National Minimum Drinking Age Act - Opposition

Opposition

Many groups, such as Choose Responsibility (CR), the Amethyst Initiative (AI), and the alcohol industry, believe young adults should be given the opportunity to educate themselves and drink responsibly before the age of 21. In lieu of scientific evidence, this faction emphasizes the importance of civic rights and freedoms, though federal district courts have ruled that the right to drink alcohol is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. These groups emphasize the reality of the present situation, and point to statistics on underage drinking as a reason to institute a lower MLDA as a means of “helping those young people learn to make healthy and responsible choices.” They believe that if the MLDA were lowered, youth would have access to “publicly moderated drinking environments” and consequently would be less likely to “model their behavior after the excessive consumption typical of private student parties.” While this may be a compelling argument, studies have shown that the level of misperception of on-campus norms with regard to alcohol would have to be unrealistically high in order for this statement to hold true. Members of this group have also been known to claim that the present MLDA encourages more dangerous drinking than would occur if the MLDA were lowered. This is refuted by an array of statistics, many of which can be found below. It is also worthwhile to note the potential bias of the alcohol industry, which would reap profits from an additional estimated 4.56 million drinks if the MLDA were lowered from 21 to 18.

The Conservative Party of New York opposed the passage of the law in 1984, but according to The New York Post no longer considers the effort to bring back drinking by those under 21 worthwhile. In 2001, according to the same article, New York State Assembly member Felix Ortiz introduced a bill that would lower the drinking age back to 18. He cited unfairness and difficulty with enforcement as his motivations.

In 1998, the National Youth Rights Association was founded, in part, to seek to lower the drinking age back to 18. In 2004, the president of Vermont's Middlebury College, John McCardell, Jr. wrote in The New York Times that "the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law" that has made the college drinking problem far worse.

The state government of South Dakota questioned the national drinking age, suing then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole in the case South Dakota v. Dole. However, in the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the power of Congress to withhold federal funds in pursuit of national policies, such as the drinking age, was upheld.