Eighteen to 20-year-olds everywhere have their attention turned to three states who are may be in the process of lowering the drinking age to 18-years-old. California, Minnesota, and New Hampshire all have legislation in the works that would allow people under the age of 21 to drink in certain circumstances. Though each plan is unique, with its own caveats and rules, it looks like this time next year 18-year-olds may be able to enjoy a drink every once in a while in these states.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s proposed plan, House Bill 1606-FN, was introduced to its legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Thursday and is sponsored by Republican Max Abramson. The bill’s aim is to try to dampen the binge drinking culture we see so much of in today’s society by allowing people between the ages of 18 and 21 to drink beer and wine in the presence of someone over the age of 21. The bill states that lowering the drinking age in this capacity will make it so that “younger people will no longer be initiated to alcohol consumption in the absence of adult supervision.” Essentially, the state wants to introduce kids to alcohol in a safer, more controlled environment than what a lot of teens are currently experiencing.

Binge drinking is a big problem in our country today, especially among underage drinkers. According to the CDC, “about 90 percent of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.” The CDC also notes that excessive drinking costs the United States “$249 billion in 2010, or $2.05 a drink, from losses in productivity, health care, crime, and other expenses. Binge drinking was responsible for 77 percent of these costs, or $191 billion.” Many people who talk about lowering the drinking age cite European habits when it comes to alcohol; younger teens can drink beer and wine at a young age and are generally introduced to casual drinking in a family setting. This then leads to lower levels of underage binge drinking, which the United States clearly has a problem with.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s bill is slightly different and would allow people over the age of 18 to drink any kind of alcohol, but only in bars or restaurants. This new bill is an extension of Senator Phyllis Kahn’s proposal from this time last year, which would allow 18-year-olds to drink in bars as long as they are with their parents. This idea comes with the hope that teens will stop drinking to excess at dorm parties in favor of drinking responsible amounts in public. People under the age of 21 still wouldn’t be able to purchase alcohol from liquor stores–they’d only be allowed to drink under the supervision of the general public at restaurants where they can be easily cut off by bartenders or waiters.

Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, who currently opposes to the bill, said of the bill,

I think we are better off staying where we are. I haven’t talked to any of the legislators about it, I don’t have an etched-in-concrete position, but this debate has been going on appropriately for many years now, and the middle ground comes down to: It should be 21, where it is now.

The governor’s statements are technically correct, and we have some existing legislation like this to judge whether or not letting kids drink with their parents helps reduce binge drinking. For example, in Wisconsin, anyone under the age of 21 can drink alcoholic beverages in licensed establishments if they are with their parents or legal guardians. This law is technically at the discretion of the restaurants, so they can prohibit minors from buying or drinking alcohol even if the underage patrons are supervised. Unfortunately, for those hoping Wisconsin may be a shining example of how our country should lower the drinking age, statistics show that Wisconsin is actually one of the states with the biggest binge drinking problem in America. To be fair, this data was taken from adults ages 21 and over, but, it certainly doesn’t help further the theory that teaching people young will promote healthier drinking habits overall.

California

The final state that is considering lowering its drinking age is California, this time in the form of a ballot initiative. The initiative was drafted and last year by Terrance Lynn, who is now in the process of collecting signatures so the measure can be placed on a ballot this coming April. Lynn will need 365,880 signatures in order to have the general public vote on whether or not they want to lower the drinking age, which may be an entirely separate battle if the initiative makes it that far.

Because this law doesn’t have any financial backing and it would directly allow 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and consume alcohol legally, California could lose up to $200 million in highway funds. Why? After the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed, states that lower their drinking age to below 21-years-old can have their highway funding cut by 10 percent. This act was passed with the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), an organization working to prevent the thousands of drunk driving deaths every year, in an attempt to decrease the number these deaths substantially. While the measure would significantly reduce funding from the federal government, an estimate from the state’s Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance said that the measure could increase sales tax revenue by several million dollars per year.

Final Verdict?

