Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, February 10, 2010
News Initiative to Lower Drinking Age to 19
Posted by Cienna Madrid on Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM
This was originally posted at 1:15 p.m. It's been updated with new information from the initiative sponsor and an opponent of lowering the drinking age.
An initiative was filed today in Olympia to lower the legal drinking age in Washington state to 19.
To earn a place on the November ballot, sponsor Dustin Reischman needs to submit 241,153 valid signatures of registered Washington voters by July 2 to the Attorney General's office (they recommend 300,000 signatures to cushion those ruled out as invalid).
I've got calls in to Reishman about his motivations and the WSLCB to find out just how common these initiatives are. In the meantime, I bet a number of college activists just found their pet cause for the summer.
UPDATE: Reishman, it turns out, is an earnest college junior attending Washington State University. He filed the initiative as part of an assignment for a philosophy class on Utilitarianism. His argument is that lowering the drinking age would mean fewer Minor in Possession citations on and off college campuses, which would allow communities to divert those resources elsewhere—like fighting crime.
He stresses that filing the initiative had nothing to do with WSU or the Fraternity Council (yep, he's a frat member). "Before I was 21," he says, "I used to drink more than I do now. Mainly because it’s something that you’re told not to do, but it’s so easily accessible." He equates underage drinking to living on the wild side, or breaking the speed limit. "Once I became 21, the fun went out of it. Now it's more of an option, not a fun thing. Which is how drinking should be."
Reishman believes the money WA would lose in federal transportation funding could be recovered in time and resources for processing MIPs. Also, if citizens are worried about teens crossing the boarder into WA to drink, he suggests the legislature make only WA driver's licenses valid for buying booze between the ages of 19 and 21.
Jim Cooper, vice president for the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention, negates Reishman's argument with two words: brain development.
"In the medical field they say your brain isn’t developed until between 22 and 25 years old. Functional MRI shows brain development with distinct differences in thought patterns for drinkers and non drinkers at a young age," he says, then adds: "And I was in the army, in Louisiana, when the drinking age there went from 18 to 21. Louisiana did that because they were not getting federal highway dollars and their roads were the worst I've ever been on."
Reishman says he has plenty of enthusiastic friends willing to help him gather signatures this summer. "I don't see how [a lower drinking age] could hurt." Still, he acknowledges many people won't agree with him and his college friends. To those people, he says, "Please don't shoot the messenger."
1
Isn't federal transportation funding still tied to keeping the drinking age at 21? I seem to recall that as another holdover from the Reagan era.
2
Good question, COMTE. That was certainly the main reason that most states raised their drinking age to 21 in the 1980s. I'm not sure if that tie-in is still there.
4
According to wikipedia, federal transpo funding is still tied to drinking age. "
"In South Dakota v Dole (2008), the US Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to withhold federal funds in pursuit of national policies, such as the drinking age."
"In South Dakota v Dole (2008), the US Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to withhold federal funds in pursuit of national policies, such as the drinking age."
5
Good idea.
You forget we have high mucketymucks on the Appropriations and Transportation committees and in the White House.
Things change.
Prohibition and stupid Drug Wars doubly so.
You forget we have high mucketymucks on the Appropriations and Transportation committees and in the White House.
Things change.
Prohibition and stupid Drug Wars doubly so.
6
Wikipedia says: "Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment."
Wow. That sounds awesome to me. I don't care about the drinking age but what a great way to kill the waterfront tunnel and the all-SOV 520 replacement.
Wow. That sounds awesome to me. I don't care about the drinking age but what a great way to kill the waterfront tunnel and the all-SOV 520 replacement.
8
i kind of feel that the amount of money that sales and tourism from lowering the drinking age would bring in could possibly be higher than any reduction in funds from the feds. especially since a lot of major federal funding for highways has decreased substantially in the past 40 years. any way of working out those numbers?
