sign in sign up
<<
Home , Conscription

ADULTS OR KIDS? INSPECTING THE RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PRIVILEGES OF 18-20 YEAR OLDS

THOMAS HRUZ

mid the fervor parallel being drawn of discussions with the renowned Aon gun control 212121 minimum legal this year, one of the drinking age. Ever policy recommenda- 181818 since the voting age tions advanced is to was lowered to 18 in require that a person the early 1970s, the be 21 years old to buy drinking age has a handgun. In the stood as the locus of same vein, the the debate over the National Gambling rights of young Impact Study adults. But the drink- Commission recom- ing of alcohol may mended this year that soon be joined by all legal gambling such perceived vices should be restricted to as credit card use, those who are at least gambling, handgun 21 years of age. ownership, and who Wisconsin is already knows what else. ahead of the curve, Underlying these having moved to restrict gambling at Indian age-based restrictions is the belief that 18 to 20 Casinos in the state to only those 21 and over. year olds are not responsible enough to handle Also heard in recent months are suggestions to these items, and that it is permissible for gov- require a person to be 21 to use credit cards.1 ernments, at the state or national level, to deny these people liberties that are enjoyed by other Whether or not such policies would be adults. effective at reducing gun violence, credit card debt, or compulsive gambling, another impor- Faced in the economic community with the tant issue is at play. If the vast majority of determination of a legal minimum , the adults are allowed to engage in these activities, social community has been grappling with on what basis may the government restrict what could be called the legal minimum age. those privileges from younger adults? This This minimum age is the time of life, marked question is one that most policy makers and by one of our celebrated birthdays, at which the general public do not feel obliged to the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of answer. adulthood are given to individuals. Ask Americans when someone becomes an adult, It is telling that the age of 21 is being offered as the appropriate new threshold for Thomas Hruz is a Resident Fellow of the Wisconsin these responsibilities. Obviously there is a Policy Research Institute .

Wisconsin Interest 21 and most will respond when a person turns 18. adults who do not attend college but go direct- Yet with adulthood and its corresponding ly into the full-time work force, life’s lessons expectations does not always come equal treat- come along even more quickly. These post- ment before the law. Instead, there is a stag- adolescents are often still connected by a tether gered process to which adult privileges are to the parents they lament as constrictors of allowed, causing people in this age group to their freedom, but whom they blissfully know find themselves treated as an adult one (yet rarely admit) will still be there if they fall moment, only to be looked upon as a mere flat on their faces. Nevertheless, when this sep- adolescent in another. A more reasonable aration occurs there comes a newly created approach would be to hold a serious discus- independence that neither law nor direct sion on the general expectations and abilities parental control can effectively monitor. And of young adults, and then decide upon a single so comes adulthood. age at which the complete set of adult rights, Adulthood has both legal and cultural duties, and privileges are conferred. components. Policy makers decide when the Social Expectations and Legal Treatment of legal recognition of adulthood falls upon per- Post-Adolescents sons through what was traditionally called the , which today ostensibly stands There is a legitimate purpose in establish- at 18 (more on that later). Some of the privi- ing an age at which individuals assume the leges currently conferred upon persons on their rights and privileges of adulthood versus that 18th are the ability to marry, legally of simply a juvenile. As a matter of personal smoke tobacco, buy, sell and trade real-estate development, it is understood that children, and stocks, vote for public officials, and to view for the most part, do not have the capacity to sexually explicit materials. Some of the concur- handle the responsibilities of living in an adult rent duties imposed are registration in the world. Therefore, prior to adulthood a person selective service for males, which establishes is not considered independent in most of their their eligibility to be drafted into the armed ser- social and economic interactions, but rather vices, and the automatic treatment as an adult they are dependent on others. This depen- in the justice system. The cultural component dence falls mostly to a child’s parents, fol- of adulthood is less definitive, but is still mani- lowed by other family members, school per- fested by the rights of passage that signify sonnel, and various community members. one’s transition to adulthood. These comings of Parents can lawfully restrict their child’s age are sometimes just the actual experience of actions as they see fit, but they also can be held the privileges outlined above. Other times they responsible for the misbehavior of their chil- involve such responsibilities as owning a car, dren. In short, common law and statutory law paying rent, or buying insurance. generally reserve to parents and legal guardians substantial control over their chil- Overall though, the meaning of adulthood dren until the time at which they are mature seems predominately that of social and eco- enough to be self-responsible. nomic independence — the autonomy of an individual both before the law and fellow peo- When children reach the age of 18 many ple on the streets. Quite literally, it means that graduate from high school and move out of a person no longer has to get their parents’ their parent’s home. Numerous 18 to 20 year permission to engage in the more serious olds are in their first few years of post-sec- aspects of life. ondary education, gracing college campuses with a newfound freedom and the short-term Yet while post-adolescents experience the surplus of student loans. They party, often control of increasing details in their life, that work part-time , experiment with various control is not coupled with certain responsibil- “adult” pleasures, and learn (or fail to learn) ities and experiences that are denied by law. how to juggle a . And for those young They cannot drink alcohol; they cannot even

