True bipartisanship is often displayed in legislation that mundanely and routinely affects the lives of all citizens. In 1984, when President Reagan signed the “21 Law” linking a legal drinking age of 21 with federal highway subsidies, Reagan’s economic and foreign policies were under fire – but the de facto elevation of the drinking age passed easily in the House and Senate.
Now, 25 years since most states raised their drinking age to 21, another bipartisan movement aims to reduce our nation’s drinking age to 18, on par with most Western countries. Among dozens of universities advocating a more reasonable legal limit, even Morris Chafetz, one of the experts who initially recommended a limit of 21 has recanted and now says our youths should be able to legally drink legally at 18. If only academics, scientific experts, youths, Republicans and Democrats could agree on health care, foreign policy and the economy – what a country we would live in.
In principle, a drinking age of 21 is inconsistent with the other freedoms young citizens enjoy – and obligations they are expected to shoulder. Prior to the 1960s, states generally set their legal limit at 21; with Vietnam, and a reduction in the voting age to 18, most states began allowing youths to drink at 18. Forty years ago, states recognized the hypocrisy of being able to participate in democracy, die for your country and operate heavy machinery all without being legally able to buy a beer.
But principles are not necessarily drivers of political change. Failed policies are. A look at any college in the country and even drinking patterns in most American households shows that a legal drinking age of 21 is woefully out of touch with how most young people live their lives. Just look at our own campus – freshmen might not be able to buy beer or even drink in dorms, but legally-enforced sobriety is certainly not one of the problems they face on an average Friday or Saturday night. Instead they swarm like locusts from one party to the next, huddle around kegs they cannot legally buy and drink as much as possible before the party runs dry. This cannot be what Mothers Against Drunk Driving had in mind.
The truth is, as a nation we should expect and demand that the laws we live under are pragmatic – like few other things, getting around underage drinking laws proves the adage “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Laws aimed at ensuring the public safety by reducing drunk driving fatalities have failed. Worse, they fuel an underground industry of fake ID distribution; getting caught by the police drinking is one thing, but anti-terror laws makes getting caught with a fake ID dicey. America’s young people, like most young people in history, have drunk, drink and will continue to drink so long as social interactions and alcohol tend to go together. It is no coincidence that the oldest pubs at Oxford University coincide with the beginnings of the university.
Go to most other countries in the Western world and one finds a healthier attitude toward drinking. People tend to know their limits before they get to college or begin living on their own. In Germany, the law is staggered to introduce youths to different kinds of alcohol over time (one can buy beer at 16 and other types of liquor at 18).
Perhaps this is the sort of approach our country ought to try. Certainly Georgetown should be supportive of reasonable changes rather than turning a blind eye to what it cannot control. Any law that the majority of citizens from 18 to 21 years old break several times a week is not worth holding onto.
Adam Kemal is a senior in the College. He can be reached at kemalthehoya.com. It’s A Long Way to Tipperary appears every other Monday at www.thehoya.com.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinionthehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.“
