohibition has provoked strong controversy and conflict. On one hand, the prohibition of narcotics has met little organized resistance while the prohibition of cigarette, coffee or cola beverages sales has not attracted significant political support. Gusfield (Gusfield, 1962; 1963) contends that alcohol has been a symbolic issue through which a struggle for primacy in social status has been fought between differing life styles—small town versus city, "old American" versus recent immigrant, the South and Midwest versus the Northeast. An alternate explanation is that while alcohol is clearly associated with numerous personal and social problems (thus motivating the prohibition impulse), its use is widespread and widely accepted (thus motivating its
defense). In either case, the consequence is often intense emotion and struggle.
Following the repeal of the EighteenthAmendment in 1933, prohibition efforts have largely been age-specific. In 1970, Congress passed the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which grants the right to vote in Federal elections to citizens between the ages of 18 and 21. A movement then began to extend other rights and privileges of adulthood to those aged 18; between 1970 and 1975,29 states reduced their minimum legal drinking age (Wagenaar, 1983). However, by the late 1970s controversy over minimum drinking age laws became widespread and this pattern was reversed. Much of the concern arose over the number of young people involved in automobile accidents, many of which were alcohol-related (Wechsler and Sands, 1980).
A common response to the need to "do something" about a perceived problem has been to seek a legal solution through legislation and it appears that laws in the United States are among the most stringent in the world (Mosher, 1980). Of course, raising the drinking age to reduce drunk driving is an indirect and incomplete way to attack the problem. "No doubt raising the drinking age to 25, 30 or even 50", as one house of the Mississippi legislature recently passed, would also tend to reduce drunk driving. The youngest age group is being chosen as a symbolic gesture because of its political impotence and because...there are no major economic consequences..." (Mosher, 1980, p.31).A more direct end effective approach might be to address the problem of intoxicated drivers regardless of their age or social status.
Mosher has pointed out that
"these modern youthful-drinking laws and enforcement priorities contrast with trends in youthful-drinking pattems. In the abstract, one would predict that increasingly stringent controls on availability and emphasis on enforcement would lessen the actual amount of alcohol consumed. Indeed, for all the problems associated with national Prohibition, use did decline during that period. Such is not the case for youthful drinking. Statistics show that under-aged persons increased their use of Alcohol steadily fomm the 1930s to the 1960s, when legislation to curtail sales was most active. Ironically, a plateau was reached both in the prevalence of teenage drinking and in legislative action to restrict availability to teenagers at approximately the same time. " (Mosher, 1980, p. 25).
Both up-dating and corroborating Mosher's observation is the fact that following the reduction of drinking age laws in the 1970s, the proportion of collegians who drink has trended downward (Engs and Hanson, 1988)
An unresolved issue underlying minimum drinking age laws is detemmining the age at which young people are mature enough to assume adult responsibilities. The lack of consensus regarding this issue in general is reflected in the diverse and changing minimum ages for other behaviors. These include age of consent for sexual intercourse, to purchase contraceptive devices, to marry without parental approval, to drive a car, to serve on a jury, and to buy and use tobacco (Wechsler and Sands, 1980).
Some studies (Perkins and Berkowitz, 1987; Engs and Hanson, 1986) have found little differences between drinking patterns of young people legally able and not legally able to drink. One reason for this lack of differentiation might be the pervasive informal supply networks and mechanisms whereby underage individuals generally experience little or no difficulty in obtaining alcohol. Another reason may be the ease with which many underage people were able to drive to neighboring states (or provinces) to purchase or consume alcohol. In any case, it would appear that legislation generally has had virtually no impact on alcohol behaviors and problems.
Drinking patterns are governed by the common fabric of values, symbols, and meanings shared by a group (Globetti, 1976). Legislation designed to prohibit customs embedded in a group risk failure, as did national prohibition in such countries as Iceland (1915-1922), Russia (1916-1917), Finland (1919-1932) and the United States (1920-1933) (Ewing and Rouse, 1976). National prohibition does not seem to be attainable except in those countries in which, by far, the large majority of inhabitants practice a religion prohibiting the use of alcohol (Tongue, 1976).
Underlying minimum age legislation are the assumptions of American prohibitionism: alcohol consumption is sinful and dangerous; it results in problem behavior; and drinking in any degree is equally undesirable because moderate social drinking is the forerunner of chronic inebriation (Sterne et al., 1967). Naturally, young people, if not everyone, should be protected from alcohol, according to this view.
Attempts to legislate behavior often lead to unintended and undesirable consequences. For example, Australian laws closing bars at six o'clock got the working men out of the establishments and possibly home to their families in time for dinner. However, they also produced the undesirable custom known as the six o'clock swill, which involves consuming as much beer as possible between the end of work and the six o'clock closing time (Room, 1976). Sterne and her colleagues (1967) concluded that minimum age laws not only fail in their intent but also produce very questionable consequences:
1. "The consumption of alcohol in automobiles is clearly undesirable, yet in denying the right of the older teenager to its public purchase and consumption, we unwittingly suggest this combination."
