do you think the drinking age should be lowered essay

• Skip to Content
• Skip to Main Navigation
• Skip to Search

Indiana University Indiana University IU

• Bizarre Medicine
• Health and Medicine Through History
• Conversations in the Abbey, VOL II
• The Field Hospital That Never Was
• Unseen Upton Sinclair
• Conversations in the Abbey
• The Eugenics Movement
• The Progressive Era's Health Reform Movement: A Historical Dictionary (2003)
• Clean Living Movements
• Alcohol and Other Drugs: Self Responsibility
• Controversies in the Addiction Field Sample
• Women: Alcohol and Other Drugs
• More books...
• Original Face Validity and Reliability
• Calculations and Scoring Criteria for the SAQ
• Updated reliability article for SAQ
• Calculations for Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire
• Reliability Article for Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire
• Australian and UK Expanded Version of SAQ
• Reliability Article for Health Concern Questionnaire
• More questionnaires...
• Eugenics, Immigration Restriction and the Birth Control Movements

Why the drinking age should be lowered

• Drinking Patterns and Problems of a National Sample of College Students
• Forbidden Fruit
• Cycles of Social Reform
• Western European Drinking Practices
• Protestants and Catholics
• Drinking games
• Influence of religion and culture
• The Drinking Behaviors - China
• Calculations and Scoring for the Australian and UK SAQ
• Stalking the Determinants of Behavior
• More Works on IUScholarWorks

Alcohol Research and Health History

Why the drinking age should be lowered: an opinion based upon research.

Engs, Ruth C. (1997, 2014). “Why the drinking age should be lowered: An opinion based upon research. Indiana University: Bloomington, IN. Adapted from: IUScholarWorks Repository:  http://hdl.handle.net/2022/17594

The legal drinking age should be lowered to about 18 or 19 and young adults allowed to drink in controlled environments such as restaurants, taverns, pubs and official school and university functions. In these situations responsible drinking could be taught through role modeling and educational programs. Mature and sensible drinking behavior would be expected. This opinion is based upon research that I have been involved in for over thirty years concerning college age youth and the history of drinking in the United States and other cultures.

Although the legal purchase age is 21 years of age, a majority of college students under this age consume alcohol but in an irresponsible manner. This is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of "adulthood." As a nation we have tried prohibition legislation twice in the past for controlling irresponsible drinking problems. This was during National Prohibition in the 1920s and state prohibition during the 1850s. These laws were finally repealed because they were unenforceable and because the backlash towards them caused other social problems. Today we are repeating history and making the same mistakes that occurred in the past. Prohibition did not work then and prohibition for young people under the age of 21 is not working now.

The flaunting of the current laws is readily seen among university students. Those under the age of 21 are more likely to be heavy -- sometimes called "binge" -- drinkers (consuming over 5 drinks at least once a week). For example, 22% of all students under 21 compared to 18% over 21 years of age are heavy drinkers. Among drinkers only, 32% of under-age compared to 24% of legal age are heavy drinkers.

Research from the early 1980s until the present has shown a continuous decrease, and then leveling off, in drinking and driving related variables which has parallel the nation's, and also university students, decrease in per capita consumption. However, these declines started in 1980 before the national 1987 law which mandated states to have 21 year old alcohol purchase laws.

The decrease in drinking and driving problems are the result of many factors and not just the rise in purchase age or the decreased per capita consumption. These include: education concerning drunk driving, designated driver programs, increased seat belt and air bag usage, safer automobiles, lower speed limits, free taxi services from drinking establishments, etc.

While there has been a decrease in per capita consumption and motor vehicle crashes, unfortunately, during this same time period there was an INCREASE in other problems related to heavy and irresponsible drinking among college age youth. Most of these reported behaviors showed little change until AFTER the 21 year old law in 1987. For example from 1982 until 1987 about 46% of students reported "vomiting after drinking." This jumped to over 50% after the law change. Significant increase were also found for other variables: "cutting class after drinking" jumped from 9% to almost 12%; "missing class because of hangover" went from 26% to 28%; "getting lower grade because of drinking" rose from 5% to 7%; and "been in a fight after drinking" increased from 12% to 17%. All of these behaviors are indices of irresponsible drinking. This increase in abusive drinking behavior is due to "underground drinking" outside of adult supervision in student rooms, houses, and apartments where same age individuals congregate. The irresponsible behavior is exhibited because of lack of knowledge of responsible drinking behaviors, reactance motivation (rebellion against the law), or student sub-culture norms.

Beginning in the first decade of the 21st century, distilled spirits [hard liquor] began to be the beverage of choice rather than beer among collegians. Previously beer had been the beverage of choice among students. A 2013 study of nursing students, for example, revealed that they consumed an average of 4.3 shots of liquor compared to 2.6 glasses of beer on a weekly basis.

This change in beverage choice along with irresponsible drinking patterns among young collegians has led to increased incidences of alcohol toxicity - in some cases leading to death from alcohol poisoning. However, the percent of students who consume alcohol or are heavy or binge drinkers has been relatively stable for the past 30 years.

Based upon the fact that our current prohibition laws are not working, the need for alternative approaches from the experience of other, and more ancient cultures, who do not have these problems need to be tried. Groups such as Italians, Greeks, Chinese and Jews, who have few drinking related problems, tend to share some common characteristics. Alcohol is neither seen as a poison or a magic potent, there is little or no social pressure to drink, irresponsible behavior is never tolerated, young people learn at home from their parents and from other adults how to handle alcohol in a responsible manner, there is societal consensus on what constitutes responsible drinking. Because the 21 year old drinking age law is not working, and is counterproductive, it behooves us as a nation to change our current prohibition law and to teach responsible drinking techniques for those who chose to consume alcoholic beverages.

Research articles that support this opinion are found in the Indiana University Repository at: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/17133/browse?type=title

and https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/17130/browse?type=title

Some material here also used in: Engs, Ruth C. "Should the drinking age be lowered to 18 or 19." In Karen Scrivo, "Drinking on Campus," CQ Researcher 8 (March 20,1998):257.

Alcohol Research and Health History resources

(c) Copyright, 1975-2024. Ruth C. Engs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405

The New York Times

The learning network | should the drinking age be lowered.

Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered?

Questions about issues in the news for students 13 and older.

• See all Student Opinion »

Many states lowered the drinking age to 18 or 19 in the early 1970s, around the same time as the passage of the 26th Amendment granting 18-year-olds the right to vote. But then all 50 states raised it again to 21 when Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act — for fear of losing a portion of federal highway money. But does a uniform drinking age of 21 work?

Should the drinking age be lowered?

Room for Debate asks the same question in “ You Must Be 21 to Drink .”

Gabrielle Glaser, the author of “Her Best-Kept Secret: Why Women Drink — and How They Can Regain Control,” writes in favor of returning the drinking age to 18 :

Return the drinking age to 18 — and then enforce the law. The current system, which forbids alcohol to Americans under 21, is widely flouted, with disastrous consequences. Teaching people to drink responsibly before they turn 21 would enormously enhance public health. Now, high school and college kids view dangerous binge drinking as a rite of passage. The current law, passed in all 50 states in the 1980s, was intended to diminish the number of traffic deaths caused by young drunk drivers. It has succeeded in that — but tougher seatbelt and D.U.I. rules have contributed to the decrease, too. Raising the drinking age hasn’t reduced drinking — it’s merely driven it underground, to the riskiest of settings: unsupervised high school blowouts and fraternity parties that make “Animal House” look quaint. This age segregation leads the drinking away from adults, who could model moderation. The roots of this extreme drinking lie in our own history. Prohibition, which banned most alcohol in the United States from 1920 to 1933, normalized the frenzied sort of drinking that occurs today at college parties. In speakeasies and blind pigs, the goal was to drink as much and as soon as possible, because you never knew when the feds would show up. Today’s law, likewise, encourages young people to dodge the system. Like Prohibition — and abstinence-only sex education — it’s been a dismal failure.

Tamika C. B. Zapolski, an assistant professor of psychology at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, argues in favor of keeping the drinking age high :

Alcohol use in the United States is a serious public health concern, particularly among teenagers and young adults. Recent results from a national survey found that by eighth grade, approximately 27 percent had used alcohol, which increased to 66 percent by 12th grade. Additionally, a second national survey indicated that among high school seniors, about 20 percent binge drank, consuming more than 5 drinks in one occasion, during the two-week period preceding the survey. Heavy drinking is associated with negative social, mental and physical health outcomes — including risk of violent behavior, sexual assault, accidents that cause injury, additional drug use, poor academics, legal troubles, and family and interpersonal problems. Those most likely to experience harm from heavy drinking are young people, particularly those of college age. Thus lowering the drinking age would be harmful in two ways. First, young people, those most likely to be harmed from drinking, will have greater access to alcohol. Second, lowering the drinking age may lead to lowered perception of risk. When perception of risk from a particular substance decreases, prevalence rates tend to increase.

Students: Read the Room for Debate feature, then tell us …

— Should the drinking age be lowered? Why?

— Does a higher drinking age encourage binge drinking , as alcohol is now forbidden for young people under 21?

— If Americans are old enough to vote and join the military at the age of 18, should they be allowed to decide if they want to drink?

— Or do you think alcohol is such a dangerous substance, especially when abused, that it should continue to be prohibited for those under 21? And does keeping a high drinking age save lives by decreasing drunken-driving fatalities ?

— Would lowering the drinking age send the wrong signal to young people, that drinking is not inherently risky?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment below. Please use only your first name. For privacy policy reasons, we will not publish student comments that include a last name.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

I agree with the law of U.S.A is correctly because is for protection by all citizen of the country, because sometimes the young people specific under 21 years no have a lot responsabilities and no thinking in others when they drink, and cause accidents fatalities for people innocent.

It is dangerous drink a lot alcohol, this is clear but that situation have long time, must the young people like to drink, people around the world drink before 18 year. if you love yourself don’t abuse to anything in the life. ” health body is health life” so be careful.

due to favorable benefits has had the law not to allow the youth of 18 -19 to consume alcoholic beverages for security reasons both health and prevention in terms of accidents or Automobile sales intoxication ,I’m totally agree with the law not to allow alcohol to under 21.I’m totally agree that the law continue preventing alcohol exes.

The should the drinking age can not be lowered. Because some time people the 18 age don’t have control when take alcohol. and have a bat behavior

I consider young people it is more dangerous to drink under 21 years. Because drink a lot of its considered a negative social include violent and addiction .I agree in unite state drink in public is considered a health concern than other country’s. people under 21 need way to be a 21 years for can drinks . Who drinks before 21 has a penalty for broken the roles.

I think alcohol for age lowered is bad and dangerous because teenager don’t have a control when drink almost teenager drive because have permission for the families but sometime teenager drink alcohol and driving with alcohol and but this some accident in the road . teenager can not use alcohol because they can control when their drink… is better if they have 21 because they are responsible because I agree with the new rule of new York state .

I agree that idea, because the teenagers think they have the control on everything. If in this country law was lowered drinking age will happen more accident. A good example is happening in Spain. Most students from many countries go to Spain because there is lowered drinking age 18. But the people who are living there complain all time about this situation,.

