[CR] Week in Review

Newark Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine picked up on Jeffrey Miron’s article on Legal Age 21 and traffic fatalities in Forbes, and offered his own take on the law: “Most nations on Earth get along just fine without such an oppressive edict.” If you haven’t had a chance to read Miron’s article, check it out – it calls into question one of the oldest and most fundamental arguments put forth by proponents of Legal Age 21: namely, that the law was responsible for a large reduction in alcohol-related traffic deaths. For the rest of this week’s news, here’s the latest Week in Review:

Stories this week:

Philip Cook, a Visiting Professor at the University of Maryland who has written extensively about alcohol policy, gave a presentation this week on the legal drinking age at Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Check out the details of his presentation in The Diamondback, Maryland’s student paper.

Kathleen Reeves, a freelance writer for Campus Progress, the Center for American Progress’ campus activism group, published a piece about this history and implications of the legal drinking age earlier this week.

On Monday, Nevada Sagebrush opinion columnist Nic Dunn wrote about the “confusing labyrinth” that our inconsistent age of majority laws have built up around the issue of alcohol.

Ryan Dickson of Henderson State University’s The Oracle called out for “a voice of reason” to guide our alcohol laws. He wrote, “It is high time we started discussing this issue like a mature society instead of using scare tactics to control behavior.”

In other news…

Lately, we’ve been hearing more and more about the economic costs of underage and binge drinking. Did you know that underage drinking and the costs associated with hospitalizations and enforcement add up to $447 million in Nebraska?

Check out the details of a successful alcohol education program at UC-Davis in the Wednesday edition of the Sacramento Bee.

Have something to add to this list? Post the link in the comments.

2 Responses to “[CR] Week in Review”

  1. Edwin Says:

    The drinking age must be lowered to 18 along with the alcohol education program. In addition, it’s unjustifiable that scare tactics are used to control behavior, thus there’s no choice but to mature as a society and instill responsibility the correct way. With $447 million being used to enforce an ageist drinking age, a drinking age at 18 is the only correct option along with the alcohol education program. Finally, it’s good that there’s an effecive alcohol education program at UC-Davis but the drinking age must be 18.

  2. Robert Says:

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Progress is being made in the debate over legal age 21. MADD’s same old tatics on this issue have never worked.

    I always suspected that the argument that legal age 21 saved 800 lives a year was flawed, but now with Professor Miron’s research we know that leagal age 21 doesn’t work!