Opponents of marijuana legalization often cite safety concerns, especially regarding the effects it would have on drivers. Alcohol causes enough harm, why add marijuana to the mix? Two recent studies, both published last week, provide some insights into how legalization has–or has not–affected crash and fatality rates.

The first study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), analyzed insurance claims for car crashes between January 2012 and October 2016. The study compared claims filed in states that have legalized marijuana–Colorado, Washington, and Oregon–with states nearby that have not. In the states that had legalized pot, insurance claims were about three percent higher than what would be expected if they had not legalized pot, the study found.

“The combined-state analysis shows that the first three states to legalize recreational marijuana have experienced more crashes,” Matt Moore, the senior vice president of IIHS’s Highway Loss Data Institute, said in a statement. “The individual state analyses suggest that the size of the effect varies by state.”

David Zuby, executive vice president and chief research officer at IIHS, said: “Worry that legalized marijuana is increasing crash rates isn’t misplaced,” adding that the findings “should give other states eyeing legalization pause.”

But another study published in the American Journal of Public Health found no significant uptick in crashes due to legalization.

Using federal data on vehicle collisions between 2009 to 2015, the study found no increase in crashes between Washington and Colorado–both of which have legalized recreational marijuana–and other states.

“Three years after recreational marijuana legalization, changes in motor vehicle crash fatality rates for Washington and Colorado were not statistically different from those in similar states without recreational marijuana legalization,” the study concluded.

While previous studies have illustrated the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana, others have suggested that states with medical marijuana laws have seen a drop in traffic incidents. A study published last December, also in the American Journal of Public Health, found an 11 percent drop in crash fatalities in the 28 states (and D.C.) that have legalized medical marijuana.

Dr. Silvia Martins, the author of that study, theorized that the drop could be the result of drivers swapping alcohol, a substance that led to about 10,300 driving deaths in 2015, to marijuana.

“We found evidence that states with the marijuana laws in place compared with those which did not, reported, on average, lower rates of drivers endorsing driving after having too many drinks,” Martins said in a statement when the study was published last year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Has Marijuana Legalization Impacted Driving Safety? appeared first on Law Street.

Arizona medical marijuana cardholders now have a better ability to defend themselves if they are charged with a marijuana DUI. The Arizona State Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors must present sufficient evidence that an individual was actually impaired at the time of the arrest.

The ruling overturned a man’s marijuana  conviction, after the defense argued he should have been able to present evidence that he wasn’t impaired. Nadir Ishak was pulled over by police in 2013 after he was seen drifting into another lane. According to the officer, Ishak admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier that morning and was exhibiting body and eye tremors during the test. Ishak was acquitted of the charge of driving under the influence but convicted for driving with marijuana in his body. However, the judge determined there wasn’t enough evidence to support that conviction.

“[A]ccording to evidence here, there is no scientific consensus about the concentration of THC that generally is sufficient to impair a human being,” appellate Judge Diane Johnsen wrote.

The appeals judge determined that defendants can defend a conviction “through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by providing their own testimony and evidence on whether they were impaired.”

According to the Associated Press, the ruling was made possible thanks to a 2015 Arizona Supreme Court decision that determined patients could use their medical marijuana cards as a defense, but not as immunity. Cardholders can try to prove that they didn’t have enough THC, marijuana’s major psychoactive component, in their system to impair their ability to operate the vehicle safety.

This decision is seen as a major setback for prosecutors since Arizona, unlike some other states, has no laws outlining the legal limit of THC that may be absorbed in the blood before an individual is determined to be impaired.

While this decision doesn’t mean medical marijuana cardholders cannot be convicted of DUIs, it does grant users more freedom in protecting their right to a prescription. Patients must decide for themselves if medicating with  cannabis before driving is worth the risk of a potential arrest.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona Medical Marijuana Patients Granted DUI Defense Options appeared first on Law Street.

States with medical marijuana laws have fewer traffic fatalities than those without, especially among younger drivers, says a new study.

Researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health found on average an 11 percent reduction in traffic fatalities when examining places that have enacted medical-marijuana laws–in total, 28 states and the District of Columbia.