22 Fall/Winter 1999 enter a drinking establishment after certain social benefit from the inherent compelling of hours. Now its possible they will not be maturity that comes along with granting these allowed to own handguns, go with their older privileges at age 18 — the classic “learning the friends to the casino, or maybe even run a bal- hard knocks of life” sentiment. ance on a credit card. This situation creates a Not surprisingly, both perspectives offer dangerous mixture of expectations, along with cogent insights. Those fearful of the late ado- an inability to maintain a coherent system of lescent mentality and proclivity to danger encouragement and discipline for the current remind us of the risks posed by many 18 to 20 culture. On one level we expect them to year olds. Those more willing to give this pop- act like adults, yet on another we do not let ulation adult privileges remind us of the them. And we do not let them by making it American traditions of freedom and individual illegal. responsibility. As a result, few people on either When it comes to translating the various side of the debate completely dismiss the merit social expectations of 18 to 20 year olds into of the other’s concern. Instead, the disposition their legal treatment, a person’s view on this on this matter is based on a value judgment topic typically falls into over which concern is one of two categories. more substantial and First, there are those who thereby trumps the other conclude that 18-20 year in cases when they con- olds are, in general, imma- flict. Is it better to restrict ture and dangerous; so …it becomes apparent freedom to protect the much so that they should young and those they not, for practical reasons if why there have contact from the impact not principled ones, be of potentially dangerous allowed certain privileges developed two stages at activities? Or is it better to of adulthood that require which adulthood’s risk these negative conse- higher levels of responsi- quences in order to allot bility (such as drinking privileges are given. freedom equally to all alcohol, gambling, or adults? These are the dif- credit cards). Accordingly, ferent value judgments it is better to let these that drive the issue. mature some more An insightful look at before they are allowed these opposing views these responsibilities. To support this view, pro- shows that the first has a definite outcome-ori- ponents showcase instances of excessive entated, or utilitarian emphasis, while the sec- teenage exuberance, maybe even the violence, ond is focused on questions of civil rights and accidents, and other dangers they tend to create. civil liberties. Given this understanding, it The destructive events of Woodstock 99 would becomes apparent why there have developed likely be a prime example. two stages at which adulthood’s privileges are The second view contends that once a per- given. First, in matters where evidence can son reaches the age of 18 they should be grant- show that a disproportionate amount of harm ed all the rights and privileges of other adult occurs when people in that age group partake citizens. If society labels them adults, let them in an activity, then those privileges will gener- be adults. The rallying cry is often framed with ally be granted at a later age, usually 21. Here the understanding that if one “is allowed to the utilitarians win. The tragic accidents that die for their country” then he or she should be occur while teenagers drove under the influ- allowed to partake in the other elements of ence led many to say that a social benefit adulthood, including popping open a beer if would arise from raising the drinking age. Do they so please. Some in this camp also see a underage adults still drink and drive?

