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.