People under the age of 21 shouldn’t get too excited just yet, as all of these bills and initiatives still need to be voted on before they can become. Although many people may assume a lower drinking age popular among the general public, a public opinion polling suggests otherwise. According to a Gallup poll from 2014, 74 percent of Americans claim they would oppose legislation to lower the drinking age to 18 while only 25 percent say they would support it. These rates are about the same as they always have been, so these efforts may have an uphill battle when it comes to getting enough public support.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Will Some 18-Year-Olds be Able to Drink Alcohol Legally this Year? appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no modern advancement in transportation has been so divisive as Uber. Some cities, states, and countries have welcomed the popular ride-sharing app with open arms, while others have demonized the company and tried to block its implementation. However, Uber may now have a new bargaining chip when it comes to convincing its critics that it’s actually a good thing. A study conducted in California recently found that the use of Uber helped to reduce drunk driving fatalities in the state.

Uber has actually been claiming that it can reduce drunk driving deaths for a while. For example, earlier this year, it sent out an email stating:

Since we launched uberX in California, drunk-driving crashes decreased by 60 per month for drivers under 30. That’s 1,800 crashes likely prevented over the past 2 ½ years.

The study on which it based that claim was co-authored with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and showed that drunk driving incidences have fallen in the California cities where Uber operates. However, critics claimed that the study only showed correlation, not necessarily causation, and claimed that Uber didn’t have enough evidence to make the claim.

However, the new study, conducted independently by researchers led by Brad Greenwood from Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, might get more credence. Essentially the findings of the paper were that cheap ride-sharing apps (not just Uber, but also its competitors like Lyft) lowered drunk driving incidences. This study may be better received because it attempted to show a causation rather than just a correlation. The researchers were able to test the impact that Uber had when it entered various markets, and estimate its potential future effects.

The conclusion about its future effects was interesting, and bodes well for Uber. The report stated:

Economically, results indicate that the entrance of Uber X results in a 3.6 percent – 5.6 percent decrease in the rate of motor vehicle homicides per quarter in the state of California. With more than 13k deaths occurring nationally each year due to alcohol related car crashes at a cost of 37 billion dollars, results indicate that a complete implementation of Uber X would create a public welfare net of over 1.3 billion to American taxpayers and save roughly 500 lives annually

Another interesting aspect of the study was that it discovered that only the cheap models of the apps seem to be successful at lowering the drunk driving rate. More expensive models like Uber Black don’t appear to make much of a difference.

Given some of the struggles that Uber–particularly the crowd sourced and cheaper UberX–has had getting into various markets, this promises to be a decent bargaining point. While Uber is obviously very far from being perfect, and still has some serious regulatory issues to work with, this could be a big plus in the argument to introduce Uber to new locales.

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 Can Uber Lower the Number of Drunk Driving Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

Tumultuous alcohol regulations speckle America’s past. Prohibition alone demonstrates our sometimes love/hate relationship with liquor. Some people loved alcohol enough to succumb to criminal behavior. Others hated it enough to dream of scourging it completely from the nation. Extreme feelings on both sides only led to fleeting Prohibition policies, blemishes on the Constitution, and a case study in alcohol regulation.

Today, we enjoy more balanced alcohol policies, but the system has yet to achieve the perfect balance of  freedom, safety, and economic gain. From a public health perspective, alcohol consumption still presents a regulatory challenge in avoiding preventable alcohol-induced illness and death. Alcohol has unflattering ties to illness, death, and economic burden. Every year in the United States, alcohol consumption causes 1.6 million hospitalizations and 80,000 deaths. Alcohol-related liver cirrhosis alone kills 26,000 a year.

Many interventions place focus on the individual, with programs to treat heavy drinkers or educate people who might become heavy drinkers. Unfortunately, many accidents result when habitually moderate drinkers engage in uncharacteristically risky behavior. To make sure everyone benefits from interventions, many experts seek changes in alcohol regulations that could benefit the entire population. Some recent studies have yielded compelling results on how increasing taxes and adding breathalyzers to cars could yield enormous benefits to our overall well-being.

