Although the legal drinking age is technically determined at the state level, the federal government managed to establish a 21-year-old minimum throughout the country with what was one of the best uses of incentives of all time. Washington told each of the fifty states that they had autonomy over the age requirement for drinking, but that they would use federal highway funding if the drinking age wasn't 21 in their state. This was absolutely brilliant. Of course all the states quickly fell in line to institute the suggested drinking age. The cost of losing highway funding was just too great.
As with most plans, even the great ones, there were several unintended consequences. Because teenagers have to wait longer to legally drink, they often put themselves in dangerous situations in order to consume alcohol. Alcohol accounts for almost 1/3 of all driving deaths among teenagers (http://www.sadd.org/stats.htm). While the highways might be better maintained, the amount of teenagers dying on them has increased substantially.
Perhaps a more relatable situation is the one involving the all-too-common overprotective parents. Teens who's parents tended to be on the stricter side about alcohol consumption (likely because the death rate among teenagers is high due to the age limit) have a much harder time adjusting to the freedoms of college. If a few of my former classmates are any indication, a night of binge drinking gone wrong is a massive unintended consequence of restrictive parenting. Overprotective parents are also an unintended consequence of the higher drinking age. Every decision comes with negative and/or positive repercussions and implications.
Good economics. We want to think about marginal costs here in terms of drinking and the economic impacts of sending a certain product or good "underground." Generally, when goods go on a black market and underground they become more potent (liquor vs. beer)
ReplyDelete