I have a question for Mr. Tom Alciere, ("Legislation Under the Influence," Jan. 28): Are you serious?
Mr. Alciere claims to represent an organization known as Underage Drinkers Against Drunk Driving. The thrust of his argument is that instead of focusing on preventing underage drinking, state and federal lawmakers should repeal the minimum drinking age and tackle the "real threat" -- drunk driving among adults.
Of course, these two strategies are not mutually exclusive. Mr. Alciere, however, fails to make this distinction. Intrigued, I decided to look into Alciere's organization and the basis for his claims.
I visited UDADD's website. The site -- which consists of one long, unprofessional-looking page -- features pictures of lawmakers and other adults with crudely drawn speech bubbles, which are chock-full of sarcastic quips about driving under the influence. Essentially, it provides anecdotal and satirical evidence of lawmakers and other public officials -- congressmen, county sheriffs, President George W. Bush, etc. -- who have been convicted of driving while intoxicated. All of this is an effort to advocate lowering the legal drinking age.
Alciere provides similar satirical examples in his letter to the editor. Certainly, I think we can all agree that it is unforgivable and hypocritical for elected officials, especially those in law enforcement, to be convicted of drinking and driving. Regardless of your feelings about the current legal drinking age in this country, however, the argument that lawmakers should lower the legal age because a few of their peers have driven drunk is entirely flawed.
Alciere and UDADD seem to think that because adults, elected officials or otherwise, drink and drive, these adults should, in effect, "go easy" on young people and focus instead on themselves.
To be fair, I have always believed that there exists an undue bias against young people in this country when it comes to their ability to make good decisions. In an ideal world, there would be some sort of comprehensive "test" administered to determine when and if an individual is competent to do things such as drink alcohol, vote or be a productive member of society. Although I do believe that 21 is an arbitrary number given that all other age-associated rights and responsibilities in this country come at 18, I acknowledge that any sort of test would be vastly unpopular or entirely unfeasible.
The fact remains that there is simply no good way to determine when an individual is mature enough to make adult decisions short of simply specifying a minimum age. The statistics related to drunk driving in the United States actually support this assertion, which Alciere fails to mention.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, young men ages 18 to 20 report driving drunk more frequently than any other age group. Additionally, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the highest percentage of drivers in drunk driving"related fatal crashes was found in the 21 to 24 age group. Clearly, regardless of the anecdotal evidence Alciere provides in support of his argument, drunk driving among underage and young legal drinkers is still a significant problem. Lowering or eliminating the drinking age will not solve this problem; it will likely make it worse.
Should lawmakers practice what they preach? Absolutely. But should the mistakes of a few mandate the lowering of the drinking age? Of course not. Many legitimate arguments exist as to why the drinking age should be lowered in this country. Mr. Alciere's is not one of them.