Wisconsin Interest 23 Certainly. But that age group can statistically person cannot go down to the corner pub, be shown to do it less than when they could decide if Budweiser is better than Miller, and drink legally. Likewise, instances of violence buy a beer? Clearly, people in this age group among that age group are being used to sup- are allowed to handle some serious adult port the recommended policy of setting 21 as responsibilities, but by legal they are the minimum age to own a handgun: if gun denied other responsibilities that their fellow violence will go down from such a restriction adults carry. The obvious hypocrisy created by (a yet unproven assumption), that alone would the overlap of these policies is disturbing, if justify such a change. not laughable. A different dynamic happens when the Sometimes the hypocrisy is even found activity involved is framed more as a right of within a single type of activity — like gambling. adult citizens, instead of merely a privilege. Beginning this year, Wisconsin’s state govern- The ability to marry, own real estate, and vote ment has decided that someone has to be 21 are some of the responsibilities that have fallen years old to gamble at Indian casinos in the into this category. Any aggregate social harm state. Such a law implies that the state believes that may indirectly result from having those gambling is particularly dangerous for those younger than 21 being involved with these younger than 21. Think again. An 18 year old matters is usually difficult to substantiate. For can still plop down as much money as he or example, the young adults who vote (of which she wishes on the state lottery system, which is there are few) cannot be said to bring about an arguably equally “dangerous” form of gam- any harm to society. In these cases, the burden bling. Why the differential treatment? falls more on those trying to restrict that age The schizophrenic nature of these policies group from the activity. Therefore, a policy generates an important series of questions: towards equal treatment prevails as the natur- First, what are we really protecting with laws al tendency. that keep people under 21 from drinking alco- The conflict between the rights-based and hol, gambling, owning a credit card, or owning utilitarian emphases has never quite reached a a handgun? Second, why is that protection critical mass in the debate over the minimum needed for these younger adults, but not other . But that tension will likely adults? Finally, on what basis we can defend become more evident in debates over age- unequal treatment before the law between peo- based ownership restrictions on handguns, ple who are otherwise considered adults? and as even more and more liberties become What are we protecting with laws that deny restricted in the name of social benefit. people under age 21 these products? Drawing a Consistent, If Imperfect Line Unlike most actions restricted by law, The preceding discussion explains why drinking alcohol, owning a handgun, and so different ages are currently required for certain forth are not socially detrimental in and of adult responsibilities, but it goes nowhere themselves. Few people would argue that towards justifying the situation. It only illus- when an adult (whether 18 or 30) drinks a beer trates that the American culture and its politi- it automatically constitutes a threat to public cal system are having a dandy of a time decid- safety. The threat only comes if and when that ing what are the appropriate responsibilities person drinks alcohol to the point of intoxica- and privileges that should be conferred upon tion, and then commits a crime. In other 18 to 20 year olds. Why can someone legally words, the danger seen in these products are marry at age 18, but cannot play blackjack at the consequences of their use being combined the local casino? Or imagine a 20 year old indi- with flawed human action, like irresponsible vidual who works full-time, pays rent, and judgment, malice, or addiction. It only votes for members of government. This same becomes manifested when these other crimes

24 Fall/Winter 1999 are committed. But we already have laws state-regulated casinos then elsewhere. which punish those who drink and drive, com- If anything, by making these activities mit assault or battery, and so forth. And they socially taboo, irresponsible actions may apply to 18 year olds as much as 30 year olds. become more prevalent, or at least less control- The true basis for the discrepancy is really lable. It is surely much easier to regulate and an ingenuous concern for “public health,” a public tavern than a party. Yet which pines that since the young adult popula- it is at these private residence parties where a tion is generally not very risk-averse, the gov- majority of underage drinkers find greater ernment must protect society from the possible access to alcohol. Research has shown that the harm some in this age group may cause. Or so minimum drinking age of 21 deters drinking in the story goes. At the root of these age-based controlled environments (e.g.; bars, night restrictions is a prototypical paternalism. These clubs, public sporting events) but has no sig- adults are told, just like children, that they have nificant effect in uncontrolled locations (e.g.; to wait until they are older to do what they see residences, dormitories, homes of relatives).5 other adults doing all the time. Why? Because It is rare to find many we need to protect them. people who have grown It is based solely on rea- up under the 21 year old soning that harks back to drinking age who have the outcome-orientated not consumed an alco- perspective of those who holic beverage under situ- support later age restric- ations which were classi- tions. …whether caught or fied as illegal. Some of But what effect do not, a massive these folks are caught, but these age-based restric- the vast majority are tions really have? The evi- population is breaking never sanctioned. Only an dence is mixed. Certainly estimated 2 out of every some studies have shown the law. 1,000 occasions of illegal that the number of alco- drinking by youth under hol-related traffic acci- 21 end in an arrest.6 There dents involving teenagers is also evidence that goes down when the enforcement of the drink- drinking age is raised to ing age is lax because 21. But these decreases police officers see a gener- are not large, and a number of other studies al acceptance of youth drinking, and claim that found equivocal results.2 Beyond drunk dri- they do not receive significant encouragement ving, the types of crime that decrease with the from community members to increase enforce- raising of the drinking age are generally the ment efforts. It is difficult enforcing a law that least violent, such as vandalism and disorderly is not taken seriously and deals little with conduct, while assaults and aggravated direct harm to the public. Nevertheless, assaults do not decrease at all.3 In addition, whether caught or not, a massive population is one would need to have their entire head in breaking the law. Are we really prepared to the sand to say that underage drinking does legally sanction otherwise law-abiding citizens not go on, especially on college campuses. In for simply drinking a beer or laying down a fact, the 21 year old drinking age has had no bet at the blackjack table? Given the current effect on binge drinking, as college students enforcement of the minimum drinking age, are drinking to get drunk even more than that is unlikely. before the drinking age was raised to 21.4 And for good reason. Many of these laws Likewise, 18-20 year olds gamble, if not in

