Current policies involving young people and alcohol are both ineffective and discriminatory. Our society needs to implement smarter policies that address the potential dangers of drinking for everyone – not just young people. Here are some suggestions on how to both adopt better alcohol policies and mitigate the damage of the current ones. Some solutions can be implemented at the local level, while others require national support. Some are short-term solutions, while others can be used to replace current policies. All of them are efforts to address the dangers of alcohol without relying on discrimination.
Provide comprehensive alcohol education.
Public policy that requires complete abstinence from a popular activity will often rely on telling people to “just say no.” However, this method is both unrealistic and has negative consequences. We see this in places that have adopted an abstinence-only model of sex education and have had their rates of unplanned pregnancy and STD transmission increase considerably, largely due to ignorance about safe sex (Stranger-Hall & Hall, PLOS ONE, 2011; Kohler et al., Journal of Adolescent Health, 2008). Likewise, any public policy that ignores the fact that most people don’t wait until they are 21 to have their first drink, will inevitably encourage binge drinking due to ignorance about safe alcohol use (SAMHSA Report to Congress on the Prevention and Reduction of Underage Drinking, 2020)
Implement Medical Amnesty policies.
Medical Amnesty policies, also known as 911 Good Samaritan or Lifeline policies, protect underage drinkers from punishment if they call for help during an emergency related to alcohol or other drugs. As of 2024, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have passed statewide Medical Amnesty laws. Many colleges and universities have also implemented these policies so that underage drinkers also do not receive disciplinary action. These policies have shown to be effective in increasing people’s likelihood of calling emergency services when needed (Medical Amnesty Initiative, WITH US).
Provide student-led designated drivers programs.
Student-led designated driver programs are practiced at universities, sororities, and fraternities where members of that establishment select a sober driver to safely transport intoxicated individuals. These programs have been a legitimate solution for reducing drunk driving. Unfortunately, there are many barriers that get in the way of providing this policy, such as the university or chapter not wanting to give the impression that they encourage excessive consumption of alcohol.
End parental notification policies for student drug & alcohol offenses.
Over the years, more and more colleges have been implementing policies that allow them to report cases of underage drinking to parents. Usually, students’ right to privacy is protected by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Colleges are not allowed to share a student’s academic information to anyone, even if the parents pay tuition and the student is under 18. Unfortunately, however, FERPA does allow colleges to inform parents of any reports of underage drinking. These policies may prevent students from getting help if in fact they do have a problem.
Decriminalize underage drinking and reduce penalties.
Some communities have reduced penalties for underage drinking. Just like similar forms of decriminalization, the law imposes a civil fine rather than harsh punishments that come with life-altering consequences. Recently, underage drinking has been decriminalized or moved to an infraction status in several states and jurisdictions. Michigan passed legislation in 2016 making a first offense a civil infraction rather than a criminal misdemeanor. Delaware lawmakers voted in 2019 to make underage drinking a civil penalty with no criminal record. Maryland and the District of Columbia treat underage drinking as a civil offense — a position affirmed by a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling in 2003 — and Wisconsin has long classified it as a civil forfeiture rather than a crime. Decriminalization would be most effective in jurisdictions that have the harshest penalties for underage drinking, such as jail time. This policy may be a good step in the long effort to lower the drinking age.
Several jurisdictions impose excessive fines for underage drinking. Utah carries fines of up to $1,000 plus surcharges for a first offense, and Florida treats it as a misdemeanor with fines up to $500. Adults who supply alcohol to minors or permit underage drinking on their property face steeper penalties still — up to $2,500 in Oklahoma and $2,500 in Utah. These fines can be a severe financial burden not only for young people, but for their families, many of whom may already be struggling financially. In decriminalization efforts, fines for underage drinking — and especially for underage possession — should decrease way lower or be eliminated altogether.
