Debating the drinking age in NJ and elsewhere

By Jeff Johnson Jr.

Last week, a group of university presidents calling themselves the Amethyst Initiative publicly called for a debate on whether the 21-year-old drinking age actually does more harm than good.

Among the initiative's signatories are the presidents of two New Jersey universities: Drew University President Robert Weisbuch and Montclair State University President Susan A. Cole.

This is an unusual topic for Jerseyhacker, since it's actually a national debate. But, since drinking laws are set on a state level and the presidents of two New Jersey institutions of higher education have spoken out on the matter, it's certainly relevant—and I have a suggestion that might work in more than one state.

First of all, what is the Amethyst Initiative's position?

In a statement posted in its website, the organization links the minimum age 21 drinking age, which all states instituted in 1984 after the U.S. Congress threatened to take away some of their federal highway funds, to "a culture of dangerous, clandestine 'binge-drinking'—often conducted off-campus."

Certainly, anyone who has attended college since these laws took effect across the nation can find a lot of logic in this assertion. Back when I was an undergraduate at Ohio University—which is to say, back when most of my college classmates and I openly flouted the state of Ohio's minimum drinking age—I would have been wholeheartedly behind the group's position.

Today, I still agree with the Amethyst Initiative's linking of the drinking age to irresponsible drinking.

But the group's defensiveness towards what it calls "vicious attacks from MADD"—Mothers Against Drunk Drivers—frankly displays the type of late-adolescent insecurity typical of college students who refuse to admit their drinking problems.

MADD has a good point here, and to dismiss its right to passionately pursue its stated social mission is to be insensitive to the thousands of families who have witnessed first hand the consequences of drunken driving.

There's a very good reason why the federal government linked its demands that states raise their minimum drinking age to driving laws: A national discussion of responsible drinking cannot be separated from a national discussion of responsible driving.

Nevertheless, the initiative also has a point that this is an issue that the country should debate. It isn't right to be telling people between the ages of 18 and 21 that, as the cry went back in Athens, Ohio, they are "old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to drink a beer in it."

But simply lowering the drinking age overnight isn't going to work. The laws have been in place for too long and have fundamentally affected the culture of the entire nation. Simply changing the laws would inevitably mean that too many young people—and innocent bystanders of all ages—would learn the lesson of responsibility through life-and-death events on the road, where nearly every death is preventable.

So, here's my proposed solution for New Jersey and other states.

We adopt a dual licensing system for persons under the age of 21: One for driving, and one for possessing, purchasing, and consuming alcohol. It would work like this:

As is the case now, beginning at age 21, a valid driver's license or U.S. passport demonstrates that a person is old enough to buy, have, or drink alcohol.

Beginning at age 16, as is the case in most states now, a person may start the process of getting a driver's license.

Between the ages of 18 and 21, one needs a separate license for both. And here's where the changes start.

New Jersey and many other states have already moved to a system of "graduated licensing" for drivers under age 18. Making this system even stricter would help compensate for the fact that teen drivers may have access to alcohol through older friends and siblings.

At the same time that licensed alcohol purchases are implemented for 18-year-olds, persons under the age of 18 lose the right to drive without a legal guardian in the front passenger seat. And I don't just mean a licensed driver, I mean a legal guardian—a parent or other person deemed by the state to be legally responsible for a minor's actions.

This is close to what already exists in New Jersey, anyway, so here, this isn't a big change.

Drivers under the age of 18 obviously aren't going to like this, but the can't vote anyway, and, by the way, there are already too many drivers on the road. (Sorry if that sounds callous, kids. I shouldn't have had a driver's license until age 18, either.)

Meanwhile, responsible, law-abiding persons age 18 to 20 have the right to obtain two licenses: One is a full, unrestricted driver's license, and the other allows the holder to purchase and possess alcohol in limited quantities and to consume it responsibly.

In this vision, it is not easy for 18-to 20-year-olds to obtain these licenses. All drivers and alcohol license holders are required to take a Red Cross first aid course (many European countries already require this of all licensed drivers, regardless of age), must take an eight-hour course on the effects of alcohol abuse, and must pass a rigorous test at the conclusion of that course. No easier standards are set for individuals who "need a car to get to work." If you need a car to get to work, you'd better grow up enough to meet the standards necessary to have one.

