1

The Minimum Legal Drinking Age: A “political imperative”

In 2015, when the Department of Trade & Industry made public its draft National Liquor Policy (NOTICE446 OF 2015), one of its proposals was to raise the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) from 18 to 21(see Appendix 1). Although the draft document was in theory open to public debate and input, asrequired, FMF learned that this aspect was a “political imperative” not open to discussion.

FMF media release from 11 August 2015

Unjust to prevent young adults from drinkingresponsibly until they turn 21. 18 – old enoughto marry but not to drink the champagne toast!

The DTI’s draft National Liquor Policy (NLP) proposesthat the minimum legal age at which alcohol can bepurchased and consumed should be raised from 18 to21 years. People mature enough to vote, marrywhoever they want, choose careers and beliefs, drivecars, enter into contracts, will not be allowed to drinkwith friends or at a meal or even their wedding.Young people between 18 and 21 years who currentlydrink legally in licensed premises or buy alcohol in ashop will have to stop doing so or become criminalsovernight.

Raising the legal age will merely push under-agebinge drinking into less controlled environments,leading to more health and life-endangeringbehaviour among young people. Environmentswhere they could be surrounded by seasoned seniorswho can set a good example and watch them forsafety reasons will be denied them.

A 21 year age limit is one of five key proposals* inthe draft NLP which violate the rights of anindividual’s freedom and return South Africa’s liquorlaws to apartheid era racism and discriminationagainst poorer citizens. The Free Market Foundation(FMF) submits that the proposals have unintendedconsequences and should be reconsidered. Thewindow for comment closes on August 13.

FMF executive director, Leon Louw, said, “Thegovernment obviously thinks a person is matureenough to vote for the ANC but not to buy a drink in abar. This means a soccer team can play a hard gametogether but the under 21s will not be allowed to jointheir team mates in the bar for a beer and match postmortem”.

The FMF submits that it would be anomalous ifyoung people are allowed to make all the bigdecisions in life but cannot choose to have a drinkwith a meal or a mate. The current drinking age of 18has logic and follows international thinking that at 18a person has reached the age of reason and maturity.

All well-meaning people would want to imbueyoungsters with a responsible attitude to drinking atan early age. If the right to consume liquor isdeferred to the age of 21, the introduction ofresponsible behaviour is unwisely delayed.

“In addition, an age limit of 21 will never beproperly enforced,” said Louw.

“This proposal will drive youngsters between theages of 18 and 21 underground to drink illicitly inmore dangerous circumstances with less emphasis onresponsible drinking. Unlike respectableestablishments serving alcohol legally, whereresponsible drinking is an encouraged culture, youngadults will be forced into buying alcohol illegally atmore unsavoury establishments”.

This was demonstrated during apartheid whenalcohol was prohibited to black South Africans andillegal shebeens became the norm. Alcohol inshebeens was often brewed illicitly and mixed withmethylated spirits.

FMF positionThe NLP talks about “education and awareness”which the FMF fully supports as the way forward for afree and open society with personal responsibility.Instead, as with banning smoking in public places andother draconian measures against tobacco use, thegovernment is removing freedoms by stealth in theguise of safeguarding the nation’s health. Once lost,individual freedoms cannot easily be regained. Theseproposals need to be resisted before more freedomsare taken away while the nation sleep-walks into thenanny state.

2

Evidence does not suggest that the minimumdrinking age has an impact on homicides, and wecan assume the impact on crime in general wouldfollow a similar pattern – which is no pattern atall. At the extremes are the nine countries with nominimum drinking age an average homicide rate of3.3 along with another nine countries with aminimum drinking age of 21, but an averagehomicide rate of 5.4.

In order to gauge the link, or lack of one,between minimum drinking age and crime, wehave compared 149 countries for which we couldfind the minimum drinking age as well as recent –within the last 10 years – homicide statistics.

One of the great problems in comparing crimerates is many people refuse to report crimes forvarious reasons. Individuals, who themselves maybe involved in criminal activity are not prone toreport being victimized lest an investigation revealtheir own activity. In addition, many individualsfeel reporting crime to be a waste of time becauseof police ineptitude or corruption.

In September 2015 the Institute for SecurityStudies wrote, of assault victims:

“There is, however, reason to doubt that thesefigures reflect a real reduction in assault levels.Police statistics for assault are notoriouslyunreliable because most victims don’t report thesecrimes to the police. Since the victim andperpetrator may be related (such as in a case ofdomestic violence) victims are often reluctant todisclose assault. The Statistics South AfricaNational Victims of Crime Survey (NVCS) foundthat most assault victims knew the perpetrators.The perpetrators were either from the samecommunity (34,2%), a spouse or lover (16,8%) or arelative (9,2%). Less than a quarter were describedas unknown or categorised as ‘other’.

Another reason to doubt the accuracy of officialassault statistics is the tendency among victims toreport assault incidents to the police is declining.The NVCS shows a 7% reduction in the proportionof assault victims who reported the incident to thepolice, from 52,6% of victims in 2011 to 45,6% ofvictims in 2013. This may signal a loss of trust inthe police or that the police are not recording asmany in an attempt to show a decrease in violentcrime so they can achieve the targets set forthem.”(1)

What Fuels Crime: Alcohol or Corruption?

Rape Crisis says “if all rapes were reported, thefigures could be as high 482 000 for the country.”But, most rapes are never reported to police.

“The reasons that so many incidents of rape gounreported to the police include:– fear of retaliation or intimidation by the

perpetrator– the fact that many survivors lack access to

services– the personal humiliation of being exposed as a

victim of rape in a community– the extreme suffering that goes hand in hand

with rape as a psychological trauma– reluctance to cause pain to loved ones– the fact that the offender is often known to the

victim and frequently a member of the victim’sfamily the possibility of negative financialconsequences, particularly if the victim is achild and her family relies on the perpetrator’sincome to survive.”(2)

Duxitra Mistry, of the Centre for the Study ofViolence and Reconciliation argues that as crimerates escalated conviction rates declined.

“The number of people convicted of crimesdropped from 1,611 per 100,000 of the populationin 1972 to 1 145 in 1992 – a drop of 29% in 20years. While the number of convictions increased– in absolute terms – in the mid 1980s, statisticsfor the last few years indicate that the number ofconvictions have reached their lowest point in overforty years.

The conviction rate varies considerably by typeof offence. Violent crimes such as murder andrape have some of the lowest conviction rates,54,5% and 50,4% respectively. Shoplifting, fraudand drug related cases have the highest convictionrates, between 82% and 93%.”(3)

One result of this crime crisis is victims loseconfidence in police and fail to report crimes. “Ingeneral more than 50% of the respondents whowere victims of crime felt the police were not“particularly effective” in controlling crime. Typicalcomments were that there is no follow up, policedisplayed negative attitudes and came across asunprofessional. With regard to burglary, rape andhomicide there was no follow up with the victimsor their families after the investigation had begun.There were inadequate investigations particularlyfor car theft and assault with a weapon. Negative

3

attitudes were displayed by police mainly in cartheft, robbery and mugging, homicide and assaultwith a weapon. Unprofessional service from thepolice was reported by those who had beenvictims of car hijacking, rape and sexualharassment.” CSVR says, “as a result victims willlearn not bother to report crimes.”

ages at all, would be among the most violent.Instead, 7 of the 9 are among the least homicidal.

