South Carolina magistrate finds constitutional right for 18 year old drinking age

“Every citizen who is eighteen years of age or older, not laboring under disabilities prescribed in this Constitution or otherwise established by law, shall be deemed sui juris [of age, literally "of one's own laws"] and endowed with full legal rights and responsibilities, provided, that the General Assembly may restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons until age twenty-one.” (emphasis added)

That's Article 17, Section 14, of the South Carolina constitution. Recently, citing this section, South Carolina magistrates in Richard and Aiken counties have ruled that state laws prohibiting people from 18 to 20 from drinking alcohol beverages (I hate the term "alcoholic beverages") are unconstitutional. The magistrates pointed out that the section in question specifically says that the legislature may restrict the sale of such beverages to persons between 18 and 20 years of age....it says nothing about the legislature restricting possession or consumption.

Well, well, well. This is an interesting dingus in constitutional law. The 21st Amendment to the U.S. constitution says that the states have the right to regulate alcohol; but federal law (Title 23, section 158) also punishes states that do not have a 21 LDA by taking away 10% of their federal highway money. But the South Carolina constitution section in question pre-dates that federal law. If the state abides by the letter of its constitution, do they lose federal money? Or do we finally have the case to walk up the line to revisit South Dakota vs. Dole?

These cases come at a crucial time. The Amethyst Initiative has opened the debate on the 21 LDA, 18 year old Americans are at war, defending their country, and the debate, after an initial roar of protest from the New Drys, has started to develop voices in favor of lowering the LDA. One very interesting voice is Dr. Morris Chafetz, who was on the presidential commission in the 1980s that recommended raising the drinking age to 21. Chafetz recently referred to his actions on that committee as "the single most regrettable decision" of his career.*

The debate is necessary, useful, and should not be decided by any single study, or piece of research, or group. Full debate and a real airing of the facts is needed. I don't trust most of the 'research' coming from the New Drys any more, because they've been caught lying -- and continue to lie -- too many times. I'd like to see some impartial research done.

In the meantime, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in SC. My bets are on a very fast constitutional amendment...but we'll see.



*"Legal Age 21 has not worked," Chafetz said in the piece. "To be sure, drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982. But they are lower in all age groups. And they have declined just as much in Canada, where the age is 18 or 19, as they have in the United States." How come no one else is admitting this?

Kentucky Bourbon Festival: MADD postscript

As I was waiting for the shuttle, being responsible and all, I heard an airplane flying overhead. I looked up and saw it was towing a banner:

DESIGNATE A SOBER DRIVER - MADD.ORG

Well, that was a good thing. That's actually a great thing, and I wish MADD would stick to that kind of non-insane program. Way too much of what MADD does now is, well, suspect. They plug away at getting ignition interlocks put in DUI arrestee's cars...and accept large donations from the company that makes them. They are actually pushing for every car to have alcohol sensors; won't that be a bonanza for their sponsor! Do I really think MADD's that mercenary? Not really; I think they honestly believe this is a good idea, and the company is donating to them because they're fellow travelers. But that's exactly the kind of accusatory crap they throw at the booze industry all the time. The 21 LDA: what the hell is MADD doing with that? You want to cut back on kids driving drunk? Raise the ridiculously low driving age! Lowering the legal BAC: how about pushing for real punishment for higher BACs, the people who are shown time after time to be the truly dangerous drunk drivers? How about some programs to prevent licensees overserving patrons? How about some rewards for compliance and proactive actions instead of always being focused on punishment for non-compliance?

The thing is...as other folks commented here, all this stuff makes perfect sense if you posit that MADD is not an anti-drunk driving organization, but an anti-drinking organization.

MADD cranks it up

Saw in a press digest today where MADD CEO Chuck Hurley (what kind of "mother" are you, Chuck?) described the Amethyst Initiative as "a threat to public health and safety." Not the actual lowering of the LDA to 18, mind you: just talking about it.

As I've said before, this strikes me as outright un-American. It's a problem, these folks at Amethyst want to talk about new ideas for solving or ameliorating it...because clearly, what we're doing isn't working as well as it could.

I don't mean to belittle what's been done -- underage drinking is down, overall -- but the way we drink is the main issue here, and that's what MADD is completely missing. We can be better; there are other countries where it's better, just as there are countries where it's as bad or worse. But the 21 LDA is not helping...and that's one of the first things we need to look at.

The Amethyst Initiative: an Open Letter

I just sent the following letter to the president of my undergraduate alma mater, Franklin & Marshall College, urging him to sign the Amethyst Initiative. The Initiative seeks to encourage a national debate on the legal drinking age. As I note in my letter, signing the Initiative does not commit a president to supporting a lower drinking age; it says that they support open debate on the issue. In turn, I urge you to send a similar letter/e-mail to the president of your alma mater; if they've already signed, send them a note of support, because MADD is evidently starting up a campaign to deluge them and their boards with negative mail. This is important. The 21 LDA is not working; dangerous drinking is taking place at campuses at an alarming rate, and those bad practices continue after graduation. We need to discuss how to change the drinking culture in the U.S., and this is a terrific place to start.
(Oh, and...apparently President Fry's on vacation; I got an auto-response to my e-mail that he was out of the office for a few weeks and would respond as soon as he could. I look forward to it.)