2. "The practice of patterned evasion of stringent liquor laws is a poor introduction of youth to adult civic responsibility. suggesting adult roles which incorporate neither respect for nor confommity to the law."
3. "As Prohibition amply demonstrated, liquor laws which do not meet with public acceptance provide illicit business opportunities. While taverns have not been found to be an important factor producing delinquency, a small minority of them capitalize on this opportunity for illicit business, catering to questionable entertainment and an outlet for drugs." (Steme at al.,1967, pp.58-59).
Alcohol legislation is open passed with less concern for the law's actual impact (or lack thereof) on drinking behavior than with its political value for the legislators; that is, with how their constituents will perceive their votes and how future opponents might be able to attack their voting records' (Room, 1976, p. 269). Furthermore, with over two-thirds of the adult American population being drinkers, rigorous enforcement of restrictive legislation is not viewed as a priority by the general population, by the police, or by the courts.
Even if enforcement of prohibitive legislation were vigorously pursued, there is little evidence that it would be successful. The widespread demand for alcohol and the ease with which a large variety of products can be converted into alcoholic beverages easily lead to "home brew" and other illicit manufacture. Ease of distribution gives natural rise to bootlegging and smuggling under such circumstances.
Not surprisingly, age-specific prohibition does not appear to be effective in reducing either the proportion of drinkers or their drinking problems. A study of a large sample of young people between the ages of 16 and 19 in Massachusetts and New York after Massachusetts raised its drinking age revealed that the average, self-reported daily alcohol consumption in Massachusetts did not decline in comparison with New York (Hingson et al., 1983). Comparison of college students attending schools in states that had maintained for a period of at least ten years a minimum drinking age of 21 with those in states that had similarly maintained minimum drinking ages below 21 revealed few differences in drinking problems (Engs and Hanson, 1986).
Comparison of drinking before and after the passage of raised minimum age legislation have generally revealed little impact upon behavior (Perkins and Berkowitz, 1985; Hanson and Hattauer, n.d.). For example, a study that examined college students' drinking behavior before and after
an increase in the minimum legal drinking age from 18 to 19 in New York State found the law to have no impact on under-age students" consumption rates, intoxication, drinking attitudes, or drinking problems (Perkins and Berkowitz, 1985). These findings were corroborated by other researchers at a different college in the same state (Hanson and Hattauer, n.d.). A similar study at Texas A & M examined the impact of an increase of the minimum drinking age from 19 to 21. There was no increase in consumption or alcohol problems among under-age students. However, there was a significant increase among such students in attendance at events where alcohol was present. There were also significant increases in the frequency of their requests to legal-age students to provide alcohol and intheir receipt of illicit alcohol from legal-age students (Mason et al., 1988).
A longitudinal study of the effect of a one-year increase of the drinking age in the province of Ontario found that it had a minimum effect on consumption among 18 and 19 year-old high school students and none among those who drank once a week or more (Vingilis and Smart, 1981). A similar study was conducted among college students in the State University System of Florida to examine their behavior before and after an increase in the drinking age from 19 to 21. While there was a general trend toward reduced consumption of alcohol after the change in law, alcohol related problems increased significantly. Finally, an examination of East Carolina University students' intentions regarding their behavior following passage of a new 21-year age drinking law revealed that only 6% intended to stop drinking, 70% planned to change their drinking location, 21% expected to use a false or borrowed identification to obtain alcohol, and 22% intended to use other drugs. Anecdotal statements by students indicated the belief of some that it "might be easier to hide a little pot in my room than a six pack of beer." (Lotterhos et al., 1988, p. 644).
Over the past four decades it has been demonstrated that the proportion of collegiate drinkers increases with age (Straus and Bacon, 1953; Wechsler and McFadden, 1979; Perkins and Berkowitz, 1987). However, in July of 1987 the minimum purchase age became 21 in all states. Because drinking tends to be highly valued among collegians, because it is now illegal for those under 21 to purchase alcohol, Engs and Hanson (1989) hypothesized that reactance motivation (Brehm and Brehm,1981) would be stimulated among such students, leading more of them to drink. Their data from 3,375 students at 56 colleges across the country revealed that, after the legislation, significantly more under-age students drank compared to those of legal age. Thus, the increase in purchase age appears to have been not only ineffective but actually counter-productive, at least in the short run.
