Home
Who We Are
What We Do
Contact Us
References
Courts

Courts

Family North Carolina Magazine—November/December 2008

by Tami Fitzgerald

Lowering the Drinking Age to 18

by Tami Fitzgerald, J.D.

Stories abound in the news about the dire consequences of drinking by young people who are under the age of 21, the legal drinking age in the United States. The stories are also borne out by the research. The Surgeon General for the United States reported in 2007 that approximately 5,000 people under the age of 21 die annually from alcohol-related injuries involving underage drinking.

The breakdown of causes for these deaths looks like this:

1900 deaths 38% Vehicle Crashes
1600 deaths 32% Homicide
300 deaths 6% Suicide1

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to more than 4,600 deaths among underage youth, that is, persons less than 21 years of age, in the United States each year.”2 This statistic does not account for the number of alcohol-related injuries that don’t result in death, but cause personal injuries and property damage. Neither does it account for the many health and social problems such as physical fighting, academic failure, risky sexual activity, unintended pregnancy, STD and HIV infection, illicit drug use, smoking, and physical and sexual assault attributed to underage drinking.3 In addition, alcohol poisoning caused 157 deaths among persons ages 18 to 23 between 1999 and 2005, 83 of which occurred in persons under the legal drinking age of 21. Six of these alcohol-poisoning deaths occurred in North Carolina.4 Moreover, studies have shown that most underage youth who drink “do so to the point of intoxication, that is, they binge drink (defined as having five or more drinks in a row), typically on multiple occasions.”5 Underage drinking, especially binge drinking by college and high school students, is a continuing problem.

In the 1970s, states were allowed to set their own individual drinking age limitations. Many states had a drinking age of 18, but others had drinking ages ranging from 19 to 21. The result was that teens would drive from states where the drinking age was 21 to neighboring states where the drinking age was 18 so they could buy alcohol legally. The fatalities that resulted from drunken teens driving back to their home states prompted Congress to take action. In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act which imposed a penalty of 10 percent of a state’s federal highway appropriation on any state setting its drinking age lower than 21.6 This effectively led to a national drinking age of 21. This uniformity curtailed vehicular fatalities caused by teens driving across state lines to buy alcohol. The result is that traffic crashes and fatalities attributed to underage drinking have decreased significantly since the 1980s.

Alcohol-related traffic crashes involving youths increased by 10 percent in the 1970’s when the drinking age was lowered and decreased by 16 percent after 1984 when the drinking age was raised to age 21 nationally, according to a CDC review of 49 scientific studies.7 In terms of traffic fatalities, the higher drinking age has saved approximately 25,000 lives, and continues to save about 1,000 lives annually.8 Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) reports that alcohol-related traffic fatalities among 16 to 20 year-olds decreased 60 percent between 1982 and 2006, while fatalities among the same age group not related to alcohol increased 34 percent.9 Moreover, the number of alcohol-related fatal vehicle crashes between 1983 and 1989 increased, except for 16-20 year olds, which decreased 32 percent, and 21-24 year olds, which decreased 18 percent.10 Obviously, raising the national drinking age to 21 in 1984 caused this decrease at a time when older drivers were having more fatal alcohol-related crashes. The evidence is overwhelming: setting the drinking age at 21 is a public policy that saves thousands of lives every year.

In spite of this evidence that raising the drinking age to 21 has help decrease fatalities, a group of 129 college and university presidents has signed a public statement that seeks an open debate about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. The college and university presidents say that the 21 year-old drinking age is not working, and, specifically, that it has created a culture of dangerous binge drinking on their campuses, according to the group’s website.11

The Amethyst Initiative, as the group of college and university presidents has been named, believes that the legal limit of 21 is not discouraging young persons from drinking. They argue that: “Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer,” and that: “By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.”12

The Amethyst Initiative calls upon elected officials: “To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age; to consider whether the 10 percent highway fund ‘incentive’ encourages or inhibits that debate; and to invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.” The college presidents and chancellors also pledge themselves and their institutions to “playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold.”13

The group was started in 2007 by John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, who stated that those who are affected by the 21 year-old drinking age believe that it is “unjust, unfair and discriminatory.”14 The Amethyst Initiative is named after the gemstone amethyst, which the ancient Greeks believed guarded them from drunkenness when used in drinking vessels and jewelry.15

The President of the UNC System, Erskine Bowles, issued a statement to the chancellors of all 16 UNC-system campuses, saying that he would not support lowering the legal drinking age. Citing data from UNC-Chapel Hill’s Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies (created with family money and named for his father) Bowles said the evidence shows that alcohol-related injuries and deaths among young people have decreased as a result of the age-21 drinking limit. Bowles argues that he has “seen no scientific evidence that supports the contention that lowering the legal drinking age would reduce binge-drinking or lessen other alcohol-related problems on our college campuses or in society at large.”16

