Alec Ward | Licensed to swill

Fair Enough | A compromise proposal for drinking age reform

By Alec Ward 01/19/16 10:51pm

It would be pointless for me to write a column arguing that the United States should lower the national minimum drinking age to 18 for two reasons.

First, it would be pointless because this is Penn, and the proposal would likely be so uncontroversial among whatever readership I have that it would verge on being a waste of time.

Secondly, despite the long list of valid arguments that every college freshman in the United States can probably recite from memory, lowering the drinking age just isn’t going to happen. 18 to 20 year olds simply don’t vote in large enough numbers to motivate legislators.

The electoral wrath of the hoards of hand-wringing parents, who seem to think that if the drinking age was lowered, every one of their children would be killed by a drunk driver within 24 hours, would be ferocious. Meanwhile, 21­ to 35 year olds are too busy drinking to care.

And so, in the perhaps quixotic hope of introducing a fresh idea into a stale debate, I’m going to propose an alternative to a drinking age reduction: drinking licenses.

Much as they do for operating motor vehicles, states could issue licenses to consume alcohol to individuals on a case-by-case basis.

Beginning at eighteen, or perhaps even a year or two earlier with parental consent, would-be drinkers could apply for a license to purchase and consume alcohol.

They could be required to demonstrate knowledge of the risks of alcohol consumption, responsible drinking habits, the basic signs and science of intoxication and alcohol poisoning, the legal limit to drive and, for all I care, proper bar etiquette and how to mix a decent Old Fashioned.

To my mind, such an alcohol licensing system has no flaw that licensing drivers doesn’t have and has considerable advantages over the current system and perhaps even over a flat 18-year minimum age.

And here’s another great thing about licenses: they’re revocable. Today, a 45-year-old felon with a history of drunk-driving and alcohol-fueled assaults is free to purchase liquor, while a 20-year old Marine with no history of alcohol misuse is not. That seems to me to make very little sense.

Under a “drinking license” system, courts could impose license suspension or conditional revocation on dangerous drinkers, just as they routinely do for dangerous drivers.

And although I’m more or less a civil libertarian, the prospect of this particular government licensing program doesn’t really bother me. Heresy, I know. Drinking has never been considered an absolute right, to the point that many American municipalities — mostly county governments in Alaska and the Deep South — outlaw it completely.

I suppose there is some potential for abuse, but I really can’t see there being too much risk of vindictive totalitarian county clerks revoking drinking licenses from their political opponents. If anything, I’d think ensuring detractors stay sober would be self-defeating for any potential drinking license tyrant.

And speaking of libertarians, a successful licensing system would be a strong argument in the ongoing debate about whether or not to legalize certain recreational drugs. A similar program to license consumption of marijuana might be an acceptable compromise (heresy again!) between hardline prohibitionists and those pushing Colorado-style blanket legalization, both of which have obvious downsides.

Drinking age reform used to be something of a common cause among university presidents, who witness firsthand the havoc which the federally-mandated 21-year drinking age wreaks on college campuses every year. 137 of them signed onto a proposal called the Amethyst Initiative, which called for lowering the drinking age to 18.

Though the initiative first drew some national media attention, no political progress has been made toward repealing the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which makes a significant portion of states’ federal highway-maintenance funding conditional on having a 21-year drinking age. For President Gutmann and college presidents nationwide, pushing for reform under any alternative system would be a mantle well worth taking up again.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.