Another 17 countries have minimum drinkingages of 16 or 17. This may not mean that theyoung person can drink every alcoholic beveragebut that some are legally available to them. Insome countries spirits are reserved until they are18, but beer and wine is available. Others allowdrinking of alcoholic beverages in restaurants or athome with parents. But, some alcohol is legallyavailable to youths of ages 16 or 17.

Those countries are: Belgium, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Cuba, Georgia, Portugal, Cyprus,Germany, Jamaica Lesotho, Austria, Monaco,Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, SanMarino, Switzerland, and Malta.

The average homicide rate in these 19countries is 5.3 per 100,000. Once again, however,just two countries drive the numbers through theroof: Jamaica and Lesotho. Without those twohigh-crime countries in the mix, the averagehomicide rate would drop dramatically – to just1,17 per 100,000. Among the countries with lowdrinking age minimums are some of the lowesthomicide rates on the planet. Four of themeffectively have no homicides per year, or numbersso low they are the statistical equivalent of 0homicides per 100,000 population. They would beLiechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco and SanMarino. These four countries all have a drinkingage of 16 and effectively no homicides.

There are 109 countries with drinking agesequal to South Africa’s – all at 18. The homicidedata shows 62 of them have homicide rates below5 per 100,000. Just 17 of the countries havehomicide rates exceeding 15 per 100,000, whileonly 8 have homicides rates exceeding 30 per100,000. Again, a small minority of countriesskews the results. They are:

Country Age HomicidesBotswana 18 15.4Namibia 18 17Panama 18 17Guyana 18 19Mexico 18 19Swaziland 18 21.1Dominican Republic 18 22Bahamas 18 26Brazil 18 27Trinidad & Tobago 18 30Colombia 18 32

Because of this, the most reliable statistic touse, in regards to crime, is homicides, which tendto be reported everywhere, regardless of lowconviction rates. Lacking accurate information oncrime in general, for many countries, meanshaving relying on the statistic that is mostaccurately recorded. We have used World BankData for homicide rates and the most recent datafor each country. Most data is recent but in a fewcases the data could be 3 to 10 years old. We canonly work with what we have.

The full list of countries and stats used forthem can be found in Appendix 2. Of thesecountries the average homicide rate is 7.69 per100,000. But, this average is driving up by arelative few, very high crime countries, of whichSouth Africa is one.

Of these countries 26 either have no minimumdrinking age at all, or set it below 18 years of age.Nine have no minimum drinking age. They are:Armenia, Cambodia, Comoros, Denmark, Guinea-Bissau, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Uzbekistan, andViet Nam

The average homicide rate in these ninecountries is 3.33 per 100,000 population. Just twoof those countries, Guinea-Bissau and Comorosdistort the average otherwise none of them has ahomicide rate over 2 per 100,000 population. Onewould think if there were a correlation betweenminimum drinking age and crime, particularlyviolent crime, those countries with no minimum

4

South Africa 18 32Guatemala 18 35El Salvador 18 40Belize 18 45Venezuela 18 54Honduras 18 84

As this scatter chart shows, there is no consistentpattern among the 149 countries. Most countrieswith drinking ages of 18 have relatively lowmurder rates while a small number have very highrates. If drinking age was a major factor in crimerates one would expect some sort of pattern withhomicides generally decreasing as drinking agesincrease. That is not the case.

Of the nine countries with no minimum drinkingage the average homicide rate was 3.3, while forthe 19 countries with ages of 16 or 17 years, therate jumped to 5.3. For the 109 countries set at 18the average homicide rate jumped to 8.7. But, ineach of these categories the numbers for mostcountries are much lower than the average, with ahandful of countries spectacularly failing to keepmurder under control.

For those countries set at 18, two of them have aneffective homicide rate of zero; 24 have 1homicide per 100,000; 10 have rates of 2; 12 areat 3; nine countries are at 4; five are at 5; 23 havehomicide rates between 6 and 10; seven arebetween 11 and 15, five are higher than 15 but

lower than 20; and just 12 have homicide ratesabove 20 per 100,000. Those 12 countries accountfor 47% of all homicides in these 109 countries.Without them in the mix the average homiciderate for countries with drinking ages of 18 woulddrop from 8.7 to 5.19

There are a small number of countries withdrinking ages above 18 years. One, South Korea, isset at 19; four are at 20, Iceland, Japan, Paraguayand Thailand; nine are at 21 – Sri Lanka, Samoa,United States, Pakistan, Mongolia, Micronesia,Kazakhstan, Indonesia and Fiji. The homicide ratefor countries with a drinking age of 21 is 5.44 per100,000.

5

The Global Peace Index measures all forms ofconflict, including violent crime. The mostpeaceful countries are those in deep green.According to their measurement the most peacefulcountries on earth are listed below. We have alsolisted the percentage of drinkers in those countrieswho engage in heavy episodic drinking accordingto the World Health Organisation.

Country Heavy Episodic DrinkingCanada 23.1%Iceland 34.9%Ireland 48.2%Norway 13.9%Sweden 34.5%Finland 53.7%Denmark 32.2%Spain 19.6%Portugal 35.8%Belgium 41.7%Netherlands 6.6%Germany 15.6%Austria 52.4%Switzerland 21.1%Croatia 13.4%Hungary 32.3%Slovakia 43.4%Slovenia 10.8%Japan 25.3%Bhutan 6.6%Australia 13.0%New Zealand 5.6%Singapore 8.9%

Violence and Heavy Drinking

Below is a similar map produced by the WorldHealth Organisation measuring the percentage ofdrinkers in a country who engage in heavy episodicdrinking. Oddly, if the theory that alcohol andviolence are always linked is true, we find thatmany of the most peaceful countries on the planetalso have some of the highest levels of heavyepisodic drinking.

The average of rate for heavy drinking amongdrinkers in the most peaceful countries on earthare 25.76%, ranging from a high of 52.4% inAustria to a low of 5.6% in New Zealand. SouthAfrica, in comparison, has a rate of 25.6%. Twenty-three countries qualify as “most peaceful”according to the Global Peace Index, yet violent,crime-prone South Africa has a heavy drinking ratethat is below 10 of the most peaceful countriesand comparable with another three of them. Heavydrinking doesn’t seem linked to how violent orpeaceful is a country.

6

Less then a year ago the Automobile Associationcalled on the South African government to reducethe problems related to alcohol consumptionthrough a greater emphasis on education andenforcement. They said, “the solution does not liewith further regulation, but with enforcement andeducation. We call on the government to redoubleits efforts in these areas to protect innocent roadusers from becoming victims of drunk drivers.”(4)

Instead of enforcement and education, thegovernment offers more regulations and laws.