The only university presidents in North Carolina to sign the statement are Richard Brodhead of Duke University and John J. Bowen of Johnson & Wales University. Other prominent colleges and universities whose presidents have signed the statement include Hampden-Sydney, Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, Smith, Sweetbriar, Syracuse, Texas A&M, Tufts, and Washington & Lee. President Brodhead led Duke through the highly publicized “Duke lacrosse scandal” several years ago, when three Duke lacrosse team members were indicted for rape of a stripper during a drunken, raucous party in March 2006. The North Carolina Attorney General eventually dropped the charges and declared the players “innocent,”17 but Duke has since struggled to deal with the problem of underage drinking on and off its campus through various new initiatives.

The Amethyst Initiative has generated a good deal of comment in the press, with opinion pieces appearing in many of the State’s major newspapers, and on websites of conservative and liberal/progressive policy think tanks alike. North Carolina’s Republican and Democrat Gubernatorial candidates in the 2008 election both expressed opposition to lowering the drinking age.18 In a recent poll conducted by the Civitas Institute of Raleigh, citizens were asked if they supported lowering the legal drinking age to 18. 79 percent of the respondents expressed opposition, while 16 percent supported it.19 It is clear that the majority of North Carolinians and the State’s leaders oppose the Amethyst Initiative.

With all the evidence that the 21 year-old drinking limitation reduces fatalities among 18 to 20 year-olds, and with public opinion against lowering the drinking age, one wonders why these university and college presidents are calling for a national debate over this issue and indirectly suggesting that the drinking age be lowered. The most plausible explanation is that either they cannot effectively enforce the law on their campuses, or they do not have the resolve and the courage put a stop to underage and binge drinking. To confront this problem head on might mean alienating or offending those very people who pay tuition and who give money to the universities upon graduation. It might mean having to discipline or even expel some of the children of valuable alumni. It might mean that university officials are required to stop turning a blind eye to fraternity parties.

Legalizing dangerous activities just because some people are lawbreakers is poor logic. The same reasoning could be applied to marijuana and drug use, prostitution or any number of social vices that society has determined are not good for the public health. If it cannot be stopped, why not legalize it? Furthermore, increasing the availability of alcohol to 18 to 20 year-olds will not decrease the frequency or intensity of their abuse of alcohol. The college and university presidents calling for this national debate about lowering the drinking age have shown a disregard for the health and safety of the very students entrusted to their care by parents, and for those whose lives will be forever altered by drunken teens. The Amethyst Initiative is an old idea that has already been tried and proven ineffective. It should not be resurrected.

Lottery Appeal Heard by Supreme Court

Six justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments of counsel on September 8, 2008 in an appeal of a suit brought by the North Carolina Family Policy Council and others to challenge the constitutionality of passage of the North Carolina Lottery Act. The seventh justice, Justice Mark Martin, recused himself from the case. The suit was brought after the General Assembly voted on the Lottery Act in 2005 without following a constitutional provision requiring the final two votes on “revenue bills” to be held on two separate days and requiring the votes of each legislator to be recorded. Former Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, along with North Carolina Justice Center attorney Jack Holtzman, argued on behalf of the Council and other plaintiffs-appellants that the Lottery Act is invalid because of this procedural failure.

The North Carolina Constitution defines “revenue bills” as those which raise money on the credit of the State, pledge the faith of the State directly or indirectly for the payment of any debt, or impose a tax on the people of the State. Justice Orr argued that the Lottery Act meets all three criteria because it makes the State liable for payment of lottery prizes and directs 35 percent of lottery revenues into the State treasury for a general governmental purpose—the funding of public education. It is that 35 percent of revenues that are imbedded in the price of every lottery ticket that constitutes the lottery tax, according to Justice Orr. Purchase of the ticket may be voluntary, but payment of the imbedded tax is not. “You can’t buy a 65 cent lottery ticket,” Justice Orr reasoned.

Assistant Attorney General Norma Harrell argued for the State that there was no need for the General Assembly to follow the procedural requirements of Article 2, Section 23 of the State Constitution, because the Lottery Act was not a “revenue bill.” Purchasing a lottery ticket is voluntary, she argued, and confers a direct benefit to purchasers of lottery tickets—the chance to win a prize—and that benefit keeps the lottery from being a tax. The State is not liable for the payment of lottery prizes, Harrell argued, because the Lottery Commission is separate from the State and prizes are paid out of revenues.