9
The federal government more-or-less forced states to raise their drinking age to a standard 21 during the Reagan era. Constitutionally, the feds have no right to do this. In practice, though, they accomplished it through threats of withholding federal highway funds (my source is an excellent book I just finished called "The Crabgrass Frontier" by Kenneth Jackson)
10
I've always felt it was unfair to consider someone mature enough to vote, and to die for their country in combat (either to be drafted or of legal age to enlist) but not mature enough to handle booze - and an unsupportable argument. I suppose since drinking isn't a "right" the government can restrict it however it pleases, but it's bullshit to say you can vote or have your life taken from you via a draft but you can't have a beer
11
The federal government more-or-less forced states to raise their drinking age to a standard 21 during the Reagan era. Constitutionally, the feds have no right to do this. In practice, though, they accomplished it through threats of withholding federal highway funds (my source is an excellent book I just finished called "The Crabgrass Frontier" by Kenneth Jackson)
12
Raise the minimum age of driving to 18 (and make it damn expensive to get a license & register a car) and lower the minimum drinking age to 16, then people would learn how to drink before they learn how to drive and be a heck of lot healthier by riding bikes for transportation. It works in those socialist countries like the Germany..but there you have to be 15 before you can play any kind of tackle footbal....Those socialist - what are they thinking!!! Oh and the age where kids start to fuck is a lot higher also on the whole..not the hole.
14
@9 doesn't the repeal amendment pretty much leave the regulation of booze strictly to the states (hence the patchwork of liquor laws) - thus the arm twisting via highway funds, as you say - but apparently the states can consitutionaly restrict the drinking age of people who have reached the age of majority? Has anyone every challenged the constitutionality of a 21 drinking age in a state court?
15
@12 I kind of like that - many young people go though, and fairly quickly exit, the overdrinking phase - doesn't seem to me delaying the legal age to 21 does anything to change that
16
@13 for the double post win.
They also look like they're going to take one of our gold medals for skiing, cause we just lost one of ours for the Olympics.
They also look like they're going to take one of our gold medals for skiing, cause we just lost one of ours for the Olympics.
17
WA could just tax liquor sales to make up for the loss in transpo funding. (?)
Every weekend, a couple thousand underage WWU students and other 19 and 20 year-olds cross the border with the intent to party and get buzzed. this could be stopped. Lowering the drinking age wouldn't meaningfully increase underage drinking, but would likely lower arrests for providing booze to minors and drunk driving.
Every weekend, a couple thousand underage WWU students and other 19 and 20 year-olds cross the border with the intent to party and get buzzed. this could be stopped. Lowering the drinking age wouldn't meaningfully increase underage drinking, but would likely lower arrests for providing booze to minors and drunk driving.
18
@8: Not even close. You're talking hundreds of millions in highway funds. Even in tight economic times you're talking stimulus money.
This bill is a guaranteed non-starter.
This bill is a guaranteed non-starter.
19
@18 - things change. If the students @17 talks about stopped heading East to a Red State, we'd have way more money spent in state and revenues would go up.
However, since they'd drive less, that would actually reduce gas taxes which would reduce revenue for roads which would ...
BARTENDER! another beer - my head hurts.
However, since they'd drive less, that would actually reduce gas taxes which would reduce revenue for roads which would ...
BARTENDER! another beer - my head hurts.
23
From eyeballing the tables here, I think Washington gets about $500 million every year from the feds for highway spending. Apparently the 1984 Nat'l Minimum Drinking Age Act provided for a 10% cut in highway spending for noncompliant states.
I *really* doubt we're spending $50 million/year on busting underage drinkers, and those cross-border drinkers certainly aren't spending enough to recoup that much in sales taxes.
I could go either way on this idea, but the math behind the argument sucks.
I *really* doubt we're spending $50 million/year on busting underage drinkers, and those cross-border drinkers certainly aren't spending enough to recoup that much in sales taxes.
I could go either way on this idea, but the math behind the argument sucks.
25
This isn't a bill guys. This isn't one of Dominic's spotlights on the lonely pot amendment. This is an initiative. You know, the Tim-Eyman-style-lets-fuck-some-budget-shit-up style of law. If it gets signatures (and apparently no one in WA knows how to say no to signature gatherers), it'll get on the ballot.
The consequences of its passage, however, are something different.
The consequences of its passage, however, are something different.
26
@24 - Fort Lewis. Which is spread throughout the state, actually, but most people don't realize the "bases" are really just one base with many locations.
We do have a naval and air force base too.
We do have a naval and air force base too.
