DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ramifications of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age from 1970 To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Ramifications of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age from 1970 To The Ramifications of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age from 1970 to the Present: A Review and Analysis of the Current Literature Brendan Curtis Abstract The goal of this article is to examine the extant literature pertaining to the effectiveness of the policy of the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) in the United States. The literature represents comprehensive research regarding the issues associated with the MLDA. These issues include underage alcohol consumption, alcohol-involved traffic fatalities, alcohol use on college campuses and law enforcement of the MLDA from 1970 to the present. This paper reviews extensive information that takes into consideration the societal differences in perception of alcohol use, national drinking trends and the fairness of the MLDA. The consequences brought on by the MLDA are widely agreed upon, and the majority of data supports the current MLDA of 21. Despite this unyielding support, a continuing debate has surrounded the policy since Congress’ implementation of the National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984. Existing research argues that the MLDA is unjust and counterproductive. Dissent regarding the policy has endured due to the manner in which the MLDA was instated, the other “adulthood privileges” granted at the age of 18, improvements in motor vehicle safety and the unsafe underage drinking environments and trends that exist today. This review examines each facet of the argument in relation to the current MLDA, and it concludes that the current MLDA of 21 is the most effective and responsible policy regarding the ever-debated issue. Furthermore, additional observational, cross-sectional and quantitative research is necessary in order to resolve the existing issues within the matter, and to improve the general information, perception and law enforcement of alcohol-related violations. Introducing the History of the MLDA Alcohol has played an influential role in society long before it even reached the United States. From the earliest documentation of alcohol use, it has been referred to as “a social activity, and both consumption and behavior have been subject to self-imposed social controls” (SIRC). It is clear that the “self-imposed social controls” derived from Americans’ drinking habits have proven to be alcohol-imposed and socially uncontrollable. The United States government has responded to Americans’ drinking trends through many forms of legislation throughout history, the two most radical actions consisting of Prohibition and the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (National Youth Rights Association). Alcohol use will never be eliminated from America’s culture due to its social, recreational, traditional and economic importance in society. As the Social Issues Research Centre points out, “Attempts at prohibition have never been successful except when couched in terms of sacred rules in highly religious cultures”. With Prohibition came negative results such as the public’s general disapproval, an increase in criminal activity and overall failure and corruption. This led to legislation that required every state to abide by a national MLDA of 21. Due to historical events such as the baby boom generation and the Vietnam War, from 1970 to 1975 almost every state lowered its legal age of adulthood to 18; thirty of these states replaced their existing MLDA of 21 to 18,19 or 20 (Wagenaar and Toomey 206; Wechsler and Nelson 986; NYRA). This experimental change of the MLDA to 18, 19 or 20 stimulated many concerning issues in the United States. The lower MLDA was followed by an increase in alcohol sale, alcohol consumption and alcohol-involved traffic fatalities among adults aging from 18 to 20 (Wagenaar and Toomey 206; Wagenaar and Wolfson 38; Wechsler and Nelson 986). Other issues that followed the lowering of the MLDA occurred due to the different legal restrictions across state lines (Wechsler and Nelson 986). These consequences from the lower MLDA, along with the help of the powerful lobbying organization “Mothers Against Drunk Driving”, influenced the patchwork of 1 legislation necessary to enact the National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984 (Wagenaar and Toomey 206; Wagenaar and Wolfson 38; Wechsler and Nelson 986; NYRA). The National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984 is the underlying cause of the debate of the effectiveness of the policy of the MLDA. The National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) even proposes that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 has had the greatest impact on the “day-to-day lives of America’s youth since it was signed into law”. Researchers Alexander C. Wagenaar and Traci L. Toomey call attention to the fact that the MLDA is the most-studied alcohol control policy in the United States and the purpose of this protocol is to reduce “alcohol use and its associated problems among youth” (206). Despite the consequences from a lower MLDA, the fight to revert the MLDA back to 18 still exists today and it is gaining