Legal Drinking Age: Arguments Against Lowering It

The federal government is spending taxpayer money in a political campaign. It’s to defend the minimum legal drinking age. “Responses to Arguments against the Minimum Legal Drinking Age” is by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

arguments against the minimum legal drinkingIn it, the the federal government identifies arguments against the minimum legal drinking age. It then suggests counter arguments. But in doing so, it plays fast and loose with the facts. This is a common tactic in politics.

Legal Drinking Age: Arguments Against Lowering It


“If I’m old enough to go to war, I should be old enough to drink”

People are legally adults at the age of 18. They can also do these.

    • Vote
    • Hold public office.
    • Go to prison.
    • Serve on juries that convict others of murder.
    • Suffer execution executed.
    • Marry
    • Adopt children.
    • Hunt wildlife with deadly weapons.
    • Own and drive vehicles.
    • Operate businesses.
    • Employ others.
    • Enter into legally binding contracts.
    • Sue in court.
    • Own and fly airplanes.
    • Give legal consent for sexual intercourse.
    • Have abortions.arguments against the minimum legal drinking
    • Purchase or even perform in pornography.

Adults age 18-20 are able to conduct themselves as the adults they are. And, of course, they can serve in the U.S. armed services and give their lives defending their country. One of the very few things they can’t legally do is consume an alcoholic beverage. They can’t even have a celebratory sip of champagne at their own weddings.


Federal agents suggest pointing out that people can obtain a hunting license at age 12.  And that they can get a driver’s license at age 16. But this actually strengthens the argument against treating legal adults as children regarding alcohol. So, people can hunt wildlife with a deadly weapon at age 12 but can’t drink a beer at age 20?

The government also suggests pointing out that people must be 25 to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. Must be 30 to serve in the Senate. And must be 35 to serve as President. But authorities imposed these unusual restrictions almost two hundred and fifty years ago.

It was a new country that was largely reluctant to grant rights. Indeed, neither women nor African Americans could vote. We’re now in the 21st century enjoying widespread rights. And young people are infinitely more sophisticated.

Clearly, the agency’s arguments are extremely weak and unconvincing.


“Europeans let their teens drink from an early age, yet they don’t have the alcohol-related problems we do.”


The NIAAA responds that “the idea that Europeans do not have alcohol-related problems is a myth.” But no one suggests that Europeans have no drinking-related problems! Here the agency is guilty of using the straw person tactic. It creates a very weak argument and then shoots it down.


Researchers for decades have studied countries and groups around the world. In many, most people regularly drink but have few alcohol-related problems. These all share three common characteristics.

    1. People consider alcohol to be a rather neutral substance in and of itself. It’s neither a poison nor a magic potion. Its how its used that’s important.
    2. People have two equally acceptable choices. They may abstain or they may drink in moderation. What’s never acceptable is the abuse of alcohol by anyone of any age.
    3. People learn about drinking alcohol in moderation from an early age in the safe and supportive environment of the home. And they do so by good parental example. They would say it’s better to learn about drinking in the parents’ house than in the fraternity house.


“Lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19-to 20-year-olds aren’t related to the age 21 policy. They’re related to increased drinking-driver educational efforts, tougher enforcement, and tougher drunk-driving penalties.”


The agency wants us to argue that “Careful research has shown the decline was not due to DUI enforcement and tougher penalties, but is a direct result of the legal drinking age.” And that “Achieving long-term reductions in youth drinking problems requires an environmental change so that alcohol is less accessible to teens.”

However, there are a number of weaknesses in what the bureaucrats want us to say. It’s true that lower rates of alcohol-related traffic accidents now occur among drivers under the age of 21. But they’ve also been declining among those age 21 and older, with one notable exception.


Raising the minimum legal drinking age has resulted in an apparent displacement of many alcohol-related traffic fatalities. They have moved from those under the age of 21 to those age 21 to 24. In short, raising the drinking age simply changed the ages of those killed.

The argument to make alcohol less accessible to adults under the age of 21 is naive. It fails to recognize that it’s easier for them to get marijuana than alcohol. Governmental surveys have shown this fact.


It’s also foolish to think that we can effective impose prohibition on young adults. The U.S. already tried that with the entire population during National Prohibition (1920-1933). The result was less frequent drinking but more heavy, episodic drinking.

The effort to impose prohibition on young adults has driven drinking underground and promoted so-called binge drinking. This is a natural and totally predictable consequence of prohibition.


“We drank when we were young and we grew out of it. It’s just a phase that all students go through.”


Interestingly, NIAAA wants us to argue that “Unfortunately, many teens will not ‘grow out of it’.” Implicit is the belief that adults should not consume alcohol even when legally able to do so. The agency apparently envisions a society in which abstention from alcohol is the norm. That’s a vision it shares with temperance and prohibition advocates.

While not all students will try alcohol, virtually all normal young people will do so. And they will do so without ill effects. But NIAAA wants us to promote the discredited “steppingstone” hypothesis. That’s the idea that drinking leads to smoking which leads to marijuana, which leads to crack, which leads to cocaine. T\In turn, that leads to degradation, illness and death.


“Making it illegal to drink until 21 increases the desire for the ‘forbidden fruit.’ Then, when students turn 21, they’ll drink even more.”


NIAAA wants us to assert incorrectly that “Actually the opposite is true. Early legal access to alcohol is associated with higher rates of drinking as an adult.”

In reality, research has clearly shown the “forbidden fruit” exists among adults under the age of 21. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the increased desire to drink continues after students turn 21. In fact, at age 21, many find that it’s no longer much fun to get into bars and to drink. That’s precisely because it’s legal for them to do so.

Observation on “Responses to Arguments against the Minimum Legal Drinking Age”

The federal government is guilty of presenting deceptive and misleading arguments. And it does so to defend the current minimum legal drinking age. Is it legitimate for the government to intrude into political debates? Perhaps Congress should exert more oversight of federal agencies. The NIAAA’s “Responses to Arguments against the Minimum Legal Drinking Age” illustrates the need for such oversight.