At this very moment, I can register to defend our nation in far-flung corners of the world. I can help elect a President, get married or even buy a handgun. I can kill myself with cigarettes or Snickers bars or Tylenol. I can jump out of a bridge with only a rubber band to save me.
One thing that I may not do, however -- under threat of imprisonment -- is to drink a beer while I write this column. Does that seem ridiculous to anybody else?
America's war on underage drinking is fundamentally flawed. The current laws are arbitrary, both in design and in enforcement. Even more troubling, these laws seem to forget the underlying purpose of outlawing underage drinking -- protecting the welfare of society.
A fixed drinking age is, by its very design, arbitrary. While numerous factors -- including physical and emotional health to criminal background -- may play a role in how responsibly one will likely be in using alcohol, the law singles out age as the only meaningful determinant. A more flexible drinking age that took into account all of these relevant characteristics would probably yield better results.
For instance, age qualifications alone are not the only determinant factors used in areas, such as driving. To qualify for a license, individuals must meet the age requirement and pass a driving test. A similar licensing process could be instated as a prerequisite for all drinkers. In addition, a young person's arrest record, particularly with respect to abuse of other substances, could be factored into the decision. Of course, the subjectivity and bureaucracy that would be required to implement a system like this could possibly outweigh the benefits.
The law's usefulness is further undermined by the inconsistent manner in which they are enforced. First of all, policies and strictness vary from area to area. Without a consistent national code governing alcohol laws, teenagers are often left confused and distrustful of the responsible authorities. Moreover, enforcement may vary a great deal in a single jurisdiction, on a case-by-case basis. Occasionally, this treatment gives rise to accusations of unequal treatment given to teens depending on their race, socioeconomic status or appearance.
And underage alcohol use is so prevalent that enforcement cannot possibly hope to keep up. Prosecuting every incidence of underage alcohol use would overwhelm an already strained justice system. When such a small portion of incidents are actually prosecuted, the deterrence effect of the laws are seriously undermined.
To me, however, criticism of the poor design and enforcement of the present laws misses a more fundamental point -- alcohol use should not be illegal for those under the age of 21. Drinking, in and of itself, is a victimless "crime." True, the drinker himself may suffer some negative physical consequences. If he makes an informed decision, which involves a risk to himself, however, the government has no reason interfere. The law is not designed to protect individuals from their own decisions. If we allow the government to make such decisions for us, we walk down a slippery slope.
When an individual's drinking infringes on the rights of others, however, the law must step in. For instance, drunk driving risks the lives of everyone else on the road, and therefore must be severely punished. So too must fighting, rape, property damage and other consequences that sometimes occur as a result of drinking.
The implications of this are simple, yet so often overlooked. An individual, drinking in the privacy of his own home, should not be considered a criminal even if he is under age 21. Conversely, anybody jeopardizing the safety of other drivers by driving under the influence should be prosecuted, regardless of age. The key is not to focus on the consumption of alcohol, but the actual behavior that puts others at risk. Freed from having to monitor and prosecute underage kids in possession of alcohol, police and liquor control officers could focus more effort on these situations where citizens are actually inflicting harm upon others.
This culturally reinforced belief that drinking is in itself dangerous and amoral encourages the "forbidden fruit" appeal of alcohol. Without a socially acceptable outlet for experimenting with alcohol -- for instance, at a bar or with their families -- teenagers try to take full advantage of their rare opportunities to drink. Students binge drink, steal alcohol, create fake IDs and engage in other risky behavior because more conventional ways of experimenting have been prohibited. At Penn, the drive to reduce and monitor on-campus drinking has merely pushed alcohol use into unregulated off-campus parties and private dorm rooms.
Perhaps we should look at countries with more permissive attitudes towards drinking as examples of how responsible drinking can be developed. In Europe, for instance, children often begin drinking with their parents at very young ages, yet the U.S. still has higher alcoholism rates. In Canada, the more reasonable 18-year-old drinking age allows students to try drinking while still at home in a controlled situation. Conversely, many U.S. students, with less exposure to drinking while still living with their families, go wild as soon as they taste the freedom of college.
Keeping the U.S. drinking age at 21 has been a disaster. Underage students still use and abuse alcohol as much as ever, if not more so. The government wastes money and manpower fighting victimless crimes, while overextending its influence by enforcing its own beliefs on to what should be a personal choice. The time has come for America to reexamine our current laws and decriminalize drinking.