There was also a strong correlation between the presence of medical marijuana dispensaries and fewer traffic fatalities, claimed the study, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The presence of medical marijuana laws seemed to have the biggest effect on the number of traffic fatalities for individuals between the ages of 15 and 44, with special emphasis on those aged 25 to 44 years.

Dr, Silvia Martins, a physician and associate professor who was a senior author of the study, told the Washington Post that the lower traffic fatality rates could be related to lower levels of alcohol-impaired driving as people–especially younger people–substitute weed for booze.

“We found evidence that states with the marijuana laws in place compared with those which did not, reported, on average, lower rates of drivers endorsing driving after having too many drinks,” Martins said in a written statement.

However, not every state experienced a substantial reduction in traffic fatalities. California and New Mexico, for example, both experienced gradual increases in traffic deaths after initial reductions of 16 percent and 17.5 percent, respectively.

“These findings provide evidence of the heterogeneity of medical marijuana laws and indicate the need for further research on the particularities of implementing the laws at the local level,” said Julian Santaella-Tenorio, a doctoral student in epidemiology at Columbia, and the study’s lead author. “It also indicates an interaction of medical marijuana laws with other aspects, such as stronger police enforcement, that may influence traffic fatality rates.”

While medical marijuana laws have seemingly influenced these rates, they may not be the sole factor driving the change.

According to Martins, other factors that might help explain the correlation could be the “strength of public health laws related to driving, infrastructure characteristics, or the quality of health care systems.”

Researchers used National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data on traffic fatalities from 1985 to 2014 to conduct the study. Factors such as whether the states had graduated driver licensing laws, as well as median household income, unemployment rates, laws increasing the speed limit to 70 mph or more, laws on enforcing the use of seat belts, and bans on using cellphones and texting while driving were all taken into account.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Study: Medical Marijuana Laws Linked to Drops in Traffic Fatalities appeared first on Law Street.

In an America where marijuana laws are being liberalized and the drug itself de-stigmatized, drivers who are found with traces of a cannabinoid in their blood can incur similar punishments in some states to those who drive under the influence of alcohol, a much deadlier exercise.

Marijuana researchers have been publishing studies over the past few years that have found marijuana to be a less dangerous substance than alcohol, and a recent study by the AAA Foundation for Public Safety appears to substantiate those claims when it comes to criminalizing drivers: “Legal limits, also known as per se limits, for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science.”

At the moment, drivers in Montana, Washington, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado are convicted of a DUI if they are found with a certain amount of a cannabinoid–THC, hydroxy-THC or carboy-THC–in their bloodstream. And similar to a DUI involving alcohol, this can result in hefty fines or even a lengthy prison stay. The problem is that THC can linger in a user’s bloodstream for days after actively ingesting the drug, whether for recreation or medical purposes, so a driver can be perfectly safe and sober while driving yet convicted of a crime because of an action taken a day or more prior. 

Michael L. Becker of the Las Vegas Defense Group and one of Nevada’s top criminal defense lawyers called the law “hypocritical”; that in a state where medical marijuana is legal it is possible for someone who uses the drug as a medicine one day and then is found with it in his or her bloodstream days later can be found guilty of a DUI offense.

“I’ve had cases where prosecutors have said to me ‘I know your client wasn’t under the influence, but I can prove he has metabolized marijuana in his system’,” Becker said in a phone interview with Law Street, pointing to cases in which a client’s body is still processing marijuana from a dose taken a day or more prior to when an arrest is made. “People are literally being prosecuted where everybody knows they weren’t even high.”

The current threshold for what is considered above the legal limit in Nevada is two nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, lower than the five milliliter threshold in Colorado and Washington, both of which have legalized marijuana completely. The new study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety used psychophysical tests (walk-and-turn, finger-to-nose) and physical indicators (bloodshot eyes, pupil dilation) on drivers who had consumed marijuana and those who had not, and determined quantifiable thresholds for THC “cannot be scientifically supported.”