I thing the young people should be more aware drinking is not a game and must wait for the right age to drink alcohol without hurry. perhaps should also expect the age of 21 for young peoples can join the military force or army so they do no feel entitled to take drinking early

I agree what not can drink because the teenagers can’t measure the consequents about the alcohol in they brain and body not could react in a situation. Each person is conscious is aware of what makes not matter if is under 21 or not whe a person want drink , but is good always create awareness about the consequents the drink alcohol. In USA the teenagers are minor only for drink , whe needs some people for military in this moment anyone is under 21.

l think young under 21 shouldn’t’ drink because sometimes they don’t see the consequences , more accident can happen for example: I was 18 I had different mind ,different opinion is ok when you are 21 you decide to go military service but alcohol is dangerous subtance

I agree with this article because the drinking age it should be lowered. Many young people drink and drive so that can be impossible, they can have an accident. They can drink when they return 21, but moderately and not drive when they are drinking. You can have fun without the alcohol.

About the article I think is dangerous, because they are not prepared. I think the effects to be bad and they will have no control over what might happen and would not be good for health. I think at 21 years themselves can be responsible for their actions

In my opinion wee see the big problem about the binge drinking in the teenager ,when you are teenager your bobby make changes ,if you drink your brain not going to work ,in my opinion alcohol it’s a big problem today because we have to much commercial in the TV about alcohol that’s make change in the mentality of the teenager that’s why we have to much alcoholic people today for resolve this problem the authority need to take care about this.

I disagree that the age be lowered, they can to continue to be prohibited for those under 21 or more because some of them are 21 years old but aren’t mature and irresponsible, in the stores they can to forbid the sale of more than one bottle of alcohol for each one.

think the age for alcohol consumption should not be reduced because young people are less likely to develop disruptive behavior due to alcohol include excessive drinking, can see that while younger are more young people are eceden to drink more alcohol and their behavior has to have more impact on the health and safety of young himself, including damage to his conduct, risk of death and increased risk of involvement in acts of violence and contracting contagious diseases. Why WHILE higher the drinking age youth can go to learn to control themselves because they can look at others asbehave blame alcohol

I will disagree, if the government decided to lower the age to use alcohol. Young men between ( 16 & 21 years old ) does something, like they are unaware and everyone know what alcohol cause to people. when i was doing my five hours class before i got my appointment for the test. Our teacher, let us watched a movie,

I disagree because a lot of young people die for drink , so many youngers don’t have conscience and they die in accidents they only want to have fun and that’s it but they don’t think in the problem in the future , the best age for drink for me is 23 but everything is depend .

I think that the articulate is very important for all persons and specially the young people who drink heavily. the young people abuse of you body because not only consume alcohol bot also drugs. Adults have the right to monitor the movements of young people, so that you do not pass any problem, it is the best.

I think they should not the drinking age be lowered, first of all because is no good for health and teenagers are more vulnerable to do mistakes and get more easily persuade for friends to do bad things, including legal troubles like drive a car after they drink alcohol, somebody can be abused more easily when they are drinking alcohol, poor academics and family problems.

I disagree, because if some adults don’t have control when are drinking the young people less because they want to experiment new thing, they don’t have sufficient maturity that is why they have binge drinking. In this time the young don’t respect their parents and anything, the parents loss the control, is necessary the young people drink when they have 21 years old in that time they have more responsible about their live.

I disagree, because someone might be crazy enough to dare someone to drink beer then get in the car to drive. Then you wouldn’t get in trouble if the limit is lowered plus someone could get seriously hurt or killed.

I think the drinking age shouldnt be lowered because people will start to get out of control and put their life and possibly others in danger. Now, if you get caught drinking under the age of 21, then you will get a consequence. They made it the age 21 for a reason. But, if they change the age to 18 or 19 then somebody will get hurt.

i don’t think it should be lowered because younger people may not know how control their alcohol and it would increase accidents and other tragedies.

No the drinking age should not be lowered because Recent results from a national survey found that by eighth grade, approximately 27 percent had used alcohol, which increased to 66 percent by 12th grade. Additionally, a second national survey indicated that among high school seniors, about 20 percent binge drank, consuming more than 5 drinks in one occasion, during the two-week period preceding the survey, this is bad because heavy drinking is associated with negative social, mental and physical health outcomes including risk of violent behavior, sexual assault, accidents that cause injury, additional drug use, poor academics, legal troubles, and family and interpersonal problems. When young people drink it could mess up their brains and they could possibly die. That is why we should not lower the age for drinking. The age 21 is fine.

+I think the drinking age should not be lowered as that many consequences can be developed and also occur. This can effect the growth and life of the teen and early adult.

What's Next

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Public Health

In summer 2008, more than 100 college presidents and other higher education officials signed the Amethyst Initiative, which calls for a reexamination of the minimum legal drinking age in the United States. The current age-21 limit in the United States is higher than in Canada (18 or 19, depending on the province), Mexico (18), and most western European countries (typically 16 or 18). A central argument of the Amethyst Initiative is that the U.S. minimum legal drinking age policy results in more dangerous drinking than would occur if the legal drinking age were lower. A companion organization called Choose Responsibility—led in part by Amethyst Initiative founder John McCardell, former Middlebury College president—explicitly proposes “a series of changes that will allow 18–20 year-olds to purchase, possess and consume alcoholic beverages” (see 〈 http://www.choose responsibility.org/proposal/ 〉).

Fueled in part by the high-profile national media attention garnered by the Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility, activists and policymakers in several states, including Kentucky, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Missouri, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Vermont, have put forth various legislative proposals to lower their state's drinking age from 21 to 18, though no state has adopted a lower minimum legal drinking age yet.

Does the age-21 drinking limit in the United States reduce alcohol consumption by young adults and its harms, or as the signatories of the Amethyst Initiative contend, is it “not working”? Alcohol consumption and its harms are extremely common among young adults. According to results from the 2006–2007 National Health Interview Survey, adults age 18–25 report that on average they drank on 36 days in the previous year and typically consumed 5.1 drinks on the days they drank. If consumed at a single sitting, five drinks meets the clinical definition of “binge” or “heavy episodic” drinking. This consumption contributes to a substantial public health problem: five drinks for a 160-pound man with a limited time between drinks leads to a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.12 percent and results in moderate to severe impairments in coordination, concentration, reflexes, reaction time, depth perception, and peripheral vision. For comparison, the legal limit for driving in the United States is generally 0.08 percent blood alcohol content. Not surprisingly, motor vehicle accidents (the leading cause of death and injury in this age group), homicides, suicides, falls, and other accidents are all strongly associated with alcohol consumption ( Bonnie and O'Connell, 2004 ). Because around 80 percent of deaths among young adults are due to these “external” causes (as opposed to cancer, infectious disease, or other “internal” causes), policies that change the ways in and extent to which young people consume alcohol have the potential to affect the mortality rate of this population substantially.

In this paper, we summarize a large and compelling body of empirical evidence which shows that one of the central claims of the signatories of the Amethyst Initiative is incorrect: setting the minimum legal drinking age at 21 clearly reduces alcohol consumption and its major harms. However, this finding alone is not a sufficient justification for the current minimum legal drinking age, in part because it does not take into account the benefits of alcohol consumption. To put it another way, it is likely that restricting the alcohol consumption of people in their late 20s (or even older) would also reduce alcohol-related harms at least modestly. However, given the much lower rate at which adults in this age group experience alcohol-related harms, their utility from drinking likely outweighs the associated costs. Thus, when considering at what age to set the minimum legal drinking age, we need to determine if the reduction in alcohol-related harms justifies the reduction in consumer surplus that results from preventing people from consuming alcohol.

We begin this paper by examining the case for government intervention targeting the alcohol consumption of young adults. We develop an analytic framework to identify the parameters that are required to compare candidate ages at which to set the minimum legal drinking age. Next, we discuss the challenges inherent in estimating the effects of the minimum legal drinking age and describe what we believe are the two most compelling approaches to address these challenges: a panel fixed-effects approach and a regression discontinuity approach. We present estimates of the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on mortality from these two designs, and we also discuss what is known about the relationship between the minimum legal drinking age and other adverse outcomes such as nonfatal injury and crime. We then document the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol consumption, which lets us estimate the costs of adverse alcohol-related events on a per-drink basis. Finally we return to the analytic framework and use it to determine what the empirical evidence suggests is the correct age at which to set the minimum legal drinking age.

Economic Economic Considerations for Determining the Optimal Minimum Legal Drinking Age

Alcohol consumption by young adults results in numerous harms including deaths, injuries, commission of crime, criminal victimization, risky sexual behavior, and reduced workforce productivity. A substantial portion of these harms are either directly imposed on other individuals (as is the case with crime) or largely transferred to society as a whole through insurance markets as is the case with injuries ( Phelps, 1988 ). In addition, there is the theoretical possibility (supported by laboratory evidence) that youths may discount future utility too heavily, underestimate the future harm of their current behavior, and/or mispredict how they will feel about their choices in the future ( O'Donoghue and Rabin, 2001 ). If this is the case, even risks that are borne directly by the drinker are not being fully taken into account when an individual is deciding how much alcohol to consume. Given that young adults are imposing costs on others and probably not fully taking into account their own cost of alcohol consumption, there is a case for government intervention targeting their alcohol consumption. The minimum legal drinking age represents one approach to reducing drinking by young adults. 1

Determining the optimal age at which to set the minimum legal drinking age requires estimates of the loss in consumer surplus that results from reducing peoples' alcohol consumption. It also requires estimating the benefits to the drinker and to others from reducing alcohol-related harms. Unfortunately, it is not possible to obtain credible estimates of these key parameters at every point in the age distribution. First, there are no credible estimates of the effects of drinking ages lower than 18 or higher than 21 because the minimum legal drinking age has not been set outside this range in a signififi cant portion of the United States since the 1930s, and the countries with current drinking ages outside this range look very different from the United States. In fact, as we describe in detail in the next section, even estimating the effects on adverse outcomes of a drinking age in the 18 to 21 range is challenging. Second, we lack good ways to estimate the consumer surplus loss that results from restricting drinking, a problem that has characterized the entire literature on optimal alcohol control and taxation (see Gruber, 2001 , for a general discussion).

Thus, rather than try to estimate the optimal age at which to set the minimum legal drinking age, we focus on an analysis that is more feasible and useful from a policy perspective. The drinking age in the United States is currently 21, and there is no push to raise it. If it is lowered, there are many reasons to believe it will most likely be lowered to 18. First, the primary effort by activists for a lower drinking age is to lower the age to 18, either on its own or in conjunction with other alcoholcontrol initiatives such as education programs. In fact, 18 was the most commonly chosen age among the states that adopted lower minimum legal drinking ages in the 1970s. Second, 18 is the age of majority for other important activities such as voting, military service, and serving on juries, thus making it a natural focal point (though notably many states set different minimum ages for a variety of other activities such as driving, consenting to sexual activity, gambling, and purchasing handguns). Finally, many other countries have set their minimum legal drinking age at 18.

Because a change in the drinking age is likely to involve lowering it from 21 to 18, we focus on estimating the effect of lowering the drinking age by this amount on alcohol consumption, costs borne by the drinker, and costs borne by other people. Alcohol consumption can result in harms through many different channels. The effects of age-based drinking restrictions on long-term harms are very hard to estimate so we focus on the major acute harms that result from alcohol consumption including: deaths, nonfatal injuries, and crime. We pay particular attention to the effect of the drinking age on mortality because mortality is well-measured, has been the outcome focused on by much of the previous research on this topic, and is arguably the most costly of alcohol-related harms. To avoid the difficulty of trying to estimate the increase in consumer surplus that results from allowing people to drink, we estimate how much drinking is likely to increase if the drinking age is lowered from 21 to 18 and compare this to the likely increase in harms to the drinker and to other people. This allows us to characterize the harms in terms of dollars per drink. Since we are missing some of the acute harms and all of the long-term harms of alcohol consumption, the estimates we present in this paper are lower bounds of the costs associated with each drink.