New regulations seempointless if old regulationsand laws remainunenforced or ineptlyenforced. The SundayTimes revealed internaldocuments showed “at oneDurban Central policestation alone, 1481 arrestsin 2012 led to only 111convictions – a rate of7.5%. This excludesthousands of dockets a year opened at otherDurban police stations.” In Cape Town there were3,022 arrests for drunk driving in 2012 and 3089 in2013 but less than 7% of those drivers wereconvicted for their offense.(5)

The Times not revealed this was happening butoffered a plausible scenario that explained why itwas happening. “Several senior officialsinterviewed in different parts of the country –some with direct knowledge of the cases – blamedcorruption and chasing arrest quotas with dismalconviction rates.” In blunt terms one police officialsaid, “Police officials were being paid todeliberately throw cases.” Another police officialtold the Times, “80% and 90% of all drunkendriving cases are thrown out of court or withdrawnbecause of botched blood samples orstraightforward corruption.

There are numerous ways that corrupt policeofficers can “throw a case” without it beingcompletely obvious it was intentional. They can“forget” to date or time paperwork, they can takesworn statements regard the chain of evidenceand misplace them. They can tamper with theblood samples. Another police official told theTimes “What they do is put the sample in themicrowave or leave it in the boot of the car on ahot day.”

Corruption and the drunk driving problem

This problem with corruption is widely known,not just within the police department, but amongthe citizens of South Africa as well. News24reported that among young South Africans of allraces, ages 18 to 34, 47% said the police arecorrupt and matters are getting worse; 49% saidpolice are also badly trained. Just 26% thoughtcorruption was lessening. News24 said,“perceptions of increasing corruption wereuniformly negative across all race groups.” (6)Among Indian and Asian youth 72% believe the

police are corrupt, as do61% of black youth, 62% ofcoloured youth and 60% ofwhite youth.

This surely bodesbadly for new regulationsthat are specificallytargeting the young. Theobjects of the laws ire,youth between the ages of18 and 21, are being toldthey must surrender the

right to drink or they will face the possibility oflegal punishment. Yet, few of them believe policeare not available for purchase. They are highlyunlikely to believe that the law means what it saysbecause they have no confidence in policeenforcement of the law.

Such attitudes would seem to suggest that thewisest strategy is not to pass new regulationstargeting a highly sceptical subgroup of thepopulation, but to weed out the corruption andactually raise the conviction rate. As long as 7% orless of arrested drunk drivers are ever convicted, itwould imply that very few people in South Africabelieve the law has any power.

The greatest deterrent laws offer would-becriminals is not the result of stiff penalties, buthigh conviction rates. The Sentencing Project, intheir report Deterrence in Criminal Justice,warned, “the overall deterrent effect of thecertainty of punishment is substantially reduced”when most offenders are either never arrested ornever convicted. Low convictions rates destroy thedeterrent effect of laws – even good laws.“Clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment willhave little impact on people who do not believethey will be apprehended for their actions.”(7)

Imposing stiffer penalties on drunk drivers, orincreasing the number of laws and regulations on

7

the book, has little impact on individual behaviour,when people do not believe serious lawenforcement exists or is likely to exist. Accordingto a poll done by Business Tech, 29% of SouthAfricans said they paid bribe payments to policeofficers.(8)

One attempt to solicit a bribe was caught onvideo when Greg Esterhuysen drove through an“Arrive Alive” roadblock on Christmas Day, 2014.In the video, seen by well over 125,000 people onYouTube alone, a traffic officer told Esterhuysenhe could pay R200 on the spot or be subjected to abreathalyser test. Herefused to pay the bribe andtold the officer he wantedhis badge number to reportthe bribe attempt.Esterhuysen was arrestedand when he and familymembers tried to laycharges against the corruptofficer were told they couldnot do so because he neveractually paid the bribe. Incourt charges againstEsterhuysen werewithdrawn.(9) The blatantsolicitation of a bribe fromEsterhuysen is not the onlysuch incident caught onvideo and posted for theentire world to see.

While it is obvious thatcorruption can underminethe application of good law – such as that ondrunk driving – what is less obvious is howcorruption diverts police attention away from “realcrimes” and incentivises them to create fraudulentcrimes. Corrupt traffic officers are not just lettingthe guilty go free but threatening the innocent aswell.

One especially egregious corrupt practice,which does long term harm to the country, is thetargeting of foreign tourists. The Saturday Starreported:

“Predatory traffic officers and police areleading a new crime racket, targeting internationaltourists by demanding bribes shortly after theyarrive in the country through OR TamboInternational Airport – or as they depart.

This latest trend has alarmed tourism and crimewatchdogs who are warning that similar

sophisticated police gangs are operating on majortourist routes across the country, including in thevicinity of the Kruger National Park, along theGarden Route and on the N4 highway toMozambique.”

Lisa Sheard, of Kruger Lowveld Tourism said,“We’ve had situations where tourists were pulledout of their cars and threatened. It’s absolutelyrife… These tourists tell us they’re never comingback. Often, they just pay. They don’t know thatroadside spot fines are illegal. They’reintimidated.”

French tourist Michael Gentle said he washarassed by corrupt police as he was returning arental car at Tambo International.

“We were stopped by three cops on thespurious charge of jumping a stop sign. The finewas R500. He then asked: ‘So, when do you wantto pay?’

“Fortunately, my brother, who lives in SouthAfrica, knew this was code for a bribe. When weasked how much, he replied, ‘whatever you want.’With the clock ticking, I decided it wasn’t wortharguing, so I handed over R200 in cash.

“The staff of the rental company told us we’dgot off lightly – in the previous 20 minutes, sixother international tourists had been stungcollectively for about R8 000 after being told theywould be detained and miss their flight.”

8

One third of all road fatalities are amongpassengers of vehicles, a large share of whom arepassengers in taxis. But few taxi drivers are below21 years of age. Charlotte Sullivan of SouthAfricans Against Drunk Driving said manypassengers never use seat belts. Taxis often packa taxi with more riders than the minivan can carrysafely and seatbelts couldn’t be used by everyone,even if they wished to do so. Sullivan said, “Sadly,the biggest problem is lack of law enforcement –people know they can get away with it.”

According to Sullivan only 5% of passengers inthe rear of a vehicle in South Africa wear seatbelts. She said, “It’s not rocket science – there arevery simple things you can do that workovernight.” But, she didn’t mention raising theminimum drinking age or passing new regulations.She said death rates can be lowered by actualenforcement of the law. “In the UK, the US andAustralia for example, death rates are really lowbecause law enforcement is excellent.”

Given that the vast majority of drunk drivers areover the age of 21, increasing the minimumdrinking age will have almost no impact on thetotal death toll. It’s as if the purpose of theincreased drinking age is NOT to address thepressing problems South Africa faces, but to divertattention away from the lack of policing becauseof corruption and ineptness.

This is not so say that no effort has been madeto end corruption, but it is clearly too little and fartoo late. The National Traffic Anti-Corruption Unit,reported that an undercover agent of theirs wasstopped for speeding and a bribe was solicitedfrom him by a Matlosana traffic officer. They said

it was the “second” such arrest during the “festiveseason.”

But, the problem with anti-corruption efforts isthe same as with anti-drunk driving efforts – thereisn’t enough enforcement. Most corrupt trafficofficers clearly believe the odds of beingapprehended are so low, and the benefits solucrative, that they continue with their corruptpractices. Consider the odds of being apprehendedfor corruption.