That’s not to say driving high poses no danger whatsoever. Being under the influence of marijuana while driving doubles the chances of a crash, a figure most researchers accept. But according to a study from 2014, 20-year-olds who drive with an illegal amount of alcohol in their system (above 0.08 percent) are twenty times as likely to crash. The researcher who conducted that study, Eduardo Romano, told The New York Times, “Despite our results, I still think that marijuana contributes to crash risk, only that its contribution is not as important as it was expected.”

So how can THC levels be accurately quantified in determining whether a driver is under the influence of cannabis, and above the legal threshold, if not by blood-THC content?

There is hardly a consensus among researchers, partially because they are limited in their research since cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug in the U.S., meaning any research into it requires a special permit. Experts see saliva sampling as a promising alternative to blood testing, but the jury is out until more research is conducted.

While scientists try to figure out more reasonable ways of measuring the dangers of driving stoned, Becker, the lawyer in Las Vegas, continues to help his clients navigate the ironic situation of being legally allowed to use a drug that could put them in jail days after using it, if it’s in their system while they’re later behind the wheel. Becker wasn’t able to give an exact number of clients he represents who find themselves in this quandary, but he said it does happen.

And as marijuana is decriminalized and used more frequently, “[the law] is going to impact more people,” he said. Nevada’s law–drafted at a time when “communities were fearful and anti-marijuana”–has been examined for a repeal, but according to Becker, real change has been resisted because it’s not a “politically expedient” issue.

Becker hopes change is on the horizon: “The Nevada legislature is finally deciding to have an honest look at things. That’s the bright side,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis DUI Laws Unsupported by Science, New Study Suggests appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been another week, and yet again, people have done incredibly stupid, funny, and bizarre things and gotten in trouble for them. Check out the weird arrests of the week in the slideshow below:

Not Just Salad Dressing

Image courtesy of Mark Hardie via Flickr

Andres Josue Leal Valle was arrested in New York after he was stopped at JFK airport. He was found with 11 pounds of cocaine, but they were in a rather interesting place–packed in bottles of oil and vinegar. That would make for a truly bad salad dressing, so I guess we should be thankful it was discovered.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Whitney Marie Beall, 23, from Lakeland, Florida, was arrested after she live-streamed video of herself driving drunk this weekend. She used Periscope, a relatively new app that allows users to live stream videos. In the video, she narrates her predicament–she’s lost, has a flat tire, and is most importantly, incredibly intoxicated. Other Periscope users began reporting her to the police, and she was quickly arrested for drunk driving.

The videos of Beall are upsetting–she’s clearly drunk, and she’s reporting her state to her followers. She tells viewers she’s running a red light, says “driving drunk is not cool,” doesn’t appear to know where she is at various points and asks viewers for directions, and talks about driving over the speed limit. At one point she also wonders aloud if she’ll get a DUI, and says that she doesn’t think she will. Most of the video is dominated by Beall’s whiny musings about what direction she’s supposed to be driving in, and talking about how drunk she is. Many other Periscope users also implored Beall to stop driving, although it’s clear from the video that she’s not paying attention and isn’t listening to those pleas.

Check out some the videos below–each are about 10 minutes long and do contain NSFW language:

But the most important part of the videos ended up being the fact that she showed viewers shots from outside her windshield. Those looks, as blurry as they were, allowed people who were watching Beall’s streaming to get an approximate read on where she was, and call the police to stop her before she seriously injured herself or others.

Although the police in Lakeland don’t have access to an official Periscope account,  Sergeant Gary Gross, spokesperson for the department explained: “Luckily, one of our younger officers was able to figure it out.”

When police found her, she drove over a curb. Then she (very unsurprisingly) completely failed her sobriety test. She was arrested and booked with a very much deserved DUI.

Given Periscopes relative newness–it was only released about six months ago–it’s understandable that the Lakeland Police Department didn’t know what it was. But Beall’s case is just one example of the ways in which social media is changing law enforcement practices. After all, there have by now been plenty of cases of people being arrested based on their social media use. For example, Nicholas Wig, 26, of St. Paul, Minnesota, made headlines last year when he forgot to log off Facebook after breaking into a home and was subsequently arrested. There have also been many incidences of thieves being apprehended after taking pictures on a stolen phone, tablet, or computer. As the relationship that technology has with law enforcement continues to evolve, Periscope is just another new tool.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drunk Driver in Florida Caught via Periscope App appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Sunday, which means it’s time for another round-up of the weird arrests last week. Read on to check out the oddest things that led to a trip downtown last week.

