> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# A new drinking age?
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/a-new-drinking-age/
- Published: 2008-09-04T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T00:52:47.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*By Fred E. Foldvary The Libertarian Perspective*

IN 1984, BIG BROTHER DECREED THAT young adults be prohibited from ingesting alcohol. That year, Congress passed the “National Uniform 21 Minimum Drinking Age Act.” Before 1984, the drinking age had been set by the states, which have the Constitutional authority to legislate criminal law. There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to set a legal drinking age.

The states had various alcohol minimum-age drinking laws, ranging from 18 to 21 years of age. During the Vietnam War, more states lowered the drinking age to 18 in response to the new voting amendment letting 18-year-olds vote, and the complaint that young men who were old enough to be drafted into the army were not allowed to drink.

I grew up in California, where the drinking age was 21\. When I was 18, a friend and I traveled around the Southwest by car. In Colorado, the drinking age was 18\. We toured a beer brewery and drank our first legal beers, courtesy of the brewery. We did not rush out and drive recklessly. We each enjoyed one glass of beer, and then we drove responsibly, as we had been doing. I have had a fondness for that beer brand ever since.

But the anti-alcohol lobby was alarmed by the various drinking ages. They said we needed a national standard so that teens such as my friend and I would not drive to another state to drink legally. Anti-drinking interests such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) also claim that the 21 minimum age law has saved thousands of lives.

Now there is a movement to eliminate the federal minimum age requirement. A group of college chancellors and presidents have recognized that the law fails to stop teenage drinking, just as the general prohibition of alcohol during the 1920s failed to eliminate drinking among adults. As long as students do not drive when under the influence, drinking a beer is a victimless crime, and victimless crime laws that go against the prevailing culture are bound to fail, just like the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s.

There are several arguments against the minimum drinking age of 21.

First, the federal mandate violates the 10th Amendment, which restricts federal authority to those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The federal government routinely gets around this constraint by offering conditional grants to the states. A states loses 10 percent of its federal highway grant money if it does not have a 21-year minimum age law. It seems to me that this bypass should be declared unconstitutional, since in effect it erases the 10th Amendment.

Second, even if the age-21 law has reduced traffic accidents, that utilitarian argument does not justify the law.

If the drinking age were increased to 30 years and strictly enforced, that would reduce accidents too, yet few people would favor such a rule because it would be offset by the decrease in the pursuit of happiness by those who enjoy their drinks, and it would violate the rights of adults to the liberty of choosing how to live.

Moreover, there are alternative ways to reduce traffic accidents, including better education and focusing law enforcement to apply strict and stiff penalties to anyone who endangers others.

Our federal and state constitutions declare that we have rights and freedoms that would be voided if utilitarian rationales prevail. Ultimately, the greatest social utility is liberty, which trumps lesser utilitarian arguments, so even utilitarianism favors maximizing liberty.

Finally, the 21 minimum age law is in conflict with the legal concept of a “bright line.” Teenagers gradually become more mature, so any age of adulthood is arbitrary, but it is beneficial to have some “bright line” at which all persons are recognized as adults with full rights, unless there are well-reasoned exceptions for specific persons or groups such as those in prison. An adult may enter into contracts, vote, serve on juries, and join the armed forces. Thus the bright line should also include the legal right to drink alcohol. In addition, criminalizing harmless acts instills greater disrespect for the law.

Congress should repeal the “National Uniform 21 Minimum Drinking Age Act” and stop interfering with the constitutional authority of the states to enact criminal law. If a state government keeps the age at 21, it would still violate the liberty of young adults, but at least it would not violate the spirit and grandeur of the Constitution of the United States of America.

FRED E. FOLDVARY teaches economics at Santa Clara University, where he is also an associate of the Civil Society Institute. His main areas of research include public finance, public choice, social ethics, and the economics of real estate.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 4, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/090408.pdf?ref=smdp.com)