The existing BAC limits for drunk driving incidents are hypocritical and overly punish youth. The current BAC limits in the US are 0.00 to 0.02% for under-21’s, 0.08% for drivers at least 21 in most states, and 0.05% in Utah. If two drivers (both 160 pound males), one 20 year old, and one 22 year old, both get behind the wheel with a BAC of 0.06%, then only one would get charged with a DUI, when they are impaired to the exact same amount. DUIs carry major consequences for young people, and having the slightest amount of alcohol in their system — which is less than the 0.04% threshold used to charge commercial truck drivers with a DUI — forces young people to be charged with one.
The way that penalties for underage DUIs operate, is inherently hypocritical as well. If under-21’s are immature regarding alcohol, why are they mature enough to be tried as adults for petty alcohol-related crimes? In a fair few cases, simple possession can yield jail time. Frankly, incarceration in the US is often grossly inhumane, so incarceration, both juvenile and adult, should be applied only when and to the extent absolutely necessary. If 21 as the drinking age was truly because people under that age are immature with alcohol, this inconsistency would’ve been resolved by now. Because it is not, one must wonder whether any drinking age above that of adult criminal responsibility is meant to trample on youth.
Designate underage drinking as the lowest law enforcement priority.
Cities and towns can be encouraged to classify underage drinking as a “lowest law enforcement priority,” which is a strategy adopted by other decriminalization groups. According to NORML, since 2012 over 120 cities and counties across the United States have passed ordinances providing for significantly lower marijuana-related penalties than state law, with many directing local law enforcement to de-prioritize marijuana possession charges entirely. This model remains especially relevant in the 26 states where marijuana is still not fully legalized, but the principle of local deprioritization remains a useful tool regardless. Communities can apply the same strategy to drinking by 18- to 20-year-olds, designating it a lowest law enforcement priority rather than devoting scarce police resources to its prosecution.
Allow parents to monitor alcohol use.
Just like any activity in life, drinking responsibly is an activity that one must learn. Years ago, this took place in one’s family. Parents were allowed to demonstrate healthy drinking practices and to monitor use. Currently, we deny this education to millions of young people. Rather than a gradual introduction to drinking over the period of several years, the current attitude towards youth drinking says that a person shouldn’t have a drop of alcohol until their 21st birthday, and at that time it is perfectly fine to consume as much hard liquor as they want. Parents should be allowed to educate young people on responsible drinking habits by introducing them to alcohol gradually, in both small quantities and with beverages low in alcohol content, such as beer or wine. In this model, parents would be obligated to present an example of moderate drinking.
This policy is currently allowed in 31 states, where an individual under the age of 21 may possess and consume alcohol in a private residence with their parents, guardians, or spouses of legal drinking age. There have been also attempts to expand this policy into licensed drinking establishments. Former Minnesota state representative Phyllis Kahn proposed a bill that would allow underage people to drink in bars and restaurants if accompanied by a parent or guardian, or spouse that is of legal age. In the state of New Hampshire, a bill was filed that would allow individuals aged 18-20 to drink as long as they are accompanied by someone older than 21.
Lower the drinking age to 18 for those serving in the military.
Currently, it is required by federal law under United States Code, Title 10, Section 2683, that military installation commanders adopt the same drinking age as the state the military base is located in. However, since many people feel that if you are old enough to go to war, you should be old enough to drink, there have been several attempts to lower the drinking age for those in the military.
- In 2010, U.S. Representative Jack Kingston sponsored a bill to allow service people younger than 21 to drink beer or wine on post. H.R. 5958 (111th Congress) was introduced in the House on 7/29/2010, and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services and Subcommittee on Military Personnel, but never made it past that.
- Maryland senator, Ron Young proposed a bill in 2015 (Senate Bill 213) to lower the drinking age for active service members of the military under the age of 21. His bill would permit service members under 21 to drink beer and wine at a bar or after showing valid Military I.D.