Justice Orr began and Jack Holtzman closed the plaintiffs-appellants’ case by stating that the primary issue is about fairness and transparency in government. The purpose of Article 2, Section 23 in the State Constitution, both attorneys said, is to allow the citizens of the state the time and opportunity to lobby legislators and change their votes, to allow legislators the time to deliberate and to amend the bill, and to allow the press to publicize the contemplation of a new tax. The purpose of recording the votes is to provide a level of accountability between citizens and those who represent them. According to the brief filed for the plaintiffs-appellants: “Here, not only were the second and third readings in both houses held on the same day, but the important third reading was done by voice vote with no recordation of who voted for or against the bill. In the Senate, the Lieutenant Governor declared the voice vote a tie and ostensibly cast the tie breaking vote.”

The Lottery Act clearly imposes an imbedded tax on every purchaser of a lottery ticket, when 35 percent of the price of that ticket goes to fund State government’s share of public education. In addition, lottery winners can look to the State to guarantee payment of their prizes; thus, the lottery raises money on the credit of the State and pledges the faith of the State for payment. The Lottery Act should have been passed in compliance with our constitutional requirements for two separate recorded votes on two separate days. Circumventing the process for passing new taxes breaks the trust that the people of the State place in their elected General Assembly members.

Endnotes:

  1. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking.” U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, 2007. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov 10.
  2. “Alcohol and Public Health: CDC Quick Stats on Age 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age.” CDC. 3 September 2008. www.cdc.gov/print.do?url=http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstat; citing, “Alcohol Related Disease Impact (ARDI),” CDC. September 3, 2008. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/ardi/Homepage.aspx.
  3. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking.” U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, 2007. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov 10-11; “Alcohol and Public Health: CDC Quick Stats on Age 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age.” CDC. 3 September 2008. www.cdc.gov/print.do?url=http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstat; citing Miller, J.W., Naimi, T.S., Brewer, R.D., Jones, S. E. “Binge Drinking and Associated Health Risk Behaviors Among High School Students.” Pediatrics 2006; 119:76-85.
  4. “State by State Break-Down of Drinking Deaths,” The Boston Globe. July 8, 2008. http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2008/07/08/state_by_state_breakdown_of_drinking_deaths/.
  5. Id.
  6. 23 U.S.C. § 158 (1984).
  7. “With Lives at Stake, Let Logic Rule.” Washington Post. 24 August 2008; Shults, Ruth, et al. “Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Drivers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21 (4S) (2001): 66-88.
  8. MADD. “Underage Drinking and the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) Law.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving. http://www.madd.org/Parents/UnderageDrinking.aspx .
  9. “With Lives at Stake, Let Logic Rule.” Washington Post. 24 August 2008; citing, MADD. “ University Presidents Misguided in Signing Initiative to Discuss Lowering the Drinking Age.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving. http://www.madd.org/Article-Archive/2008/August/Article---Amethyst-Initiative-Underage-Drinking-Re.aspx.
  10. MADD. “21 Minimum Drinking Age—The Science.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving. http://www.madd.org/Parents/UnderageDrinking.aspx. NTSA FARS data as displayed in Alcohol Safety Facts guides at http://www-nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa//Availlnf.html#.
  11. Amethyst Initiative. “Welcome to the Amethyst Initiative.” http://www.amethystinitiative.org/.
  12. Amethyst Initiative. “Statement: Twenty-One is Not Working.” http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/.
  13. Amethyst Initiative. “Statement: How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?” http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/.
  14. Pope, Justin, the Associated Press. “College Leaders Want Debate on Drinking Age.” The News & Observer. 25 September 2008. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/higher_education/story/1184013.html.
  15. The Amethyst Initiative. “About: Why Amethyst?” http://www.amethystinitiative.org/about/.
  16. Letter from President Erskine Bowles to The Chancellors re: “Drinking Age Debate.” 29 August 2008.
  17. Duke Office of News & Communications. “Looking Back at the Duke Lacrosse Case.” http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/.
  18. Johnson, Mark and Ryan Teague Beckwith, McClatchy Newspapers. “McCrory, Perdue Meet for 3rd Debate.” Charlotte Observer. 24 September 2008 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/100/story/182552.html.
  19. “September 2008 Decision Maker Poll.” John W. Pope Civitas Institute. Question 26. 24 September 2008. http://www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/media/poll-results/september-2008-decisionmaker-poll.

Tami L. Fitzgerald is staff attorney with the North Carolina Family Policy Council.

Copyright © 2008. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.