Wisconsin Interest 25 simply turn common malfeasance into crimes. they are immature and irresponsible, the more Keep in mind that those goods and services they are encouraged to act as such. Conversely, being restricted from people under the age of the more that they are given the opportunity to 21 are not dangerous and harmful in such a act with adult-level maturity, the more reason way as to be inherently unlawful. Otherwise and need they will have to do so.7 the government would not allow anybody, no Certainly there are great differences matter what age, to partake in these activities. between the attitudes and actions of young As with the universal prohibition policy of the adults versus those who are older. But these 1920s, prohibition on the 18 to 20 year old age natural distinctions also exist between 35 and group produces similar phenomena of con- 65 year olds. The pivotal question therefore is cealed distribution and consumption, which is not whether 18 to 20 year olds are as mature as widely known and even accepted. Such social those older than 20, but rather whether they apathy towards enforcing the law exhibits its are sufficiently mature to handle adult respon- weakness, just as what happened with prohibi- sibilities well enough, even if not as well as tion. We can only expect similar experiences their elders. After all, if the argument is based surrounding the other activities that would be on relative levels of maturity, it would be diffi- restricted from 18 to 20 year olds. cult to set any age, since maturity generally Why is protection needed for these young increases throughout one’s life, if only margin- adults, but not other adults? ally at some points. Additionally, maturity is not only a function of age, but also of experi- The activities looking to be restricted from ences, personal character, physical develop- those under 21 are of a nature that many peo- ment, and knowledge. Deciding what quan- ple may think are base and morally repugnant. tum of these various measures is sufficient for Be that as it may, that point does not change adulthood is a certain exercise in hubris. The the reality that these activities and products temptation to use age as a proxy is founded are legal for most of the adult public to enjoy. solely on its tangible nature, as compared to It is a moral issue more than a legal one, and the other components of maturity. It is by no we should not confound the two lines of argu- means an absolute measure. mentation. It may be contested that because these things are “immoral” and potentially On what basis can we defend unequal treat- dangerous that someone must be older before ment from the law between adults? they can assume the responsibilities that go Twenty-one and older laws are in the along with such activities. But if that is the peculiar category of status-based laws, in case, then we have to look to the other types of which a person cannot lawfully do something responsibilities that are given to 18 year olds that another is allowed to do, based solely on a and assess their relative level of danger. It personal trait. With respect to the current dis- would be difficult to argue that the tempta- cussion, it is not the act of doing a certain tions and dangers of drinking alcohol are sub- activity which is unlawful, it is doing that act stantially greater than many actions that are and being younger than 21. Not all status- permitted at age 18. based laws are without merit. As discussed The intersect between one’s age and the earlier, it is imperative that children under the ability to act responsibly is to a large degree age of majority are treated in some manners mutually dependent. In other words, the age at that would not be acceptable for treating which people will be responsible enough to adults. Likewise, most released felons are not handle certain duties and privileges in society allowed to legally own handguns even though will be reflective of the age at which segments other citizens are allowed. But the status of a of society assign that ability, either through cul- being released felon is much different than that tural expectations or by law. Both on a family of being a 19 year old. The former status is level and the much wider societal level, the based upon willful action of the individual, more we tell (and treat) post-adolescents that which generates a meaningful connection 26 Fall/Winter 1999 between that person’s action and the likely those who make the decisions that may put dangerous use of a handgun. The nineteen year them into harms way. old’s status is purely a matter of life — every- Yet there is another element to the discus- one who lives to the age of 20 will at some time sion of age and service that seems be 19 years old — and it is not their fault. overlooked. A person in the military is deemed It is perplexing how acceptable is the dif- able to handle the responsibilities of operating ferential treatment of 18 to 20 year olds from of destruction, and is expected to other adults. From a rights-based perspective, understand the serious ramifications in the fail- having differential legal treatment for 18 to 20 ure to fulfill those responsibilities. Granted, year olds is as unjust as doing it for 38 to 40 these abilities are acquired and performed year olds. If we are willing to maintain that citi- under the heavy supervision of military life, zens become adults after their 18th birthday, but the capacity of 18-20 year olds in this then regardless of what statistics show of the regard is rarely challenged. This reality begs nature of that age category, these people are the question of how someone who is expected adults. If the data demonstrate that the level of to be responsible enough to fire a gun or oper- risk-taking and immaturi- ate a tank, is not responsi- ty in this age group is so ble enough to down a pervasive and frightening, beer at the local pub? If then perhaps we should …someone who is we are willing to put 18 to move back the age when 20 year olds in military adulthood is recognized. expected to be responsi- combat situations and Some argue, and maybe expect them to, quite liter- correctly, that 18 to 20 ble enough to fire a gun ally, make life and death year olds are currently decisions, then there is lit- incapable, emotionally or or operate a tank, is not tle reason to believe they mentally, to handle the responsible enough to are incapable of handling rights of adulthood. There responsibilities with no are certainly ample cases down a beer at the local more (and probably much of people in this age less) serious conse- group exhibiting ques- pub? quences. tionable levels of maturi- But the minimum age ty. But if this is the case, game has rarely been an then move back all the exercise in rights-based public policy-based responsibilities of adult- logic and has been more a child of utilitarian hood, including . social thought. According to advocates of the The classic argument used to encourage 21 year old drinking age, because underage the lowering of age restrictions for adult privi- drinking is related to public health concerns, leges is that one may be drafted to fight in the there is no need to worry about the military military for their country at age 18. There is no age/drinking age disparity. In defense of this greater duty than to possibly give up one’s life difference they cite how “different activities in , especially if that service is imposed have different ages of ” and that through conscription. The best manifestation “these restrictions are based on the require- of this reasoning was the enactment of the 26th ments of the specific activities.”8 That last point Amendment to the US in 1971, is certainly accurate, but it completely avoids which mandated that the voting age be 18. The applying its own logic, which if done would common sense idea was that if the State can cast doubt on the fairness of this discrepancy. coerce 18 year olds to die for their country, After all, the skills needed for military service then these people should be able to vote for (such as discharging a and maintain-