- North Dakota state representative, Andrew Maragos had introduced a bill in 2015 allowing service members under the age of 21 to purchase and consume alcohol on military bases in the state. This bill did not pass, with 23 yeas and 67 nays.
- New Hampshire state representative James Splaine had introduced a bill in 2005 proposing to lower the drinking age for military personnel in New Hampshire. This bill was rejected.
Issue a “learner’s permit” for new drinkers.
Issuing a license to purchase alcohol could work the same way the government controls who can operate a motor vehicle. States could provide a permit for purchasing alcohol, after individuals pass an alcohol education course. This idea was first introduced by John McCardell, Jr., the current President and Vice-Chancellor of Sewanee: The University of the South. McCardell has suggested that licensing requirements would include classes that would cover the chemistry of alcohol, the physical consequences of abuse, and attending AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings. Individuals would need to pass an exam to be given a license to drink and could lose their license if they violated their state’s alcohol laws. Others have also suggested a licensing program where individuals can get points on their license for engaging in negative behavior while drunk, such as aggression or disturbing the peace. And then, just like with a driving license, individuals would need to go through safety courses or have their license revoked for accumulating too many points.
Lower the drinking age in select states as part of a pilot program.
Repealing the National Minimum Drinking Age Act is a difficult task, but individual states could be allowed to run a pilot program with a lower drinking age to study the effects. Choose Responsibility has suggested that if a state presents a plan for educating and licensing young adults to drink, and show how it can help maintain low levels of fatalities while lowering the drinking age, that they could perhaps receive a waiver of the imposed penalties of the NMDAA for a minimum of five years. One of the ways they suggested doing it is through individual states creating a mechanism to collect data to monitor the effects of the change in law, and states should submit these statistics to congress, along with an analysis of the effects of the waiver. For a review of the academic debate around this proposal, see Carpenter & Dobkin, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2011.
Relax guidelines for purchasing low-content alcohol.
Because beer and wine have a lower alcohol content than spirits, lowering the drinking age for these drinks can help lessen the problems that inexperienced drinkers have with harder liquor. In this successful Massachusetts campaign, citizens supported a lower drinking age for wine and beer.
Legalize drinking where it can be monitored.
This policy is currently allowed in approximately half of U.S. states, where an individual under the age of 21 may possess and consume alcohol in a private residence with their parents, guardians, or spouses of legal drinking age (see also NIH Alcohol Policy Information System state-by-state breakdown). There have also been attempts to expand this policy into licensed drinking establishments. Former Minnesota state representative Phyllis Kahn proposed a bill that would allow underage people to drink in bars and restaurants if accompanied by a parent or guardian, or spouse that is of legal age. In the state of New Hampshire, a bill was filed that would allow individuals aged 18-20 to drink as long as they are accompanied by someone older than 21.
Legalizing drinking for those aged 18-20 in public venues will take drinking out of the basement and into the open, where responsible servers can cut off individuals who need it. Staff at drinking establishments are also able to step in to prevent fights, physical assault, and other dangerous behaviors that can be associated with excessive drinking (systematic review, Harm Reduction Journal, 2024).
Other solutions to reduce Drunk Driving
One of the main arguments in favor of a higher drinking age is to reduce the number of drunk driving accidents. However, there are much more effective ways to do this. One of the ways would be reducing the minimum legal Blood Alcohol Content, which Utah recently has. The current BAC limits in the US are 0.00 to 0.02% for under-21’s, 0.08% for drivers at least 21, and 0.04% for commercial drivers. For a 160-pound man, 0.08% can typically fit 3 drinks. Why do we tie BAC limits (and often supervision capacity) to age instead of experience? And why do we not graduate penalties more? Lowering the minimum blood alcohol content necessary to charge adults with DUIs would be far more effective in reducing rates of drunk driving, but this rarely happens. Because this would affect the drinking rights of adults, which is seen as unacceptable. But when the rights of young people are involved, any thoughts of discrimination is thrown out the window.