In actual cases of drunk driving the driver whopaid the bribe is unlikely to pursue the matteragainst the officer. If he does he opens himself upto further prosecution and gains nothing.

Undercover drivers are unlikely to be veryeffective. They are one driver among dozens orhundreds in the vicinity of a corrupt officer at anyone time. Thus it is unlikely the officer is going totarget the undercover driver, odds favour himpulling other people over for his side business of“selling” justice. The odds of picking theundercover driver is like the odds of winning thelottery – highly unlikely. That the NTACU said twosuch arrests were actually made, in spite of thislow odds, may indicate corruption is far morewidespread than anyone has realised.

There is good reason for scepticism regarding aplethora of new alcohol regulations in the midst ofour massive corruption crisis. Not only do newlaws and regulations do nothing to reducecorruption they actually offer corrupt officials andtraffic officers new sources of revenue. Instead ofmaking the roads and highways safer places fordrivers, these laws make bribery more lucrative forthe corrupt.

9

“A population that drinks daily may have a highrate of cirrhosis and other medical problems butfew accidents, fights, homicides, or other violentalcohol-associated traumas...”

Heath, D.B., “Socio-cultural Variants inAlcoholism,” pp. 426-440 in Pattison, E.M., andKaufman, E., eds., Encyclopaedic Handbook ofAlcoholism, Gardner Press, New York, 1982, pp.429-430.

“There are also clear and distinct differences inalcohol abuse rates by socioeconomic status.Higher-SES Americans are more likely to drink, butalso more likely to drink without problems, thanlower-SES Americans. Again, this suggests thatlower abstinence rates and higher consumptionlevels are not themselves the source of drinkingproblems.”

Hilton, M.E., “Demographic Characteristics andthe Frequency of Heavy Drinking as Predictors ofSelf-reported Drinking Problems,” British Journal ofAddiction, 1987, Vol. 82, 913-925.

“Schaefer (1973) examined ethnographic reportsabout drinking behaviour for a probability sampleof 60 small-scale and folk societies. He found thatmen get drunk either occasionally or often in 46 ofthese 60 societies. But, he found men involved indrunken brawls in only 24 of the societies. So, in aworldwide sense, it seems that alcohol-relatedaggressive behaviour – as measured by maleinvolvement in drunken brawls – is about as likelyto be present as it is to be absent.”

Levinson, D., “Alcohol Use and Aggression inAmerican Subcultures,” pp. 306-321 in Room R.,and Collins, G., eds., Alcohol and Disinhibition:Nature and Meaning of the Link (ResearchMonograph No. 12), U.S. Dept. of Health andHuman Services, Rockville, MD, 1983, p. 306.

“The Camba of Bolivia have gained considerablenotoriety in the alcohol literature because more ofthem drink, they drink more often, and they drinkmore of the most potent alcoholic beverage incustomary usage anywhere in the world, yet theyhave virtually no social, psychological, oreconomic problems in connection with drinking....There is no verbal or sexual aggression, nodestruction of property, no drunken homicide or

suicide. On the contrary, drinking is a time forcordiality and easy social interaction that are rarein other times of their lives....”

Heath, D.B., “Alcohol and Aggression,” pp. 89-103in Gottheil, E., et al. Alcohol, Drug Abuse andAggression, Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL,1983, p.93.

“In sum, Spain along with other Southern Europeancountries allows its youth early access to alcoholicbeverages without the concomitant problems ofrowdy behaviour, vandalism, and drunk driving thatAmericans typically associate with youth drinking.”

Pittman, D.J., “Cross Cultural Aspects of Drinking,Alcohol Abuse, and Alcoholism,” pp. 1-5 inWaterhouse, A.L., and Rantz, J.M., eds., Wine inContext: Nutrition, Physiology, Policy (Proceedingsof the Symposium on Wine & Health 1996),American Society for Enology and Viticulture,Davis, CA, 1996, p. 4.

“[Among states in the U.S.], the more proscriptivethe norms concerning alcohol consumption [andthe lower the overall rate of consumption], thegreater the incidence of behaviour that is definedas socially disruptive.... The results of the presentstudy suggest...that societies that fear alcoholsoon encounter problems with disruptivealcoholics.”

Linsky, A.S., et al., “Stress, Drinking Culture, andAlcohol Problems,” pp. 554-575 in Pittman, D.J.,and White, H.R., eds., Society, Culture, andDrinking Patterns Reexamined, Rutgers Center ofAlcohol Studies, New Brunswick, NJ, 1991, pp. 567,570.

Experts on violence and alcohol

10

America’s failed experiment

One of the realities about minimum drink ages isthere is no widespread movement to move toward21. Most of the world finds 18 quite reasonableand many have it much younger, especially when itcomes to the consumption and possession ofalcohol.

The European Commission report, Eyes onAges, notes that “the most commonly used agelimit in the EU is eighteen years. A few countriesuse sixteen as an age limit and three othercountries use an age limit of 20 years forbeverages with higher alcoholic content. While all

11

countries (29) have set age limits for sellingalcohol, fewer countries have age limits forpossession and consumption.”(10) They note,“Especially in the private domain very few legalage limits have been reported.”(11)

In the European Union we see that eightcountries allow 16-year-olds to purchase somealcoholic beverages; two allow 17-year-olds, andthe remaining European countries make alcoholpurchases available to individuals who are at least18 years of age. When it comes to publicconsumption and possession only eight restrict itto individuals 18 or older, while 14 have no agerestrictions whatsoever.

In spite of these lower drinking ages Europedoesn’t suffer from the same problems the UnitedStates does. Research from the World HealthOrganization found that while European 15 and 16year-old teens drank more often, they got drunkless often than their American cousins. In the U.S.about half of all teen drinking leads tointoxication, whereas in European countries it wasoften as low as one in ten.(12) Addiction expertStanton Peele noted WHO’s report HealthBehaviour in School-Aged Children, “found thesecountries had the lowest incidence of drunkennessamong 15-year-olds: Macedonia, Israel, France,Italy, Greece, Malta, Portugal, Spain – all of whichranked lower than the United States.” Hesarcastically expressed shock: “But, wait asecond. All of these cultures readily give alcoholto children.”(13)

No large country, with the exception of theUnited States, sets it’s minimum drinking age at21 and the U.S. is an odd duck in that it has alwayshad a strong religiously-motivated Prohibitioniststreak and actually banned the consumption ofalcohol in 1920. The policy of prohibition was sucha disaster its repeal only a few years later, in1933, was celebrated across the country. But, tothis day, Christian fundamentalists remain utterlyopposed to drinking alcohol – though they are justas likely “to have consumed enough alcohol to beconsidered legally drunk”(14) as all otherAmericans. In other words, their prohibitionistpolicies don’t even work within their own circles.

Shortly after this new Great Experiment withpartial prohibition various government agenciesand academics proclaimed the policy was arousing success – the proof was that the numberof traffic deaths for those 18 to 20 had declinedwhen it became it illegal for them to drink. Thatappeared to be the case, provided you didn’t looktoo carefully.

One inconvenient fact is there was a steadydownward trend in traffic fatalities BEFORE theU.S. changed the minimum drinking age. This chartshows the number of alcohol impaired drivingfatalities. You can see the downward trend wasalready in motion before 1984 legislation changedAmerican drinking ages.