Adding how much the drinker paid for the drink to the cost per drink borne by the drinker yields a lower bound on how much a person would have to value the drink for its consumption to be the result of a fully informed and rational choice. The per-drink cost borne by people other than the drinker provides a lower bound on the externality cost. If the externality cost is large or if the total cost of a drink (costs imposed on others plus costs the drinker bears privately plus the the price of the drink itself) is larger than what we believe the value of the drink is to the person consuming it, then this would suggest that the higher drinking age is justified.

The Evaluation Problem in the Context of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age

Determining how the minimum legal drinking age affects alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences is challenging. An extensive public health literature documents the strong correlation between alcohol consumption and adverse events, but estimates from these studies are of limited value for determining whether the minimum legal drinking age should be set at 18, 21, or some other age. Their main limitation is that the correlation between alcohol consumption and adverse events is probably due in part to factors other than alcohol consumption, such as variation across individuals in their tolerance for risk. People with a high tolerance for risk may be more likely both to drink heavily and to put themselves in danger in other ways, such as driving recklessly, even when they are sober. If this is the case, then predictions based on these correlations of how much public policy might reduce the harms of alcohol consumption will be biased upwards. Moreover, estimates of the average relationship between alcohol consumption and harms in the population may not be informative about the effects of the minimum legal drinking age, which probably disproportionately reduces drinking among the most law-abiding members of the population. This suggests that direct estimates of the effect of the drinking age on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms are needed if we are to compare the effects of different drinking ages.

Estimating the effects of the minimum legal drinking age requires comparing the alcohol consumption patterns and adverse event rates of young adults subject to the law with a similar group of young adults not subject to it. Since all young adults under age 21 in the United States are subject to the minimum legal drinking age, difficult to find a reasonable comparison group for this population. Because of cultural differences and different legal regimes, young adults in countries where the drinking age is lower than 21 are unlikely to constitute a good comparison group.

However, researchers working on this issue have identified two plausible comparison groups for 18 to 21 year-olds subject to the minimum legal drinking age. The first is composed of young people who were born just a few years earlier in the the same state (and who thus grew up in very similar circumstances) but who faced a lower legal drinking age due to changes in state drinking age policies. In the 1970s, 39 states lowered their minimum legal drinking age to 18, 19, or 20. These drinking age reductions were followed by increases in motor vehicle fatalities, which were documented by numerous researchers at the time (for a review, see Wagenaar and Toomey, 2002 ). This evidence led states to reconsider their decisions and encouraged aged Congress to adopt the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which required states to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21 or risk losing 10 percent of their federal highway funds. By 1990, every state had responded to the federal law by increasing its drinking age to 21. Thus, within the same state some youths were allowed to drink legally when they turned 18, while those born just a short time later had to wait until they turned 21. We use a fixed-effects panel approach to compare the alcohol consumption and adverse event rates of these two groups.

The second approach for identifying a credible comparison group is to consider a period when the minimum legal drinking age is 21 and compare people just under 21 who are still subject to the minimum legal drinking age with those just over 21 who can drink legally. These two groups of people are likely to be very similar, except that the slightly older group is not subject to the minimum legal drinking age. This approach is called a regression discontinuity design ( Thistlewaite and Campbell, 1960 ; Hahn, Todd, and Van der Klaauw, 2001 ). In the next two sections, we describe these two research designs in detail and how we use them to estimate the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on mortality.

Panel Estimates of the Effect of the Drinking Age on Mortality

The panel approach to estimating the effects of the minimum legal drinking age focuses on the changes in the drinking age that occurred in most states in the 1970s and 1980s. We begin by presenting graphical evidence in Figure 1 on the relationship between the drinking age and the incidence of fatal motor vehicle accidents. The data underlying the series in Figure 1 come from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System for 1975–1993 for the 39 states that lowered their drinking age during the 1970s and 1980s. In figure, we present the time series of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents among: 18–20 year-olds during nighttime (solid circles); 18–20 year-olds during daytime (dotted line with hollow squares); and 25–29 year-olds during nighttime (stars). The time series in the figure are centered on the month in which a state took its largest step towards raising its drinking age back to 21. The daytime/nighttime distinction is standard in the literature (for example, Ruhm, 1996 ; Dee, 1999 ) and is useful for understanding the effects of young adult alcohol consumption because the majority (67 percent) of fatal motor vehicle accidents occurring in the evening hours (defined here as between 8:00 p.m. and 5:59 a.m.) involve alcohol, while only about a quarter of fatal motor vehicle accidents occurring in the daytime hours involve alcohol.

Notes : This figure is estimated from the 39 states that lowered their drinking age to below 21 at some point in the 1970s or 1980s. A nighttime accident is one occurring between 8:00 p.m. and 5:59 a.m.; 67 percent of these accidents involved alcohol and 26 percent of daytime accidents involved alcohol. The figure is centered on the year a state took its largest step towards raising its drinking age back to 21.

We also plot the percent of 18–20 year-olds that can drink legally in the 39 states that experimented with a lower minimum legal drinking age. This line does not drop instantly from 100 to 0 percent because some states increased their drinking age from 18 to 19 and then from 19 to 21 a few years later, and other states allowed people who could drink legally when the drinking age was increased to continue drinking legally.

Figure 1 reveals that, in the seven years after the increase in the drinking age, there is a substantial reduction in deaths among 18–20 year-olds due to nighttime motor vehicle accidents and much smaller reductions in deaths of 18–20 year-olds due to daytime accidents and of 25–29 year-olds due to nighttime accidents. That the largest reduction in death rates occurs for the type of accident most likely to drop in response to an increase in the drinking age is consistent with the possibility that the increase in the drinking age reduced the motor vehicle fatality rates of 18–20 year-olds. However, the graphical evidence in favor of the hypothesis that increasing the drinking age reduced deaths is not fully compelling. First, the decline in deaths due to nighttime motor vehicle accidents among 18–20 year-olds is not as abrupt as the decline in the percent of this population that can drink legally. Second, as can be seen in the figure, the number of 18–20 year-olds that die in nighttime accidents was already declining before the drinking age was raised in most states. For this reason turn to a state-level panel data approach that allows us to adjust for trends and time-invariant differences across states and estimate the effect of the minimum legal drinking on mortality rates.

To obtain an estimate of the decline in mortality attributable to the drinking age, we implement a panel regression analysis of the following form:

where ( Y st ) is the number of motor vehicle fatalities per 100,000 person-years for one of four age groups: 15–17 year-olds, 18–20 year-olds (the group directly affected by changes in the drinking age), 21–24 year-olds, and 25–29 year-olds in state ( s ) in time period ( t ). For each age group, we separate daytime and nighttime motor vehicle fatality rates. As noted above, any effects of the minimum legal drinking age on motor vehicle fatalities should be primarily on evening accidents because they are much more likely to involve alcohol. The regressions include a dummy variable for each state (θ s ) to remove time-invariant differences between states and dummy variables for each year (μ t ) to absorb any atypical year-to-year variation. 2 In addition, the regression includes state-specific linear time trends (ψ st ). The inclusion of state-specific dummies in combination with the state-specific time trends mean that the regression will return estimates of how raising the drinking age changes the level of motor vehicle mortality in a typical state, while adjusting for any state-specific trends in outcomes that preceded the change in the drinking age. This approach lets us compare people born in the same state just a few years apart who became eligible to drink legally at different ages. The variable MLDA (an acronym derived from Minimum Legal Drinking Age) is the proportion of 18 to 20 year-olds that can legally drink beer in state s in time t , and the coefficient on this variable is our best estimate of the impact on mortality rates of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. 3 The regressions are weighted by the age-specific state-year population, and the standard errors clustered on state are presented in brackets below the parameter estimates ( Bertrand, Duflo, and Mullainathan, 2004 ).

The estimates of the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on mortality for the subgroups described above are presented in Table 1 and are consistent with a large body of previous research showing that the minimum legal drinking age has economically significant effects on the motor vehicle mortality rates of young adults (for example, Dee, 1999 ; Lovenheim and Slemrod, 2010 ; Wagenaar and Toomey, 2002 ). Specifically, we find that going from a regime in which no 18–20 year-olds are legally allowed to drink to one in which all 18–20 year-olds are allowed to drink results in 4.74 more fatal motor vehicle accidents in the evening per 100,000 18–20 year-olds annually. Relative to the base death rate for this age and time of day, this is a 17 percent effect (4.74/28.1 = 0.17), and it is statistically significant. The associated point estimate for daytime fatalities (the majority of which do not involve alcohol) among 18–20 year-olds is much smaller, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the daytime fatality rate, and it is not statistically significant. In addition, the changes in evening fatalities among 15–17 year-olds and 25–29 year-olds (whose behaviors should not be directly affected by the drinking age changes) are not statistically significant, though the 95 percent confidence intervals around the point estimates for these groups cannot rule out meaningfully large proportional effects relative to the low average death rates for individuals in these age groups. Overall, these patterns are consistent with a causal effect of easier alcohol access on motor vehicle fatalities among the 18–20 year-old young adults whose drinking behaviors were directly targeted by the laws. However, the rate of motor vehicle fatalities in the evening for 21–24 year-olds also changes when the minimum legal drinking age changes. While the proportional effect size for 21–24 year-olds (2.61/23.2 = 0.1125, or about 11 percent) is substantially smaller than for 18–20 year-olds (17 percent), this approach does not have sufficient statistical power to reject that the two estimates are equal. The apparent effect of the minimum legal drinking age on fatalities among 21–24 year-olds could reflect the effects of other unobserved anti-drunk driving campaigns that were correlated with drinking-age changes and targeted at young adults, or it may reflect spillovers, as members of these two groups are likely to socialize.

Panel Estimates of the Effect of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age on Motor Vehicle Fatalities (deaths per 100,000)

Source: The mortality rates are estimated using data from the Fatal Accident Reporting System 1975–1993.

Notes: For the regression results presented in this table, the top number is the point estimate and its standard error is directly below in brackets. All the regressions include year fixed effects, and state-specific time trends. The regressions are weighted by the age-specific state-year population. The dependent variable in each regression is the motor vehicle fatality rate per 100,000 person years for a particular age group and time of day. A nighttime accident is one occurring between 8:00 p.m. and 5:59 a.m.; 67 percent of these accidents involve alcohol and 26 percent of daytime accidents involve alcohol. The independent variable in each regression is the proportion of 18–20 year-olds who can drink legally. The "Average mortality rate" is that from motor vehicle accidents for each particular age group and time of day.

In Table 2 , we present estimates of the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on a more comprehensive set of causes of death. The mortality rates for this part of the analysis are estimated from the National Vital Statistics death certificate records. Since these records are a census of deaths and include substantial detail on the cause of death, it is possible to examine causes of death other than motor vehicle accidents. We present estimates of the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on all-cause mortality in Table 2 using the same fixed-effects specification as in Table 1 . Specifically, the dependent variable in each regression in the bold row of Table 2 is the death rate of 18–20 year-olds per 100,000 person-years estimated from the death certificate records. All models in Table 2 include state fixed effects, year fixed effects, and linear state-specific time trends. To increase the precision of the estimates, the regression are weighted by the size of the relevant population in that state and time period.

