Higher drinking age can cut back the intensity of alcohol use

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

A new study finds that adults who legally were able to purchase alcohol before the age of 21 in their states are more likely than others are to be alcoholics or addicted to drugs.

Researchers are not certain how to explain the difference, but it is possible that a higher drinking age could cut back on the intensity of alcohol use before the age of 21, said lead study author Karen Norberg, M.D., a research instructor in psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis.

Regardless of the explanation, the findings suggest "that there are very long-term benefits to a higher drinking age," Norberg said.

From the Vietnam era until the mid-1980s, many states allowed people to purchase alcohol at the age of 18. However, a federal law pressured states to boost the drinking age to 21, and all did with the exception of Louisiana, which finally followed suit in the 1990s.

In the new study, Norberg and colleagues looked at surveys of 33,869 people born in the United States between 1948 and 1970. They examined the records to see if there were differences in alcoholism and drug abuse rates depending on when states allowed individuals to buy booze.

The study findings appear in an early online edition of the December issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.

After adjusting their statistics to prevent things like the ethnicity of the respondents from skewing the results, the researchers found that those who lived in states that allowed drinking before age 21 were 1.3 times more likely to have suffered recently from alcoholism. They were also 1.7 times more likely to have had a recent drug abuse problem.

Norberg said lower drinking ages might have a "peer effect," since that makes it easier to find friends of one's age to drink with. "If the drinking age is at 21, it will be a little harder to find some friends to go out with. You'll probably drink less often and have a smaller number of drinks."

Traci Toomey, an associate professor who studies alcohol use at the University of Minnesota, said the study is "thoughtful" and provides strong evidence that lower drinking ages do lead to more drinking problems later on.

However, she said, "It is not possible to rule out all other potential explanations … given the many intervening years."

Toomey also cautioned that higher drinking ages are not the only way to reduce alcohol problems in society. Loopholes that allow people under 21 to drink should close, she said, and the excise tax on alcohol should increase.

http://www.wustl.edu/

Comments

  1. Ajax the Great Ajax the Great United States says:

    I read the study thoroughly and think that the relationship between MLDA and later alcohol problems is likely spurious for the following reasons: 1) At least part of the relationship seems to be mediated by self-selective cross-state migration (i.e. budding young alcohol abusers moving to states with more lenient laws), 2) The relationship was apparently NOT mediated by earlier age of drinking onset, as would be expected if the relationship was truly causal, 3) drug addiction was affected more strongly than alcoholism for whatever reason, 4) No distinction was made between a drinking age of 18, 19, or 20, and 5) The odds ratio for the relationship between MLDA <21 and later alcohol use disorders was an anemic 1.33. In epidemiology, odds ratios and (relative risks) below 2.0 are difficult to interpret and are often due to residual or unmeasured confounding, bias, or even chance. This is especially true for retrospective and non-longitudinal studies such as this one. In other words, the results are preliminary at best.

    According to NIAAA data from 1981, states with a drinking age of 21 actually had HIGHER rates of alcoholism than states with lower drinking ages.

    And why does Canada (MLDA 18 or 19 depending on province) not have a higher alcoholism rate than America? Ditto for most other countries with lower drinking ages? Some may say culture, but Canada's culture is not radically different than ours.

  2. briana briana United States says:

    I think the age should be higher than 21 because students at that age are more irresponsible and cause more accidents.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Prescribing AUD medication at hospital discharge lowers risk of readmission