Food Coma

Image courtesy of John Keogh via Flickr

A family in Lake Worth, Florida came home to find a burglary gone wrong. The intruder, 22-year-old Jacob Miller, broke in, enjoyed some beer and chicken, and then passed out on the family’s couch. He was still asleep when the police arrived.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a long, hot week in many parts of the country, but that still hasn’t stopped criminals from doing stupid things. Check out the slideshow of the weirdest arrests below.

Always Be Realistic About Your Skills

Courtesy of Willem van de Kerkhof via Flickr

Alexander Katz, of Logan, Utah, was arrested after he stole a car this week. Unfortunately, the heist didn’t quite go as planned–the car Katz stole was a manual, and he didn’t know how to drive it. His girlfriend, who was underage, was also arrested after the couple ditched the car and ran to gas station to call a cab.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s weird arrests involve some misbehaving adults, and a few misbehaving young people as well. Check out the slideshow below:

[SlideDeck2 id=37708 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

We may have six more weeks of winter, but we have an infinite amount of weird arrests from all corners of the United States. This week’s highlights include an alligator killer in Florida and a pants-less DUI in Pennsylvania. Enjoy the top Weird Arrests of the Week.

[SlideDeck2 id=33838 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Today’s installment of weird arrests of the week has a lot of fun highlights–including an international flair as an incident from Australia made the list. Enjoy!

[SlideDeck2 id=28308 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror can cause the blood to drain from your face, your hands to become clammy, and your heart to do a gymnast-style somersault. After the immediate physical effects of dread set in, questions begin to catapult forth from your mind. “How much will this cost me? “Did the officer see me texting?” “Am I going to lose my license?” The questions become louder and more frequent during that dreaded time waiting for the officer to approach your window and request your license and registration.

This is a nerve-racking situation that many will encounter during their years as drivers, which is why it is important to know your rights when a cop pulls you over. The following tips teach you what to do when you get pulled over and will make the anxiety-ridden experience more pleasant for you and the officer.

When Can an Officer Legally Pull You Over?

A cop needs probable cause — that is, a legitimate reason to believe you broke the law — in order to stop you. Speeding or driving with a broken tail light are both common examples of probable cause. Once you are pulled over, however, if a police officer observes something illegal in your vehicle such as drugs or weapons, he or she can arrest you and would not have to prove that you were speeding in court — just his account of the story suffices.

How and Where Should You Pull Over?

Unfortunately, due to the presence of crooked cops and police impersonators, it is of paramount importance to pull over in a well-lit, populated area. This promotes better safety for both the officer and driver. If you cannot pull over immediately, give a hand signal to the officer indicating that you plan to and drive the speed limit until you find a safe place; however, do not coast or drive for too long before stopping, as this could make it seem like you are trying to hide something. Once you do stop, there is some dispute as to whether or not it is a good idea to get out of the car. While staying in the driver’s seat could lead to the suspicion that you are concealing a weapon, getting out of the car can also seem threatening to some officers. A retired State Trooper in Virginia told the AOL Autos section that he never wanted drivers to get out of the car, as to him this indicated that he or she had something to be afraid of.

I don’t care if you’re the baddest officer there is, there’s always someone out there who’s badder than you, and if we can keep them inside the car, that’s the best way to keep from being injured.

-Retired Virginia State Trooper

Be On Your Best Behavior

You’ve already been pulled over, and whether or not you think this action was justified, it is important to be courteous to the officer to avoid provoking him or her to slam you with a higher fine or charge. Take a few deep breaths, greet the officer kindly, and don’t make any snide remarks.