Wisconsin Interest 27 ing discipline in combat environments) are cer- at age 18, 19, 20 or 21, but the overriding goal tainly no less demanding than that needed to is coherence and a resultant social justice. That drink a beer (such as determining the effects of justice is found in treating all adults equally this drug on your abilities and health). before the law. If someone is a legal adult then they Adults or Kids? should be treated as an adult. The status-based Is there really some magical epiphany that nature of these new age restrictions heedlessly occurs to someone on their 21st birthday, accepts as legitimate the ability of the state to which allows them to better understand drink- restrict rights from some while allowing those ing alcohol, credit card use, or handgun safety? rights to others when both groups should be Should someone really need to be 21 to play treated as equals under the law. From a policy 21? Of course not. Even those who support standpoint, it necessitates a blind eye to an restricting privileges from younger adults will otherwise apparent form of discrimination. admit that they are only concerned for whatev- The inherent danger in justifying the prohibi- er marginal social benefit results from the tion of certain activities to younger adults on change, and not what the effects may be on these utilitarian grounds is that it would not civil liberties and rights. They have few take much for the same reasoning to allow qualms with age-based limitations on 18 to 20 similar restrictions to other populations. Any year olds that unfairly penalize most youths discrete population whose members, as a for the behaviors of a few. group, disproportionately cause a social harm could be singled out for special legal treat- So are 18 to 20 year olds still adolescents, ment, if the same logic of these 18 to 20 year who have yet to reach the age of majority? Or old policies carry the day. are they young adults who should be accorded the full rights and privileges of other adult citi- Discussions on both cultural and political zens? Currently, policy makers in American levels must turn to a comprehensive assess- answer “it depends.” The absurdity of these ment of the issue of adulthood and its legal laws is again found in the fact that no direct treatment. Above all, the goal of consistency harm is done if young adults, aged 18 to 20, should be overriding when answers are made violate these age restrictions. A better policy is as to the appropriate rights, responsibilities, to make up our minds, end the current unjust and privileges due 18 to 20 year olds. After all, state-sanctioned age discrimination, and if these individuals are not responsible enough decide on one age. The drinking age is not just to own a handgun, gamble, or drink alcohol, about drinking alcohol. Games of social engi- then are they really responsible enough to neering, such as what is being done with the vote, purchase real estate, and serve in the mil- personal liberties of 18-20 year olds, are very itary? dangerous games. Individual rights are sacri- Therefore, building on the two competing ficed in the name of social benefit, without schools of thought on 18 to 20 year olds, there anyone questioning this unequal treatment emerges a third perspective. It simply espous- before the law. es the view that any age may be picked for Notes conferring these “adult” privileges, but that age should be the time at which all these privi- leges are acquired. This policy explicitly 1. The Consumer Federation of America has urged Congress to require that people under 21 get parental accepts the somewhat arbitrary nature of any approval or demonstrate sufficient income before age cut off, but does not give credence to hav- obtaining credit cards, and to curtail credit card mar- ing multiple ages at which privileges are con- keting to people under the age of 21. In September of ferred. Obviously a person in this camp must 1998, the US Senate considered a measure on the mar- keting issue, only to have it defeated largely out of still decide what age is appropriate and wres- concern for its effect on those younger than 21 who tle with the issues discussed above. It may be work full-time.