support. The preponderance of research and evidence indicates an inverse relationship between the MLDA and its associated problems among youth (meaning a lower MLDA creates more problems and a higher MLDA creates less problems), but the literature still reveals the existing dissent of the policy: “During the intervening 25 years there have been periodic efforts to lower the minimum legal drinking age, including recent legislation introduced in 7 states, although none of these bills have been enacted” (Wechsler and Nelson 986). Researchers today have the ability to compare the results of the outdated and lower MLDA of 18 to the current and higher MLDA of 21. It becomes necessary to ask which policy proved more efficient, responsible and fair to the lives of Americans. If the answer to this argument results in a contrary response to the current MLDA, it becomes further essential to examine how society must change in order to refrain from following America’s past footsteps (of an increase in alcohol sale and consumption, alcohol-involved traffic fatalities and other alcohol-related problems) when the MLDA was changed to 18. Revealing the Effects of the MLDA The Aftermath of the MLDA of 18 from 1970-1984 During the early 1970s a trend for lowering the MLDA to 18, 19 and 20 began in the United States in response to the baby boom generation and the Vietnam War (Wagenaar and Toomey 206; Wechsler and Nelson 986; NYRA). The baby boom generation directly followed the end of World War II, and as this group approached adolescence it was clear that a lower MLDA would stimulate alcohol sale, and essentially the economy (NYRA). The experimental times of the 1970s also led many states to lower their minimum legal ages of adulthood (along with their MLDA’s) in order to increase voting rates regarding controversial issues such as the Vietnam War (Wagenaar and Toomey 206; Wechsler and Nelson 986). Additional research and literature presented the issues regarding the morality of changing the MLDA to 18. It was argued that if a person could fight and die in war, adopt children or fly a commercial airplane at the age of 18, they should be granted the privilege of consuming alcohol (NYRA; Cloud 35). All of these factors contributed to the transition of the MLDA, from 21 to 18, 19 or 20 in nearly every state. The extant literature that examines this natural experiment in the United States reveals the many repercussions of a lower MLDA. The research within this timeframe focuses on issues such as alcohol sale, alcohol consumption, alcohol-involved traffic fatalities and other alcohol-related consequences. Nearly all states lowered their MLDA’s in the early 1970s, resulting in an increase in alcohol sale and consumption, an increase in alcohol-involved traffic fatalities and an increase in other alcohol-related problems (Wagenaar and Toomey 213; Wagenaar and Wolfson 38; Wechsler and Nelson 986-88; NYRA; Cloud 37). Additional alcohol-related problems consist of the development of other drug use, future drug use and negative health effects (Wechsler and Toomey 218; Wagenaar and Wolfson 46; Wechsler and Nelson 986-88). Further studies of the effectiveness of the MLDA of 18, 19 or 20 go on to expose additional problems created from the outdated policy. As researchers Wechsler and Nelson point out, “this situation created a patchwork of differential legal restrictions across states and contributed to the problem of underage youths in states with a 2 minimum legal drinking age of 21 years driving to states with a lower minimum legal drinking age to purchase and consume alcohol” (986). The rates at which alcohol sale and consumption, alcohol-involved traffic fatalities and other alcohol-related consequences dramatically increased compels researchers to declare the existence of an inverse relationship between the MLDA and its associated problems among youth (meaning a lower MLDA creates more problems and a higher MLDA creates less problems) (Wagenaar and Toomey 219; Wechsler and Nelson 986-88). Despite the considerable rates at which alcohol-related problems increased, current literature examines further research that contests these rates. The National Youth Rights Association discusses how the research conducted on young adults, from ages 18 to 20 from 1970 to 1984, is subjective research of the baby boom generation. The increased rates of alcohol sale and consumption, alcohol-involved traffic fatalities and other alcohol-related problems, may be in fact distorted by the numbers involved – simply, there was a greater population of people among those ages in that time period. This misrepresentation of the rate of alcohol- related problems is similar to calculating a nation’s GDP without taking inflation into consideration, and then claiming that the GDP has grown marginally. Another disputable point of the acclaimed ineffective MLDA’s of 18,19 or 20 is brought up by researchers Wechsler and Nelson: Some studies have shown that states who later adopted the legal minimum drinking age of 21, compared to states that earlier adopted the legal minimum drinking age of 21, did not show signs of higher alcohol-involved traffic fatalities (988).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Youth Declaration of Rights Vermont Youth Have the Right To
