Consider for a minute how many days you’ve lived. There was Tuesday where you got tacos with your cousin, last Sunday when you saw the new Avengers movie, two years ago when you tried pickles for the first time, and today where you’re reading this Op-Ed. And on each of these days, eight U.S. teens died from a drunk driving incident. That is a lot of days, and a lot of children. Our parents have always lobbied for safer driving education, for strict laws, and for more awareness. But it is time that we teens acknowledge this epidemic and begin to take action. As a graduating senior, I am reaching the close of my time in high school and am able to reflect on my peer’s general attitude toward safety education. To most teens, teaching us about drunk driving is something adults just “do” — a compulsory caution similar to waiting to swim after lunch or eating leafy greens. But drinking and driving is a gravely serious problem, and it is time adolescents treat it as such.
It is true that people over 21 can drink and drive, but adolescents are much more inclined to participate in risky behaviors. Robert M. Sapolsky is a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University. Sapolsky covers a myriad of neurobiology basics, including adolescent development. You can watch his more in-depth talk at Case Western Reserve University through the above link. In his book, Behave, Sapolsky explains that when assessing a risky situation, “adolescents activate the prefrontal cortex less than do adults; the less activity, the poorer the risk assessment.” This means that teens may have a more difficult time driving safely in general, much less when under the influence. As if that wasn’t enough, we also may be more likely to put ourselves in those dangerous situations, because of what Sapolsky describes as, “an age difference in the sensations sought — adolescents are tempted to bungee jump; adults are tempted to cheat on their low salt diets.”(Sapolsky, 161) So teens are seeking dangerous situations, and then making bad choices once in them. This creates a perfect storm for binge drinking and driving. We go out looking for a dangerous sensation, find it in drinking, then are impaired enough to drive, and with lowered risk assessment are even more likely to cause an accident.
For this reason, maintaining 21 as the minimum legal drinking age (or MLDA 21) is necessary. Currently, the federal MLDA specifies that at 21 individuals may purchase alcoholic beverages. But this is a complicated law with an interesting history. The mid-1930s brought the end of Prohibition in America, and most states adopted an MLDA of 21. This stayed true until the first half of the 1970s, when many states lowered their ages to 18, 19, and 20. But in 1984 the 21 MLDA became a federal law, and has been since. However, this applies only to purchase — possession and consumption laws are still left up to the state to determine. For example; in Connecticut, though underage possession is illegal, minors may consume alcohol with the permission and supervision of their overage guardian or spouse.
Many young adults support a lower drinking age. In fact, the drop in MLDAs in the 1970s was largely attributed to an increased in the younger voting demographic. It’s a common sentiment that because 18 year olds have reached the legal age of majority, we are entitled to alcohol purchases as well. Now, this might make sense; if 18 year olds can smoke, buy a house, and join the military, why can’t they drink? The issue begins where the actions individuals take don’t only affect themselves, but put their communities in danger. Me choosing to buy and smoke a cigarette won’t immediately put everyone around me in harm. But drinking and driving makes every person on the road with me a potential victim.
Now let’s talk about international laws. European drinking ages of 18 and even 16 are such a stark contrast to United States law. But each country has to pass laws that work best for its citizens. What works for Germany won’t necessarily work for us. It’s true that many countries with low drunk driving fatalities also have low MLDAs. But they also may have less of a driving culture, where intoxicated people tend to walk home or take a bus. Or they may have a culture of moderation and consistent drinking rather than bingeing. In fact, this study by the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management found that drinking experience was a surprisingly influential factor in traffic fatalities. (Asch) So with all of these confounding variables, it’s difficult to apply results from one country to another. This is why it is so important to look at that time from 1970 to 1984, when some states had lower drinking ages. Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Operations Research Center examined data from 1969 to 1973 when the Massachusetts MLDA was 18. They found that, “accident rates among 18–20 year olds did increase significantly — about 40% for involvement in fatalities.” (Cucchiaro, 1974) So when adolescents could drink legally, they were more likely to perish in a traffic incident. In that ten-year stretch with variable MLDAs, traffic infractions and deaths due to drunk driving spiked in many states, not just Massachusetts. As we can see, the minimum drinking age is an incredibly complex law, but its benefits for the specific culture of the United States are undeniable.
There’s more we can do to prevent drunk driving than changing the law. Legality is often not a strong enough deterrent for preventing certain behaviors. What we need is a cultural change. Teens most definitely do drink. You can see in the graph above that for both males and females, about 20% of adolescents reported drinking in a one-month period. Drinking satisfies that risk-seeking behavior that Sapolsky explained, and I believe it will always be popular among youths. But driving drunk is an unnecessary addition, and I hope a good target for education. I propose we enact this cultural change by putting kids themselves in charge of anti-drunk driving education. I believe that when we take on a point of view, imposed or not, and have to present it to an audience, it will be better engrained in our memories. So if we were to have high school students teach, for example, middle schoolers a session on the dangers of drunk driving, we could kill two birds with one stone. Middle schoolers looking up to the cool high schoolers are persuaded to pay attention and high schoolers have to do the research themselves, strengthening their understanding of the topic.
Teen drunk driving is often an issue seen as irreparable. But I think that any effort to mitigate these unnecessary fatalities is well worthwhile. It is true that legislation is a great tool in tackling drunk driving — the United State’s MLDA of 21 has been incredibly useful. However, we cannot stop there. As teens, changing the way we see and talk about driving under the influence has the power to save lives.
Works Cited
Asch, Peter, and David T. Levy. “Does the Minimum Drinking Age Affect Traffic Fatalities?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 6, no. 2, 1987, pp. 180–92. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3324514. Accessed 13 May 2022.
Cucchiaro S, Ferreira J, Jr, Sicherman A. The Effect of the 18-Year-Old Drinking Age on Auto Accidents. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Operations Research Center; 1974.
Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky Explains How Adolescent Brains Are Wired — and So Much More. Narrated by Robert Sapolsky. Ideastream Public Media, www.ideastream.org/neuroscientist-robert-sapolsky-explains-how-adolescent-brains-are-wired-and-so-much-more. Accessed 26 May 2022.
Sapolsky, Robert M. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York City, Penguin Books, 2018.
“21 Is the Legal Drinking Age.” Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, United States Government, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6876521/. Accessed 22 May 2022.
“Underage Drinking.” National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/underage-drinking. Accessed 26 May 2022.
United States, Executive Office of the President [George W. Bush]. Executive Order 2003-R-0730: State Law Concerning Liquor and Minors. Oct. 2003. Code of Federal Regulations, vol. 3. Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries, www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/liquor.htm. Accessed 22 May 2022.