Furthermore, holding these licenses are a privilege, not a right. An 18- to 20-year-old's alcohol license may be revoked for public drunkenness. Driving under the influence of alcohol or providing booze to an unlicensed person under the age of 21 results in the loss of both licenses—the under-21 alcohol license permanently, the driving license until at least age 21, longer for a severe offense.

Just to show that we're serious about involving 18- to 20-year-olds in the debate, this proposal should be put to a referendum open only to young people before it is even proposed in state legislatures: The options are accept the status quo or support the proposal of this compromise legislation.

Champions of a lower drinking age frequently point to Europe as an example of a place where people younger than age 21 drink responsibly. This is unfortunately not a valid comparison and, in fact, some European countries are actually considering stricter rules about alcohol to address irresponsible drinking. (See this 2007 article from Deutsche Welle, a German news service.) The U.S. drinking laws are stricter because our driving laws are more liberal. If you want to change the drinking culture in America, you have to change the driving culture, too.

The Amethyst Initiative's website calls for a "dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age." Though I agree that the debate needs to happen, the choice of the adjective "dispassionate" is an unrealistic and unfair expectation. This is serious business, and anyone interested in this debate must be willing to tolerate the valid emotions that will come from all sides.

Index of topics

Last updated: August 8, 2008

This index may not include the most recent posts. Return to the main page to see the newest stuff.

A

Abiding Presence Lutheran Church
about Jerseyhacker
audiobooks

B

bicycling
bike to work
bubclave
Bureau of Homeowner Protection
bureaucracy

C

car registration
condominium associations

D

disclaimer
Dustin Farnum

F

Fair Housing Act
Family Leave and Medical Act
Family Leave Law

H

home buying
homeowners' associations
Homestead Tax Relief

J

Jersey Guys

L

Lawrence Hopewell Trail
libraries
listennj.com

M

mission

N

Neal Stephenson
New Jersey 101.5
New Jersey blogs
New Jersey Democratic State Committee
New Jersey Law Blog
New Jersey media
New Jersey Republican State Committee
Nielson Media Designated Market Area
NJ Map Guy (See also Dustin Farnum)

P

posting guidelines
primary election
Princeton Township
property taxes

R

real estate
roads

S

Snow Crash (See also Neal Stephenson)
solar energy
Solar Renewable Energy Certificates

T

Twin River

V

vehicle registration

Riding a bike to work in NJ—scary thought

Photos by Jeff Johnson Jr.

For most New Jersey drivers, getting to work means driving on roads that were never intended for bicycle traffic. If it isn't a busy, limited access highway like U.S. Route 1, seen here from Meadow Road in West Windsor Township ...

... then it's probably a narrow, two-lane rural road like Keefe Road in Lawrence Township. Though Keefe looks tame in this photo, taken outside of peak travel hours, rush-hour traffic barrels along the road with little regard for the 35-mph speed limit. With little or no shoulder space, roads like these are not likely to attract inexperienced cyclists looking to commute to work safely.


By Jeff Johnson Jr.

Given that I live just under four miles from my workplace, biking to work would seem to be a viable antidote to high gasoline prices, an easy way to help the environment, and good for my health.

Indeed, all of those arguments ring loud and clear in my head every time I get behind the wheel these days, and especially during my daily commute—until I have to pass a cyclist by the side of the road.

And every time I do, I see my kids' faces flash before my eyes.

Like many (possibly most) New Jersey commuters, I drive on roads that were built with one purpose in mind: Motor vehicle traffic. Without exception, whether I'm on my way to work or to the store, these are either limited-access highways or two-lane rural roads with no shoulder and certainly no bike lane.

Nevertheless, I haven't given up hope yet. But, clearly, finding a safe route will take some time and research. Here's my experience so far:

• The Greater Mercer Transportation Management Association, a non-profit agency in my county, has produced a nice Mercer County bike map rating the suitability of area roads for bicycle traffic.


• One New Jersey bicyclist, Dustin J. Farnum Jr., has created an amazing map of bike routes state-wide—apparently as a hobby; it's "a labor of love", he told me. (I was so impressed with this work that I asked Justin to do a Q&A. It appears as a companion post to this one.)


• My township and a neighboring township are building a loop bicycle trail, the Lawrence-Hopewell Trail, that will eventually connect several neighborhoods and area employers.

