Rewriting a Rite of Passage

By William R. Doemer

Washington debates a uniform drinking age of 21

For Ronald Reagan, it was a rare change of heart on a matter of principle, and an even more uncommon public acknowledgment of that about-face. "Some may feel that my decision is at odds with my philosophical viewpoint that state problems should involve state solutions," the President said to a high school audience last week in Oradell, N.J. However, he went on, "in a case like this, where the problem is so clear-cut, then I have no misgivings about a judicious use of federal inducements to encourage the states to get moving."

The issue that stirred the President is the establishment of a uniform 21-year-old minimum drinking age to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths. Though Reagan has long favored setting the drinking age at 21, his turn-around came in his throwing support to a bill passed by the House. The legislation would penalize states with lower drinking ages by withholding a portion of their federal highway funds. The Senate is expected this week to debate a proposal, sponsored by Democrat Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Republican Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, containing the same punitive measures plus some bonus incentives for states that take additional steps against drunken driving. "This slaughter hurts us as a people," the President said. "It tears up the fabric of society by bringing grief to families, guilt to friends and loss to the community."

The legal drinking age in many states has taken a double pendulum swing over the past two decades. During the late '60s and early '70s, when teen-agers were being drafted for military service in Viet Nam, more than half of all state legislatures lowered the minimum to 18 or 19. Since 1976, however, at least 20 states have voted to raise their drinking age. Last fall a presidential commission on drunken driving strongly recommended a uniform drinking age of 21. But since autumn, only four additional states have boosted age requirements; 19 states have considered and rejected such legislation.

The House measure would provide a grace period of 15 months to the 29 states and the District of Columbia that now permit the sale of alcohol to 18-to 20-year-olds. Any state that failed to enact the new federal standard of 21 by 1987 would lose 5% of its federal highway funds for that year and 10% in 1988. There is little doubt that the threat of losing highway money, amounting to tens of millions of dollars in populous states, would press most noncomplying legislatures into action. Says Idaho State Representative Linden Bateman: "If the federal legislation passes, the law will also pass in Idaho."

Supporters of the bill point out that teen-agers and young adults aged 16 to 24 are involved in a shocking 42% of all fatal alcohol-related accidents, though they constitute only 20% of licensed drivers and account for less than 20% of total vehicle miles driven. Teen-agers from 16 to 19 make up just 7% of licensed drivers but are involved in nearly 15% of the fatal crashes in which alcohol is a factor. Says Candy Lightner, president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD),* of the pro-21 proposals: "There is nothing more important today than reducing the No. 1 killer and crippler of young Americans."

Raising the drinking age, supporters contend, would save as many as 1,250 of the 5,000 teen-age lives lost each year in auto accidents caused by intoxication, and would also cut into the toll of some 20,000 older drunken-driving victims. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety of accident patterns in nine states that raised the drinking age shows an average 28% drop in fatal nighttime crashes involving under-21 age groups. Polls show 77% of Americans favor a drinking age of 21. Sums up New Jersey Congressman James Florio: "The 21-year-old drinking age is a straightforward and proven way to save lives. The public understands this."

Opponents question whether the picture is quite that simple. The rate of reduced fatalities in the Insurance Institute study, for example, varied wildly among the states examined: from 6% to 75% in eight states and none at all in Montana. In New York, where the drinking age was raised from 18 to 19 in December 1982, 18-year-olds were involved in about 42% fewer fatal drunken-driving accidents in 1983 than in 1982; but the rate for drinking-age 19-year-olds fell by 29%, suggesting that both declines may have been caused by an outside factor like more stringent law enforcement. Furthermore, argue critics of the pro-21 measure, foreclosing the privileges of the more than 99% of teen-agers who never get involved in alcohol-related accidents is unfair. Says Gene Adams, director of legislative affairs for Florida Governor Robert Graham: "You are a legal adult at 18 in Florida for all other purposes. You can marry, incur debts, sign contracts, vote. You should have the right to drink, especially in the home you bought."

Legislation to erect barriers between teen-age drivers and alcohol, of course, will never provide more than a partial solution to the national problem of youth-caused road carnage. Admits Bob Anastas, executive director of Students Against Driving Drunk (SADD): "I just know that no matter what you do, you're still going to have kids drinking and driving." That grim fact is no excuse for not trying. But it provides a cautionary note against viewing the current proposal as a panacea, any more than was the Noble Experiment: Prohibition. --By William R. Doemer. Reported by Laurence I. Barrett and Neil MacNeil/Washington, with other bureaus

* Founded by Lightner in May 1980, the same month her 13-year-old daughter was killed by a drunken driver.

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett and Neil MacNeil/Washington, with other bureaus