Panel Estimates of the Effect of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age on Mortality Rates (deaths per 100,000)

Notes: Each of the estimates presented above is from a separate regression, and its standard error is presented directly below it in brackets. The dependent variable in each regression is the mortality rate per 100,000 person years for a particular age group and cause of death. The independent variable of interest is the proportion of 18–20 year-olds that can drink legally. The regressions are weighted by the age-specific state-year population. All regressions have year fixed effects, state fixed effects, and state-specific time trends. The mortality rates are estimated from death certificate records for the 1975–1993 period. Deaths are categorized according to the primary cause of death on the death certificate.

The first estimate for all-cause mortality in Table 2 suggests that when all 18–20 year-olds are allowed to drink, there are 7.8 more deaths of 18–20 year-olds per 100,000 person-years (on a base of 113 deaths) than when no 18–20 year-olds are allowed to drink. This estimate is not statistically significant at conventional levels. Though the table reveals no evidence of a statistically significant increase in deaths due to internal causes (like cancer), it does reveal statistically significant increases in deaths due to motor vehicle accidents (4.15 more deaths on a base of 45.5 deaths, or a 4.15/45.5 = 0.091, or a 9.1 percent effect). This does not exactly match the estimate from Table 1 because the Vital Statistics records do not include the time of day when the accident occurred, so we are unable to split the rates based on the time of the accident as we did with the earlier data. 4 Table 2 also shows that increasing the share of young adults legal to drink leads to a statistically significant 10 percent increase in suicides (1.29/12.8 = 0.10), which is consistent with work by Birckmayer and Hemenway (1999) and Carpenter (2004b) . There is no evidence of statistically significant effects on the other causes of death for 18–20 year-olds. The lack of a discernable impact on deaths directly due to alcohol is surprising, though in this period deaths due to alcohol overdoses appear to have been significantly undercounted ( Hanzlick, 1988 ).

In the remainder of Table 2 , we present estimates of the relationship between the proportion of 18–20 year-olds that can drink legally and the mortality rates of three age groups: 15–17, 21–24, and 25–29 year-olds. Since the proportion of 18–20 year-olds that can drink should not directly affect these groups (except possibly through spillovers), these groups should experience at most modest increases in mortality rates. As can be seen in the table, with the exception of 21–24 year-olds there is no evidence of statistically significant changes in the mortality rates of the three age groups surrounding 18–20 year-olds. This suggests that the changes in mortality rates of 18–20 year-olds are probably not being driven by safety initiatives that may have been implemented at the same time the drinking age was increased as these would have affected the other age groups also. Overall, the patterns in Tables 1 and ​ and2 2 suggest that easing access to alcohol increases the overall death rate of 18–20 year-olds due to increases in two of the leading causes of death for this age group: motor vehicle accidents and suicides.

Regression Discontinuity Estimates of the Effect of the Drinking Age on Mortality

Our other main strategy for identifying a plausible comparison group for people subject to the minimum legal drinking age is to take advantage of the fact that the drinking age “turns off” suddenly when a person turns 21. People slightly younger than 21 are subject to the drinking age law while those slightly older than 21 are not, but otherwise the two groups have very similar characteristics. If nothing other than the legal regime changes discretely at age 21, then a discrete mortality rates at age 21 can plausibly be attributed to the drinking age.

Again, we begin with the graphical approach by presenting the age profile of mortality rates for 19–22 year-olds in Figure 2 . This figure is estimated using Vital Statistics mortality records from 1997–2003. The age profiles are death rates per 100,000 person-years for motor vehicle accidents (dark circles), suicides (cross hatches), and deaths due to internal causes (open squares), by month of age. A best-fit line for ages 19–20 shows a decreasing trend in motor vehicle fatalities. Similarly a best-fit line from age 21 to 22 shows a decreasing trend. However, the two trends show clear evidence of a discontinuity at age 21, when drinking alcohol becomes legal. The visual evidence of an effect of the minimum legal drinking age in the regression discontinuity setting in Figure 2 for motor vehicle accidents is notably stronger than the associated evidence from the annual time-series trends in Figure 1 . There is also evidence of an increase in deaths due to suicide at age 21. In contrast, as can be seen in Figure 2 , there is little evidence of a discontinuous change in deaths due to internal causes at the minimum legal drinking age of 21.

Notes : The death rates are estimated by combining the National Vital Statistics records with population estimates from the U.S. Census.

To estimate the size of the discrete jumps in the outcomes we observe in Figure 2 , we estimate the following regression:

where y is the age-specific mortality rate. MLDA is a dummy variable that takes on a value of 1 for observations 21 and older, and 0 otherwise. The regressions include a quadratic polynomial in age, f( age ), fully interacted with the MLDA dummy. This serves to adjust for age-related changes in outcomes and, as seen in Figure 2 , is sufficiently flexible to fit the age profile of death rates. The Birthday variable is a dummy variable for the month in which the decedent's 21 st birthday falls and is intended to absorb the pronounced effect of birthday celebrations on mortality rates. We have recentered the age variable to take the value zero at age 21. As a result the parameter of interest in this model is β 1 , which measures the size of the discrete increase in mortality that occurs when people turn 21 and are no longer subject to the minimum legal drinking age. The parameter β 1 has the same interpretation as the parameter α from the panel models: it is the effect of going from no one in a population being allowed to drink legally to everyone in a population being allowed to drink legally.

We present regression estimates of the paramete β 1 in Table 3 . The regressions are estimated using mortality rates for the 48 months between ages 19 and 22. As with the state-year panel evidence in Table 2 , we estimate the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on the overall death rate as well as deaths due to various causes. The results in Table 3 are consistent with the graphical evidence and reveal a statistically significant 8.7 percent increase in overall mortality when people turn 21 (8.06 additional deaths per 100,000 person-years from a base of 93.07 deaths corresponds to 8.06/93.07 = 0.087, or an 8.7 percent increase). 5 The increase in overall mortality at age 21 is almost entirely attributable to external causes of mortality. We estimate that deaths due to internal causes increase by just 3.3 percent at age 21 (0.66/20.07 = 0.033), and this estimate is not statistically significant. Among the various external causes of death, deaths due to suicide increase discretely by a statistically significant 20.3 percent at age 21 (2.37/11.7 = 0.203), and motor vehicle mortality rates increase by 12.2 percent (3.65/29.81 = 0.122). We find no statistically significant change in homicide deaths at age 21. Deaths coded as due to alcohol (including some non-vehicular accidents where alcohol is mentioned on the death certificate) increase by about 0.41 deaths at age 21 (a very large effect given the average death rate from alcohol overdose of just 0.99 per 100,000). Overall, the visual evidence in Figure 2 and the corresponding regression estimates in Table 3 provide persuasive evidence that the minimum legal drinking age has a significant effect on mortality from suicides, motor vehicle accidents, and alcohol overdoses at age 21.

Regression Discontinuity Estimates of the Effect of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age on Mortality Rates (deaths per 100,000)

Notes: In the table above, we present estimates of the discrete increase in mortality rates that occurs at age 21 with the associated standard error directly below in brackets. The regression estimates are from a second-order polynomial in age fully interacted with an indicator variable for being over age 21. All models also include an indicator variable for the month the 21 st birthday falls in. Since the age variable has been recentered at 21, the estimate of the parameter on the indicator variable for being over 21, which we present in the table, is a measure of the discrete increase in mortality rates that occurs after people turn 21 and can drink legally. The mortality rates are estimated from death certificates and are per 100,000 person-years. The fitted values from this regression are superimposed over the means in Figure 2 . The mortality rates presented below the standard errors are the rates for people just under 21. Deaths are catgorized slightly differently than for Table 2 . Whereas Table 2 focused on the primary cause of death listed on the death certificate, Table 3 considers all factors mentioned on the death certificate and imposes the following precedence order: homicide, suicide, motor vehicle accident, alcohol, other external, internal.

Effects of the Drinking Age on Nonfatal Injury and Crime

In addition to premature death, alcohol use has been implicated in other adverse events such as nonfatal injury and crime. 6 Surprisingly, however, there is very little research directly linking the minimum legal drinking age to nonfatal injury. This is due, in part, to the lack of precise age-specific measures of injury rates during the 1970s and 1980s, which makes it impossible to estimate the effects of the minimum legal drinking age with precision using the panel approach. In ongoing work, however, we have used the regression discontinuity approach to estimate the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on nonfatal injury rates using administrative data on emergency department visits and inpatient hospital stays ( Carpenter and Dobkin, 2010a ). Although injuries have lower costs per adverse event than deaths, accidents resulting in a nonfatal injury are much more common than fatal accidents. We find that rates of emergency department visits and inpatient hospital stays increase significantly at age 21, by 408 and 77 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. These increases in nonfatal injuries are substantially larger than the increase in death rates of 8 per 100,000 person-years documented in Table 3 . However, estimating the discrete increase in adverse events at age 21 in percentage terms reveals that emergency department visits are increasing by 1 percent, hospital stays by 3 percent, and deaths by 9 percent. This pattern holds even when we restrict the analysis to motor vehicle-related injuries and fatalities, which suggests that alcohol plays a disproportionate role in more serious injuries.

Another costly adverse outcome commonly linked to alcohol is crime, including nuisance, property, and violent crime: we provide a review in Carpenter and Dobkin (forthcoming). Since the pharmacological profile of alcohol includes both disinhibition and increased aggression, a causal effect of minimum legal drinking ages on crime rates is plausible. Three studies have examined the effects of drinking ages on crime. Two have used the state-year panel approach described above to test whether more permissive drinking ages increased arrests for youths age 18–20. Using data from the Uniform Crime Reports, Joksch and Jones (1993) show that states that raised their minimum drinking age reduced nuisance crimes, such as vandalism and disorderly conduct, significantly over the period 1980–1987; these results are confirmed and replicated in fixed-effects models estimated in Carpenter (2005a) . More recently, we have applied the regression discontinuity design design to evaluate the relationship between alcohol access and crime ( Carpenter and and Dobkin, 2010b ). Using data encompassing the universe of arrests in California from 2000–2006, we found an 11 percent increase in arrest rates exactly at age 21. These effects were concentrated among nuisance crimes and violent crimes. Of the crimes for which we find a statistically significant effect, the two with the most substantial social costs are assault and robbery (larceny with force or threat of force) which increase by 63 and 8 arrests per 100,000 person-years, respectively.

Much of the literature on the minimum legal drinking age and the social costs of alcohol has focused on mortality. The evidence on other adverse outcomes suggests that an exclusive focus on mortality will lead one to substantially under-estimate the protective value of the minimum legal drinking age.