    YOUTH DECLARATION OF RIGHTS VERMONT YOUTH HAVE THE RIGHT TO: EDUCATION MENTAL HEALTH Access free classes on Basic Life Skills (signing a lease, Have access to affordable mental health care budgeting, taxes, resumes, etc.) A personal break to handle their mental situation Equal opportunities and experiences in arts education Choose their own identity, whether that be sexual before, during, and after school orientation, religious identification, and/or gender A post-secondary education no matter their financial identification situation Have people in society who support their mental well-being A student-directed, safe space for afterschool support and community engagement free of charge NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Time outdoors during the school (or work) day A healthy environment that provides the basic necessities to all life Know about the environment, and what is being done to it EQUALITY & JUSTICE Have a say about what happens to the environment Explore their identities in a safe environment Safe recreation in the outdoors and in their communities Education on gun safety and to live in a gun-aware PHYSICAL HEALTH community that is educated and aware of proper gun usage Hygienic products, clothing, and utilities suitable for all Have their voices heard in legal decisions that affect climates and environments everyone Have access to outdoor recreational and natural spaces Be protected in all of their life circumstances, be able to (e.g., parks, fields, courts, lakes, pitches, trails, paths, etc.) have their own privacy in their environments,
    [Show full text]
  • National Youth Rights Association Jason Kende
    Board of Directors PO Box 5882 Christopher Coes -- Washington DC 20016 Scott Davidson http://www.youthrights.org [email protected] Laura Finstad Rich Jahn National Youth Rights Association Jason Kende Alex Koroknay-Palicz Johnathan McClure To: Federal Elections Commission Re: Rules regarding political contributions by minors Kathleen Miller Brad White In light of the December 10 Supreme Court's use of no uncertain terms in to strike down the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act's provision that Board of Advisors individuals 17 and under were banned from political giving, the National Youth Rights Association urges a liberal interpretation of the rules Adam Fletcher when implementing the Court's ruling. To accommodate the decision Founder, Freechild.org in McConnell vs. FEC we believe the greatest deference must be paid David Hanson, Ph. D. to youth wanting to donate money to political campaigns and parties. Professor. State University ofNew York at Potsdam Specifically we recommend the following: 1. Minors 14-17 should be treated no differently from adults in the Bennett Haselton area of political donations. President. Peacefire 2. Minors between 7 and 14 should have an initial presumption of Grace Llewellyn capacity that is rebuttable. Author. "Teenage Liberation Handbook" 3. Minors 7 and under should have a rebuttable presumption of incapacity. Mike Males, Ph.D. 4. Minors should be able to donate from bank accounts where they Author. "Framing Youth" have full access to the funds, even if parents or guardians must Roderic Park, Ph. D. co-sign to open the account. Former chancellor. University ofColorado -­ If a hearing is scheduled, NYRA is interested in testifying.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Youth Advocacy May 5, 2021
    School Mental Health Virtual Learning Series January 2021-August 2021 Youth MOVE National: Leveraging Youth Advocacy May 5, 2021 Technology Support • Slides will be posted on the NCSMH website (www.schoolmentalhealth.org) and emailed after the presentation to all registrants • Please type questions for the panelists into the Q&A box. • Use chat box for sharing resources, comments, and responding to speaker Web Mobile App Tiffany Beason Larraine Bernstein Taneisha Carter Elizabeth Connors NCSMH Faculty Coordinator Senior RA NCSMH Faculty Dana Cunningham Sharon Hoover Nancy Lever Jill PGSMHI Director NCSMH Co-Director NCSMH Co-Director Bohnenkamp NCSMH Faculty Oscar Morgan Michael Thompson Dave Brown MHTTC Project Director MHTTC Sr. TA Specialist Senior Associate School-based Training Behavioral Health Equities Perrin Robinson Britt Patterson Kris Scardamalia Communications Director NCSMH Faculty NCSMH Faculty Central East Geographical Area of Focus HHS REGION 3 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia What Does Central East MHTTC Do? Actions • Accelerate the adoption and implementation of evidence‐based and promising treatment and recovery-oriented practices and services • Strengthen the awareness, knowledge, and skills of the behavioral and mental health and prevention workforce, and other stakeholders, that address the needs of people with behavioral health disorders • Foster regional and national alliances among culturally diverse practitioners, researchers, policy makers, funders, and the recovery community • Ensure the availability and delivery of publicly available, free of charge, training and technical assistance to the behavioral and mental health field National Center for School Mental Health MISSION: Strengthen policies and programs in school mental health to improve learning and promote success for America's youth • Focus on advancing school mental health policy, research, practice, and training • Shared family-schools-community mental health agenda Directors: Drs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Drinking Age
