22

It seems rather odd to me that an 18 year old in the US is allowed to enter the military, be drafted, smoke cigarettes, take on loads of college debt, and buy a house (despite the unlikelihood of that), yet the legal drinking age is set at 21, even though human brain development ends at around 25. What are the reasons for this difference?

Jontia
  • 24,192
  • 4
  • 94
  • 120
Luke Hill
  • 339
  • 2
  • 7
  • How is this related to politics? – convert Mar 26 '22 at 22:28
  • 18
    @convert how is it not? It’s a question on legality and policy. – Luke Hill Mar 26 '22 at 22:29
  • It´s about law and not government. – convert Mar 26 '22 at 22:30
  • 20
    @convert laws are a part of government. – Luke Hill Mar 26 '22 at 22:32
  • 3
    Added US tag. These discrepancies are common worldwide. The UK allows enlistment at 16 compared to alcohol and voting at 18 for example – Jontia Mar 26 '22 at 22:45
  • 2
    Related and you might be interested Why is the drinking age usually higher than the age of consent & driving age? – Allure Mar 27 '22 at 00:00
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? Why is the drinking age usually higher than the age of consent & driving age? – divibisan Mar 27 '22 at 00:54
  • 2
    @convert Politics is about electing representatives based on how well (the public perceives) they do their jobs; the primary job of those representatives is to make laws. Therefore, politics is directly related to laws. I can’t see why there should be any confusion here. – Brian Drake Mar 27 '22 at 13:13
  • Perhaps asking "what were the reasons given by congress when the laws were being enacted?" As it stands the question is asking about reasons today and the laws are decades old. If the laws were being attempted today, the reasons may or may not be the same. – CGCampbell Mar 28 '22 at 11:25
  • 1
    Notably, the age to purchase tobacco products was recently raised to 21. – Thomas Markov Mar 28 '22 at 12:08
  • It was largely because of the very successful political efforts of MADD in the early 1980's. It was so successful that most politicians didn't dare come out against it publicly. – RBarryYoung Mar 28 '22 at 13:11
  • 2
    Compare the number of car accidents caused by alcohol vs. the number of car accidents caused by smoking. Cigarettes, however harmful they may be, don't impair your ability to drive the way that alcohol does, thus endangering others. – Darrel Hoffman Mar 28 '22 at 13:23
  • Everything you listed is a personal danger to oneself, except for drinking - Which regularly endangers others. – Turbo Mar 28 '22 at 13:55
  • 1
    @Turbo what about smoking and secondhand smoke? Or driving? Or being in the military? – Luke Hill Mar 28 '22 at 14:02
  • 1
    @convert: "Is [thing] illegal at [age]?" is a legal question. "Why is [thing] ilegal at [age]?" is a political question. – Flater Mar 28 '22 at 14:52
  • @Flater I thought it´d be a beter question for law section. – convert Mar 28 '22 at 15:54
  • @DarrelHoffman, that's simply not true. While cigarette smoke may not impair your ability to drive, they sure do distract smokers from paying attention to what they're doing while driving. Smoking drivers have been documented to have a 1.5 times higher chance of causing an accident than non-smoking drivers. – CitizenRon Mar 28 '22 at 17:44
  • @CitizenRon Never said they were completely harmless, but compared to drinking and driving, smoking and driving is much, much safer. Note also that the distracted driving issue from smoking is only an issue if you're smoking and driving at the same time, while alcohol can impair your driving for a long while after you're done drinking. (Note: I'm not in any way defending smoking - I don't smoke at all, or drink much, and definitely don't combine either with driving, just stating what should be fairly obvious facts here.) – Darrel Hoffman Mar 28 '22 at 18:09
  • @DarrelHoffman Sorry, I missed the "...the way that alcohol does" connection you used. It was an honest mistake, I was definitely not drinking and commenting. – CitizenRon Mar 29 '22 at 20:41

1 Answers1

30

The age of majority — in most US states, and for most activities that were considered 'adult' — was set at 21 up until the 1970s. I'm not sure there was a specific reason for that aside from convenience and folk wisdom. It was lowered to 18 largely because of the heavy use of conscription during the Vietnam war; there was public dissatisfaction about sending young men to fight in wars when they could not vote for the people sending them there. The drinking age was raised to 21 once again in the 1980s, ostensibly because of a large increase in drunk-driving accidents traceable to young adults.

