The drinking age is stupid—and unconstitutional

There are many arguments both for and against the drinking age. People are familiar with the common social arguments: supporters claim it protects the youth, and detractors contend it does the exact opposite, leading to binge-drinking.

The men and women of this country are deemed unfit to make responsible decisions about drinking until they reach the magic age of 21. It seems odd that almost every other right restricted by age uses 18: the right to marry without parental consent, to join the armed forces, to sign legal contracts, and to be tried as an adult in the court of law are just a few. For some reason, alcohol is put on a pedestal. This just increases its appeal as a forbidden fruit. The age restriction gives drinking alcohol a special significance to those under age. In other countries, children are exposed to alcohol when they are young, which eliminates alcohol’s “badassery.” It doesn’t seem as cool if you grow up drinking wine at dinner with your grandma.

The drinking age in some states used to be 18. How did it get pushed to 21, you might ask. Well, misguided groups like Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD) claimed that an increase in the drinking age would lower the number of accidents caused by intoxicated drivers. Their argument was strictly from a societal standpoint. But for some reason, they lacked the foresight to realize that educating kids in ways to drink more safely is much more effective than just forcing alcohol consumption behind closed doors. So like all groups who abandon logic, they used pleas to emotion. “The Simpsons” character Helen Lovejoy’s famous catchphrase, ”What about the children? Won’t somebody please think of the children?” best sums up their argument. Statements like these proved persuasive, and the federal government decided to act. How they got every state to comply was a bit underhanded, and it all has to do with highways.

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the words “federal highway”? The I-95 or some other interstate, right? Well, believe it or not, the drinking age is also associated with our national roadways. The Federal Aid Highway Act stipulates that a state that does not enforce the minimum age of 21 would receive a 10% decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment. Basically, the federal government can threaten to cut a state’s funding, and a state has little choice but to accede to its demands. As a result, every state quickly adopted laws that moved the legal drinking age to 21. Just like that, the government used extortion to force states to accept its will.

This makes the new drinking age objectionable not only from a health standpoint but also on the grounds of states’ rights. Every power not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution nor specifically restricted is given to the states. It’s a system our forefathers put in place for a reason. But as we all know, money is a very powerful force in American politics and law-making. And the drinking law sets a dangerous precedent. The government has a much bigger say in dictating our social lives than we might think.

Our country is known for its diversity. As one travels from one place to another, culture and opinions vary greatly. Because of this, a social law dictated by the federal government forces many citizens to alter their way of life and infringes on their rights. States should be able to legalize and tax any substance they want. If people find those states uninhabitable as a result of their policies, then they have every right to move to a state that shares their views.

Currently, states have the right to regulate gun laws but not laws concerning alcoholic beverages. So if you want to walk around carrying a pistol, you can leave New York. But if you want to drink, you need to go international. Or to 114th.

The author is a Columbia College first-year.