    Vermont Legislative Research Shop Lowering the Drinking Age The minimum legal drinking age fluctuated throughout the second half of the 20th century, yielding mixed results. After prohibition was repealed in 1933, almost every state set the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) at 21 years.1 In 1970 Congress lowered the voting age to 18, which began a movement to lower the drinking age, as well. During the Vietnam era, many people were outraged that 18 year‐olds were fighting overseas yet could not have a drink. In the period between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered their MLDA to 18, 19 or 20. A study by Alexander Wagenaar revealed that in states that had lowered their minimum age there was a 15 to 20% increase in teen automobile accidents.2 This information influenced 16 states to raise their MLDA to 21 between 1976 and 1983. Pressure from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) led to the signing of the Uniform Drinking Age Act by President Ronald Reagan on July 17, 1984.3 This act mandated a significant decrease in federal transportation funding for states that did not raise their MLDA to 21. Worldwide, the United States has the highest MLDA, with others ranging from birth to age 20.4 The majority of countries have a MLDA of 18. In most of these countries, however, the family teaches responsible drinking from a very young age. Since 1960, over one hundred studies have been conducted to analyze the effects of raising the MLDA. This research was examined by Alexander Wagenaar to determine the trends that appeared in the conclusions.5 Some of these studies provided evidence supporting a MLDA of 21, while most others found no conclusive results.
    [Show full text]
  • UN Youth Strategy
    UNITED NATIONS YOUTH STRATEGY Table of Contents 1. Context ................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Role of the UN ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Vision ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 4. Objective of the UN Youth Strategy ....................................................................................... 5 5. Strengthening the foundations for a UN that delivers with and for young people ..................................................................................................... 6-9 6. Priority Areas of the UN Youth Strategy ........................................................................ 9-13 7. Coordination, Governance and Operationalization ............................................... 13-14 UN Youth Strategy 1. Context people flee home in search of survival, or move for better opportunities. Young people also suffer The world today is home to the largest generation interpersonal violence, are affected by the slow 1 of young people in history, 1.8 billion . Close to 90 onsets of climate change or frontline impacts of per cent of them live in developing countries, disasters. They experience intersecting forms of where they constitute a large proportion of the marginalization,
    [Show full text]
  • Community Supervision of Underage Drinkers
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention October 2012 Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator Underage Drinking Community Supervision Underage drinking is a widespread offense that can have serious physical, of Underage Drinkers neurological, and legal consequences. Problematically, it has become quite commonplace. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) works to eliminate underage Highlights consumption of alcohol and provide In this bulletin, the authors provide a theoretical overview upon which to base guidance for communities developing prevention and treatment programs. policies, procedures, and practices that will help professionals—and their cor­ responding agencies—effectively supervise underage drinkers in the community. OJJDP created the underage drinking They also discuss the legal issues that professionals may encounter when working bulletin series to educate practitioners with these youth. and policymakers about the problems youth face when they abuse alcohol and Some of the authors’ recommendations include the following: to provide evidence-based guidelines. The series presents findings from a study • An effective community supervision program should emphasize four on preventing underage drinking in the Air Force as well as a literature review of goals: community protection, youth accountability, competency develop­ the effects and consequences of underage ment, and individual assessment. drinking, best practices for community supervision of underage drinkers and • Conditions of community supervision must be clearly stated to the youth, legal issues surrounding underage drink- must be constitutional and fair, and must help rehabilitate the youth. ing, and practice guidelines for working with underage drinkers. • Community corrections and diversion professionals must acknowledge The series highlights the dangers of un- the diverse cultural backgrounds of youth and tailor interventions and derage drinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Children and the Most Essential Right
