MLDA In 1984

I. Introduction

The ongoing debate is the perceived unfairness in the minimum legal drinking age act in the United States to 21 that many believe as unnecessarily high. The rationale of this law, enacted in 1984, was to reduce the number of alcohol related road accidents among young adolescent, but apart from this, evidence show that increasing the age of alcohol consumption only created a forbidden fruit appeal.

In this discussion, we would solidify our position that the MLDA should be reduced back to 18, or could be compromised to 19, as many countries in the world do. We would begin by addressing the concerns of alcohol in young adolescent to understand the position of proponents of the 1984 Act. We would also delve in briefly why the MLDA

was increased to 21. Our counterargument is citing myths and realities in regards to drinking age which, incidentally, were the same myths and realities when the American government passed the Prohibition. This would lead to our argument that the MLDA 21 creates a forbidden fruit appeal wherein it tempts or creates deviant behavior among young adolescents. The basis of our argument comes from some deviant behavior theories and behavioral economics, particularly on how humans and economic incentives interact.
II. Alcoholism and Social Responsibility
The barriers against access to alcohol have always been set relative to individual’s sense of responsibility. Whether the alcohol consumption is legally set to 21 or 18, its purpose is to set a deterrent against the negative effects of alcohol to the person and to others. Once, the effects of alcohol and alcoholism were viewed as a disease. It was only in 1989 was there a solid counterargument against alcoholism as a disease. This was proposed by American social psychologist Stanton Peele, Ph.D. Peele argued that the disease concept "excuses alcoholics for their past, present, and future irresponsibility" and points out that most people can overcome addiction on their own (Hobbs, 2008). With this operating paradigm, treatment is often associated with creating a supportive environment that will help the alcoholic lead a constructive life. This is based on Dr. Peele’s view that alcoholism is personal conduct problem, instead of thinking it as a disease. The advantage of this view is that Peele is not looking for patients to get out of alcoholism by becoming dependent (again) to another sources.
This perspective is arguably the intended direction when the minimum legal drinking age was raised to 21. Some concerned parties and the government wanted to instil an environment where the buying and consuming of alcohol should be correlated to one’s sense of responsibility. In this sense, laws want to enforce alcohol consumption to rational thought—believing that by 21, young adolescents know much about their personal and social responsibilities when they decide to drink.
The fact is without a sense of responsibility, an alcohol consumer might be led to an excess consumption, something many blamed on earlier drinking age. In addition to the serious problems excessive drinkers create for themselves, they also pose serious difficulties for others. About 10 percent of all deaths each year are related to alcohol abuse (Carson et al, 1998, 357). Alcohol abuse is also associated with over have deaths and major injuries suffered in automobile accidents each year. About one out of three arrests in the United States is related to alcohol abuse. And alcohol related accidents are, in fact, the leading cause of death among college-age people (Carson et al, 1998, 357). On the other hand, in 1991 Helzer and colleagues (cited in Carson et all, 1998, 357) reported that a lower incidence of alcoholism is associated with such factors as being married, having higher levels of education and being older—all of which stands to reason the increase of minimum legal drinking age of 21.
III. The 1984 Act
In 1984, President Ronald Reagan enacted the Presidential Commission Against Drunk Driving (PCDD).

The commission passed as many as 39 recommendations on how to curb the growing epidemic of drunk driving. In all, the recommendations were grouped as a comprehensive approach in reducing the number of alcohol related deaths on highways. The eighth recommendation was directed at the minimum legal age of purchasing alcohol that swayed state to raise it to 21, or else they would lose certain percentage of the federal highway dollars (History, n.d.). The target of the commission’s recommendation was to create supportive environment across the adult population in handling alcohol and alcoholism. But, soon enough, the raising of the minimum drinking age was to become the primary focus as the nation was steered toward young people’s drinking habits. Exclusive interest in raising the drinking age marginalized the effect of the remaining 38 recommendations, among them suggestions to implement youth education programs, establish a massive public information campaign, and to increase penalties for convicted drunken drivers (History, n.d.). After extensive lobbying by interest groups, Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act raising the drinking age to 21. By 1987, all 50 states followed suit. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam (until 2010) remained steadfast with 18 despite losing highway funding. College campuses across the country, however, took a special interest with the issue since they all struggle with the issues of underage drinking. Only few schools implemented the recommendations of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism finding that raising the drinking age to 21 have proven