Effect of the Drinking Age on Alcohol Consumption

Estimating how a lower minimum legal drinking age would affect alcohol consumption is difficult. In addition to all of the challenges confronting researchers trying to estimate the effect of the drinking age on adverse event rates, there is an additional problem of data quality. While most adverse events are well-measured, alcohol consumption is not. Specifically, surveys of drinking do not generally include objective biological markers of alcohol consumption (such as blood alcohol concentration). Self-reported measures of drinking participation and intensity are subject to underreporting on the order of 40–60 percent ( Rehm, 1998 ). An additional issue is that, despite the usual confidentiality assurances given by survey administrators, 18–20 year-olds probably underreport alcohol consumption even more than the typical survey respondent because it is illegal for them to drink. 7

Recognizing these concerns, we nonetheless present estimates of the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol consumption from both the panel fixed-effects approach,and the regression discontinuity approach. For the fifi xed-effects approach, we focus on alcohol consumption reported by high school seniors age 18 and over who were surveyed in the Monitoring the Future study between 1976 and 1993. We use the same panel fixed-effects approach used to examine mortality rates with added controls for individual demographic characteristics such as race and gender. We examine three measures of alcohol consumption: whether the person drank at all in the past month, whether the person drank heavily in the past two weeks (defined as five or more drinks consumed at a single sitting), and the number of times the person drank in the last month. The effect of the minimum legal drinking age on these measures of alcohol consumption as estimated using a panel fixed-effects approach are presented in the first three columns of Table 4 . The relevant independent variable in each of the first three columns is the proportion 18–20 year-olds legal to drink in the state. The results indicate that allowing 18–20 year-olds drink increases drinking participation by 6.1 percentage points, heavy episodic drinking by 3.4 percentage points, and instances of past month drinking by 17.4 percent (0.94/5.4 = 0.174). These results are similar to previous estimates of the effect of the minimum legal drinking age that used these same data and a similar approach ( Dee, 1999 ; Carpenter, Kloska, O'Malley, and Johnston, 2007 ; Miron and Tetelbaum, 2009 ).

The Effect of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age on Alcohol Consumption

Notes: The independent variable of interest for the regression results presented in the first three columns is the proportion of 18–20 year-olds who can drink legally. These regressions are estimated using responses of high school seniors age 18 and older at the time they completed the Monitoring the Future survey. The regressions include state fixed effects, year fixed effects, state-specific time trends, and dummies for male, Hispanic, black, or other race. The regressions are estimated using a sample of 121,279 high school students from 1976–2003. The estimates in the last three columns are regression discontinuity estimates of the discrete increase in each drinking behavior that occurs after people turn 21. These are estimated using responses of 16,107 19–22 year-olds in the 1997–2005 National Health Interview Survey. These regressions include a quadratic polynomial in age interacted with a dummy for being over 21 at the time of the interview and the following covariates: indicator variables for census region, race, gender, health insurance, employment status, 21 st birthday, 21 st birthday + 1 day, and looking for work. People can report their drinking for the last week, month, or year, and 71 percent reported on their drinking in the past week or month. All the regressions include population weights. Standard errors for the panel fixed-effects analysis are clustered on state and reported in brackets below the point estimates in the first three columns. Robust standard errors for the regression discontinuity analysis are reported in brackets below the point estimates in the last three columns.

We also estimated the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol consumption using the regression discontinuity design. Since this approach required detailed information on alcohol consumption for people very close to age 21, we used the National Health Interview Survey which includes questions on drinking participation heavy episodic drinking, and the number of days in the last month on which the person consumed alcohol. We estimated the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on these measures of alcohol consumption using a version of the regression discontinuity design used earlier enriched with controls for individual demographic characteristics such as gender, race, region, and employment status. The estimates of β 1 are reported in the last three columns of Table 4 . Given that the regression model includes a polynomial in age fully interacted with a dummy variable for being over 21 and that the age variable has been recentered at 21, these are estimates of the discrete change in drinking that occurs at exactly age 21. We find that the probability an individual reports having consumed 12 or more drinks in the past year increases at age 21 by about 6.1 percentage points, and the estimate is statistically significant. We find a 4.9 percentage point increase in the probability an individual reports heavy drinking (five or more drinks on a single day at least once in the previous year), and we estimate that the number of drinking days in the previous month increase by 19.6 percent (0.55/2.8 = 0.196) at age 21, though only the second of these estimates is statisically significant at the conventional level. These estimates are quite similar to the estimates from the panel approach and have also been replicated using other datasets including the California Health Interview Surveys ( Carpenter and Dobkin, 2010b ) and the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health ( SAMHSA/OAS, 2009 ).

Below, we require an estimate of the number of additional drinks consumed if the drinking age were lowered from 21 to 18, in order to appropriately scale the cost estimates on a per-drink basis. In Column 3 of Table 4 , with the panel design, we estimated that moving from a situation in which no 18–20 year-olds can drink legally to one in which all 18–20 year-olds can drink would increase the number of times a youth reported drinking in the past month by about 0.94 instances. In Column 6 of Table 4 , using the regression discontinuity design, we estimated that the minimum legal drinking age increases the number of days the individual drank in the past 30 by about 0.55 days. Assuming instances are similar to days, the average of these two estimates implies that the minimum legal drinking age reduces alcohol consumption by about 0.745 drinking days per month. To put this on the same scale as the adverse event estimates (which are per 100,000 personyears), we calculate 0.745 × 12(months) × 100,000(persons) = 894,000 drinking days averted per 100,000 person-years. Young adults consume about 5.1 drinks on average each time they drink, so 894,000 drinking days corresponds to about 4.56 million drinks.

How Credible are the Estimates of the Effects of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age?

We have presented estimates of the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol consumption, mortality, and a variety of other adverse events from panel fixed-effects models and regression discontinuity models. Before using these estimates to compare drinking age regimes, it is important to examine how credible the evidence from each of these research designs is. The two approaches have different strengths and limitations, which can be roughly grouped into two categories: “internal validity” and “external validity.” In the context of this paper, internal validity refers to how well a research design estimates the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on a particular population in a particular place and time. External validity refers to how well estimates from a research design are likely to predict the effect of the policy under consideration. External validity is a function of both the internal validity of the estimates and how similar the regime (population, policy, and environment) in which each of the research designs was estimated is to the regime in which the policy is being proposed.

We examine internal validity first, because the internal validity of an estimation strategy directly affects its external validity. The panel approach is subject to the concern that some states raised the drinking age at the same time that they implemented other policies targeting both alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences. If this were the case, estimates from the panel approach would likely overstate the true effect of the minimum legal drinking age because the estimates would reflect the benefits of both the minimum legal drinking age and the other policies. 8 By contrast, estimates from the regression discontinuity design are less likely to be biased by policy changes, because to cause bias the policies would have to go into effect at exactly age 21. Another possible problem with the panel approach is that enforcement of the higher drinking age was plausibly less stringent in states that were compelled to raise their drinking age by the 1984 federal National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which could impart downward bias to our panel estimates. Here again the regression discontinuity approach is unlikely to suffer from this bias because the age-21 drinking limit was a long-standing policy by the late 1990s, which is the period on which the regression discontinuity analysis is focused. A threat to the internal validity of both designs is that part of the increase in adverse events that occurs when people are first allowed to drink is probably due to people having to learn to drink responsibly. As a result, there may be an increase in mortality in the first few months after people are first allowed to drink whether the drinking age is set at 18, 21, or higher. As a result, computations that treat the reduction in deaths due to learning effects as saved lives would overstate the effect of the minimum legal drinking age. However, Tables 2 and ​ and3 3 reveal that the panel and the regression discontinuity estimates of the impact of the minimum legal drinking age are quite similar, which would not be the case if learning effects were substantial, because learning effects would result in much more bias to the regression discontinuity estimates than to the panel estimates.

Yet another threat to the internal validity of the panel design is that there is likely slippage in the assignment of the treatment regime for young adults in a given state and year. These errors may arise due to border effects, as neighboring states sometimes had different drinking ages (as discussed in Lovenheim and Slemrod, 2010 ). Errors could also arise from grandfathering policies, in which some states allowed youths who could drink legally before the minimum legal drinking age was raised to continue drinking after the new drinking age was instituted, even if they were younger than the new legal age. This will result in imperfect assignment of treatment status due to the fact that exact age is not available in the datasets used in the panel analyses. These kinds of measurement errors would generally bias the estimated effects of the minimum legal drinking age downward.

Regarding external validity, the major advantage of the state-year panel approach is that it directly examines the effect of allowing 18–20 year-olds to buy and consume alcohol legally, which is the type of policy change that is being debated. Its primary disadvantage is that it examines changes in drinking ages that occurred 30 years ago, and many things have changed since then. For example, the minimum legal drinking age is probably more rigorously enforced now than it was in the 1970s. Public sentiment and legal sanctions against drunk driving have both increased greatly since the 1970s and 1980s. There have been numerous improvements in medicine and automobile safety in the last 30 years, including trauma centers and air bags. These changes would bias the results from the panel studies in opposing directions. The main issue with the external validity of estimates from the regression discontinuity approach is that the estimates are valid for people very near their 21 st birthday, and the proposed policy change would be to move the drinking age of 21 to 18. This is a problem for the external validity of the regression discontinuity estimates if the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on an 18 or 19 year-old are substantially different than the effects on a 21 year-old.

It is not possible to assess the effect of each of the threats to the internal and external validity on our estimates. However, we have some evidence that despite these concerns the estimates still may be of substantial use for predicting the likely effect of a policy change. A comparison of Tables 2 and ​ and3 3 reveal that the two research designs give very similar estimates of the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on all-cause and cause-specific mortality. 9 An examination of Table 4 reveals that the two designs generate fairly similar estimates of the impact of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol consumption. Most of the sources of bias described above affect the two research designs to different degrees so they should be moving the estimates from the two designs away from each other. We interpret the similarity in the estimated effects as suggesting that the various biases are either not very large or that they are at least partially canceling out.

When considering whether it makes sense to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 the critical issue is determining whether the increase in consumer surplus that results from allowing 18–20 year-olds to drink is large enough to justify the increase in alcohol-related harms. The most direct way to make this comparison is to estimate the change in consumer surplus and compare it to the increase in harms as measured in dollars. However, it is very challenging to credibly estimate the consumer surplus associated with the additional drinks that 18–20 year-olds would consume if the drinking age were lowered to 18. For this reason we implement an alternative approach of estimating the harm per drink to the person consuming the drink and the harm per drink imposed on other people.

The greatest immediate cost to the individual of an additional drink is that it increases their risk of dying. The estimates in Table 3 suggest that if the drinking age were lowered to 18, there would be an additional 8 deaths per 100,000 person-years for the 18–20 age group. A common estimate of the value of a statistical life is $8.72 million ( Viscusi and Aldi, 2003 , converted to 2009 U.S. dollars). This suggests that for every 100,000 young adults allowed to drink legally for a year, the cost in terms of increased mortality is about $70 million (8 × $8.72 million). Given that we estimate an increase of 4.56 million drinks for every 100,000 person-years, this suggests that the hidden cost of each drink due to the increased mortality risk is over $15 (70/4.56). 10 Given that each drink potentially has other adverse impacts on the individual, such as injuries, reduced productivity, and reduced health, this estimate is a lower bound.

