I'll Drink To That !

In the old days, I would have drunk to a warm handshake, but as a non-drinker today, I have no dog in this fight. But the fight itself could be a real donnybrook, so it should be fun to watch. Vermont legislators will soon be debating a bill lowering the drinking age back to eighteen. That would make Vermont the first state in the Union to lower the drinking age from twenty-one since South Dakota caved in to the federal highway mandate in 1988.

In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act requiring states to raise the drinking age to twenty-one or face the loss of federal transportation money. As a neo-federalist I'm all for reaching sensible conclusions about drinking and driving, but I'm a strong opponent of federal intrusion into state matters. After all, Congress is specifically empowered to withdraw federal funds from "sanctuary cities" that refuse cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are sucking up millions of federal dollars with no interference from Congress. In the law, that's called "selective enforcement."

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) played a major role in getting the federal statute passed. As a dues-paying member of DAMM (Drunks Against Madd Mothers) at the time, I naturally opposed the measure. Today, MADD will be the major force opposing the Vermont legislation. DAMM doesn't seem to have a presence anymore. I guess my lengthy absence took the wind out of their sails.

Two bills are currently pending in the state legislature. The first is the drinking age proposal. The other is a resolution asking the state's Congressional delegation to urge an exception to the federal statue for Vermont. Shades of the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. Getting an inexplicable exception for your home state seems to be the trick du jour. Perhaps the Vermonters are asking for an exception on the grounds that you have to be drunk to listen to anything said by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. In fact, you had to be drunk to vote for him in the first place.

Vermont legislators estimate that without the exemption, the state stands to lose about $17.5 million in highway funds in the first year. But what is that compared to tipsy teenaged boys on a testosterone rush getting behind the wheel of an automobile while rushing to the polls to vote for the blessed legislators who are trying to pass this bill? "Rock the Vote, But First Have A Boilermaker." Experts in opposition to the bill point out that numerous studies since passage of the original federal legislation have revealed things about the adolescent brain that weren't known at the time of passage. That part of the brain that exercises judgment develops substantially later than the part that seeks out reward and risk. Young people who start drinking before age fifteen are fifteen times more likely to become alcohol-dependent as adults as those who wait to drink until they're twenty-one. Since this bill concerns eighteen-year olds, I assume the statistics fall somewhere in between.

Proponents of the bill, such as John McCardell of "Choose Responsibility," say that "We can either try to change the reality, which has been our attempt since 1984, and which as is always the case in times of prohibition, has simply failed. Or we can, through enlightened public policy, create the safest possible environment for the reality." In his testimony before the Vermont legislative committee, he went on to say: "The higher age encourages unsafe drinking by driving young people into locked dorm rooms, off-campus apartments and farm fields to do their consuming." I don't want to be a spoilsport here, but isn't that where they're already smoking their marijuana?

Contra, Johns Hopkins professor David Jernigan says: "Whatever problems the twenty-one minimum hasn't addressed should be handled with education, increased taxes on alcohol (swell, more taxes), and more study, not by lowering the minimum. It's kind of like putting a fence around a swimming pool. People are still going to jump the fence. Does that mean it doesn't make sense to have a fence? I would argue no," he said.

The best statement of federalist principle that came out of the committee hearing (which passed the proposal on to the debate floor) came from State Representative John Moran, who opposes a lower drinking age but believes the decision should be Vermont's, not Washington's. A Democrat from Wardsboro, Moran said: "We don't want the federal government to tell the state of Vermont. This is an issue the state of Vermont should be discussing, as we've done today."

I'm neutral on the issue of the drinking age. After all, I come from the era that asked: "If they're old enough to give their lives for their country, aren't they old enough to have a drink?" But both sides have good arguments, and I'm waiting for one side or the other to strike the final blow before making a decision. On the other hand, if this becomes a national debate on the right of states to make their own laws without interference from the national government, I'll risk a little security in exchange for freedom to choose. Drink away, teeners, but keep your cars off my lawn. And lest I forget, since Vermont has the most liberal gun laws in the nation, maybe I should consider asking them to leave their guns at home when they're drinking. Or is Vermont's extremely low death rate from guns (responsible gun ownership) also an argument for responsible drinking? I'm confused. I hope we can get some comments that will guide me down the right path.