Maybe When You're Older

Halfway through my senior year of high school, I celebrated my eighteenth birthday. I remember having to go to the Chippewa Falls post office to register for the selective service. From this point on I could be drafted by the U.S. military and asked to sacrifice my life for my country. Additionally at this point in my life, I had been driving for two years, I was permitted to vote in elections, I could purchase tobacco, buy a gun, enter into any legally binding contract including marriage, and if I really wanted to I could enter the pornography business. I was granted all of the permissions of being an adult, yet I was not granted the trust of being allowed to consume an alcoholic beverage. What?!

During the Vietnam War, protesters argued against the unfair nature of young men being sent to war, but being unable to vote. The 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution was quickly ratified in 1971, thus lowering the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen.  Prior to this, most states had a minimum drinking age of twenty-one. Following ratification though, several states lowered the minimum drinking age to eighteen to be consistent with the new voting age. Seems logical. However, studies were done after these changes were made showing an increase in motor vehicle fatalities linked to alcohol consumption. With a heavy hand, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) pressured Congress to pass the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which penalized states who did not raise their drinking age to twenty-one by cutting 10% of their federal highway aid. States feared the loss of these federal dollars and therefore all 50 states complied.

Recently, actions by the Supreme Court may have countered the constitutionality of this policy. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which would withhold Medicaid dollars from states that did not comply with the ACA. The argument was that withholding these dollars would have a profound impact on state budgets and was too coercive. This decision is contrary to the case against the withholding of federal highway dollars in the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. However, legal experts say that the federal highway aid does not greatly affect state budgets as a whole, accounting for less than 1% of state budgets. While this is true, it is still a glimmer of hope which states could use to challenge the federal government and reduce their drinking age back down to eighteen.

Even if this wouldn't hold up in court, what do states really have to lose? As mentioned before, these federal dollars only account for less than 1% of the state budget. A 10% cut in federal transportation funds to Minnesota would account for a reduction of approximately $50 million per year. In terms of state spending this is a very small figure. This money could be easily offset by the reduction in enforcement costs and by the increased tax revenue from alcohol sales.

As a country, the United States has a terrible record of trying to control alcohol consumption. The diversity of cultures and religions presents varying views on imbibing. Some view it as social lubricant or as an expression of their family heritage. Others view it as a home-wrecker. In Wisconsin, a state that has embraced their drinking heritage, minors are allowed to be served under the supervision of their parents. Some parents would see a teenager drinking in a bar as terrible parenting, but what business is it of theirs? Responsible drinking is best taught in the family unit not by an arbitrary federal mandate.

Zum wohl!