27
@20
US Code 10 2683
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the Secretary concerned shall establish and enforce as the minimum drinking age on a military installation located in a State the age established by the law of that State as the State minimum drinking age.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/26…
DoD Instruction 1015.10
The minimum drinking age on a DoD installation located in a State (including the District of Columbia) shall be consistent with the age established by the law of that State as the State minimum drinking age. Minimum drinking age means the minimum age established for persons who may purchase, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corre…
US Code 10 2683
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the Secretary concerned shall establish and enforce as the minimum drinking age on a military installation located in a State the age established by the law of that State as the State minimum drinking age.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/26…
DoD Instruction 1015.10
The minimum drinking age on a DoD installation located in a State (including the District of Columbia) shall be consistent with the age established by the law of that State as the State minimum drinking age. Minimum drinking age means the minimum age established for persons who may purchase, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corre…
28
@25,
Initiatives have done good things on occasion (I-75, the Open Meetings Law, etc.), but given the difficulty of getting on the ballot statewide without using paid signature gatherers, those who find direct democracy offensive don't need to worry much about that occurring in this particular instance (personally, I'll happily sign it if I see it).
Initiatives have done good things on occasion (I-75, the Open Meetings Law, etc.), but given the difficulty of getting on the ballot statewide without using paid signature gatherers, those who find direct democracy offensive don't need to worry much about that occurring in this particular instance (personally, I'll happily sign it if I see it).
29
Since corporations now can donate unlimited amounts in the US, I'm sure some of the companies I used to own stocks in will be spending lots and lots of money on this, @28.
Ain't life in Russia wonderful?
Ain't life in Russia wonderful?
30
This reminds me of when the drinking age was 19 in Idaho, and all the Wazzu kids would come over to Moscow to drink. Good times...
32
You can't have a law saying only WA licenses are valid for buying booze. That would violate, among others, the privileges and immunities clause, and the full faith and credit clause.
33
I was just wondering a few days ago when this bit of debunked junk science would reappear. The world is too full of ignorant scolds and mendacious busybodies for this notion to go the way of phrenology just yet.
"In the medical field they say your brain isn’t developed until between 22 and 25 years old.
I was just wondering a few days ago when this bit of debunked junk science would reappear. The world is too full of ignorant scolds and mendacious busybodies for this notion to go the way of phrenology just yet.
34
$217M to Washington State in 2007 from the FHWA, the latest number that I could find.
So a quick turn on the census site indicates about 2.9M residents between the age of 19 and 21.
So every person aged 19 to 21, regardless of their religious or social beliefs, is expected to recompense the state $75 (that's in taxes, not in sales). Assuming a generous liquor tax rate of 50% (overinflated, and for liquor only), that means that every single underager needs to drink about 12 bottles of no-name brand vodka per year. Factoring in the non-drinkers, that's about 2 bottles per month. Sounds reasonable, discounting the fact that they're still young adults and not full adults (don't feel like factoring in insurance premiums or the costs of human life; incalculable), burden to the state for supporting alcoholhouses or alcoholrehab or alcoholwhatnot, & the fact that we'd be innundated by douchebags from i-da-whore and cali-fornicate-(hey, she said she was 16! what's the legal age in this state anyway, must be the same as in kentucky!), and who needs more stinky oregonian hippies around here?
So, Eyman's bastard son Reischman, STFU and shove it.
So a quick turn on the census site indicates about 2.9M residents between the age of 19 and 21.
So every person aged 19 to 21, regardless of their religious or social beliefs, is expected to recompense the state $75 (that's in taxes, not in sales). Assuming a generous liquor tax rate of 50% (overinflated, and for liquor only), that means that every single underager needs to drink about 12 bottles of no-name brand vodka per year. Factoring in the non-drinkers, that's about 2 bottles per month. Sounds reasonable, discounting the fact that they're still young adults and not full adults (don't feel like factoring in insurance premiums or the costs of human life; incalculable), burden to the state for supporting alcoholhouses or alcoholrehab or alcoholwhatnot, & the fact that we'd be innundated by douchebags from i-da-whore and cali-fornicate-(hey, she said she was 16! what's the legal age in this state anyway, must be the same as in kentucky!), and who needs more stinky oregonian hippies around here?
So, Eyman's bastard son Reischman, STFU and shove it.
36
No that's fine. If science says that our brain isn't done forming until 25, so be it. Raise the driving age, draft age, Alcohol and tobacco age, and declare nobody a legal adult until they are 25.
Also, we need to have a clip of Helen Lovejoy screeching "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" on a constant loop in all state and federal government buildings, because I have a sneaking suspicion that some of our lawmakers are not doing so.
Also, we need to have a clip of Helen Lovejoy screeching "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" on a constant loop in all state and federal government buildings, because I have a sneaking suspicion that some of our lawmakers are not doing so.
