Published: September 06, 2008 11:20 pm            

LUCINSKI: Debate over the drinking age

It’s called the age of majority. It’s point when the law recognizes that you’ve lived long enough to be considered an adult.

Mind you, it’s not necessarily when you have the wisdom or knowledge or experience to actually function as an adult. It just means that you’ve been on this planet enough years for the legal system to get sick of you being treated as a kid.

In New York, and in most states, the age of majority is 18. You can enter into contracts at 18. You can marry without parental permission at 18. You can make the decision to join the military on your own at 18. You can vote at 18. In short, you can function as an adult at 18 in every aspect but one.

You can’t buy a drink.

America in general, and New York in particular, has struggled with the drinking age issue over that past century. In 1984, the heavy hand of the federal government came down and penalized states with a 10 percent loss of highway funds if they didn’t prohibit the sale of alcohol to those under 21. With that much money at stake, all the states fell in line.

Before that, public opinion vacillated as to when people should be allowed to drink legally. It often had to do with whether or not we were at war. A soldier who puts his or her life on the line overseas who can’t buy a beer at home is a powerful argument for a lowered drinking age.

Here in New York state, the argument has run along somewhat different lines. For many years, it was 18 when the rest of the nation was at 21. In 1982, the age was raised to 19, then to 21 with the rest of the country a couple of years later.

Now a group of university administrators, calling themselves the “ Amethyst Initiative,” is calling for a lowering of the drinking age, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

In New York, the state Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services has strongly opposed a proposal to drop the drinking age.

“We have no intention of going backward,” said Karen Carpenter-Palumbo, commissioner of OASAS. “And we have no intention of looking at an increase of alcohol purchases and alcohol related deaths.”

The proposal has been widely criticized, particularly by advocates who say the higher drinking age reduces traffic deaths and injuries. According to OASAS, in the last twelve years there has been a 70 percent decrease in alcohol purchases for 19- and 20-year olds, and use among youth ages 18-20 dropped by 59 percent.

Time out.

We as a society have a habit of dancing around a problem; setting one set of rules in order to achieve a related goal. Drunken driving is a perfect example.

Instead of directly combating the concept of driving after consuming alcohol, we’re famous for monkeying around by beating around the bush. We have alcohol consumption limits as measured by blood alcohol levels. We have legal procedures that crafty drinking drivers and smart attorneys have come up with ways to circumvent. And, of course, we have the drinking age laws.

Here’s an idea: Any drinking and driving is too much, no matter how old the driver might be. One drink? Take a cab or walk. That goes if you’re 18 or 80. If drunken driving is a problem (and it is), attack it swiftly, decisively and directly.

By doing that, we can be consistent with the age of majority. If an individual is deemed old enough to participated independently in all those activities listed at the top of this column, he or she should also be allowed to buy a drink.

Forget the arguments about drunken driving or binge drinking. As a society, we need to be consistent about the rights of adulthood. We need to send a clear message about its responsibilities as well.

Dick Lucinski is the managing editor of the Niagara Gazette. His columns appear on Wednesday and Sunday.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.