There is extensive evidence that while an abstinence religious environment
is associated with a lower proportion of people drinking, alcohol related problems are much more common among those in such milieu who do drink (Hanson, 1972). This appears to result from several factors. First, such individuals have typically not learned how to drink. Thus, they have not learned how to use alcohol in moderation. Secondly, they are more likely to drink in a secretive manner or in environments free of moderating or restraining social control over their drinking. Thirdly, abstinence groups often portray the person who drinks as one who misuses alcohol. Thus, they inadvertently present a negative role model which can guide behavior of those who do drink (Globetti, 1976, p. l 66). Fourthly, for young people, abstinence teaching may encourage rather than deter use by making alcohol use a symbol or tool of rebellion against authority. The nature of the rebellion can gain further strength and intensity from disapproval and repression (Globetti, 1976, p. 167).
Conversely, most Jews, Chinese, and Italians drink, yet those groups have low rates of drunkenness and other forms of problem drinking. In all three groups, children begin drinking at an early age in the home and they observe alcohol being used in an unemotional and controlled manner. They learn that alcohol is a natural and normal part of life, do not view its use as a sign or symbol of adulthood, nor associate it with intoxication. To the contrary, they learn that alcohol abuse is taboo. Importantly, they are provided with role models for the appropriate use of alcohol (Plaut, 1967; Wilkinson, 1970; Hanson, 1972).
It is clear that much formal alcohol education is unrealistic, alienates young people, and tends to be ineffective if not counterproductive (Hanson, 1982). Cisin has stated the problem very well:
' In our values as parents and educators, we have aresponsibility for the socialization of our children, a responsibility for preparing them for life in the world. Part of our job is teaching children how to handle dangerous activities like driving. swimming, drinking, and sex. We behave toward our children as though there were really two different kinds of dangerous activities. Driving and swimming fall into the first type: we carefully teach our children that these are dangerous activities, and we deliberately set out to be sure that they know there is a right way and a wrong way to participate in these activities."
" On the other hand, when we look at the other kind of dangerous activities, exemplified by drinking and sex. we seem to know only one word: 'Don't.' We do not bother to say there is a right way and there is a wrong way; we just say 'Don't!' We do not really want to produce abstainers; we have the illusion that they will follow our advice and be abstainers (in the case of sex, until marriage; and in the case of alcohol,
until maturity) until they reach the magic age at which they can handle these activities. But as to the rights and wrongs of handling it when the great day comes, we choose to keep them in the dark. Now this is sheer hypocrisy. We are slowly awakening to the fact that we owe our children sex education in the home and in the school—education not dominated by the antisex league. We should be brave enough to tell them the truth; that drinking is normal behavior in the society, that moderate drinking need not lead to abuse; that drinking can be done in an appropriate civilized way without shame and guilt. Perhaps greater socialization in the direction of moderate drinking is part of the program we need for prevention of alcohol problems in the future" (1978, p. 154).
In a major publication generated by the work of the Cooperative Commission on the Study of Alcoholism, Wilkinson (1970) proposed that the minimum age for the purchase or consumption of alcohol on commercial premises, or to have them in public possession, should be eighteen rather than twenty-one. However, with meals in bona fide restaurants serving alcohol, those under eighteen should be permitted to order alcoholic drinks, provided they are accompanied by their parents or guardians who approve. Unless a college has a specific ethos against drinking, it should provide supervised places enabling students to drink wine or beer with their meals. On the otherhand, drinking at home should be free of any minimum legal age restriction (Wilkinson, 1970).
Clearly, the basic assumption underlying the above proposals is that most people who are going to drink as adults should learn to manage alcohol at an early age and with their families. Retrospective studies of the early drinking experiences of problem and non-problem drinkers support the hypothesis that early drinking experiences may influence subsequent drinking behavior. Problem drinkers appear to begin their drinking at a later age than others, to have their first drinking experience outside the home, to become intoxicated the first time they drink, and to drink as an act of rebellion (open or secret) against parental authority (Plaut, 1967). It has been said that if there is one universal characteristic that pervades humanity, it may be the urge to manipulate and control the behavior of others (Cisin, 1978) and nowhere is this more apparent than in the effort to control drinking behavior through legislative edict. The minimum drinking age laws in the United States have undergone over 100 modifications since their introduction in the 1930s (Wechsler and Sands, 1980, p. 2). The most recent series of increases in the minimum age will be no more successful than were those of the past. What we need are not more laws but the wisdom and courage to move beyond such simplistic answers to a complex social problem.
'Forexample, as governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis vetoed two bills to lower the drinking age. His vetoes became a campaign issue that apparently contributed to an unexpected defeat in his bid for reelection in 1978 (Mosher, 1980).
Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario (1961). "It's best to know". Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario: Toronto, Ontario.
Brehm, S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press: New York.
Cisin, I.H. (1978). Formal and informal social controls over drinking. In Ewing, J.A. and Rouse, B.A. (Eds.). Drinking: alcohol in American society—issues and current research. Nelson-Hall: Chicago, IL.
Engs, R.C. and Hanson, D.J. (1986). Age-specific alcohol prohibition and college student drinking problems. Psychological Reports, 59 979-984.