Dear President Fry,

As a Franklin & Marshall alumnus, Class of 1981, I would like to encourage you to consider signing the Amethyst Initiative (http://www.amethystinitiative.org/). I'm sure you're familiar with it after the nationwide coverage the initiative received this week: the Initiative seeks to encourage an honest, open, unemotional debate on the legal drinking age, currently a de facto national level at the age of 21.

Signing the Initiative does not commit you to any policy -- a lower drinking age, changes in drinking age enforcement, alcohol education programs, etc. It merely says that you encourage an open discussion of a policy and a federal mandate that is, right or wrong, all too tragically not working. MADD and other groups have characterized Initiative signatories as having "waved the white flag on underage and binge drinking policies," and are attempting to intimidate signatories into removing their names. I'm proud to note that this campaign has been completely ineffective; instead, as of this morning, 23 more college presidents have added their names to the Initiative.

Why not join them? If a policy has failed this badly, open debate -- on why it has failed and whether it can be made effective or should be changed -- is a positive and healthy approach. The Amethyst Initiative seeks to encourage that debate in an atmosphere clear of emotion, fear, and personal attacks. What could be more fitting in academia? Please consider lending your support to this call for debate.

Lew Bryson '81

Excellent piece on underage drinking

Time magazine's website has this article on the consequences of draconian underage drinking laws, the "murky" science behind the New Dry's squealing about alcohol's effect on the "teen-age brain," and the promise of drinking with your kids. Really. A very well-done piece, and quite an example of the new, thoughtful wave of articles on underage drinking that are, I believe, being encouraged by the appearance of groups like Choose Responsibility.

Great piece. Go read. Spread it around.

Why Not Mention This?

There's a truly disturbing story in the Philadelphia Inquirer today about underage drinking in Haddonfield, New Jersey. They've had two teenage deaths directly related to alcohol in the past seven months, teens taken to the hospital for heavy drinking in the past two weeks, and a serious problem with underaged house parties when parents go away, including one disgusting incident in which...well, a lot of really nasty stuff happened. I'm not going to sensationalize this post with it, just say that this "party" did $18,000 of damage to the house. That one's been an ongoing story as a small number of kids wiggled off the hook with the help of their parents and lawyers, disgusting the readers of Monica Yant Kinney's column in the Inky. It's turning into a nasty class thing, with everyone talking about "those rich white kids in Haddonfield."

Two things to note. First, I'm appalled. Not only is this out of hand, but this is almost all about kids who are well under 18. The girl who invited students to the piss-piano-poo party was 14. I'm appalled by the age, I'm appalled by the lack of effective punishment. This is one of the main reasons I'm pushing an 18 LDA: so we can focus enforcement efforts on students under 18. The New Drys say an 18 LDA will put more booze in the hands of under 18 students. Reading this story, I don't hardly see how. I say, an 18 LDA will let us stop wasting time and money trying to get college students to stop drinking, and let us help parents keep an eye on their at-home kids.

But the real thing that got me writing this in the first place...is that no one has mentioned that Haddonfield is a dry town. Since 1873. Dry town. Another great policy that is just working so swell. Do you need one more piece of evidence that prohibition doesn't work?

New Jersey towns...they've got a 'grass-roots' movement going now to spread the keg registration stupidity one town at a time. I've seen this in other states, most recently in Iowa. They get town after to town to swallow this policy placebo, and then start telling them that the reason it's not working -- which it won't -- is because "the kids" are just buying kegs in the town next door (plenty of those in NJ, too), so what we really need is a state-wide law.

Right. And that worked so well with the dry movement that spawned Haddonfield's Noble Experiment.

Democrats Don't Get It; Any Republicans?

Choose Responsibility has a YouTube video link up at their blog, a clip of the Democratic presidential candidate debate at Dartmouth last night, where a mother of two asked if any of them would back removing the federal mandate for a 21 LDA, which she believes to be counter-productive. Joe Biden led the very disappointing responses by bloviating about drunk driving deaths, alcoholism, and fetal alcohol syndrome...all of which really have nothing to do with the 21 LDA. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson fell over themselves to agree, dismissing the very idea of lowering the LDA, or giving that power back to the states (because that, after all, was what the woman was really asking).

Russert cut to the chase and asked if anyone was in favor of it. Mike Gravel (hell if I knew he was even running) and Dennis Kucinich spoke up, Gravel hitting the popular tagline that's driving the 18 LDA movement -- anyone old enough to fight and die for this country should be able to have a drink -- and Kucinich added that we needed to have confidence in young Americans: drinking age of 18, he said, voting age of 16.

None of them have gotten the depth of Choose Responsibility's position (my position): the 21 LDA does not prevent worse damage from young drinking, it is causing it. Still, it's out there in open national debate, at what is arguably the highest level. I have to see this as an advancement for the cause. And I'll predict that in a wide-open Republican debate, the only candidate who will be in favor of an 18 LDA will be the Texas quasi-libertarian, Ron Paul.