 Regulation of Alcohol in the U.S.

You can strut around certain streets of Savannah, Georgia clutching an open container with no questions asked. Try that in any city in Virginia and you could face misdemeanor charges. Alcohol policies vary–sometimes dramatically–from state to state.

Alcohol regulations fall into four major subject areas:

• How alcohol is sold and distributed
• How alcohol is purchased and served
• Taxes, usually in the form of excise taxes on wine, beer, and hard liquor
• Blood alcohol content (BAC) laws for operating cars and machinery

Recent studies on the effects of taxes and BAC laws scrutinize current policies and call attention to possible changes. Keep reading to learn about the findings and how they could mix things up.

Higher Alcohol Taxes

One action that could potentially reduce alcohol-related deaths and boost the economy? Sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, the idea is raising taxes, which immediately puts a sour taste in many mouths. Unpopular or not, the researchers assessing the relationship between alcohol and taxes have found tax increases could yield major benefits.

Increasing Taxes Decreases Alcohol Consumption.  

Raising alcohol taxes decreases alcohol consumption, and therefore indirectly reduces alcohol-related disease and death. Research has proven many times the inverse relationship between alcohol consumption and higher taxes and prices. Compared with other prevention policies, taxation tops the list of the most effective ways to reduce drinking. Models have found increasing alcohol taxes could reduce alcohol-related deaths by about 35 percent, lower crashes by 11 percent, and even reduce transmission of sexually transmitted diseases by 6 percent.

Increasing Taxes Could Actually Create, Not Destroy, Jobs

People who oppose an increase in alcohol taxes often cite job loss and other economic concerns to justify their positions. But researchers have found that the opposite might be true, and increased alcohol taxes could actually stimulate the economy. Researchers from University of Illinois at Chicago and the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health created an online tool that tests how different alcohol tax rates could impact the economies of all 50 states.  According to the model, a $0.05 alcohol tax increase in California could create about 21,500 jobs if the tax revenue goes into the government’s general fund. You can check out the tool here and even find out what increased alcohol taxes could do in your state.

Let’s give a possible increase in alcohol taxes some perspective. Alcohol taxes have pretty much avoided being adjusted for inflation since the 1950s. Since alcohol taxes didn’t adjust with the rest of the economy, in relative terms alcohol costs significantly less than it did in the 1950s. Take beer for example; most states calculate beer taxes per quantity, not based on price. By the year 2000, state beer taxes amounted to relatively about a 1/3 of what they were in 1968 as inflation spiked beer prices but taxes stayed stagnant. While some states adjusted for inflation, most states saw tax profit dwindle by over 50 percent since 1968.

That’s why Alexander Wagenaar, a professor at University of Florida, believes taxes should be raised and automatically adjusted for inflation. He estimates that every drink consumed costs society about $1.90 in healthcare and other burdens, but points out that alcohol consumers aren’t responsible for the extra costs incurred by their actions.

Will it happen?

Any attempts to raise taxes on alcohol have been met with firm opposition from liquor lobbies and the hospitality industry. As a result, most attempts at increasing alcohol taxes have failed, at least 335 out of 364 major attempts since 2001 in New Mexico, Minnesota, Maine, and Hawaii, just to name a few. In 2012, it’s estimated that the liquor industry spent $16 million on political candidates, solidifying their place in regulatory affairs.

Mandatory breathalyzers in our cars?

Had enough of grim DUI-warning commercials and high school “Grim Reaper” days? One policy could put an end to them by physically stopping would-be drunk drivers from starting their cars. One possible alcohol intervention involves installing alcohol ignition interlocks (a.k.a in car breathalyzers) that connect to the car’s ignition and lock it if the driver’s BAC is above a pre-set limit. This might seem extreme, but shine a spotlight on the problems with alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes (AI-MVCs) and you’ll see why it’s appealing from a policy angle.