Christopher Carpenter and Carols Dobkin, in theJournal of Economic Perspectives, said the ideathe law caused the decline in fatalities “is not

12

fully compelling.” They note the“decline in deaths due to night-timemotor vehicle accidents among 18-20 year-olds is not as abrupt as thedecline in the percent of thispopulation that can drink legally.Second, as can be seen in the figure,the number of 18-20 year-olds thatdie in nighttimes accidents wasalready declining before the drinkingage was raised in most states.”(15)

Jeffery Miron and ElinaTetelbaum, in their 2009 paper, Doesthe Minimum Legal Drinking AgeSave Lives, also noticed trend linesremained constant even as theMinimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) changed.They compared the Total Fatality Rate ofindividuals 15-24 with the rest of the populationand reported:

“These two series follow similar patterns overthe past ninety years. Both TFRs increased from1913 to 1969 and then decreased thereafter. Thissimilarity fails to suggest a major impact of theMLDA, which should have affected the 15-24 TFRmore than the total TFR. The marked decline in theTFR during this period also contravenes claims ofa rapid increase in traffic fatalities after severalstates decreased their MLDAs between 1970 and1973. The declines in the total and 15-24 TFR thatbegan around 1969 long precede the adoptions ofan MLDA of 21 in the mid-1980s.”

They conclude these fatality rates “have beentrending downward for decades and have beenpoorly correlated with MLDAs.” Most importantlythey point to numerous other factors which explainthe decline in traffic fatalities other than a changein drinking age. “Moreover, several others factorslikely played a role in this downward movement.These factors include advances in medicaltechnology, advances in car design (air-bags, anti-lock brakes, seat belts, safety glass), andimproved education about driving strategies andthe risks associated with motor vehicles.”(16) Yes,fewer people were dying but cars were safer, seatbelts were introduced, there were medicaladvancements saving more lives.

Dr. Morris Chafetz, who was one of America’sleading experts on alcohol abuse, and who was onthe Commission which proposed raising thedrinking age to 21, called his decision, “the singlemost regrettable decision of my entire

professional career.” He saw the same statisticsand admitted, “To be sure, drunk driving fatalitiesare lower now than they were in 1982. But theyare lower in all age groups. And they havedeclined just as much in Canada, where the age is18 or 19, as they have in the United States.”(17)

Chafetz said the law increased the amount ofbinge drinking in America which has led tofatalities many ignore. “We cannot overlook [thelaw’s] collateral, off-road damage. The NationalInstitute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, which Ifounded in 1970, estimates that 5,000 lives arelost to alcohol each year by those under 21. Morethan 3,000 of those fatalities occur off ourroadways. If we are seriously to measure theeffects of this law, we cannot limit our focus.” Hesays piecemeal prohibition drives underagedrinkers “underground, into places where life andhealth are put at ever greater risk. The 600,000assaults reported annually, the date rapes, theproperty damage, the emergency room calls do notin general occur in places visible to the public.They are the inevitable result of what happenswhen laws do not reflect social or cultural reality.”His final warning, shortly before his death, was “Itis time to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of‘experts,’ who invoke ‘science’ in order to advancea prohibitionist agenda. Prohibition does not work.It has never worked. It is not working among 18-20year-olds now.”

John McCardell, President Emeritus ofMiddlebury College became a vocal critic of thehigher drinking age in the United States becauseof the detrimental impact it was having, especiallyon college campuses. He, along with 120university and college presidents, signed a

13

statement saying the law mandating a 21 drinkingage in the U.S. was not working.

“The drinking age has effectively banishedalcohol from public places and public view. But ithas done little to reduce drinking. If you were todesign the ideal venue for binge drinking, youwould not design a student union, a dining hall, arestaurant or any public gathering place. Youwould instead design a locked dorm room, an off-campus apartment, a farmer’s field – in short, aplace conducive to clandestine behaviour.

And that is exactly where binge drinking istaking place, in the most risky of environments.Ironically, the more successful a college is inenforcing the law – carding underage drinkers,braceletting those of legal age, limiting quantities,posting campus security – the greater thelikelihood that alcohol consumption will simplymove to a place out of campus sight and oftenbeyond campus boundaries, effectively placingthat behaviour out of reach of campusauthority.”(18)

S. Georgia Nugent, the Interim President ofWooster College agrees. In the New York Timesshe wrote about how young people are pushedinto riskier behaviour because of the law. “Byoutlawing moderate use of alcohol in appropriatesocial contexts and with adult oversight, we havedriven more drinking underground, where it hastaken the very dangerous form of ‘pre-gaming.’The ‘under-age’ drinker, no longer permitted theoccasional beer during a dance party, is now morelikely to chug high-octane alcohol in dangerousquantities before heading off to that party. As aresult, alcohol use has become more, not less,dangerous.”(19)

Camille Paglia, the author and universityprofessor, wrote in Time magazine: “What thiscruel 1984 law did is deprive young people of safespaces where they could happily drink cheap beer,socialize, chat and flirt in a free but controlledpublic environment. Hence in the 1980s weimmediately got the scourge of crude bingedrinking at campus fraternity keg parties, cut offfrom the adult world. Women in that boorish free-for-all were suddenly fighting off date rape.”(20)In her own life, “Wine was built into my ownItalian-American upbringing, where children weregiven sips of my grandfather’s homemade wine.”She said learning how to drink responsibly “is abasic lesson in growing up – as it is in wine-drinking France or in Germany.”

On the other side of spectrum Boulder, CO,Police Chief Mark Beckner said, “What we’ve doneis helped create an underground culture thatencourages binge-drinking without any oversightor supervision.”(21)

Even the National Transportation Safety Boardadmitted a 21 age limit wasn’t working, whichthey bizarrely told the Florida State Senate, wassufficient reason for keeping the law.

“The fact that a minor, who cannot legallypurchase alcohol, has a positive BAC (BloodAlcohol Content) demonstrates that underagedrinking and driving remains a problem.

Teenage drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and0.10 percent are far more likely to be killed insingle vehicle crashes than sober drivers or olderdrivers with similar BAC levels.

Young drivers comprise about 7 percent oflicensed drivers but 16 percent of the alcohol-involved drivers in fatal crashes. In 2005, 23percent of young drivers killed in motor vehiclecrashes had an illegal (0.08 percent or greater)BAC. More than 60 percent of youth alcohol-related crash fatalities occurred in rural areas...Because underage drinking and driving remains aproblem, Florida needs comprehensive Age 21laws.”(22)

A major flaw in setting a minimum drinking ageat 21 is 18 year olds are in all other waysconsidered legal adults. Judith McMullen, in aresearch paper from the Marquette University LawSchool, argues the policy has not been effectiveand is highly unlikely to be effective in the future.