The costs of the reduction in the minimum legal drinking age borne by people other than those consuming the drink come from many sources: we focus on three of the major ones. The first external cost includes the risk that an individual will be killed by a drinker in a motor vehicle accident. Our best estimate is that the typical young adult killed while driving drunk kills another person 21 percent of the time ( Carpenter and Dobkin, 2009 ). This suggests that lowering the drinking age will kill at least an additional 0.77 people (3.65 drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents from Table 3 × 0.21) annually for every 100,000 18–20 year-olds allowed to drink. Using the value of a statistical life from above, this is a cost of $6.7 million (8.72 × 0.77 = 6.7) for every 100,000 people allowed to drink after the drinking age is lowered. This estimate is a lower bound, because it does not include the people killed where the drunk driver survives. The second external cost is due to the increased risk that a drinker will commit robbery or assault. The best available estimate suggests that lowering the drinking age will result in 63 additional arrests for assault and 8 additional arrests for robbery annually for every 100,000 newly legal drinkers ( Carpenter and Dobkin, 2010b ). Given that not every crime results in an arrest, these two estimates need to be rescaled by the proportion of reported assaults and robberies that are cleared by an arrest, which are 54 and 25 percent, respectively ( U.S. Department of Justice, 2007 ). At an estimated cost of $20,500 per assault and $17,800 per robbery ( Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema, 1996 , converted to 2009 U.S. dollars), the crime cost imposed on others is $2,400,000 ($20,500 × 63/0.54 ≈ $2,400,000) for assaults and $656,000 ($17,800 × 8/0.25 ≈ $570,000) for robberies. A third external cost is that the drinker will injure themselves and require medical treatment. If the medical care is covered by insurance or if the costs are absorbed by the hospital, these costs are effectively borne by people other than the drinker. The 408 additional emergency department visits and 77 additional hospital stays per 100,000 person-years that would likely occur and 77 additional hospital stays per 100,000 person-years that would likely occur if the drinking age were lowered (estimated in Carpenter and Dobkin 2010a ) impose a substantial cost: the average cost of an alcohol-related emergency department visit is $3,387, and the average cost of an alcohol-related inpatient hospital stay is $12,562 for a total cost per 100,000 person-years of $2.35 million [(3,387 × 408) + (12,562 × 77)]. 11 Summing these externality costs gives a total cost of about $12.02 million per 100,000 person-years (that is, $6.7 million + $2.4 million + $0.57 million + $2.35 million = $12.02 million). Dividing this estimate by the change in the number of drinks yields an externality cost of $2.63 ($12.02/4.56) per drink. Given that there are numerous alcohol-related harms not included in this calculation, this is a downward-biased estimate of the cost that the drinker imposes on others.

The estimates above suggest that the total cost of a drink to the person drinking it is at least $15 plus what the person paid for the drink. It is unlikely that the average drinker values a drink this highly. This finding suggests that the drinker is not fully aware of the personal costs of their behavior and there is a role for government intervention. Moreover, with each drink there are costs imposed on others of at least $2.63, which again suggests a role for government intervention to deal with this externality. These estimates clearly suggest that lowering the drinking age will lead to an increase in harms that is very likely larger than the value that people put on the additional drinking.

Our focus here has been on predicting the effects of lowering the minimum drinking age, but of course, a lower drinking age might be combined with other age, but of course, a lower drinking age might be combined with other policies like mandatory alcohol licensing (similar to driver licensing) and relevant, reality-based alcohol education, both of which are advocated by the Choose Responsibility group. Although the research summarized here convinces us that an earlier drinking age alone would increase alcohol-related harms, we do not think there is enough evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of alcohol education and alcohol licensing, either in isolation or in combination with a lower minimum drinking age. While we are certainly not opposed to experimentation with alternative policies for encouraging responsible alcohol consumption, the evidence strongly suggests that setting the minimum legal drinking age at 21 is better from a cost and benefit perspective than setting it at 18 and that any proposal to reduce the drinking age should face a very high burden of proof.

Acknowledgments

We thank David Autor, Chad Jones, John List, Justin Marion, and Timothy Taylor for very useful comments and suggestions. We gratefully acknowledge grant funding from NIHNIAAA R01 AA017302-01.

1 Other possible interventions have received attention in the economics literature. For example, age-targeted drunk driving laws and graduated licensing programs set very low legal blood alcohol content limits for young adult drivers and have been shown to reduce youth drinking and related harms (for example, Carpenter, 2004a ; Voas, Tippetts, and Fell, 2003 ). Increases in sanctions and/or enforcement of age-targeted drunk driving laws might further reduce youth alcohol consumption and its related harms ( Kenkel, 1993a ). Kenkel (1993b) explores the theoretical possibility of a “teen tax” that could be levied only on young adults, though there is no consensus on the effectiveness of state beer excise taxes on youth drinking and related harms (for example, Dee, 1999 ; Cook and Moore, 2001 ). Finally, public health education about the risks of alcohol use has been widely mentioned as an alternative strategy to reduce alcohol-related harms among youths, although we are not aware of economic evaluations of such policies. We focus here on the minimum legal drinking age due to recent high-profile attention garnered by the Amethyst Initiative and related organizations such as Choose Responsibility.

2 This fixed effects panel approach was introduced to this literature by Cook and Tauchen (1982) , who examined the effects of alcohol taxes on death rates from liver cirrhosis; it has now become standard in evaluations of this type. Note that this model cannot support inclusion of a full set of state-by-time fixed effects, because these would also absorb almost all of the variation in the minimum legal drinking age variable.

3 Our parameterization of the minimum legal drinking age variable—that is, the proportion of 18–20 year-olds in the state who are legal to drink beer—is slightly different from most previous work on this topic, which often includes separate controls for age-18, age-19, and age-20 state drinking ages. This choice has no substantive effect on the results and is only done to facilitate a more natural comparison with the regression discontinuity approach we describe below.

4 We assign deaths in the Vital Statistics data to the state of residence of the decedent. In the Fatality Analysis Reporting System analyses we assigned deaths to the state of occurrence because of incomplete information on state of residence. We also calculated Vital Statistics panel estimates by state of occurrence, and these models returned larger effects of the minimum legal drinking age. This is consistent with the idea that different drinking ages across states created “blood borders” ( Lovenheim and Slemrod, 2010 ).

5 For consistency with the panel regression evidence presented above, we estimate the regression discontinuity models of the effect of the minimum legal drinking age on mortality rates as opposed to mortality counts, though the latter are preferred as the population estimates used to create the rates reduces the precision of the estimates. This is the cause of the slight difference in the magnitude of the estimates from our previously published work ( Carpenter and Dobkin, 2009 ).

6 Some research has examined the relationship between the minimum legal drinking age and risky sexual behavior, though we are not aware of any that uses the regression discontinuity approach. Note that the pharmacological effects of alcohol on sociability and disinhibition could lead drinkers to engage in unplanned sexual behavior or riskier sex than they would have had in the absence of alcohol. Dee (2001) estimates panel regressions of teen childbearing for youths in the age groups affected by the changes in the minimum legal drinking age. He finds that the drinking age is related to childbearing rates among black teens, suggesting a causal effect of alcohol use on sexual activity leading to childbirth. Fertig and Watson (2009) also study state drinking-age policies and fertility outcomes in a fixed-effects framework, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youths and Vital Statistics birth records. They find that exposure to more permissive drinking ages increased poor birth outcomes for young women, especially black mothers, and they find suggestive evidence that this is due to an increase in unplanned pregnancies. Finally, Carpenter (2005b) uses a similar panel approach to examine an alternative risky sexual outcome: rates of sexually transmitted infections. He finds suggestive evidence that a higher drinking age reduced gonorrhea rates for whites, but not for blacks.

7 In Carpenter and Dobkin (2009) , we examine the possibility that there is a discrete change in the probability of underreporting alcohol consumption at age 21, and we do not find much evidence that this change is large in magnitude.

8 Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) make this type of argument by showing that there is heterogeneity in the effects of the minimum legal drinking age according to when states raised their drinking age. Specifically, they document that earlier adopters saw larger reductions in youth fatalities than late adopters and argue that factors other than the drinking age were responsible for the reductions in youth fatalities when drinking ages increased back to 21. These types of biases are not likely to affect regression discontinuity estimates of the minimum legal drinking age, which (as we show above) provided estimates very similar to the panel fixed-effects design, which in turn suggests that other unobserved policies and preferences are unlikely to account for the robust relationship between drinking ages and youth fatalities repeatedly documented in the fixed-effects approach (including in Miron and Tetelbaum, 2009 ). Of course, other types of heterogeneity may be important, such as variation across states in enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age. This is an important area for future research.

9 The panel analysis finds a very low rate of death due to alcohol overdose and no evidence of an increase; the regression discontinuity design, however, finds a much higher rate of alcohol overdoses and a large increase. Given that the alcohol consumption among 18–20 year-olds has dropped rather than increased in the last 30 years, these difference are probably due to coding changes for International Classification of Diseases and for death certificates, as well as a slight difference in our own coding of the information on death certificates between Tables 2 and ​ and3 3 (see notes under these tables).

10 There is, of course, a plausible range of estimates if one were to use different figures for the value of a statistical life, and indeed recent studies have returned lower estimates (see, for example, Ashenfelter and Greenstone, 2004 ). Viscusi and Aldi's (2003) study reports that most credible studies return estimates for the value of a statistical life of between 3.8 and 9 million in 2000 U.S. dollars (or 4.73 to 11.2 million in 2009 U.S. dollars), and the 8.72 million figure we report above is the median reported across 32 studies. Using 4.73 million as the value of a statistical life, for example, reduces the per-drink estimate to $8.30 ($4.73 million * 8 deaths / 4.56 million drinks). If self-reported alcohol consumption is underreported by 50 percent on average (i.e., within the range as suggested by Rehm, 1998 ) then we are overestimating the cost per drink by a factor of two (i.e., the correct per-drink estimate is closer to $7.65 (8.72 million * 8 deaths / 9.12 million drinks).

11 The list charges for a hospital admission by a 21 year-old with a mention of alcohol on the medical record are $33,059, and the list charges for an emergency department visit with a mention of alcohol on the medical record are $8,912 (both measured in 2009 U.S. dollars). Given that hospitals are typically only paid 38 percent of list charges, the costs passed on to consumers are $12,562 and $3,387 for hospital admissions and emergency department visits, respectively ( Reinhardt, 2006 ).