According to the same retired Virginia officer, a woman once harassed him while he was trying to write her ticket. “I had to roll my window up while she was yelling at me…Well, I guess she didn’t like that because she yanked my door open and said, ‘Don’t you ignore me, you m——- f——!’ Well, that was it, she crossed the line there, so I cuffed her and arrested her for disorderly conduct and took her in.” Had she kept her cool, the woman may have prevented an unnecessarily unpleasant experience for both her and the officer.

It’s important to remember that you have the right to remain silent. Choosing your words carefully can be beneficial, as officers often seek an admittance of guilt from the driver. The 5th Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination. This means that you can answer “no” to an officer when he or she asks if you know why you were pulled over and to similar questions.

After the officer issues a ticket, warning, or other penalty, ask him or her if you may leave. This avoids the chance of leaving any loose ends or seeming like you are trying to make a getaway.

When Can a Cop Search Your Car or Cell Phone?

A police officer can legally search your vehicle under five circumstances:

1. If the officer asks and you consent to the search
2. If you have an illegal substance or object in plain sight
3. If you are arrested for a legitimate reason
4. If the officer has adequate reasoning to suspect a crime
5. If the officer believes crucial evidence could be destroyed without a search

These five criteria also dictate when an officer can do a search on a home. Minor traffic violations on their own do not constitute just cause for a search. The 4th Amendment provides the right to refuse a search, but officers do not need to inform drivers of this.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding whether or not it is lawful for officers to search the contents of cell phones without a warrant. The justices determined that doing so is generally unlawful, except to physically examine the phone to ensure it cannot be used as a weapon. If a police officer asks to search your phone, you can refuse to consent to the search until he or she has a warrant.

Know Your State Laws

Being at least slightly familiar with the driving laws in your state can be immensely beneficial in the event that you are pulled over. These laws can vary immensely from state to state, especially with regard to the use of electronic devices while operating a vehicle. For example, in New York, it is unlawful to talk on a cell phone whereas other states permit the use of hands-free devices.

Knowing even your most basic rights as a driver can only serve as a benefit in the event that you are pulled over. Click here to see an infographic with a state by state overview of driving.

 —

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jace via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know What to Do When You Get Pulled Over? appeared first on Law Street.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed in 1984, is turning 30 this year. The law, meant to curb teen drunk driving, has been the topic of debate since it was passed. Read on to learn more about what inspired the law, whether or not it works, and a few unintended consequences.

What is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the drinking age of every state at 21.

Well, not exactly– congress is not allowed to tell states that they have to make their drinking age a certain number. However, Congress does have power to control spending, including the allocations of funds to states. That’s why this act threatened to cut ten percent of federal highway funding to any state that did not change their drinking age to 21. By 1988, every state had changed their drinking age to 21.

Critics of the law had two main arguments. Some complained that the law was was an intrusion on states’ rights. Others argued that it was not fair that the federal government could call 18 year olds adults when they fight for their country, but not when they want a beer.

Watch the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), author of the National Minimum Wage Drinking Age Act Late, respond to these criticisms on PBS NewsHour.

Why was it passed?

This bill was the end result of a massive campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to lower the drinking age.

MADD was started in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat drunk driver. The group aggressively lobbied President Reagan and Congress to combat the issue of drunk driving, in part by increasing the drinking age to 21. The problem, in MADD’s eyes, had started a decade earlier. In the 1970s, as a result of the Vietnam War drafting 18-year-olds, some states decided to lower their drinking ages to 18. It only seemed fair; if you could be forced to fight, you should be allowed to drink. However, this led to a sharp spike in drunk driving fatalities.

One major cause was the phenomenon of “blood borders.” These were the borders between states with high drinking ages and states with low drinking ages. Historically, 18 years olds would drive to neighboring states to drink, then while driving back, crash and die. The hope was that raising the drinking age to 21 would lower drunk driving rates.

Has it worked?

Sort of — a Boston University study has shown that, since the drinking age was raised, there have been significantly fewer drunk driving accidents, and a strong majority, 89 percent, of drunk drivers today are between the ages of 21 and 44.

But, lower drunk driving rates are not just limited to those who are banned from drinking. Drunk driving in general has reduced across almost every age group.

