Remeber kids: AA is for quitters. And nobody likes a quitter.

Every once in a while a really stupid question is posed as a major news headline. Usually it’s a question with significant social implications that gets boiled down to a few eight second sound bites that condense the concerned parties into one-dimensional caricatures. Today’s winner is “Should the drinking age be lowered?” What the hell kind of retarded question is this? Let’s just use some common sense and a few available statistics to reach a first order answer.

Exhibit A: You can buy cigarettes at 18, vote at 18, kill people in the armed forces at 17 (with parental consent), fuck at 16 (in most states), drive a multi-ton vehicle at 16, and get hitched at 15 (with consent). So explain to me the rationale for not making alcohol available until you’re 21.

Exhibit B: Over a decade of research shows that a large proportion of kids have their first alcohol experiences during high school and that a small but significant number have them during middle school. This absolutely does NOT mean to imply that it’s a “crisis” or a “problem”, just that it exists and is currently on the rise. So obviously the “wait until you’re 21” line is not working as planned.

Exhibit C: Much like absolute abstinence, the “all alcohol is bad until you’re 21” argument makes no logical sense. Teaching responsible alcohol use (like responsible condom use) empowers people to make better choices. The fact is, the majority of Americans (and I would say much of the world) consume alcohol. The majority of these people are NOT alcoholics. They are, within reason, responsible people that enjoy a drink now and then. Why do we not hold younger people to these more reasonable standards? Should there be consequences for abuse of alcohol and bad choices (e.g. driving while intoxicated)? Yes. But should we tell younger people that alcohol is evil when our society is saturated by it? Hell no. That’s just stupid. It only heightens their perception that we’re being hypocritical.

Exhibit D: Research is conflicting, but so far shows no conclusive evidence that alcoholism is significantly lower in the U.S. than in Europe even though the legal drinking age is higher. So this argument is void until there is some convincing proof.

Exhibit E: The costs of enforcement are incredible. Resources that could be used in other pursuits are tied up in man-power, equipment, time, and energy spent in the frantic effort to keep alcohol away from those deemed unworthy of its use. Much like the war on drugs, much goes in and only minor results trickle out.

Exhibit F: The rate of high-consumption binge-drinking among young people has not improved since the drinking age was raised to 21. The total number of young drinkers has increased, but the percentages are nearly the same as in 1984 (when the limit was raised). Just based on these simple examples, the increased age did nothing but increase arrests and legal costs. It makes sense that younger people will be affected by alcohol differently (e.g. higher impairment rates at similar levels of consumption than older people). But there is no conclusive proof available that increasing the minimum age decreased any of these markers. (Note: it’s true that ~50% fewer teens were killed in alcohol related car crashes in 2006 than in 1984. But that number does NOT include corrections for increases in car safety and design.). Also regarding accidents- alcohol use is not divorced from inexperience with driving. Older drivers that drive drunk are less likely to be killed because they have more experience handling a vehicle and can mitigate the impact to a larger extent than young people. This factor is also not considered when comparing young drinkers to older drinkers in traffic accidents.

Suffice it to say that my answer is yes. I’m all for lowering the drinking age. In fact, I think parents and kids are the ones best suited to know when each individual is mature enough to use alcohol responsibly. Much like other “solutions” in our political climate, this one has a one-size-fits-all mentality that does not reflect reality. We have to educate kids about alcohol. They need to know the physical and psychological implications, good and bad. Low amounts of alcohol have been shown to be beneficial to health. High, prolonged consumption takes a devastating toll on the body and mind, as well as the people around you. Believe me…I know. Alcohol impairs your judgment and means you shouldn’t operate either heavy machinery or your reproductive organs. But in the end, whether the drinking age is 12 or 50, people will still make the choice to drink or not. If they choose to, they should be aware of the ramifications and have the information to make an informed decision.

Labeling alcohol as evil is not the answer. Forbidding it is not the answer. Let’s take a lesson from our constitutional history and remember how well prohibition worked. Is the answer education and personal responsibility? Maybe. Maybe not. But it doesn’t seem to be something we’ve tried. Whatever the answer is, the current drinking age remains an anachronism and my headlines remain cluttered with stupid questions.