• Ashenfelter Orley, Greenstone Michael. Using Mandated Speed Limits to Measure the Value of a Statistical Life. Journal of Political Economy. 2004; 112 (1):S226–S267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertrand Marianne, Duflo Esther, Mullainathan Sendhil. How Much Should We Trust Difference-in-Differences Estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2004; 119 (1):249–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Birckmayer Johanna D., Hemenway David. Minimum Age Drinking Laws and Youth Suicide 1970–1990. American Journal of Public Health. 1999; 89 (9):1365–68. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonnie Richard J., O'Connell Mary E., editors. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2004. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter Christopher S. How Do Zero Tolerance Drunk Driving Laws Work? Journal of Health Economics. 2004a; 23 (1):61–83. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter Christopher S. Heavy Alcohol Use and Youth Suicide: Evidence from Tougher Drunk Driving Laws. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2004b; 23 (4):831–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter Christopher S. Heavy Alcohol Use and the Commission of Nuisance Crime: Evidence from Underage Drunk Driving Laws. American Economic Review. 2005a; 95 (2):267–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter Christopher S. Youth Alcohol Use and Risky Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Underage Drunk Driving Laws. Journal of Health Economics. 2005b; 23 (4):831–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter Christopher S., Dobkin Carlos. The Effect of Alcohol Consumption on Mortality: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from the Minimum Drinking Age. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2009; 1 (1):164–82. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter Christopher S., Dobkin Carlos. Alcohol and Morbidity: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from the Minimum Legal Drinking Age. 2010a Working paper available at the authors' websites.
• Carpenter Christopher S., Dobkin Carlos. The Drinking Age, Alcohol Consumption, and Crime. 2010b Working paper available at the authors' websites.
• Carpenter Christopher S., Dobkin Carlos. Alcohol Regulation and Crime. In: Cook P, Ludwig J, McCrary J, editors. Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: Forthcoming. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter Christopher S., Kloska Deborah D., O'Malley Patrick, Johnston Lloyd. Alcohol Control Policies and Youth Alcohol Consumption: Evidence from 28 Years of Monitoring the Future. B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy. 2007; 7 (1, Topics) Article 25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choose Responsibility. 2011 Webpage. http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/proposal/
• Cook Philip J., Moore Michael J. “Environment and Persistence in Youthful Drinking Patterns.” Chap. 8. In: Gruber J, editor. Risky Behavior among Youths: An Economic Analysis. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook Philip J., Tauchen George. The Effect of Liquor Taxes on Heavy Drinking. Rand Journal of Economics. 1982; 13 (2):379–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dee Thomas S. State Alcohol Policies, Teen Drinking and Traffic Fatalities. Journal of Public Economics. 1999; 72 (2):289–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dee Thomas S. The Effects of Minimum Legal Drinking Ages on Teen Childbearing. Journal of Human Resources. 2001; 36 (4):823–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fertig Angela, Watson Tara. Minimum Drinking Age Laws and Infant Health Outcomes. Journal of Health Economics. 2009; 28 (3):737–47. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruber Jonathan. Introduction. In: Gruber J, editor. Risk Behaviors among Youths: An Economic Analysis. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hahn Jinyong, Todd Petra, Van der Klaauw Wilbert. Identification and Estimation of Treatment Effects with a Regression-Discontinuity Design. Econometrica. 2001; 69 (1):201–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanzlick Randy. Death Certificates, Natural Death, and Alcohol: The Problem of Underreporting. American Journal of Forensic Medicine Pathology. 1988; 9 (2):149–50. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joksch Hans C., Jones Ralph K. Changes in the Drinking Age and Crime. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1993; 21 (3):209–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenkel Donald. Drinking, Driving, and Deterrence: The Effectiveness and Social Costs of Alternative Policies. Journal of Law and Economics. 1993a; 36 (2):877–913. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenkel Donald. Prohibition versus Taxation: Reconsidering the Legal Drinking Age. Contemporary Policy Issues. 1993b; 11 (3):48–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovenheim Michael, Slemrod Joel. The Fatal Toll of Driving to Drink: The Effect of Minimum Legal Drinking Age Evasion on Traffic Fatalities. Journal of Health Economics. 2010; 29 (1):62–77. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller Ted, Cohen Mark, Wiersema Brian. Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. National Institute of Justice Research Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 1996
• Miron Jeffrey, Tetelbaum Elina. Does the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Save Lives? Economic Inquiry. 2009; 47 (2):317–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Donoghue Ted, Rabin Matthew. Risky Behavior among Youths: Some Issues from Behavioral Economics. In: Gruber Jonathan., editor. Risky Behavior Among Youths: An Economic Analysis. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelps Charles E. Death and Taxes: An Opportunity for Substitution. Journal of Health Economics. 1988; 7 (1):1–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rehm Jurgen. Measuring Quantity, Frequency, and Volume of Drinking. Alcoholism Clinical & Experimental Research. 1998; 22 (S2):4s–14s. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reinhardt Uwe. The Pricing of U.S. Hospital Services: Chaos behind a Veil of Secrecy. Health Affairs. 2006; 25 (1):57–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruhm Christopher. Alcohol Policies and Highway Vehicle Fatalities. Journal of Health Economics. 1996; 15 (4):435–454. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies (SAMHSA/OAS) The NSDUH Report: Alcohol Use Before and After the 21st Birthday. Rockville, MD: 2009. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k9/138/138alcbefore21stbday.htm . [ Google Scholar ]
• Thistlewaite Donald L., Campbell Donald T. Regression-Discontinuity Analysis: An Alternative to the Ex Post Facto Experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1960; 51 (6):309–317. [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Crime in the United States, 2006. 2007 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html .
• Viscusi W. Kip, Aldy Joseph E. The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2003; 27 (1):5–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Voas Robert, Tippetts A. Scott, Fell James. Assessing the Effectiveness of Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Zero Tolerance Laws in the United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2003; 35 (4):579–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagenaar Alexander C., Toomey Traci L. Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002;(Supplement 14):206–225. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Why the Legal Drinking Age should be Lowered?

This essay will explore the debate surrounding the proposal to lower the legal drinking age to 18. It will discuss the current legal drinking age’s implications on youth behavior and social norms, comparing it with drinking age laws in other countries. The piece will analyze arguments for and against lowering the age, considering factors such as alcohol-related accidents, maturity levels, and cultural attitudes towards drinking. It will also examine the potential impact on public health, education systems, and law enforcement, drawing on research and case studies to provide a comprehensive view of this contentious issue. PapersOwl offers a variety of free essay examples on the topic of Binge Drinking.

How it works

One of the biggest arguments in the country today is the legal age of consuming alcohol. All across the world, there are different drinking ages which differ from country to country. Each country with their own reasoning’s behind the age restrict. In the United States we know, the legal drinking age is 21. In England and Australia, the drinking age is 18. Spain and Austria, have the drinking age at 16. I believe the legal drinking age for the United States should be lowered to 18.

Some of the reasons I believe this is because it would improve the economy, it would decrease the unsafe drinking activities, it would reduce the numbers of arrests, and I believe that adults should be able to make their own decisions.

First of all, lowering the drinking age would be to improve the economy. With allowing more people to legally drink, there would be an increase in revenue. There would be more alcohol purchases from stores and licensed businesses. An increase in alcohol purchases from bars, clubs, and restaurants. More people would be inclined to do more activities that are not directly associated with drinking. For example, festivals, concerts, and sporting events. There would also be an increase in the manufacturing of alcohol. New jobs would be created for the faming, brewing and distribution of alcohol. In all aspects of the economy there would be an increase in revenue.

Second of all, lowering the age limit it would decrease the unsafe activities that follow underage drinking. With young adults not being allowed to drink in public, this leads to very unsafe and unsupervised drinking activities. Instead of being in a situation that would offer protection for new drinkers and have people who know the signs of bad drinking habits like, binge drinking, and other unsafe practices. They are forced to be in situations with no supervision and the possibility of harming themselves or others.

Third of all, lower the age restriction would also lower the number of young adults breaking the law and getting arrested. With making lowering the age, it would make drinking less of a taboo activity and eliminate the reckless use of it during college and young adult years. As seen is the history of the United States, when prohibition was taking place, it was repealed because it was enforceable and received a lot of backlash from the people. Now as we can see the United States are making the same mistake. Binge drinking and heavy drinking are at alarming high rates compared to ages above 21. If the limit was lowered young adults would be better educated and be able to learn the safe and healthy ay to drink with friends.

Lastly, the age of adulthood in the United States is 18 years old. At that age, it is legal to fight and possibly die for the country. Smoke cigarettes and be fully responsible for your own actions. You can marry and serve in juries. Vote for elections and receive many responsibilities of being an adult. With all of these responsibilities that are gained, there is no logical reason on to why legal adults should be banned from consuming alcohol. Some argue that the brain doesn’t fully develop until age of drinking at 21. As I do agree with that statement, as there is scientific evidence, I still believe that if we are allowed to make life or death decisions for themselves, shouldn’t we choses to but again, as adults that is our choice to make.

Now that I explained the few reasons on why the United States should lower the drinking age to 18, hopefully it is clear on why this would be a good choice for the country. The reasons I believe that it should be lowered is because it would improve the economy, it would decrease the unsafe drinking activities, it would reduce the number of arrests, and I believe that adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Cite this page

Why the legal drinking age should be lowered?. (2020, Apr 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/why-the-legal-drinking-age-should-be-lowered/

"Why the legal drinking age should be lowered?." PapersOwl.com , 28 Apr 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/why-the-legal-drinking-age-should-be-lowered/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Why the legal drinking age should be lowered? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-the-legal-drinking-age-should-be-lowered/ [Accessed: 21 May. 2024]

"Why the legal drinking age should be lowered?." PapersOwl.com, Apr 28, 2020. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/why-the-legal-drinking-age-should-be-lowered/

"Why the legal drinking age should be lowered?," PapersOwl.com , 28-Apr-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-the-legal-drinking-age-should-be-lowered/. [Accessed: 21-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Why the legal drinking age should be lowered? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/why-the-legal-drinking-age-should-be-lowered/ [Accessed: 21-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Alcohol Use and Your Health
• Underage Drinking
• Publications
• About Surveys on Alcohol Use
• About Standard Drink Sizes
• CDC Alcohol Program
• Alcohol Outlet Density Measurement Tools
• Resources to Prevent Excessive Alcohol Use
• Alcohol Applications and Online Tools
• Funding to Prevent Excessive Alcohol Use
• Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) Application
• Check Your Drinking. Make a Plan to Drink Less.
• Controle su forma de beber. Haga un plan para beber menos.
• Deaths from Excessive Alcohol Use in the United States
• Addressing Excessive Alcohol Use: State Fact Sheets

Why A Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 Works

• The minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) in the United States is 21 years.
• MLDA laws save lives and protect everyone, especially young people, from alcohol-related harm.

Minimum legal drinking age laws

• Minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws set the legal age when people can buy alcohol.
• The MLDA in the United States is 21 years. This means that alcohol cannot be sold to people younger than 21.
• Before the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, the MLDA could differ by state.

Health impacts

• These deaths among young people happen, in part, because of underage drinking and its direct health effects .
• Such deaths also happen indirectly, such as from alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and other injuries caused by others (aged 21 and older) who drink excessively.

Setting the legal age to 21 for buying alcohol has helped protect health by:

• Reducing motor vehicle crashes.
• Reducing underage drinking.
• Improving individual and community health.

Fewer motor vehicle crashes

Before the national law was in place, states that raised their MLDA to 21 years had a 16% drop in motor vehicle crashes. 2

Less underage drinking

After states raised their MLDA to 21 years in 1984, the percentage of people who drank before turning 21 went down.

• From 1985 to 1991, the percentage of young people (aged 18 to 20) who reported drinking alcohol during the past month dropped almost 20%—from 59% to 40%. A 3

Young adults also drank less alcohol when states raised their MLDA.

• From 1985 to 1991, the percentage of young people (aged 21 to 25) who reported drinking during the past month dropped almost 15%— from 70% to 56%. A 3

Did you know?‎

Safer, healthier people and communities.

The MLDA of 21 years helps lower the risk of developing alcohol and other substance use disorders, for those who drink alcohol. It also supports families and communities by leading to fewer harmful births, lower rates of suicide and homicide, and fewer deaths from alcohol poisoning.

Several national organizations have indicated support for the MLDA of age 21:

• American Academy of Pediatrics
• Community Preventive Services Task Force 4
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving 5
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• National Prevention Council
• National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine)
• Data were not for the entire United States. In the report, data were analyzed from the 19 states that participated in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 1985 to 1999.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application. Accessed February 29, 2024. www.cdc.gov/ardi
• Shults RA, Elder RW, Sleet DA, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. Am J Prev Med . 2001;21(4 Suppl):66–88. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00381-6
• Serdula MK, Brewer RD, Gillespie C, Denny CH, Mokdad A. Trends in alcohol use and binge drinking, 1985-1999: results of a multi-state survey. Am J Prev Med . 2004;26(4):294–298. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.12.017
• Community Preventive Services Task Force. Motor vehicle injury alcohol-impaired driving: maintaining current minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws. November 4, 2018. Accessed February 28, 2024. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/motor-vehicle-injury-alcohol-impaired-driving-maintaining-current-minimum-legal-drinking-age.html
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Why 21? Accessed November 29, 2023. https://madd.org/why-21/

Alcohol Use

Excessive alcohol use can harm people who drink and those around them. You and your community can take steps to improve everyone’s health and quality of life.