“This failure is partly due to the fact thatparents, who are key players in the control ofminors, no longer have legally enforceable control

14

over offspring who have attained the age ofmajority. The failure of policy is also due to thefact that an outright ban on drinking by youngadults is philosophically different from policiesgoverning analogous decisions that may be madeby adults in our society. Whereas adults may makequestionable decisions in areas such as education,health, or smoking, decisions about alcohol areuniquely restricted. Due to this dichotomy, Ibelieve that prohibition of alcohol use by youngadults will never be widely effective, no matterhow desirable a teetotaller young adult populationmight be.”(23)

One advocate of MLDA21 oddly argued that thepolicy was working. He told the New York Times:

“Alcohol consumption jumps sharply exactly atage 21 and remains elevated (i.e., more than aone-time birthday-related drinking celebration).Deaths jump sharply exactly at age 21 by about 9percent and remain elevated. Arrests jump sharplyexactly at age 21 and remain elevated. Andhospitalizations jump sharply exactly at age 21and remain elevated… Numerous policies andproposals have been put forth to address thetroubling profile of excessive alcohol use by youngpeople. Many of these need more research todemonstrate their effectiveness on a broadpopulation-wide scale, but a minimum legaldrinking age of 21 is not one of them.”(24)

a jump in death rates no matter where the age isset. That’s something Peter Asch and David Levyraised in Regulation magazine in 1987. They saidthe decline in deaths may be only temporary anddid not “constitute persuasive evidence thathigher drinking ages make the roads safer. Thereality is that higher drinking ages may simply bemoving the problem around, rather than solvingit.”(25)

They criticized the claim that lives were beingsaved because studies being done, in the hopes ofjustifying the policy, focused “on short-termeffects” and ignored that “states that lower thedrinking age undergo a temporary bulge in thepopulation of inexperienced drinkers. By the sametoken, states that raise the drinking age see atemporary decline in this high-risk group.Evaluations that are confined to relatively short-term experience following a change in the drinkingage may therefore exhibit safety patterns that areunlikely to persist over time.”

They suggest the problem is that “inexperiencein drinking creates a driving risk that is, at leastpartially independent of age. Put most simply, this‘drinking experience’ hypothesis states that newdrinkers are dangerous drivers, whether they are18, 21, or (conceivably) 30.”

Professors Thomas Dee and William Evans, in apaper for the American Economic Review, drewsome similar conclusions.

“Alcohol use and driving (while either drunk orsober) are both activities where experientiallearning is likely to be important. The potentialimpact of learning-by-doing raises some importantand often overlooked questions about the overallefficacy of the countrywide movement to a higherMLDA. A seemingly implicit assumption in moststudies of teen traffic safety is that the increasedMLDA unambiguously saved lives by delayingalcohol availability until young adulthood whenalcohol would be consumed responsibly. However,this perspective may overstate the gains to higherMLDA if young drivers learn about the responsibleuse of alcohol largely through their ownexperiences and those of their peers. Morespecifically, the existence of learning-by-doingraises the disturbing possibility that policies,which keep teens away from alcohol, may to somedegree simply shift the attendant mortality risks toyoung adulthood.”(26)

As Dee and Evans note, both drinking anddriving are “activities where experiential learning

This admission, however, raises an importantpoint about all those “lives” that it is claimed aresaved. Previously there was a jump in trafficaccidents for those turning 18. When drinking waslegal at 18 there was jump in fatalities. Now, thisproponent says it happens at 21. But, is it really asuccess to shift the problem from 18 to 21? If newdrinkers have an escalated death rate – largelybecause they are inexperienced with alcohol andstill learning how to handle it – then there will be

15

is likely to be important.” New drivers aredangerous drivers and new drinkers are dangerousdrinkers, their age is less important than theirexperience. This raises the possibility that onesolution to the problem is to have a drinking ageminimum that is below the driving age minimum.Let these new drinkers first learn how to handletheir alcohol before letting them drive thousandsof pounds of metal at high speeds. CNN reported:

“Abigail A. Baird, associate professor ofpsychology at Vassar College, has spent her careertrying to understand what happens with the typicaladolescent brain.

Baird argues that if anything, in terms ofbiology, the age limits on driving and drinkingshould be flipped.

‘If I were queen for the day, I would move thedrinking age to 18 and maybe not let them driveuntil they were 21, at least not with other peoplebesides your parents in the car,’ Baird said.

She likes the idea of graduated driver’s licenselaws that slowly let young drivers have moreresponsibility as they get more practice in the car.This is based on the theory that they will learnhow to avoid accidents as they gain experience.

The statistics back her up. Before statesintroduced graduated licensing systems during thefirst six months of solo driving, newly licenseddrivers were about eight times more likely to beinvolved in fatal crashes than more experienceddrivers.

‘We all know adolescents are obsessed withlearning from their peers. ... Adolescents learnbased on experience. They are not good atlearning abstractly; that’s what changes a lotbetween 18 and 21. When you get older, you canlearn from reading stories about people and byreally feeling for other people.’

Baird believes that society could use the wayyoung people learn, to help them learn how todrink responsibly at an earlier age. If drinking wereless of a clandestine affair, perhaps a teen’s peerscould model more appropriate behaviour foryounger participants. She says it’s important tolearn how to behave around alcohol.” (27)

Raising the drinking age to 21 still leaves thereal problem in place, new drinkers allowed todrink and drive who have no experience inhandling alcohol. Experience in driving reducesaccidents. Experience with drinking also lowersrisks and problems associated with drinking. Mostcountries are careful to insist new drivers learn

how to drive before handing them a license. But,the neo-Prohibitionist policies of MLDA21 sendnew drinkers in bars with no experience at all.Their driving experience helps somewhat, but theproblems arising from their first exposure toalcohol destroys many of those benefits.

The European model allows young people tolearn how to drink before they are allowed todrive. More importantly they are allowed to drinkin environments where they experience alcoholunder the guidance of adults – one of the reasonsthat binge drinking is more of an Americanproblem than a European one. This would suggestthat it is wiser to allow drinking alcohol underparental guidance at the dinner table and inrestaurants in the early teens while reservingdriving rights until the 18. Anthropology professorDwight Heath, considered the world’s leadingexpert on the anthropology of alcohol said, “Ingeneral, the younger people start to drink thesafer they are.” Heath argues that when youngpeople are introduced to alcohol by their parents it“has no mystique. It’s no big deal. By contrast,where it’s banned until age 21, there’s somethingof the ‘forbidden fruit’ syndrome.”(28)

Give the young person time to experiencealcohol before handing them car keys.

While we have concentrated on the onesignificant case of where the MLDA was raisedfrom18 to 21 it might be useful to also look at arecent example where New Zealand lowered thedrinking age from 20 to 18. Surely the data fromthis experiment has to be considered in anydebate as well.

Steven Stillman, of the University of Otago, andStefan Boes of the University of Lucerne, workingwith the University of Bonn’s Institute for the Studyof Labour, looked at what happened after NewZealand liberalised alcohol policies in 1999, whichincluded reducing the drinking age. New Zealand

16

also followed the European model “which allowsunderage individuals to consume alcohol publiclyif purchased by their parents.” They concluded:“Our main findings are that lowering the legaldrinking age did not appear to have led to, onaverage, an increase in alcohol consumption orbinge drinking among 15-17 or 18-19 year-olds.However, there is evidence that the law changeled to a significant increase in alcohol-relatedhospital admission rates for 18-19 year-olds, aswell as for 15-17 year-olds. While these increasesare large in relative magnitude, they are small inthe absolute number of affected teenagers.Finally, we find no evidence for an increase inalcohol-related vehicular accidents at the time ofthe law change for any teenagers… Overall, ourresults support the argument that the legal

drinking age can be lowered without leading tolarge increases in detrimental outcomes foryouth.”(29)

Summation

The two main arguments that we addressed in thispaper were the issues of drunk driving and theassociation of crime and violence with alcohol.What we saw is that statistically the evidencedidn’t support a neo-Prohibitionist viewpoint. Thiscould well be the reason that only a small handfulof countries have set a drinking age above 18 andmany of the most successful and peacefulcountries in the world have lower drinking ages.