Courtesy of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

As you can see, the most dramatic drop was in the 21-29 age group. The minimum drinking age did not impact them. Admittedly, there was also a notable drop in the 16-20 age group.

This decrease in drunk driving rates for all ages could still be the result of a lower drinking age if young people had stopped drinking. However, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 39 percent of high school students still say they drink. The statistics from the National Institute of Health are even more eye-opening. It states 72 percent of 12 graders have tried alcohol and 85 percent of college students drink, even though they are not 21.

So, if young people are still drinking, why did drunk driving decrease so dramatically? Choose Responsibly, an organization that sparks debate about alcohol laws and supports lowering the drinking age, argues that a mix of seatbelt laws, a lower legal BAC, and public awareness all explain the drop in drunk driving fatalities. They also argue that the drop in alcohol-related fatalities actually started in the 1970s, well before the drinking age was raised to 21.

Have there been any unintended consequences?

Different sources have come to different conclusions. While some say that the higher drinking age has definitely saved lives, others argue that unintended consequences have led to a binge drinking crisis.

According to the earlier mentioned NIH report, “underage drinkers consume, on average, four to five drinks per occasion about five times a month. By comparison, drinkers age 26 and older consume two to three drinks per occasion, about nine times a month.” So, while an adult might have a couple glasses of wine a few times a week, a young person will instead have double that amount once a week. Young people are drinking more alcohol in a shorter timeframe.

Watch this clip to learn about why this trend is so dangerous:

Binge drinking can also indirectly cause dangerous behavior in college students. This includes violence, unprotected sex, and even sexual assault. Choose Responsibly argues that this is a consequence of a high drinking age. If these young people were allowed to drink with adult supervision, they would learn how to drink safely and responsibly. Since drinking is illegal, they have been pushed into the shadows. It’s a lot easier to get dangerously drunk in your friend’s basement than it is at a bar.

The binge drinking trend has led some to call for a repeal, or at least a discussion, of the minimum drinking age. A 137 college presidents are signatories on a statement from the Amethyst Initiative, a group dedicated to lowering the drinking age. The presidents argue that they have seen the negative impact of a high drinking age on their own campuses, including high amount of binge drinking amongst their students.

On this point, the presidents are wrong and right. For one, Americans are binge drinking less than they used to as a whole. However, college students are the only group of Americans that are binge drinking as much as they used to. With this in mind, it makes sense the college presidents would be so concerned about this issue. Their point of view is shaped by their experience with a group that represents an outlier in drinking attitudes nationwide. College students are still binge drinking at higher rates than the rest of the country, but raising the drinking age to 21 seems to have lowered the amount of binge drinking amongst young people who are not in college.

Still, Amethyst presidents are concerned about a culture where college drinkers move from bars, where someone can cut them off, to basements and pre-games that are unregulated and unchecked.

Signatories to the Amethyst Initiative have other reasons to lower the drinking age, mostly philosophical. For one, they believe that forcing young people to drink in secret and violate the law fosters a disrespect for all laws. They also believe that a person who can vote, smoke, marry, and fight for their country should be given all of the responsibilities of adulthood, including drinking.

Conclusion

It’s been 30 years since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act became a law, and it is still hard to measure the act’s impact. It’s difficult to tell how many lives it saved from drunk driving accidents because there are so many other factors. It’s also challenging to figure out if it has really curbed underage and binge drinking. More research needs to be done on the issue before the act can be defined as a success or failure.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Additional

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: No More Victims

Fox News: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Mental Floss: Why is the Drinking Age 21?

CNN: Drinking Age of 21 Does Not Work

Amethyst Initative: Rethink the Drinking Age

Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox

Washington University in St. Louis: Higher Drinking Age Linked to Less Binge Drinking…Except in College Students

Boston University: New Report on Minimum Drinking Age Makes Strong Case for Existing Laws

National Institutes of Health: Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

Choose Responibility: Those Who Choose to Drink Are Drinking More

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Binge Drinking Fact Sheet

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turn Down for What: Does the Minimum Drinking Age Act Work? appeared first on Law Street.