Yet another voice in the LDA debate

There's a guest commentary in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today: Matt Lee, a senior journalism major at the University of Georgia, writing about the unintended consequences of the 21 LDA. Lee smartly suggests the old "2-tier" system of beer at 18, liquor at 21 (Lee makes no mention of wine...which, of course, never ever gets you drunk, so it's not a problem). It's a good piece, take a look.

This is exactly what I've been wanting to see, and exactly what I've been observing: a debate on this topic. The New Drys screamed and squealed when this started ("Age 21 Law [is] Not Open For Debate" howled the Marin Institute in a beautiful display of anti-American passion for censorship), and now that it's fully underway, they're engaging in fumbling attempts to ridicule the debate itself (see their blockheaded copy of Choose Responsibility's site). Guys: is a debate of the issue so dangerous that it shouldn't even take place? Or is it that you know your "facts" won't stand up to real scrutiny?

MADD strikes back

MADD is not going to take the open debate on the possibility of lowering the legal drinking age lying down. Despite polls that show over 3/4 of Americans are against lowering the legal drinking age, MADD is doing what they can to make sure it stays tamped down and under control. Part of that campaign is a new blog, "Why 21?"

The blog, so far, is mostly "hey look, lowering the drinking age doesn't work, told ya!" kind of stuff, the same kind of anecdotal, half-science/half-threat stuff the anti-alcohol squeaks have relied on for years -- Actually, you know what? I just made up my mind: I'm going nomenclature on their ass. I hereby decide to refer to these people as what they are: the New Drys. Call 'em as I see 'em, and make no mistake -- these people are the direct descendants of Wayne Wheeler and Carrie Nation. From now on, that's what I'm calling them.

Now, where was I? Ah, yes, the MADD blog. The thing that's amazing, is that so far, they have allowed comments on their posts. You can't sign in anonymously, but they don't moderate, otherwise. I've posted what I've thought of their stuff, and it's still there. I don't know if they're forthright or just stupid, but my hat's off to them for that. And of course, I'd encourage you to go have a look and leave whatever civil comments you think of as you read. It reads like a bunch of weakly correlated suppostion to me, but I admit I may have my own slant on things.

Drinking Age debate on Rethinking Drinking

There's a YouTube link up on Rethinking Drinking, the blog for Choose Responsibility.org, the new research group that is encouraging public debate on lowering the legal drinking age to 18. Group founder John McCardell and a MADD representative appeared on FoxNews on Feb. 18 to "debate" McCardell's proposal to lower the LDA to 18, in conjunction with a safe drinking education program. Here's the link:

Rethinking Drinking: Drinking Age debate

The video's not exactly electrifying, but it does get the basic stand of both parties out there. McCardell believes -- as do I -- that the 21 LDA drives drinking underground into unsafe, unsupervised territory, and abridges the rights of adults. MADD believes that the 21 LDA has saved over 20,000 lives in 22 years, and quotes "hundereds" of studies to back that up. They also characterize McCardell's proposal as a dangerous gamble with the lives of America's youth.

The debate was too short for any give and take at all; just state initial positions, then a closing statement. McCardell out-pointed the MADD rep -- he'd better have, as a former college president against a 19-year-old -- but didn't get the chance to rip open the soft underbelly of those hundreds of studies, which suffer from a severe lack of cause and effect. I had to giggle when the MADD boy urged us to use science to settle the debate: these folks have their tame research groups -- PIRE, CSPI, CAMY, and a handful of heavily-infiltrated governmental agencies -- but the tide is starting to turn, and McCardell's group is just the latest example. Most anti-alcohol science is crap science; not all, by any means, but most, in the opinion of the few scientists I've shown it to.

The thing is...I do agree with the MADD boy to a degree. This is a gamble with the lives of America's youth. We don't know what will happen if we lower the LDA to 18, not really. My gut feeling is that alcohol-related deaths in the 18-21 cohort will go up, although my gut also says that they'll go down in the 12-17 and 22-30 cohorts. That's the gamble: will we lose more or less?

Face the fact: alcohol is dangerous. You can easily drink too much, which will temporarily impair and change you in ways that can lead to bad decisions, sometimes tragically bad. There is a learning curve associated with the stuff, and we've all stumbled over it.

Which is why McCardell's proposal is something more than just moving the age around. If there's a learning curve, let's flatten it somewhat. That's what McCardell's "drinking license" idea is about. It's a funny sounding idea -- and his group acknowledges that right up-front, by linking to another YouTube video in the same blog post, a pair of stereotyped Southerners yukking it up over the very idea. But at least it's funny and smart, not callous and horrifyingly stupid, like telling kids nothing about alcohol and then pushing them out of the nest at 21 to fall or fly all on their own.

What McCardell and Choose Responsibility is really calling for is open debate. Honest debate. Factual debate. Is that so scary? Bring on the debate, and if one side resorts to emotion and hysteria, call them on it.