The United States is the only large country totry this experiment – just as they were the onlylarge country to impose total Prohibition of alcoholas well. Neither experiment turned out as theyhoped. The prime justification used in the U.S. wasthis would reduce driving fatalities. But thedownward trend in fatalities continued prettymuch as it had been doing. It did not appear thatincreasing the minimum drinking age hadincreased the decline. And, hundreds of universitypresidents began complaining that the higher agecreated problem drinking on campuses, as theyhad never seen before. Various states havedebated ignoring the federal government andreturning to 18 as the minimum drinking age.

It is our contention that violence, crime anddrunk driving are all problems of policing. WhileSouth Africa’s drinking age has not changed thequality of police services has changed. Thereduction in quality of police protection and lawenforcement has been followed by a rise in theproblems for which alcohol is now being blamed.

Yet, in the past, the drinking age was still 18 andthese problems did not exist at levels seen today.What has changed is the quality of police servicesand the alcohol industry is being used as ascapegoat while the politicians continue to ignoreproblems with policing.

There are other problems with the drive toincrease the drinking age, which are not directlyprone to statistically analysis. They are argumentsabout the nature of a free society and individualhuman rights.

For instance, there is a problem of holding oneclass of individuals responsible for the actions ofthe whole body of citizens. Most drunk drivers arenot 18, 19 or 20 years old. Yet, the new law wouldrepeal a long-standing right for this one class ofcitizens, because the whole body of citizens hasacted badly. Not only is scapegoating of thealcohol industry taking place but young SouthAfricans are being particularly held out for punitiveaction by the government. Instead of holdingpolice responsible for their failure to enforce thelaw, the government is singling out young SouthAfricans.

It is a serious matter when government stripsone class of citizens of a long-standing right. It isnot one that should be taken lightly or easily. And,if taken at all, it should be taken after all otherefforts to solve the problem are exhausted. But,the other efforts have not been taken. As theAutomobile Association said, “the solution does

17

NOT lie with further regulation, but withenforcement and education.” They demanded thatgovernment “redouble its efforts in these areas.”

Instead, government is choosing the easy path,pass more regulations, scapegoating young driversand brewers, and creating a slew of new laws thatwill face the same lack of enforcement that helpedcreate the problem. If old laws and regulationswere facing slack enforcement then new laws andregulations won’t solve the problem. And, to thedegree that corruption was a problem, new lawsand regulations only increase the means by whichcorrupt law enforcement can extort funds from thepublic. The new regulations only give corruptofficers more opportunities.

There is no justification in using state power toprotect individuals from themselves. But, it isproper to use such power to protect the rights ofindividuals from infringement by others. This doesjustify common sense regulations about roadusage and it justifies the criminalization ofviolence or harm done to others, whether underthe influence of alcohol or done cold sober.

But, the misuse of alcohol, like the misuse ofmotor vehicles, is what should be criminalized, notthe alcohol itself. Some people who drink becomeviolent, and it is criminal no matter their age. Allsuch individuals should be held responsible butnot all drinkers. Most consumers of alcohol do notact violently, most are not criminals, and most donot drive drunk. The actions of the few who dowould not justify taking punitive measures againstALL consumers of alcohol. But, if it would not bejustified for all consumers, it is not justified forjust those in one specific age group.

Holding only citizens 18-20 responsible for thecrisis is selective injustice against one class ofcitizens. It is no more justified that using theconcept of “race guilt” or to claim all men areresponsible for the rape epidemic. Crimes arecommitted by individuals, not by age groups,races, or members of various religions. Singlingout the young alone is just another form ofprejudice, detrimental to individual rights and therule of law.

18

1. http://motoring.iafrica.com/features/1004181.html

2. http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/2014/01/05/drunk-drive-botch-up

3. http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/SA-youth-lose-confidence-in-police-survey-20120611

4. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf

5. http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/95529/alarming-number-of-south-africans-bribe-the-police/

6. http://www.jp-sa.org/media/post/2015/08/04/charges-against-motorist-from-whom-a-r200-bribe-was-solicited-but-not-paid-withdrawn

7. http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/corrupt-officers-fleece-tourists-1900390

8. http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Are-young-people-the-worst-drunk-drivers-20140903

9. http://citizen.co.za/931293/cop-arrested-for-soliciting-bribe/

10. Eyes on Ages: A research on alcohol age limit policies inEuropean Member States. Legislation, enforcement andresearch. Dr. J. Mulder and Dr. J de Greeff, EuropeanCommission, July 2013. p.7

11. Ibid, p. 21

12. Babor, T., Caetano, R., Casswell, S., Edwards, G.,Giesbrecht, N., Graham, K., Grube, J., Gruenewald, P., Hill,L., Holder, H., Homel, R., Osterberg, E., Rehm, J., Room, R.& Rossow, I. (2003). Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13. End Alcoholism Bomb Spain, Stanton Peele, PsychologyToday, April 4 2008

14. “Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinksabout Christianity,” David Kinnaman, Baker Books, 2012,p. 47.

15. Christopher Carpenter and Carlos Dobkin, “TheMinimum Legal Drinking Age and Public Health,”Journals of Economic Perspectives. Volume 25, Number2, Spring 2011, p. 139.

16. Miron, Jeffery A. and Elina Tetelbaum. 2009. Does theMinimum Legal Drinking Age Save Lives? EconomicInquiry 47(2): 317-36. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4319664

17. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morris-e-chafetz/the-21-year-old-drinking_b_262264.html

18. John McCardell, “Rethinking the drinking age of 21,” TheGuardian, 22 August, 2008. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/22/alcohol.education

Endnotes

19. S. Georgia Nugent, “Raising the Drinking Age to 21 HasBeen a Disastrous 30-Year Experiment, New York Times,10 February 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink/raising-the-drinking-age-to-21-has-been-a-disasterous-30-year-experiment

20. Camille Paglia, “The Drinking Age is Past It’s Prime,”Time, April 23, 2014. http://time.com/72546/drinking-age-alcohol-repeal/

21. “Cheers, chief: Beckner makes a sound case on drinkingage,” The Daily Camera, 07/03/08. http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13138034

22. http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001610

23. McMullen, Judith G., Underage Drinking: Does CurrentPolicy Make Sense?. Marquette Law School Legal StudiesPaper No. 06-35; Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 10,2006. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=928711

24. Christopher S. Carpenter, “Current Drinking Age of 21 isWorking,” New York Times, 10 Feb., 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink/current-drinking-age-of-21-is-working

