The United States Legal Paradox
Jake Navarro | November 6, 2024
The United States Legal Paradox
Amongst the grand symphony of American legal thresholds, one stands out for its impetus in infantilizing adults: the 21-year-old minimum age requirement for alcohol consumption. In Europe, the legal age varies from country to country. However, the minimum legal drinking age in the vast majority of European countries is 18. This is usually reflective of other minimum-age thresholds, such as the age of legal maturity.
In Malta, for example, individuals may legally consume alcohol at 17. The U.S., as I have so unfortunately found out, is different. Even after reaching the legal age of adulthood, individuals must wait an additional three years before gaining the privilege of having an alcoholic beverage. This benchmark, as I will argue, is neither proportionate nor consistent with other legal thresholds in the American system. In short, it demands reconsideration.
Starting with the issue of legal autonomy, from an outsider’s perspective, the U.S. grants 18-year-olds significant autonomy, in a myriad of ways. For example, the 26th Amendment is unequivocal, to the following effect: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Thus, an 18-year-old is legally considered sufficient to cast a vote that could shape the nation’s future. However, if the same 18-year-old then celebrates civic duty with a drink, the same state would swiftly remind them of their youthful incompetence. A similar — and staggering — dissonance is exhibited in the fact that 17-year-olds are considered old enough to serve in the military, and possibly thus face the horrors of war. At the same time, that 17-year-old is too immature to handle a beer. The point here clearly emerges: what state interest can explain how a 17-year-old is sufficient to enroll in the army, and an 18-year-old to vote, but neither the former nor the latter are then allowed to have a Sex On The Beach?
The legal inconsistencies continue. In contract law, which is largely governed by state statutory and judge-made law on one hand, and private law on the other, the capacity to enter into a contract is generally established at 18. To sign binding agreements, make financial commitments, and be held accountable in civil courts – is perfectly acceptable at 18. However, to sit in a pub at that age and have a drink is an affront to the U.S. legal framework.
The point I’m trying to get across: Can it not be said that there is a disparity between the legal thresholds for serving in the army, voting and entering into contracts on one hand, and drinking alcohol on the other? Let me answer the question: it is a glaring disparity.
To be clear, I am in no way promoting alcohol use. Nor am I technically claiming that 21 is universally too high an age. What I argue is that this threshold — in contrast to other rights, entitlements and responsibilities – stands out in how disproportionate it is. What I am arguing is that there is a great sense of dissonance across the different thresholds, and how it makes no logical sense to consider 18-year-olds as legally responsible to make important decisions in life, but then not be allowed to consume a beer. In turn, this begs the question as to whether requiring citizens to be 21 to consume alcohol is appropriate.
One might argue that the government’s paternalistic interference is necessary to protect the health and well-being of its citizens. After all, alcohol is infamous for its negative effects on health and potential long-term consequences. Yet, I cannot help but wonder: if the U.S. is so concerned about the health of its citizens, why does this concern only arise at age 21, and not when that same person is sent to war at 17? It is difficult to reconcile these two approaches to personal risk, isn’t it? It is interesting how this protective instinct applies so fervently to a 21-year-old’s liver, yet seems to falter when that same person is shipped off to war at 17.
Another argument that could be made relates to the possible risks alcohol poses to others – and to society at large. It is well-documented that alcohol consumption has been a contributing factor to a considerable number of violent altercations, criminal behavior and public disturbances. Thus, some may argue that it makes complete sense to ensure those consuming alcoholic beverages are mature enough to drink, and know its limit. However, at this stage, I have to draw on the minimum driving age threshold in the U.S as a counter-argument.
As far as the age to be able to drive is concerned, the American legal framework enables different states to set forth specific requirements. Federal law does not mandate a minimum age threshold but grants states discretion. This has enabled all states to allow people to drive at the age of 16. One cannot help but marvel at the legal paradox that deems a 16-year-old sufficiently mature enough to operate a motor vehicle—an endeavor requiring significant responsibility and interaction with other drivers and passengers—yet simultaneously too immature to be trusted with the far less hazardous task of responsibly consuming alcohol. Personally speaking, with the drinking age in Malta set at 17, I feel that I am able to moderate my drinking much more now. Having already “tested” the limits, I am capable of maintaining the quantity of alcohol that I consume. Possibly this is something else the U.S. legislator might think of when determining whether to maintain the status quo or change the age requirement once and for all.
Is it not conceivable that an erratic, inexperienced driver poses as grave a threat to public safety as an intoxicated individual? Surely, the risks of youthful recklessness on the road parallel those of irresponsible alcohol consumption—both seemingly accidents waiting to unfold. Yet, we persist in drawing an arbitrary distinction between these two domains of “maturity.” A more nuanced approach, such as permitting 18-year-olds to drink under controlled circumstances (for instance, at licensed venues), could foster a culture of responsible consumption rather than reinforcing the rigid outright prohibition we see today (at 21 years old that is).
To add a bit of depth to the discussion, I’d like to trace the origins of this curious age threshold. Here, we arrive at the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984—a literal and self-proclaimed exercise in federal coercion. This 1984 Act, also known as the Uniform Minimum Drinking Age Act, set the minimum legal drinking age to be 21 in the United States. The Act requires that States prohibit persons under 21 from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages. So far, this is legally straightforward. Yet, the curious nature of the Act emerges when we read that states were coerced into adopting the 21-year-old drinking age by threatening to withhold federal highway funds. Section 1 of the Act, in no unclear terms, lays down that :
“The Secretary shall withhold 10 percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.”
States, it seems, were not trusted to make their own decisions about drinking ages. South Dakota did challenge this law, insofar as it was a state that initially permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol. However, in a 7-to-2 decision, the court held that Congress was within constitutional bounds. It was held that the legislation was in pursuit of “the general welfare” and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. Thus, the motivation behind the decision was that the Act fell within the boundaries of constitutional power. However, whilst the law may be constitutionally sound, this leaves untouched the question of proportionality, and it remains lacking in consonance with the rest of the American Legal Framework.
At the end of the day, one has to ask: if 18-year-olds are mature enough to vote, fight and sign contracts, why not trust them with a beer? If the latter is motivated by sound reasoning, then the former must all be reconsidered. However, I argue that a more apt approach would revisit the approach to alcohol.
The law – if anything – seems less about protecting public health and more about a relic of the past that doesn’t reflect the reality of today’s youth. After all, I doubt many Americans wait until their 21st birthday to take their first sip of alcohol. In fact, this legal disconnect may only serve to fuel the very recklessness it proclaims to prevent.