This review by U.S. News & World Report is a prologue to an upcoming, larger article on teen brain research and the role of alcohol.  We are interested to see what the authors come up with, and will keep you posted on the status of that piece.

San Diego, CA, where highway patrol officers visited the school one Monday and told students that many of their classmates had been killed in drunk driving crashes over the weekend.  The news frightened students, resulting in a hysterical frenzy in classrooms and hallways as students grieved for 26 of their classmates, who they believed had died.  Later in the day, the “dead” students returned to school, revealing that the entire plan was a hoax that was intended to scare students away from drinking and driving.  School officials claim that scare tactics, like this, are effective in preventing dangerous behavior:  “[Students] were traumatized, but we wanted them to be traumatized,” said guidance counselor Lori Tauber.  “That’s how they get the message.”  However, putting severe psychological distress on students is an unethical and irresponsible way to try and teach a positive message about drinking.  The community would be much better served by trying to teach students about responsible and safe drinking, so that they can make educated choices about drinking and driving.  When a student learns about the consequences of drinking and driving, that knowledge will stay with them for life.  Scare tactics, on the other hand, create fears that can fade over time, possibly leading to dangerous decisions in the future. 

Drunk driving is a problem with which we need to grapple; however, the solution does not rest in scare tactics.  In order to see results, we need to emphasize the need for safety, and encourage moderation, not prohibition.

Much has been made in recent days about how “science” proves “overwhelmingly” that a lower drinking age reduces alcohol-related traffic fatalities.  The supporting evidence for this claim may be found in a 2002 article by Alex Wagenaar and Traci Toomey, which identifies 52 peer-reviewed analyses that establish a cause-and-effect relationship between drinking age and traffic fatalities.

This is called “science,” when, in reality, it is mathematics, statistics, probability, abstraction, estimates.  Generating these data did not require a laboratory, nor did it require an advanced degree in any of the natural sciences.  These data are the result of “imputation” (try deciphering NHTSA’s definition of that term), assumption, extrapolation, and the plugging of numbers into a formula.  That’s math, folks, not science.  And it’s an estimate.  And there is not a single, identifiable human life associated with any of those numbers.  How after all count wars not fought?  Fortunes not made?  Friends never met?  Lives not lost?

So let’s begin by using the correct term.  This is “mathematics speaking for itself,” not science.

But when a discipline speaks for itself, it requires no filter, though it demands its hearers not listen selectively.

And here’s why.  The same peer-reviewed article that lists 52 analyses showing a cause-and-effect relationship between a higher drinking age and lower traffic fatalities notes that this number is out of a TOTAL of 102 such analyses.  In other words, about HALF the analyses show a relationship … and HALF don’t.

The other side can say, as they have in each of the following publications, that these are simply one man’s opinions (Parade Magazine).  They can question why an historian knows more about science that scientists (KGO radio).  They can dismiss CR’s assertions as untruths (KGO radio, Fox News).  In short, they can continue ad hominem responses.  Or they can explain what the scholar they cite, who is a member of MADD’s own Board of Directors, means by this statement (p. 213):

“Of the 102 analyses, 52 (51%) found a statistically significant inverse relationship between the legal drinking age and crashes;  that is, as the legal age was lowered, the number of crashes increased, and as the legal age was raised, the number of crashes decreased.”

These are not “off-the-cuff musings.”  These are not “opinions masquerading as facts.”  They are peer-reviewed data that any historian – or political science major – can read and quickly grasp.

So the next time you hear about “more than 50 peer-reviewed studies,” keep in mind:  the actual number is 52.  And that’s out of a total of 102.

Let’s let science (er, rather, mathematics) speak for itself.  Unencumbered by emotion.  Without personal attacks.  And in the service of nothing more, or less, than the truth.

 -[CR] Director John McCardell

United Kingdom: 50% Decline
Germany: 37% Decline
Australia: 32% Decline
The Netherlands: 28% Decline
Canada: 28% Decline
United States: 26% Decline

This downward trend in drunk driving across the board shows quite clearly that the 21 year-old drinking age in the United States was, at best, the least effective measure to limit drunk driving amongst these developed countries and, more likely, is falsely credited as the key to changing social mores that in fact changed across all industrialized countries with no drinking age changes. Amongst these six countries only the US raised the drinking age (in 1984) to curb drunk driving; others adopted policies that recognized drinking and driving as an especially dangerous outcome of irresponsible drinking behavior. Rather than target drinking, they targeted behavior. Nearly all countries stepped up intoxicated driving enforcement and lowered legal BAC level. The Netherlands, recognizing that drinking and driving was a behavior best limited if prevented early, lowered BAC levels further for young drivers. Not a single country outside of the US lowered the drinking age, and yet every last one of them managed to reduce alcohol-related fatalities at higher rates than the US. It would seem that the drinking age then is the least effective way to reduce drinking and driving.

An editorial by Columnist Radley Balko also appeared online where he discusses at length what has changed in the 20 years since the drinking age was raised to 21. He writes, “But after 20 years, perhaps it’s time to take a second look — a sound, sober (pardon the pun), science-based look — at the law’s costs and benefits. McCardell provides a welcome voice in a debate too often dominated by hysterics. But beyond McCardell, Congress should really consider abandoning the federal minimum altogether or at least the federal funding blackmail that gives it teeth.”

News articles in college newspapers continued to roll in as well: The Middlebury Campus, The Kent Stater.