28 Fall/Winter 1999 2. Ever since the mid 1980s, the federal government has July-August 1995. pp. 428 - 438. devised a system that denies all-important federal 7. Granted, there are a number of teenagers younger highway funds from states that do not have a 21 year than 18 who may be mature beyond their years, to old drinking age. This policy creates a de facto feder- such a degree that they could also handle adult al mandate taking away the option from states, who responsibilities. Is it fair to not allow them legal free- otherwise have the option ensured to them under the doms under the same logic just expressed? Possibly 21st Amendment, which guarantees States’ rights to not. But the key difference is that, almost universally, regulate alcohol. A common support offered for this those younger than 18 are still living at home and policy is that in its absence, 18-20 year olds will drive through the means of their parents. This condition is across state lines to drink where it is legal, and there- important. The ability and legitimacy of parents to after drive home drunk causing terrible, even fatal control the behavior of their children when they live accidents. This perspective uses logic that is dis- at home is strong. Most parents who recognize a turbingly circular to support its position, because child who is exceedingly mature will accord that while the result is most likely true, it in no way is child greater freedom and responsibilities without the directly supportive of a 21 year old drinking age, just a need for law to intervene. This sentiment is even uniform drinking age. Clearly if all states had an 18 or reflected in the law. For example, Wisconsin law rec- 19 year old drinking age there would also be no ognizes the ability of underage persons to drink alco- incentive to drive across state lines to drink. hol when accompanied by a parent. Likewise, if a 3. Joksch, Hans C. and Ralph K. Jones. Changes in the parent decides to allow their child to undertake other Drinking Age and Crime. Journal of Criminal Justice adult activities, even if others may think it question- Vol. 21, (1993). pp. 209-221. able, the law has little force in that regard. And while 4. Smith, Michael Clay, and Margaret D. Smith. occasional instances of indiscretion will occur on the Lowering the Drinking Age. The Chronicle of Higher part of parents, for the most part we should recognize Education Vol. 45, No. 27, March 12, 1999, p. B8. the system as just. 5. Mooney, Linda A. The Differential Effects of the 8. Rosenfeld, Carolyn. The Public Debate Over the Minimum Drinking Age Law. Sociological Inquiry MLDA. In Toomey, Traci, et al. The Minimum Legal Vol. 63, No. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 330 - 338. Drinking Age: History, Effectiveness, and Ongoing 6. Wolfson, Mark; et al. Law Officers’ Views on Debate. Alcohol Health and Research World Vol. 20. Enforcement of the Minimum Drinking Age: a Four No. 4, 1996, pp. 213 - 218. State Study. Public Health Reports. Vol. 110, No. 4,

Wisconsin Interest 29