ineffective.
IV. Myths and Realities
Arriving at the minimum drinking age of 21 was the same sort of reasoning used when the government tried to ban the sale of alcohol during the 1920s. At the time alcoholism and problem related to it soon gave rise to the temperance movement across the country, looking at alcohol at the root cause of America’s problem. By accepting the disease concept of alcoholism, the public were more likely to avoid it, fearing that it enslaved them. This widespread rationalization would soon lead American legislators to pass the prohibition. But then again, by prohibiting alcohol altogether, it created appeal, if not a delinquency, in trying to purchase it. During the Prohibition period, there were hidden speakeasies that spread in major cities like New York and Chicago. To draw patrons, these establishments sold alcohol. And the more alcohol was banned, the more these speakeasies became more profitable.
The reason for the appeal was that not all people bought the myths of alcoholism. In the 1920s, for example, not everyone believed on the idea that alcoholism was a disease. In the same vein, not everyone bought to the idea from which the drinking age of 21 came from. Among these myths, first of all, is that 21 keep people under the age from consuming alcohol. The reality is that, the law failed to protect young people from excessive alcohol consumption. According to the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, 96% of the alcohol drunk by 15-20 year olds happened when the drinker had five or more drinks at the time (Myths and Realities, n.d.). Moreover, between 1993 and 2001, 18-20 years olds were found to have the largest increase in binge drinking episodes.
The second myth is that the law reduced alcohol related traffic fatalities. The reality is that the legal age of 21 may have played a role in reducing alcohol related traffic fatalities, but to prove so is undocumented over the past decades simply because it has bee impossible to trace it directly as having a cause and effect relationship. Third myth claims that prohibition works. The truth is that prohibition does not work. It didn’t work in the 1920s and it is not working right now. When it comes to America, placing a prohibition within the U.S. Constitution was a failed social experiment that led to an increase number of delinquencies like smuggling, violence, organized crimes, while doing little to reduce excessive alcohol use of the public.
Instead, research shows that the legal age of 21 had very limited success. It did not actually reduce alcohol related accidents by itself, the rate began to decline as early as 1969 when precautions were placed in vehicles. From 1969 to 1975, when many 18 years old could drink legally, teen fatality rate decreased by 19% (Most Americans know, n.d.). More interestingly, when the legal age of 21 was implemented, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Adminstration found out that the largest number of alcohol related traffic related fatalities occurred among 21 year-olds, followed by 22 and 23 years olds (Most Americans know, n.d.), twice as many as 18 years olds. In reality, then, the legal age of 21 postponed fatalities, it did not reduce them. The lives of the age group saved by the law were offset by the legal age of 21 to 23. This tells us that the law itself was just a solution that was skin deep. Alcohol problems needed to be examined more in-depth. There are four factors that when combined together is more effective that the legal age 21. They are: safer cars, a higher awareness of drivers of all ages, the greater utilization of designated driver, and more vigorous law enforcement.
V. Behavioral Economics and the Role of Incentives
A general rule when it comes to sociology and deviance, when something is prohibited, it becomes more appealing. Drinking is defiance of the legal age 21 continues to be a persistent problem. College campuses can attest to that. Doing so is a form of delinquency. Society is the number one culprit in the creation of delinquency. The sad truth is that some societies create a condition for the youth to create their counterculture against social order. When this happens, we arrive at the other, more common form of delinquency—the influence and the formation of countercultures, which explains the speakeasies in the 1920s and why the legal age 21 is not working at curbing teens from consuming alcohol.
This brings us back to the ineffectiveness of the legal age 21. The law, understandably, is grounded on the belief that people behave rationally even when it comes to alcohol consumption. So when the law says that it’s illegal to consume alcohol below 21, people will acquiesce. Wrong. They will not acquiesce according to the established policy. They will still do what is perceived as good for them. Behavioural economics, on the other hand, has a better understanding of this behavior. According to his, people are by no means consistently rational. For example, an obese person or a smoker, when he is truly rational, would go on a diet or give up cigarettes because they recognize its dangers to their health. In the same manner, if young adolescents and teenagers are truly rational, they would indeed wait until they get to 21 to buy drinks. Yet despite these examples, however commonplace, the standard notion that people have limitless capacity for rationality, willpower, and selflessness, people are more prone to emotion, which can make them act irrationally.
Behavioral economics could also largely explain why legal age 21 has not brought order in the selling and consuming of alcohol in college campuses. In a report by Dubner (2012) in West Virgnia university where the school experimented on selling beers to students in a football stadium rather than prohibit selling them during game time. This seemed counterintuitive, but lo and behold, the number of incidents of arrest, violence and injuries related to alcohol consumption reduced to 35% and the sale of alcohol in the stadium also brought in extra revenue (Dubner, 2012). The brains behind this experiment reasoned that prohibition is not the key. When you’ve got a problem, you can either stick your head on the sand or acknowledge the problem and come up with a new kind of solution.
The new kind of solution may perhaps lie on understanding the economics’ definition incentives behind the legal age 21. Economics at its root is the study of incentives: how people get what they want or need, especially when other people need the same thing. Punishment for underage drinking may render the minor with negative economic consequences, but the incentives of drinking at 18 at the height of one’s perception of adventure, partying with friends, cannot simply be taken away by economic sanctions. American culture, not the government, has been selling the idea of having a good time in your youth as landmark events of one’s life. To some it is a rite of passage, to others it is cool and it wins them peers. The price of the consequences just simply cannot offset the memories, or the badges, the getting a drink at a party gets. Some people, when they badly want something, would try to get around the barrier to get an incentive. They will cheat. When it comes to the legal age 21, younger Americans today have never known anything but needing to be 21—or owning an ID (or a fake ID) that says they are—just to buy a six pack or drink in a bar (Griggs, 2014).
VI. Conclusion
The National Minimum Legal Age of 21 was rooted on the objective of reducing alcohol related road accidents in 1984. In this paper, we argued against the law as unfair and unjustified. At best, the law was only surface deep, it did not tackle alcoholism at its root. The law did not work because it created the forbidden fruit appeal among teenagers to drink alcohol, just what Americans did during the Prohibition era. The continuation of the law is largely based on myths and undocumented facts. Consequently, the law increased the delinquency of youths who want to sway the law and get a drink. Behavioral economics explain this phenomenon in terms of incentives.