Why Did The US Raise The Legal Drinking Age To 21?
Before we get to the '80s, let's go back to the 1920s, when decades of anti-alcohol activism resulted in the Eighteenth Amendment banning the substance; ushering in Prohibition. Since the ban didn't stop people from drinking and gave rise to organized crime, President Franklin D. Roosevelt repealed the amendment in 1933. At this time, each state could decide the minimum drinking age, and most set it at 21, which was also the legal voting age. That's where it stayed until 1971, when the 26th Amendment made 18 the voting age. Because it didn't seem to make sense to trust people to elect a president but not to buy alcohol, all but 14 states lowered the drinking age to either 18, 19, or 20.
But, as always, people have to ruin everything. Irresponsible drinking led to social issues, accidents, and even fatalities. Studies that compared teenage car accidents between states with different laws found that they were higher in places with lower drinking ages. Activists once again started to campaign and Congress passed the National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act in 1984, incentivizing every state to raise the age back to 21.
Read more: 14 Cheap But Delicious Beers You'll Wish You Tried Sooner
Though it's been over 40 years, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act continues to be widely debated. Supporters point to data which suggests the law has reduced teenage drinking and drunk driving accidents. Critics point out the discrepancy of allowing people to vote, smoke, and serve in the military, but not drink. Some also argue that having a high minimum age increases the risk for dangerous drinking behaviors on college campuses.
The debate on regulating alcohol can also be seen at the state level. Although every state now abides by the minimum drinking age of 21, they differ in what is seen as acceptable consumption. While some states are taking away old bans and allowing to-go cocktails, others are cracking down on happy hours and hard seltzers. It seems that the country can't quite yet agree on what it thinks about alcohol.
Young Americans who feel lonely in the wait for their first legal drink can take heart in the fact they're not alone. There are several other countries (like Egypt, Indonesia, and United Arab Emirates) whose minimum drinking age is also 21. They can also be happy that they're not in Eritrea, where the age is set at 25, or in one of the seven countries where alcohol is completely illegal.
For more food and drink goodness, join The Takeout's newsletter. Get taste tests, food & drink news, deals from your favorite chains, recipes, cooking tips, and more!
Read the original article on The Takeout.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Richard Lee, activist who founded a pot ‘university,' dies at 62
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Cannabis became his salvation -- and his life's mission. Advertisement In 2010, the low-key Mr. Lee turned into a national face of the legalization movement when he spent more than $1.3 million of his own money -- earned from running a wide array of cannabis-related businesses in Oakland -- to spearhead California's Proposition 19, a trailblazing statewide effort to legalize cannabis for adult use. The measure failed, but it earned 46.5 percent of the vote, setting the stage for successful initiatives in Colorado and Washington two years later, Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said in an interview. Twenty-two more states enacted similar laws in the ensuing years, including California in 2016. Advertisement With cannabis now legally regulated for either medical purposes or adult use in 40 states, the product might strike some -- at least those who know their indica from their sativa -- as rather mainstream. But for most of Mr. Lee's career, it was anything but. He routinely began staff meetings by reminding those who worked for him that they could be raided and arrested at any moment, and commending them for their courage. 'Richard was engaging in this sort of activism in a climate that was in many ways hostile to what he was doing and to his ideas,' Armentano said. 'And I think that sometimes is forgotten. Richard Lee, for lack of a better term, was engaging in civil disobedience.' He was a successful entrepreneur, but colleagues said his motives went far beyond profit. 'Richard firmly believed this war on drugs was a war on all of us,' Jones said in an interview. 'Marijuana prohibition had completely failed, and cops were distracted going after the smell of a joint instead of going after violent crime, like a carjacking Richard once suffered in Houston.' Outlawing cannabis also allowed a criminal underground to flourish off its trade, Mr. Lee argued. 'I mean, come on,' he said in a 2010 interview with Tad Friend of The New Yorker. 'Didn't Prohibition help Al Capone?' He eventually built a microempire of pot in a formerly desolate swath of downtown Oakland, which to the initiated began to take on the vibe of Europe's Elysian Fields of weed. 'Amsterdam is our model city,' he said in a 2010 interview with NPR, which bestowed on him his 'Appleseed' nickname. 