For Everyone

Public health.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Health Underage Drinking

The Reasons Why The Drinking Age Should Not Be Lowered

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Drug Testing
• Health Care Policy
• Healthcare Crisis
• Cystic Fibrosis

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

At 18, Is It Time for a Drink? Argumentative Essay

An American teenager who is eighteen years old is allowed to do several things, such as vote, join the military, and get married; however, drinking is not allowed until he or she is twenty-one years old.

The officially permitted drinking age in the U.S. was raised from eighteen to twenty-one in 1988 due to the National Minimum Age Drinking Act that had been signed into law four years earlier by President Ronald Reagan.

The main reason was maturity; that is, at eighteen one is not mature enough to drink responsibly (Kiesbye, 2). However, I agree with the verdict of the group of university and college presidents that the drinking age should be lowered from twenty-one to eighteen.

Opponents of lowering the legal drinking age usually refer to the dangers of binge drinking. They say that the practice is increasing and that any person who is below eighteen is simply not responsible enough to have an alcoholic beverage.

This type of drinking most of the time occurs in the underground and hidden places where the teenagers cannot be discovered. However, although binge drinking is a problem in America, the root cause is the high drinking age that our lawmakers have instituted ignoring certain realities.

Let us face the reality: if a person wants to drink, he or she will definitely find a way to do that. And since legal adults (those over eighteen) are unable to get hold of alcohol themselves, they will inevitably go to hidden places and drink excessively without any supervision or guidance.

When the drinking age is lowered, teenagers can drink responsibly without having to hide themselves. Therefore, “the current limit ignores the reality of drinking during college years and drives it underground, making binge drinking more dangerous and students less likely to seek help in an emergency” (Gordon and Holland, para. 2).

I think it is of essence to question this law: why is it that the age of twenty-one is the “magical’ age that a person is considered as intelligent and mature enough to drink alcohol? Truly, some adults consume alcohol irresponsibly. On the other hand, some young people are able to drink responsibly.

At eighteen, Americans are regarded as adults. It may seem odd to allow those above eighteen years to marry, drive their own cars, and do other sorts of things, and yet to be prevented by the same law from taking a glass of wine in a café or even a glass of champagne at their own wedding party. I feel that it does not make sense to have a limit that is higher than the legally recognized age of maturity.

Young people look at alcoholic beverages as something exciting (Bishop, 19). They consider it an activity preserved for the adults; however, young people want to be adults As Soon As Possible. Therefore, as is the case in most institutions, they usually carry fake identity cards to drinking dens; thus, leading to more problems, or steal the drinks from their parents’ drink cupboard.

Maintaining the drinking age at twenty-one does not encourage responsible drinking. In addition, when the opportunity to take alcohol arises, “Let us compensate for the lost time” attitude crops in resulting in binge drinking, which leads to results that are even more disastrous.

By reducing the legal drinking age, it would inevitably water down some of the temptation to take alcohol since the young people often say that it is more fun when it is illegal.

And, more so, in most cases, young people tend to engage in illicit activities. Therefore, lowering the age will reduce this tendency. In reality, increasing the drinking age is even worse than not doing anything at all simply because most individuals would want to get drunk as a sign of rebellion to the authority. “Not much can be done to control student drinking.

Americans younger than 21 casually defy the law by secretly drinking. If the law was changed, the practice can take place in the open, where it could be better monitored and moderated” (Snelgrove, para. 22). I think that the obsession of wanting to consume alcohol would lose its appeal if drinking were not regarded as purely an adult thing.

As pointed out by the article, “At 18, is it time for a drink?” teen drinking is longstanding problem, which has affected the American society and the drinking age limit has not done enough to cut short.

The American society does not care to instruct the teenagers’ on limits or responsibilities; however, they apparently assume that the teenagers will know their limits and be responsible consumers of alcoholic beverages upon attaining the lawful “magical age” of twenty-one.

A number of developed countries in Europe, such as France, Belgium, and Italy, have established a legal minimum drinking age at sixteen years. It is interesting to note that in those countries one is allowed to drive at eighteen years of age.

If the American society can focus more on educating the youth on responsible drinking habits rather than restriction, then several problems can be prevented (Gordon and Holland, para.16). The youth in the U.S., unlike their counterparts in Europe, are not able to learn how to consume alcohol and other substances gradually, safely and with caution.

Even though the average daily consumption of alcohol in some European nations such as France and Spain is higher than in the United States, the percentage of alcoholism and irresponsible drinking is much lower due to education on safe drinking habits and enforcement of gradual drinking behavior.

Supporters of the legal drinking age often cite possible increase in car accidents as a reason to maintain the drinking age. However, they fail to realize that individuals of all ages get into car crashes, teenagers and adults, when they abuse alcohol.

Educating the public on the dangers of this vice can be more beneficial than simply giving restrictions. In most countries in Europe, teenagers are permitted to drive at eighteen years of age, and also to drink responsibly at the same age.

Therefore, they are able to learn early about the dangers of drinking alcohol and practice good drinking habits. I think that lowering the drinking age would be able to reduce the number of car crashes that are related to excessive consumption of alcohol.

Restrictions can be put to prevent the teenagers from drinking, but can they really be stopped? No one was there to stop the over ten million American teens aged twelve to twenty who have already drunk an alcoholic beverage at present. Out of this number, it is astonishing that about half of them are engaging in binge drinking.

To put more facts on the table, it is estimated that about eighty percent of students in grade nine through twelve will have tasted at least one drink of an alcoholic beverage in their lifetime and about fifty percent of these students have tasted at least one drink of alcohol in the last one month.

So, tell me, are restrictions stopping them from pursing their illicit courses? Abuse of alcohol among the teens is a real problem that we should not ignore the way we are doing now through unfair restrictions.

Since more and more teens are destroying their lives, I suggest that we try something different, something that can ultimately bear fruits since the high drinking age seems to be taking us nowhere. Therefore, I strongly believe that lowering the drinking age and then educating the teenagers on the dangers of alcohol consumption can reduce this problem.

We should all recognize that America has a huge problem with teen drinking. The only way to find a solution to this problem is by stopping to ignore it. “It’s time we look at the issue afresh and see whether there are better solutions than we currently have in place because, after all, we haven’t solved the problem” (Gordon and Holland, para. 8).

The American teenagers should get more education about the effects of alcohol, rather than giving them punishment. The legal drinking age should be restored to eighteen since the current age at twenty-one lacks any real basis. A lowered drinking age will bring us to reality and institute better ways of curbing the vice. Consequently, fewer problems would arise.

Works Cited

Bishop, Bruce. Effects of lowering the drinking age . Salem, Or. : Legislative Research, 1979. Print.

Gordon, Larry, and Holland, Gale. “ At 18, is it time for a drink? ” Los Angels Times . 2008. Web.

Kiesbye, Stefan. Should the legal drinking age be lowered? Detroit : Greenhaven Press, 2008. Print.

Snelgrove, Erin. “18 or 21? Drinking age debate heats up.” Yakima-herald . 2008. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 15). At 18, Is It Time for a Drink? https://ivypanda.com/essays/at-18-is-it-time-for-a-drink/

"At 18, Is It Time for a Drink?" IvyPanda , 15 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/at-18-is-it-time-for-a-drink/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'At 18, Is It Time for a Drink'. 15 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "At 18, Is It Time for a Drink?" May 15, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/at-18-is-it-time-for-a-drink/.

1. IvyPanda . "At 18, Is It Time for a Drink?" May 15, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/at-18-is-it-time-for-a-drink/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "At 18, Is It Time for a Drink?" May 15, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/at-18-is-it-time-for-a-drink/.

• Binge Drinking in New York City: A Public Health Challenge
• College Binge Drinking's Impact on Drinking Habits
• Binge-Watching: Main Pros and Cons
• “Power, Privilege, and Difference” a Book by Allan G. Johnson
• A Critical Evaluation of Qualitative & Quantitative Research Designs
• UK Fire Brigade and Its International Operations
• Ethics in Public Administration: Case 2 – Paul’s Scenario
• Happiness and Morality

• TV & Film
• Say Maaate to a Mate
• First Impressions - The Game
• Daily Ladness
• Citizen Reef

To make sure you never miss out on your favourite NEW stories , we're happy to send you some reminders

Click ' OK ' then ' Allow ' to enable notifications

Doctor reveals exact age you should consider permanently stopping drinking alcohol

A doctor has given us the lowdown on when we should pack in alcohol, and it's for a very good reason you might not have considered.

Lucy Devine

If you've been thinking about giving up drinking, you might be interested to know that a doctor has revealed the age you should pack it in.

We all know that alcohol isn't exactly good for us, right? But as you start to age, it has more of a long-term effect on your health .

So much so that one expert has pinpointed the time when it may be wiser to ditch the sauce altogether.

And there's a really good reason why.

Removing alcohol from your diet completely can help prevent the development of dementia.

The Alzheimer's Society states that research shows that excessive alcohol consumption increases the chances that someone can develop dementia.

Drinking directly correlates to a reduced volume of your brain's white matter, which can stop your brain from functioning normally.

Dr Richard Restak, author of How to Prevent Dementia: An Expert’s Guide to Long-Term Brain Health has described how alcohol can impact your brain function. He describes booze as a 'direct neurotoxin'.

A neurotoxin can be defined as a substance that damages, destroys or impairs the function of the nervous system.

Because of the damage that booze can cause, Dr Restak has revealed an age where you should aim to cut it out of your life for good.

“Ask yourself, ‘why do I drink?’ If the answer is ‘because alcohol helps me to elevate my mood and lower my anxiety,’ you may be at some peril, and it’s probably best to stop altogether,” he wrote.

“I strongly suggest that if you are 65 years old or older, that you completely and permanently eliminate alcohol from your diet."

There is a type of dementia that is associated with the overconsumption of alcohol.

Dementia UK explains: "Alcohol related brain damage (also known as alcohol related brain impairment) is caused by drinking alcohol excessively over a prolonged period of time.

"It can be caused by a combination of reasons including vitamin B1 deficiency (thiamine), the toxic effects of alcohol on nerve cells, head injury and blood vessel damage."

Alcohol-related brain damage can be prevented by lowering your alcohol intake to no more than 14 units per week, spread across at least three days.

Increasing physical and mental activity; having a healthy diet; avoiding smoking; managing stress levels and keeping weight, cholesterol and blood pressure in check are also important factors.

Topics:  Health , Food And Drink

Choose your content:

How to tell if the green colour on your bacon is normal or potentially dangerous

Ideally there'd be no green on your bacon, but welcome to the real world.

Psychologist shares three signs to look out for that suggest your partner is manipulating you

Abuse comes in many forms, including manipulative behaviour..

Strict sexual activity rules 'spicy cruise' guests have to follow with absolutely no exceptions

Although you can be somewhat carefree onboard a spicy cruise, you still have to abide by the strict list of rules.

Man reveals genius McDonald’s hack to get extra food for less money

Save money and scran more maccies. top advice..

• Flight attendant reveals exact question you should ask for upgrade with ‘99% success rate'
• Expert warns Brits there's one item you should avoid when eating a full English breakfast
• Doctor reveals the one day of the week you should never order fish
• Doctor explains incredibly grim reason you should should always shut your toilet seat when flushing