The proposal to lower the U.S. minimum drinking age from 21 to 18 may be, in the words of New Hampshire State Liquor Commissioner John Byrne -- a "third rail." But that doesn't mean that many alcohol sellers, and perhaps some state liquor officials, wouldn't like to see it happen.

A June 7 panel discussion at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators featured a spirited discussion of whether 21, 18, or something in-between constitutes "An Appropriate Legal Drinking Age." Byrne introduced the panel by noting that lawmakers in New Hampshire and Wisconsin have recently proposed lowering the drinking age to 18 for members of the U.S. military, arguing that those old enough to fight and die should be able to legally buy a drink -- an argument Byrne described as "deja vu all over again."

Like this story? Get more by e-mail
Sign up for free daily or weekly updates

Join Together Director David Rosenbloom, the sole public-health representative on the panel, said that research has shown that the older children are when they begin drinking, the less likely they are to have alcohol problems later in life. "There's no evidence that alcohol is good for kids," said Rosenbloom. "We know lowering the drinking age will increase drinking and lead to bad outcomes for at least some kids. We know the current law is saving lives each year."

Since the national age-21 law went into effect, he added, youth alcohol consumption has declined, traffic crashes are down, and the age of first alcohol use is up slightly. By contrast, Rosenbloom said, alcohol-related crashes increased when New Zealand recently lowered its legal drinking age from 20 to 18. He said the bottom-line question in the age-21 debate should be, "Why do we want to increase teen drinking?"

Pete Madland, executive director of the Tavern League of Wisconsin, replied that youth are drinking anyway, and that lowering the drinking age would decrease the dangers associated with alcohol consumption. "Nobody is looking to increase the number of youth drinking," he said. "We're looking to increase the number of youths drinking responsibly."

Parents, said Madland, would prefer that teens who drink "do it in a controlled setting like a bar or tavern, not doing 21 shots out in a cornfield." Rosenbloom called the idea of a supervised setting "a bit naive."

Madland said the current age-21 law is "creating a lot of criminals" among youth, adding: "There's not one [bar owner] I know of who is trying to make a living serving underage kids." Rather, he blamed police for not prosecuting youth who use fake IDs.

Addressing the issue of underage drinking on college campuses, Rosenbloom said that a college/community coalition is needed to jointly develop policies, along with leadership from the top ranks of the college administration to address issues like social norms and law-enforcement. Madland, however, said that when bars around the University of Madison agreed to voluntarily end Happy Hours and drink specials, they were sued for price-fixing, costing them $480,000 in legal fees. "We tried to do the right thing, and it bit us," he said.

A number of speakers at the conference expressed interest in a proposal from alcohol-industry lobbyists to establish a "learner's permit" for drinkers under age 21. "I think it is a sin that the government can pick and choose when you are an adult," said Madland.

But Rosenbloom pointed out that research has shown that the adolescent brain is still growing at age 18, and does not finish developing much before age 21, possibly making youth more susceptible to addiction.

In closing, speakers noted that all debate aside, states are unlikely to change their drinking age as long as the federal government penalizes states that don't adopt the age-21 standard by withholding 10 percent of their federal highway funds -- a fact that makes any attempt to lower the drinking age "politically unfeasible," said Byrne.