'When I go there, I see tourists and jobs and taxes being created from the cannabis industry, and I think we can do that here.' Advertisement Over the years, he operated two Amsterdam-style coffee shop dispensaries in the neighborhood, Bulldog Coffeeshop and Coffeeshop Blue Sky; a gift shop that grew cannabis in the back; a pot-themed museum; and a cannabis-themed newspaper, The Oaksterdam News. The centerpiece of this smoker's-paradise neighborhood was Oaksterdam University, housed for years in a 30,000-square-foot former charter school, with branches in Los Angeles, Michigan, and Sonoma County, north of San Francisco. The school, which has been largely online since the pandemic, offers coursework in all manner of careers in cannabis, whether for prospective startup founders or 'budtenders,' as dispensary workers are known. To Mr. Lee, cannabis was serious business and should be treated as such. 'We tell our students that you want to avoid the idea of being a typical stoner who just gets high and throws the Frisbee,' he told The New Yorker. Richard Seib Lee was born Oct. 7, 1962, in Houston, the fourth of five sons of Robert Lee, who ran a members-only library for tax lawyers and accountants, and Anne (Edwards) Lee, a teacher. He grew up in a conservative household -- his parents were Goldwater Republicans -- in a state long known for its severe marijuana laws. That is not to say that the young Lee did not inhale. 'He was a head,' his brother Donald recalled in an interview. Richard Lee studied communications at the University of Houston but left to work in concert production, which indirectly led him to his ultimate career. 'I fell into it, right?' he joked to The New Yorker. Advertisement Despite the frigid climate for marijuana in his home state, Mr. Lee by the mid-1990s was growing cannabis in Texas and shipping it to an organization called the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which served medical patients. He moved to Oakland in 1997. His many operations in the city eventually helped finance the push for Proposition 19, a state initiative with national implications. 'We became the campaign heard around the world,' Jones said. But the national attention, she added, might also have made them a target. On April 2, 2012, federal agents descended on the Oaksterdam campus, as well as Mr. Lee's other businesses and his apartment, seizing countless items, including student records and tens of thousands of plants growing in the school's basement. The raid made headlines nationally. But he never faced any charges -- nor, despite years of trying, did he ever learn why the raid took place, Jones said. Records remain sealed. Still, the timing seemed suspicious. At the time, the Oaksterdam team was working to apply its Proposition 19 playbook to the upcoming Washington and Colorado measures. In the team's view, the raid was probably a scare tactic, Jones said. Regardless, Mr. Lee feared future legal jeopardy, so he retired from all of his ventures and ultimately returned to Houston, where he had been caring for his ailing mother in recent years. In addition to his mother and his brother Donald, Mr. Lee leaves two other brothers, Michael and Robert. As a restless entrepreneur and avid cannabis champion, Mr. Lee learned to strike a balance in life. 'You've got to be a hard, cold Republican in business,' he said. 'But sometimes, even in business, it's good to just mellow out.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does Trump have the power to ban mail-in ballots in U.S. elections?
By Jack Queen (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump wants to ban mail-in ballots in federal elections, a form of voting popular with many Americans. About three in 10 ballots were cast through the mail in the 2024 general election, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Trump, a Republican, does not have clear legal authority to do this, though his allies in Congress and state governments could enact policies barring the practice. Here is a look at Trump's authority and how the law could be changed. CAN TRUMP UNILATERALLY BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? Only states and the U.S. Congress can pass laws regulating elections. A unilateral ban by the president on mail-in ballots would likely exceed Trump's limited authority to enforce existing law. In a Monday social media post, Trump said mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud and that he would lead a movement to ban them, beginning with an executive order bringing "honesty" to the November 2026 midterm elections. Republicans have filed scores of lawsuits seeking to end mail-in voting in recent years, citing possible fraud. Democrats generally support mail-in ballots as a way to expand access to voting. Voter fraud in the U.S. is extremely rare, multiple studies have shown. White House representatives provided a general statement about Trump's election policies but did not answer questions about his legal authority to ban mail-in ballots or what an executive order would say. COULD TRUMP'S ALLIES BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? States are responsible for administering their votes under the U.S. Constitution, and Republican-controlled legislatures could pass laws banning mail-in ballots so long as they do not conflict with federal law. Congress could ban the use of mail-in ballots in federal elections and override state laws protecting their use, but Trump's Republican Party has slim majorities in Congress and would face difficulty getting past opposition by Democrats. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats. To pass a mail-in ballot ban they would need to end the filibuster, a longstanding tradition requiring 60 of the chamber's 100 members to approve most legislation. State and federal laws banning mail-in voting could be challenged in court as unconstitutional impediments to voting. WHAT OTHER POWERS DO PRESIDENTS HAVE OVER ELECTIONS? Presidents in the U.S. have some discretion in enforcing election laws, and Trump could try to use those powers to end or restrict mail-in voting, though it is unclear how. In June, a federal judge blocked parts of an executive order by Trump requiring voters to prove they are U.S. citizens and attempting to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. The Trump administration is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," said U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump reignites his push to ban mail-in voting after meeting with Putin