38
@34, There might be 2.9M 19-21 year-olds in the entire US, but there are only 6.7M residents in the state of Washington--there's no way that nearly a third of Washingtonians are 19-21.
Assuming your original data were correct (but for the entire country) and the proportions are the same, that means there are about 600,000 WA residents of that age range. Still seems high, but ok.
Assuming also that the $217M figure is correct: Only 10% of the $217M highway allocation withheld by not observing the drinking age. So we're at a $21.7M loss, to be shared among the 600K young adults. Per capita tax revenue required from that demographic to fill that void: $36.16. Liquor taxes are 20.5% (and there is additional revenue from mark-up), meaning we'd have to sell an additional $150-ish/year of liquor to each of these kids.
Sounds doable with those numbers, I guess. But if the total highway funding is much more than $200M or so, or if there are significantly fewer 19-21 year-olds, it's going to cost us quite a bit.
Assuming your original data were correct (but for the entire country) and the proportions are the same, that means there are about 600,000 WA residents of that age range. Still seems high, but ok.
Assuming also that the $217M figure is correct: Only 10% of the $217M highway allocation withheld by not observing the drinking age. So we're at a $21.7M loss, to be shared among the 600K young adults. Per capita tax revenue required from that demographic to fill that void: $36.16. Liquor taxes are 20.5% (and there is additional revenue from mark-up), meaning we'd have to sell an additional $150-ish/year of liquor to each of these kids.
Sounds doable with those numbers, I guess. But if the total highway funding is much more than $200M or so, or if there are significantly fewer 19-21 year-olds, it's going to cost us quite a bit.
39
@19 WWU students north into Canada no east to Idaho. Had to correct that simply because as a former WWU student, I would like to speak for most everyone that we weren't that stupid to drive 350miles to KKK central than 25 miles north to Oz =)
40
@21: By keeping students from driving outside of tiny B'ham WA to get drunk.
remember, they drink anyways.
remember, they drink anyways.
41
Most states in the nation adopted a minimum drinking age of 21 soon after federal passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which required states to maintain a minimum drinking age of 21. Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, States were required to enforce the minimum drinking age of 18 in order to avoid a 10% reduction in federal highway funds. The original intention of the law was to reduce the incidents of alcohol-related accidents among people under 21. But since passage of this legislation, and the raising of the drinking age in many states, the percentage of people who drink between the ages of 18 to 20 has skyrocketed. Many say the prohibitions have actually encouraged secretive binge drinking, more dangerous behavior, and less educational programming targeting this age group. Respected law enforcement officials and university presidents have recently called for changes in the federal law to permit states to lower the drinking age.
At age 18, people are legal adults. As much as their parents may think otherwise, they are no longer children. They have the right to vote and help choose the President of the United States. They can go to war to defend our country, and they can legally purchase guns and cigarettes. It is absolutely absurd that they cannot have a beer or glass of wine without fear of possible arrest and prosecution.
It's time for the nation to repeal these Prohibition-era laws and adopt a more intelligent, progressive, and educational approach to drinking among younger adults. These laws simply don't work, they aren't enforceable any longer, and if anything they are counterproductive. Literally millions of responsible young adults are already consuming alcohol and that's not going to change. What we need to do is stop wasting the taxpayers money chasing, charging and prosecuting responsible young adults who want to have a beer, and start putting the money where it ought to be, in promoting smart education about responsible drinking, and in pursuing far more serious criminals, including those at all ages who drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
--
Eric Paine
President & Founder
Drink At 18
http://drinkat18.com
More...
At age 18, people are legal adults. As much as their parents may think otherwise, they are no longer children. They have the right to vote and help choose the President of the United States. They can go to war to defend our country, and they can legally purchase guns and cigarettes. It is absolutely absurd that they cannot have a beer or glass of wine without fear of possible arrest and prosecution.
It's time for the nation to repeal these Prohibition-era laws and adopt a more intelligent, progressive, and educational approach to drinking among younger adults. These laws simply don't work, they aren't enforceable any longer, and if anything they are counterproductive. Literally millions of responsible young adults are already consuming alcohol and that's not going to change. What we need to do is stop wasting the taxpayers money chasing, charging and prosecuting responsible young adults who want to have a beer, and start putting the money where it ought to be, in promoting smart education about responsible drinking, and in pursuing far more serious criminals, including those at all ages who drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
--
Eric Paine
President & Founder
Drink At 18
http://drinkat18.com
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (41) RSS