    CHILDREN AND THE MOST ESSENTIAL RIGHT Any discussion of rights arguably begins and ends with the right to vote. If you have it, all rights are achievable. Without it, whatever rights you have are dubious. As has been frequently articulated by the Supreme Court, “no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a choice in the election of those who make the laws under which…we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”1 The Court recognized voting as a fundamental right because it is the foundation for and springboard to all other rights. In her book on Susan B. Anthony, Failure is Impossible, Lynn Sherr noted that “what distinguished Anthony from so many others working for women’s rights was her uncompromising insistence that no other right was more central, no other need more pressing. Despite her passionate concern for just marriage laws, for equal pay, for coeducation, Anthony lectured time and time again that the key was suffrage; that without the vote, none of the others would last; that with the vote, all others would flow.”2 This shared perspective between the Court and Anthony is not limited in application to particular groups or individuals. It crosses boundaries of race, gender, abilities, and age. It is just as true for children as it was for women and blacks. Although children have been imbued with certain limited rights by the Supreme Court, these rights lack the protection provided by suffrage and children lack the ability to accumulate rights that comes from suffrage.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflect and Learn on How to Drive Change for Girls
    POWER TO THE GIRLS! Reflect and learn on how to drive change for girls December 2015 1 Preface 2015 is an important year for the Girl Power Alliance. fully and equally participate in their societies. Harmful potential for development and peace. Gender equality is Taking stock of five years of collaboration, the alliance norms and traditions change only slowly. Governments not only a goal in itself, but a prerequisite for reaching all concludes that the Girl Power Programme contributed and institutions are still a long way from fulfilling their the other international development goals.” 1 to positive changes for more than 1,5 million girls and responsibilities towards girls and young women. young women in ten countries in Asia, Africa and In this publication, the Girl Power Alliance shares some On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Girl Power Latin America. We can confirm that these girls and of its important lessons and experiences. It is not only Alliance young women experience less violence than before the ‘what’ and ‘why’ that matter to convince donors, the programme and increasingly claim their rights. policy makers and practitioners to join their eforts for Monique van ‘t Hek (Director Plan Nederland) Discriminatory and harmful practices against them have Girl Power; taking an in-depth look at the ‘how’ often Sheila Donovan (Executive Director Child Helpline become less acceptable. Additionally, Girl Power partner reveals powerful pathways of change. International) organisations have found practical ways to engage The Alliance would like to thank all the girls, young Aloys van Rest (Director Defence for Children governments at various levels while involving civil women, families, organisations and institutions who International Nederland – ECPAT Nederland) society as an agent for gender equality.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Rights and Responsibilities Handbook
    Youth Rights and Responsibilities Handbook 2004 Edition INTRODUCTION The Iowa Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (JJAC) is happy to present to the young people of Iowa this Youth Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. This handbook was initiated by a group of teenagers, The Story County Youth Action Committee, in an effort to educate their fellow students in and around Ames. This same group of youth more recently worked to revise the handbook for distribution to young people throughout the state. This youth-oriented project is one of many such efforts supported by the Governors’ appointed JJAC – a group of Iowa citizens dedicated to helping youth and improving the state juvenile justice system. Since 1975, the JJAC has worked to promote public awareness of youth and the justice system. It supports numerous youth programs designated to serve as alternatives to jails and institutions and promotes safe environments for juveniles. In addition, the Council helps to provide training for law enforcement agencies and promote crime prevention programs throughout the state. The JJAC welcomes the chance to make the information in this handbook available and hopes it will be helpful in your day-to-day life and activities. This handbook was developed and designed by young people for young people. Those who spent the hours necessary to prepare this information are to be commended for their desire to inform themselves and others about youth rights and responsibilities under the Iowa Code and the U.S. Constitution. This handbook is designed to provide you with general information regarding your rights and the effect and operation of the law upon you as a minor.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Voting