There's a lot of other politics mixed in with this: religious concerns about immorality and predatory sexual behavior, conservative worries about the rise of 'psychedelic' drugs in the anti-war movement, lobbying by insurance companies trying to increase their profit margins... But these are the basics.

Ted Wrigley
  • 69,144
  • 23
  • 179
  • 235
  • 6
    But there are school shootings and American youths can still buy a gun at 18 though, hence the meme. So why aren't legal gun-owning age being 21 as well? – Faito Dayo Mar 27 '22 at 02:00
  • 15
    @FaitoDayo: Gun issues are crazed in the US, for reasons that are too Freudian to get into. I will say that (1) most school shooters are under 18 and get their weapons illicitly (often from their parent's gun cabinets), and (2) the standard response gun advocates give to school shootings is that schools should arm their teachers (because, you know, *that's* what teachers yearn for). IT's a sad fact of life that crazy, obsessed people are extremely useful to political parties — they've got their vote on a hair trigger — so politicians like to keep them happy. – Ted Wrigley Mar 27 '22 at 02:16
  • 1
    @FaitoDayo What meme? – Azor Ahai -him- Mar 27 '22 at 18:23
  • @FaitoDayo Alcohol related deaths are twice as high as gun related deaths in the US...and that is with the drinking age set at 21. – rtaft Mar 27 '22 at 18:25
  • In the United Kingdom, the age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18 on January 1, 1970, and we didn't have conscripts being sent to war. – Michael Harvey Mar 27 '22 at 19:33
  • 1
    @MichaelHarvey: is this where I"m supposed to say 'copycats!'? The question is in the US context, though I'd be interested to know what the rational across the pond was... – Ted Wrigley Mar 27 '22 at 20:15
  • @TedWrigley - I think that part of the reason may have been that the incumbent UK government was a Labour one (centre-left) and they were more in tune with the aspirations of younger people, and perhaps felt that they could attract votes from those aged 18, 19, and 20. If that is true, it didn't work, as a Conservative government was elected later that year. It was, however, felt to be long overdue by most people across the political spectrum. – Michael Harvey Mar 27 '22 at 20:26
  • @rtaft Yes but that's not potential years per life lost, though. Unrelatedly, Is there any indication that increasing the drinking age reduces these risks from alcohol.? – Araucaria - him. Mar 28 '22 at 01:05
  • 1
    Hey you know the thing that is more dangerous than guns, so dangerous that the US actually had to ban it because it was too dangerous? Yeah, and it was created by a company that was trusted by other countries around the world too...

    Kinder Easter Eggs. Heard of them? The US thinks that it is a choking hazard.

     – Aaa Lol_dude Mar 28 '22 at 10:25
  • 3
    @AaaLol_dude The law was created in 1938 after 107 people died, mostly children, after someone sold a mixture of antifreeze and antibiotics to pharmacies. The law basically says you can't put something unsafe for consumption inside something meant for consumption (except for useful things like popsicle sticks). It has nothing to do with it being a choking hazard and the law existed long before Kinder existed. Kinder found a way around the law a few years ago. – rtaft Mar 28 '22 at 12:27
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore.: MADD (who pushed for raising the drinking age to 21 in the first place) cites some studies. – dan04 Mar 28 '22 at 12:40
  • Yes, MADD was largely the public driving force in the early 1980's that got the drinking age raised back to 21 in the US. – RBarryYoung Mar 28 '22 at 13:13
  • Largely separate from the issue of alcohol, but one of the other major socially accepted drugs, tobacco, recently got bumped up to 21. – Sean Duggan Mar 28 '22 at 14:31