In his Q&A, Dustin wasn't terribly enthused about these types of segregated-traffic bike trails. Indeed, given that the Lawrence Hopewell Trail is to be a 20-mile loop, its usefulness for commuting will be limited. But it's a start.

If there were separate trails like this that provided a more direct route, I'd take them, even if it meant a one, two, or possibly as far as three-mile detour off of my usual driving route. But ten (assuming where I want to go is on the complete far end of the loop, which it is) is a bit much.

In all seriousness, though, I'd even be willing to take the risk on the roads—if I didn't have other people in my life who depend on my health and safety.

The 'NJ Map Guy'—Q&A

By Jeff Johnson Jr.

While doing a little research for my main post about (thinking about) riding to work in New Jersey, I stumbled across this bicycle map website put together by New Jersey bicyclist Dustin J. Farnum Jr.

Dustin, who describes himself on the website as the "NJ Map Guy," has explored a good portion of the state by bike and has kept mileage records of his routes since 1976. He describes his favorite places to ride as "scenic farmland" around areas in New Jersey's Hunterdon, Salem, and Cumberland counties. His site includes some photos he's taken on his rides.

Thinking Dustin might be able to provide some insight for people thinking about commuting on two wheels instead of four, I asked him for his thoughts on biking New Jersey's roads:

Q: If there are people out there who are thinking about commuting to work by bike, what do they need to watch for on their route? How do they know whether this is safe?

A: Common sense should be enough. Just look to the side of the road and ask this question. Would you ride there, now? If not, is there another route you could take? For most people, the morning commute with the traffic is intimidating.

Q: What can policymakers do to make our roads safer for multiple modes of transportation?

A: We must share the road. Driver education is the single most important thing that will make the roads safer. The best thing our government can do for cyclists is to make our presence known.

Enforce the speed laws and cell phone laws. Distracted drivers traveling 30 mph faster than you, two feet from you on a road with no shoulder while you're on a bicycle wearing shorts (no protection) is scary.

Road design is an important factor in the ride ability. Roads must be wide enough to accommodate multiple forms of transportation.

I've always said that spending money on bike trails for the purpose of taking commuters off the roads is a waste of money. I think we would get more bang-for-the-buck if we put up signs that alert motorists that they must share the rode with cyclists. But don't stop there. Put some teeth in it with stiff fines for law breakers. The answer is not to take the cyclist off the road, but accommodate the cyclist by making a safer road. Bike paths should be for kids so they can become cycling adults.

Q: You mentioned that you don't ride your bike to work in NJ. Why not?

A: I do, occasionally, but I don't do it on a regular schedule. Time is a big factor. Working 45-50 hours a week leaves little time for all else.

Q: You also mentioned that you have begun using an 80 mpg motorcycle to get to work. How's that working out?

A: It works great. I think it's a good alternative to my 29-mpg car. It would make a better alternative to a 10-mpg SUV. How many times do you see a commuter using a large SUV, but not carrying anything but lunch? Think of your car's mpg as a bus ticket. What ever the price per mile it gets, that is the price of your ticket. I just got tired of paying that much for the ticket and did something about it. I don't use the motorcycle every day. If it's going to rain, I use the car. The motorcycle is a great alternative on nice days. When it does rain, I do errands that require the car. I've had it for two months, and I have noticed a big drop in taking the car to the gas station for fill ups.

Q: What inspired you to create the New Jersey Bike Map? Where'd you get your information?

A: The base data is from the United States Geological Survey's DLG files. The files contain lines that are the roads and rivers. All the roads and all the rivers. No names are included. You can't imagine the hours it took to get it to where it is today.

I used to use county maps like everyone else. I found them hard to use due to the size. Unfolding the map in the wind then trying to fold back up is difficult. On some rides, I needed 2 or 3 county maps. I originally made the map so I could remember where interesting things are and where all the good roads are. Taking notes of road names and town names. First using just one color, then using more colors for different road types. Locating points of interests, then parks, schools shopping centers and town centers. Later I thought that including bike paths would bring more people to the website, which it did. The map grew and developed into what it is today. I don't know where it's going to go next.

Q: Any idea how many visits your site gets?

A: Just over 7000 people visit njbikemap.com every month, downloading over 12,000 maps during the summer months. Since 2002, there are over 800,000 maps downloaded.