AI-MVCs rank as a major public health threat mostly because the dangerous actions of a few can end up hurting many innocent people. Awareness campaigns and laws have decreased the problem since the 1980s, but in 1994 AI-MVCs accounted for 30 percent of all traffic fatalities and since then that percentage hasn’t really budged.

Policies like BAC limits, zero tolerance laws, and license suspension work, but they place the burden of finding and penalizing perpetrators in the hands of police officers. Without a magical drunk radar, this means some people slip through and cause devastation. Some estimates find that repeat offenders often drive drunk as many as 80 times before they’re discovered and apprehended. Even license suspensions don’t stop them, as 50 percent to 75 percent of offenders keep on driving anyway.

Interlock devices cause prevention-minded experts to salivate at the idea of nipping fatal accidents in the bud.  But would interlock devices actually help in the real world?

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) started a five year test to determine the viability and effectiveness of widespread use of the devices. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) program sought to find out if mandatory adoption policies would have an impact on fatal and non-fatal AI-MCVs and if they could decrease economic costs associated with AI-MCVs.

Here’s what they found out:

Interlock devices would prevent deaths and injuries: 

Using a 15 year implementation model, the DADSS program estimated that 59,000 (83 percent) deaths and 1.25 million (84 percent-88 percent) of nonfatal injuries could be prevented.

Interlock devices would reduce AI-MCV costs: 

Again, assuming a 15 year implementation model, costs associated with fatal injuries could be reduced by $260 billion and costs associated with nonfatal injuries could be reduced by $83 billion. In perspective, if the devices each cost $400 and worked 100 percent of the time, the reduction in injury costs would outweigh the implementation cost after 3 years.

A required interlock device program has already been implemented in France, the wine mecca of the world. Drivers in France need to have breathalyzers on hand or face fines. After implementing the program, France went from having one of the highest alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the world to having one of the lowest.

Will it happen?

The researchers acknowledged that mandatory interlock devices would be a drastic change, would take many years to implement, and would need to pass through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as a new safety standard. They recommend strengthening current policies in the interim, such as having all states require interlocks among first time DUI offenders, requiring the device use for longer periods of time, and requiring their use in the pre-conviction time frame. The DADSS found the public receptive to the idea, with 64 percent of people surveyed saying they thought it was a good idea.

 Prevention instead of Punishment  

State alcohol regulations change constantly.  With an alcohol tax system that’s stuck in the 1950s and an AI-MCV rate that hasn’t budged since 1994, more changes are certainly in order. New policies would shift our alcohol intervention system from one of punishment, to one of prevention.

If either of these ideas seem extreme to you, remember that there are already some odd alcohol-related laws on the books. For example, in Massachusetts, discounted alcohol, even during happy hour, is prohibited. When dining at a restaurant in Utah, all alcohol bottles on display must be empty. We’ve endured these and other strange alcohol laws throughout the history of the United States. Surely interventions that could reduce alcohol-related fatalities, disease, and injuries will prove more palatable to many Americans. 

 Resources

Primary

US National Library of Medicine: Effects of Beverage Alcohol Price and Tax Levels on Drinking: a Meta-analysis of 1003 Estimates from 112 Studies 

Additional 

Science Daily: Alcohol Taxes Can Improve Health, Lead to More Jobs

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving Through Ignition Interlock Policies

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: Ignition Interlock Frequently Asked Questions

Pew Charitable Trusts: Liquor Lobby Fights Off Tax Increases on Alcohol

American Journal of Public Health: Modeling the Injury Prevention Impact of Mandatory Alcohol Ignition Interlock Installation in All New US Vehicles

American Journal of Public Health: Effects of Alcohol Tax and Price Policies on Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review

Public Health Law Research: Raising Alcohol Tax Levels to Reduce Drinking

Public Health Law Research: Effects of Alcohol Taxes on Alcohol-Related Mortality in Florida: Time-Series Analyses From 1969 to 2004

Yale Law School: Liquor Laws and Constitutional Conventions: A Legal History of the 21rst Amendment

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breathalyzers in Cars? Changes in American Alcohol Policies 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.