    PUBLISHED BY Coordinators: SEPTEMBER 2019 • ISSUE 1 L Bethany J. Roberts, AW Chair, LRE Committee; W ISE Anne Woods, Public Services Director; Nicolas Shump, Law Wise Editor; & Patti Van Slyke, Journal Editor Greetings from the Kansas Bar Association (KBA). Welcome to this first edition of Law Wise for the 2019-2020 school year. IN THIS ISSUE Youth Voting .................................................1 The Potential Impact of the Youth Vote ............. 2 Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote ...... 2 Should the Voting Age be Lowered? ............... 3 “The Times They Are A’Changin’” Issues Affecting Young Voters .......................... 4 Election Lesson Plan 1: Grades 6-8 ..................................................... 5 Election Lesson Plan 2: Design A Candidate Advertising Campaign .... 6 Youth Voting iCivics ............................................................ 8 he passage of the 26th amendment lowering the voting age from Terrific Technology for Teachers ...................... 9 21 to 18 served as the culmination of a thirty-year battle to extend the privilege to teenagers. However, the battle over youth voting Thas not ended with that historic amendment. As this issue will explore, Did you know... organizations like the National Youth Rights Organization continue to • 4 MILLION 17-year-olds turn 18 before the advocate for lowering the voting age to 16. The political importance of November election. the youth vote will be explored as well. Data since the 1972 presidential • If you are 17 1/2, you can register to vote NOW. election shows over half of all eligible youths have voted in presidential • Don’t miss the opportunity to play a role in elections since 2008. In the 2018 midterm elections, youth voting reached electing your leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Voice Definitions
    The following words are commonly used within the youth voice and youth development fields. For each, a definition is given. Adultism: refers to all of the behaviors and attitudes that flow from the assumption that adults are better than young people, and are entitled to act upon young people in many ways without their agreement. Adults Allies: refers to adult organizers who work with youth and are able to draw out the ideas of every member of the group, take them seriously, compliment them, and let young people make decisions for themselves. Community Principle: states that communities need to see youth development as a process that happens throughout a young person’s awareness of and interaction with the world around them.1 Community Youth Development: is a perspective dedicated to advancing the field of youth work; addressing the needs of all youth, including displaced and vulnerable youth; and promoting healthy participatory communities through youth/adult partnerships. Political Adultism: refers to elected officials neglecting or not listening to the concerns, voices, and opinions of young people when considering, writing, or passing legislation. This is done because young people are unable to vote. Youth Action: young people making a difference for themselves, their communities, and society as a whole. HEET HEET Youth Activism: refers to young people engaging in a practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action, especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue. Youth Civic Engagement: is the process of engaging youth in affecting policy and taking action on issues in their community. Youth/Adult Partnerships: efforts that involve young people and adults working together, sharing S S power, and learning from each other to build stronger communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Under Age: Redefining Legal Adulthood in 1970S America
    UNDER AGE: REDEFINING LEGAL ADULTHOOD IN 1970S AMERICA A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Timothy J. G. Cole May 2016 Examining Committee Members: Beth Bailey, Advisory Chair, Department of History, Temple University David Farber, Department of History, Temple University Bryant Simon, Department of History, Temple University Daniel Hart, External Member, Department of Psychology and Department of Childhood Studies, Rutgers University-Camden © Copyright 2015 by Timothy J. G. Cole All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT Between the late 1960s and early 1980s, state and federal lawmakers made a number of unprecedented changes to the minimum age laws that define the legal boundaries between childhood and adulthood in the United States. By altering the voting age and the legal age of majority during the early 1970s, legislators effectively lowered the legal age of adulthood from twenty-one to eighteen, and launched a broader, more wide-ranging debate over other minimum age laws that would preoccupy legislators for much of the decade that followed. These reforms can be grouped into two distinct stages. Early 1970s reforms to the voting age and age of majority placed a great deal of faith in eighteen- to twenty-year-old Americans’ ability to make mature, responsible decisions for themselves, and marked a significant departure from the traditional practice of treating young people as legal adults at the age of twenty-one. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, a second set of reforms revoked much of the faith that legislators had placed in the nation’s young people, raising some key minimum age limits – such as the drinking age – and expanding adults’ ability to supervise and control teenaged youth.
    [Show full text]