President Donald Trump said Monday that he will "lead a movement" to end mail-in balloting in elections. The Constitution, Congress and the states figure to have their say, too. The issue has re-emerged as a fixation for Trump when the most pressing business before him is his effort to mediate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. It appears to have been rekindled, or at least stoked, by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who reinforced Trump's unsubstantiated view that postal ballots "rigged" the 2020 election, at a summit Friday in Alaska. Follow live politics updates here In an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier on Friday, Trump relayed that "one of the most interesting things" Putin told him during the summit had to do with the unreliability of mail-in voting. "He said: 'Your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting. ... It's impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections,'' Trump said, adding that Putin told him "no country" has mail-in voting. It's false that the United States is the only country with vote-by-mail. Other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, also do. Russia has been heavily criticized, including by the U.S. government, for not having free and fair elections. Trump then vowed Monday on his Truth Social platform to issue an executive order aimed at banning vote-by-mail. "Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes," Trump wrote. "They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do." He also brought it up when he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy later in the day, saying, "Mail-in ballots are corrupt." But Trump faces high legal and political hurdles to changing the laws governing federal elections: the Constitution, federal and state statutes, the popularity of absentee balloting and the GOP's success in using mail-in votes in key swing states, such as Trump's home state, Florida. The Constitution vests the power for choosing the "times, places and manner" of House and Senate elections in state legislatures, with Congress and the president retaining the right to pass laws overriding them. States also have the authority, under the Constitution, to determine how presidential electors are selected. Federal law requires states to accept mailed ballots from Americans living overseas, including veterans. "I don't want to presuppose what might be in the executive order, but I think it's pretty clear that the times, places and manners of elections are set by the state. That's right there in the Constitution," said Matt Weil, vice president of the democracy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank. Changing those "requires an act of Congress," Weil said. And doing that would be no small feat when Democrats can block legislation in the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement, 'Senate Democrats will make sure that any and every measure that would make it even more difficult for Americans to vote will be dead on arrival in the Senate and will continue to fight to protect our democracy." The Republican National Committee hinted at the power of Congress in a statement Monday supporting Trump's plan. 'Under his leadership and direction, the RNC is continuing to build upon our historic election integrity efforts from the successful 2024 election cycle, and we will be ready to help implement any and all changes made to our nation's election laws by the President and Congress," RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. "The Republican Election Integrity motto is simple: we want to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.' Beyond those challenges, many Republicans say Trump is fishing in a politically toxic pond that is better left alone. "From a pure tactics standpoint, it is not helpful," said a former Trump campaign official who is working on midterm campaigns. In his failed 2020 re-election bid, Trump discouraged Republicans from voting early and as absentees, and many of his allies believe that cost him votes. By contrast, in 2024, his advisers persuaded him to embrace those practices on the premise that he could "bank" votes early and not have to spend money trying to mobilize people who had already cast ballots. Trump's emerging push is destined to fail, the former campaign official said, and it could tamp down Republican turnout in the process. "It discourages our use" of mail-in voting, which "is going to exist," he said, adding that "this is where he starts getting into conspiratorial spaces where independent voters are like 'What? What is he talking about?'' Trump's White House recently hosted a group of secretaries of state to discuss "our ongoing commitment to election integrity," said Ben Kindel, a spokesperson for Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican. While LaRose still backs Ohio's mail-in balloting laws, Kindel said, "we look forward to reviewing the details of what the president is proposing. … Changes to Ohio's voting process require a vote of the General Assembly, so I'm sure we'll be talking with them as well." Trump's aversion to absentee ballots is perhaps most striking because Republicans' recent success in Florida elections — in Trump's home state — has coincided with the state GOP's mastery of mail-in voting. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles has been a longtime proponent of early voting in the state and helped Trump see the benefit to him across swing states in 2024. Wiles and several other White House officials did not respond to requests for comment. In Florida, Trump's push to crack down on mail ballots has hampered Republicans' decadeslong effort to build their mail programs. Since they began developing a mail-in program in the 1990s, Republicans in the state have dominated their Democratic counterparts using the method Trump detests. But his message, that the practice is inherently corrupt, has altered the landscape in Florida, allowing Democrats to ramp up their efforts and, for the first time, take an edge in vote-by-mail ballots — even as Trump won the state in 2020 and 2024. 'For years, you had to build into turnout plans the fact that the GOP would have a big advantage in vote by mail,' Steve Schale, a longtime Florida Democratic operative who was an early advocate of his party's better using mail ballots, said in a message to NBC News. 'Using VBM to drive their sporadic voters to vote. We did counter first by driving people to vote in person early, then VBM.' The slipping of Republicans voting-by-mail advantage has dismayed some of the state's veteran Republicans. 'There was a time when Republicans owned and relied on voting by mail,' said longtime Republican operative Mac Stipanovich, who helped build Florida's vote-by-mail program but left the GOP over disagreements with Trump. Stipanovich, who was chief of staff to Republican former Florida Gov. Bob Martinez, said the idea of expanding vote-by-mail to make it easier for all voters to cast ballots is 'anathema to the Trump Republican Party, in which voter suppression is dressed up as preventing voter fraud.' Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has tried to follow Trump's call to crack down on vote-by-mail in the state, signing sweeping changes to such laws in recent years. They worked as intended. During the 2020 presidential campaign, 4.3 million mail ballots were cast in Florida, a number that dropped to 3 million during last year's presidential contest. Some of the changes have concerned even Republican election officials, notably a requirement that voters renew their vote-by-mail ballot requests each election cycle. 'That's a major thing,' Republican former Florida Sen. Alan Hays, who is now the election supervisor in Lake County, told a Republican-led state legislative committee in February. 'Our theory is if they had the luxury of checking a box in that general election return ballot that said, 'Please keep my vote by mail request valid,' then we could have continued to send them their vote-by-mail ballot for the special election.' Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, a DeSantis appointee and Trump supporter, did not reply to a request for comment about Trump's renewed push to crack down on voting by mail. "Mail-in voting is good when the rules are applied," a second former Trump campaign official said. "I just think this is stupid." Democrats responded harshly to Trump's Truth Social post, even as they waited to see the actual proposal. Connecticut Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she is ready to go to court to block him, if necessary. "Donald Trump is trying to grab power ahead of the 2026 Election and says he will ban vote by mail," Griswold said. "This is a direct attack on democracy. States oversee elections, not Trump. We will challenge any unlawful executive order and will beat this unconstitutional attempt to disenfranchise millions of Americans." 'The federal government can't take over the election system. The Constitution is very, very clear. In fact, I have my copy here,' Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes told NBC News, holding up his copy of the Constitution. 'The time, place and manner of our elections are established by the states. Congress can jump in once in a while, but there's a process to the rules. You can't just come in as a wannabe strongman and take things over.' Oregon conducts its elections entirely by mail, and it was the first state to hold a presidential election by mail. Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read emphasized that voter fraud is "extremely rare." He said he believes Trump "is actively working to corrupt our elections. If he had any inclination to actually understand or care about the American people, he'd know that mail-in voting is really the best way to protect everybody's right to vote, and that's especially true for rural folks, for elderly people and for people who work for an hourly wage." Read also pointed to the states' constitutional role in deciding how to conduct elections, adding, "I'm going to protect the rights of Oregonians and the rights of the state to choose how we elect our representatives. This is a real threat." Some Trump allies say no one should be surprised by his desire to stop mail-in balloting, as he has long decried the practice of voting in any way other than in person on Election Day. "It's the same position the president has always held," a person familiar with the Trump camp's thinking said. "That being said, if mail-in ballots still exist come 2026, we will use them and win." This article was originally published on