25: The Drinking Age and Traffic Safety, Peter Asch and DavidLevy, Regulation 1987, Number 2, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1987/7/v11n2-8.pdf

26. Thomas Dee and William Evans “Behaviour Policies andTeen Traffic Safety “ AEA Papers and Proceedings, May2001. http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nordi062/comm1313w/p7forms/DeeEvansDrinkingAgeStudy.pdf

27. Jen Christensen, “21: Science’s limit when it comes to thedrinking age.” 15 July 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/health/science-drinking-age/

28. Brandon Griggs, “Should the U.S. lower it’s drinking age.”CNN, Jan 4 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/us/legal-drinking-age/

29. Stefan Boes and Steven Stillman, “Does Changing theLegal Drinking Age Influence Youth Behaviour?” IZA DPNo. 7522, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany.July, 2013. http://www.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=7522

19

1.6.5 Further, the national minimum legal age atwhich alcohol can be purchased and consumedshould be raised from eighteen (18) to twenty one(21) years. The licensees, manager or any otherperson dispensing liquor at the premises musttake steps to ensure verification of the age of anyperson who appears to be under the age of 21 byrequesting an identity document, passport ordriver's license in order to verify the person's agebefore any liquor may be sold or supplied to them.It should be an offense therefore for such personsto sell liquor to persons under the age of 21 andfor persons under the age of 21 to provide falseevidence of their age in order to access liquor orenter a liquor premise;

4.1.1.10 Many countries have set their minimumdrinking age at eighteen (18). However, Europeancountries such as Belgium, France and Italy haveset sixteen (16) years as a minimum drinking age.The minimum drinking age at United State,Ukraine, South Korea and Malaysia is twenty one(21); and twenty (20) in Japan. It is clear thatminimum drinking age in the Asian countries isabove 18 years. The issue of imposing an age limitis a prerogative of each state.

4.1.1.11 However, it is suasive to conclude thatthe minimum drinking age above or in combinationwith other factors have a deterrent effect inconsumption and or purchase of liquor.

4.1.1.12 There is tangible evidence that changesin minimum drinking age laws do have substantialeffects on youth drinking and alcohol-relatedharm, for example, road traffic accidents. Manystudies have found that raising the minimumdrinking age from 18 to 21 years decrease singlevehicle night time crashes involving young driversby 11% to 16% at all levels of crash severity (National Youth Development Agency: 2012).Changes in the minimum drinking age are related

Appendix 1: Extracts from the National Liquor Policy

to changes in other alcohol related injuryadmissions to hospitals and injury fatalities. Astudy in Denmark where a minimum 15 year agelimit was introduced for off-premise purchasesfound that there was an effect in reducingteenagers' drinking including the drinking of theabove (15 years) as well as below the age limitwas affected.

4.1.1.13 From the above, it is clear that age limithas an impact independently and or cumulativelywith other factors on the reduction on increase ofdrinking. Other factors include but not limited toexcise tax on alcohol; national maximum legalblood alcohol concentration when driving avehicle; restrictions for on/ off-premise sales ofbeverages (time, hours and days) or places sellingliquor (petrol stations); and legally bindingregulations on alcohol advertising, sponsorship orsales promotion.

4.1.1.14 In view of the above, it is recommendedthat the age limit of 21 should be imposed as anattempt to curb the rampant drinking patterns bythe youth. This age restriction will pass theconstitutional test as other countries are alsodoing this.

4.1.1.20.5 Review of the national minimum legaldrinking age from 18 to 21 years. The licensees,manager or any other person dispensing liquor atthe premises must take steps to ensureverification of the age of any person who appearsto be under the age of 21 by requesting an identitydocument, passport or driver's license in order toverify the person's age before any liquor may besold or supplied to them. It should be an offensetherefore for such persons to sell liquor to personsunder the age of 21 and for persons under the ageof 21 to provide false evidence of their age inorder to access liquor or enter a liquor premise.

20

Armenia 0 2Cambodia 0 2Comoros 0 8Denmark 0 1Guinea-Bissau 0 10Morocco 0 1Sierra Leone 0 2Uzbekistan 0 2Viet Nam 0 2Belgium 16 2Bosnia and Herzegovina 16 1Cuba 16 5Georgia 16 4Germany 16 1Jamaica 16 43Lesotho 16 38Liechtenstein 16 0Luxembourg 16 0 Madagascar 16 1Monaco 16 0Portugal 16 1San Marino 16 0Switzerland 16 1Austria 16 1Cyprus 17 1Malta 17 2Albania 18 4Algeria 18 1Andorra 18 0Angola 18 11Argentina 18 7Australia 18 1Azerbaijan 18 2Bahamas 18 26Bahrain 18 1Barbados 18 8Belarus 18 4Belize 18 45Bolivia 18 12Botswana 18 15.4Brazil 18 27Bulgaria 18 2Burundi 18 4Cameroon 18 3Canada 18 1Cape Verde 18 8Central African Republic 18 14Chad 18 9Chile 18 3China 18 1

Appendix 2: Country data

Colombia 18 32Congo (Democratic Republic of the) 18 13Costa Rica 18 8Croatia 18 1Czech Republic 18 1Dominican Republic 18 22Ecuador 18 12Egypt 18 3El Salvador 18 40Equatorial Guinea 18 4Eritrea 18 8Estonia 18 4Ethiopia 18 8Finland 18 2France 18 1Gabon 18 9Gambia 18 10Ghana 18 2Greece 18 1Guatemala 18 35Guinea 18 9Guyana 18 19Honduras 18 84Hungary 18 3India 18 3Ireland 18 1Israel 18 2Italy 18 1Kenya 18 7Kyrgyzstan 18 5Latvia 18 3Lebanon 18 5Liberia 18 3Lithuania 18 7Macedonia 18 1Malawi 18 2Malaysia 18 2Mauritius 18 3Mexico 18 19Republic of Moldova 18 5Montenegro 18 2Mozambique 18 4Myanmar 18 3Namibia 18 17Nepal 18 3Netherlands 18 1New Zealand 18 1Nicaragua 18 11Niger 18 5Nigeria 18 10

21

Norway 18 1Panama 18 17Papua New Guinea 18 10Peru 18 7Philippines 18 9Poland 18 1Romania 18 2Russian Federation 18 9Rwanda 18 5Senegal 18 8Serbia 18 1Seychelles 18 2Singapore 18 0Slovakia 18 1Slovenia 18 1South Africa 18 32Spain 18 1Suriname 18 9Swaziland 18 21.1Sweden 18 1Tajikistan 18 1Togo 18 9Tonga 18 1Trinidad and Tobago 18 30Tunisia 18 3

Turkey 18 4Turkmenistan 18 4Uganda 18 11Ukraine 18 4United Kingdom and Northern Ireland 18 1Uruguay 18 8Vanuatu 18 3Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 18 54Zambia 18 6Zimbabwe 18 8Korea (Republic of) 19 1Iceland 20 0Japan 20 0Paraguay 20 9Thailand 20 5Fiji 21 3Indonesia 21 1Kazakhstan 21 8Micronesia (Federated States of) 21 5Mongolia 21 7Pakistan 21 8Samoa 21 9Sri Lanka 21 4United States of America 21 4