Engs, R.C. and Hanson, D.J. (1988). University students' drinking pattems and problems: examining the effects of raising the purchase age, Public Health Reports, 103 667-673.
Engs, R.C. and Hanson, D.J. (1989). Reactance theory: a test with collegiate drinking. Psychological Reports, 64 1083-1086.
Ewing, J.A. and Rouse, B.A. (1976). Drinks, drinkers, and drinking. In Ewing, J.A. and Rouse, B.A. (Eds.). Drinking: alcohol in American Society- issues and current research. Nelson-Hall: Chicago, IL.
Globetti, G. (1976). Prohibition norms and teenage drinking. In Ewing, J.A. and Rouse, B.A. (Eds.). Drinking: alcohol in American society issues and current research. Nelson-Hall: Chicago, IL.
Gonzalez, G.M. (1989). Effects of raising the drinking age among college students in Florida. College Student Journal, 23 67-75.
Gusfield, J.R. (1962) Status conflicts and the changing ideologies of the American temperance movement. In Pittman, D.J. and Snyder, C.R., (Eds.). Society, culture and drinking patterns. Wiley: New York.
Gusfield, J.R. (1963).Symbolic Crusade: status politics and the American Temperance movement, University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL.
Hanson, D.J. (1972). Norm qualities and deviant drinking behavior. Syracuse University: Syracuse, NY, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation.
Hanson, D.J. (1982). The effectiveness of alcohol and drug education. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 27 1-13.
Hanson, D.J. and Hanauer, E. (n.d.). Effects of legislated drinking norms on college students' behaviors. Potsdam College: Potsdam, New York, unpublished paper.
Hingson, R., Merrigan, D., and Heeren T. (1985). Effects of Massachusetts Raising its Legal Drinking Age from 18 to 20 on Deaths from Teenage Homicide, Suicide and Nontraffic Accidents. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 32 221 -233.
Knupfer, G. (1960). Use of alcoholic beverages by society and its cultural implications. California's Health, 18 17-21.
Lotterhos, J.F., Glover, E.D., Holbert, D. and Barnes, R.C. ( 1988). Intentionality of college students regarding North Carolina's 21-yeardrinking age law. International Journal of Addiction, 23 629-647.
Mason, T., Myszka, M., and Winniford, J. ( 1988). Assessing the impact of the 21 -year old drinking age: the Texas A &M study. Paper presented at annual meeting of NewYork State Sociological Association, Oswego, New York, October 7-8.
Mosher, J.F. (1980). The history of youthful-drinking laws: implications for current policy. In Wechsler, H. (Ed.). Minimum-drinking-age laws. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.
Patrick, C.H. (1952).Alcohol, Culture and Society. Duke University Press: Durham, NC.
Perkins, H.W. and Berkowitz, A.D. (1985). College students'attitudinal and behavioral responses to a drinking-age law change: stability and contradiction in the campus setting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the N.Y. State Sociological Association, Rochester, October 18-19.
Perkins, H.W. and Berkowitz, A.D. ( 1987). Stability and contradiction in college students' drinking following a drinking law change. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the American College PersonnelAssociation and the National Association of Student Personnel Administration, Chicago, March 15-18.
Plaut, T.F. (1967). Alcohol problems: a report to the Nation by the Cooperative Commission on the Study of Alcoholism. Oxford University Press: New York.
Room, R. (1976). Evaluating the effect of drinking laws on drinking. In Ewing, J.A. and Rouse, B.A., (Eds.). Drinking: alcohol in American society—issues and current research. Nelson-Hall: Chicago, IL.
Sterne, M.W., Pittman, D.J. and Coe, T. (1967). Teenagers, drinking and the law: study of arrest trends for alcohol-related offenses. In Pittman, D.J. (Ed.). Alcoholism. Harper& Row: New York.
Straus, R. and Bacon, S.D. (1953). Drinking in College. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.
Tongue,A. ( 1976). 5,000 years of drinking. In Ewing, J.A. and Rouse, B.A. (Eds.). Drinking: alcohol in American society—issues and current research. Nelson-Hall: Chicago, IL.
Vingilis, E. and Smart, R., ( 1981). Effects of raising the legal drinking age in Ontario.British Journal of Addiction, 76 415-424.
Wagenaar, A.C. (1983). Alcohol, young drivers, and traffic accidents. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.
Wechsler, H. and McFadden, M. ( 1979). Drinking among college students in New England. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 40 969-996.
Wechsler, H. and Sands, E.S. (1980). Minimum-age laws and youthful drinking: an introduction. In Wechsler, H. (Ed.). Minimum-drinkingage laws. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.
Wilkinson, R. (1970). The prevention of drinking problems: alcohol control and cultural influences. Oxford University Press: New York.
Back to table of contents/ / Contact Dave Hanson